Bakers fined for not working homosexual "wedding" continue fighting for their freedoms

[Silhouette]

Silhouette can't wait until there's a federal law which puts all homosexuals in concentration camps.

Just saying.

So do you believe a gay graphic designer should be forced under financial or licensing threat to print for a Christian customer a giant highway billboard sign that says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God"? Even if it goes against his personal beliefs? Answer the question.

So do you believe that all homosexuals should be forced into concentration camps? Answer the question!

So then I'll put you down for a "yes", gays should be forced to do that.

 

[Syriusly]

You first.

LOL

Okay- you are a hateful bigot whose apparent only purpose in life is to promote hatred against homosexuals any way you can.

You have devoted your own blog to this end- asking- and answering your own questions- since no one else participates.

You have spent years starting thread after thread to attack homosexuals and this is another of your attempts.

 

[Syriusly]

Silhouette can't wait until there's a federal law which puts all homosexuals in concentration camps.

Just saying.

So do you believe a gay graphic designer should be forced under financial or licensing threat to print for a Christian customer a giant highway billboard sign that says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God"? Even if it goes against his personal beliefs? Answer the question.

So do you believe that all homosexuals should be forced into concentration camps? Answer the question!

So then I'll put you down for a "yes", gays should be forced to do that.

So I just put you down for a yes that you believe that all gay Americans should be put into concentration camps and forced to wear pink armsleeves.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ So do you believe a gay graphic designer should be forced under financial or licensing threat to print for a Christian customer a giant highway billboard sign that says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God"? Even if it goes against his personal beliefs? Answer the question


*crickets*

 

[Syriusly]

^^ So do you believe a gay graphic designer should be forced under financial or licensing threat to print for a Christian customer a giant highway billboard sign that says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God"? Even if it goes against his personal beliefs? Answer the question


*crickets*

LOL

Okay- you are a hateful bigot whose apparent only purpose in life is to promote hatred against homosexuals any way you can.

You have devoted your own blog to this end- asking- and answering your own questions- since no one else participates.

You have spent years starting thread after thread to attack homosexuals and this is another of your attempts.

'crickets'

 

[hazlnut]

Why don't these homophobes pack their bags and move to a country in which their "beliefs" are tolerated.

 

[owebo]

Why don't these homophobes pack their bags and move to a country in which their "beliefs" are tolerated.

Why don't you fascists go first....

 

[JoeMoma]

In the past, I've been supportive of the Christian bakers in that they should not have to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

I support the Christain bakers in that they should not have to decorate the cake in any way that would be specific to a gay wedding. However, if the cake is no different than one that would be used for a traditional wedding, then what is the issue other than being stubborn? Many products are consumed at a gay wedding event. The napkin manufacturer does not care if some of the napkins produced end up at a gay wedding. Baking a cake for a gay couple is not an endorsement of the gay lifestyle, not if the cake is no different than non-gays order and buy.

 

[Silhouette]

I guess we're never going to get an answer to this vitally important question in this debate from the LGBT devotees:

"So do you believe a gay graphic designer should be forced under financial or licensing threat to print for a Christian customer a giant highway billboard sign that says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God"? Even if it goes against his personal beliefs?"

 

[Seawytch]

I think she was marrying a woman

Good news....two more bra-burning lunatics who will never reproduce.

Actually, being two women they can reproduce twice as much.

 

[Silhouette]

I guess we're never going to get an answer to this vitally important question in this debate from the LGBT devotees:

"So do you believe a gay graphic designer should be forced under financial or licensing threat to print for a Christian customer a giant highway billboard sign that says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God"? Even if it goes against his personal beliefs?"

Still...no answer.... ^^

 

[martybegan]

Lesbians announced what kind of sex they have?

What was it that you thought lesbian meant?

I realize you're just a drone, but really...

Maybe he is a damned good baker. I have about a half dozen bakers within a 5 mile radius. I only patronize one.

Melissa is a she, and she was targeted explicitly to attack the 1st amendment protection of religion. As you know, this wasn't random, but a specific attack. Legal terrorism.

Really now?

You have a first amendment right to discriminate? Don't think so
You can't use your religion as an excuse to discriminate against other people

So a person can be forced to be friends and socialize with people they don't want to?

Was this couple demanding the cake bakers be friends? Is friendship a business, now? Fascinating....perhaps it is....for you. (Just my opinion)

The statement was "you can't use your religion as an excuse to discriminate against other people". A blanket statement if there ever was one. If that is the case, why can't the government force you to associate with people you don't like, or in a more specific case, for people you don't like for reason "X"?

 

[martybegan]

Being told to go to another baker is not oppression. Once again progressives define things down to suit their needs.

^ Supports Special Rights for Christians.....of course, it's just his opinion.

if a gay atheist baker didn't want to make a cake for a Fundamentalist Christian wedding, I would be OK with that as well.

Where are the special rights I am proposing?

If they have a business license in a state where Christians are protected in PA laws (hint: all 50 states) it would be illegal for them to do so.....and I would NOT be ok with that.

Why do you feel the need to force people to associate with something they don't want to? Especially in contracted services that can be easily replaced?

Show us where anyone else with a business license gets to make that same argument to get out of serving anyone based on their religion, their race, etc. If you can't show that, you are advocating special rights for this christian couple.

No, I am advocating that people like this can refuse service whenever they want to. "like this" meaning a contracted, non point of sale service that does not impact commerce or involve emergency or necessary goods/services.

 

[martybegan]

Where is there a constitutional right to a wedding cake?

Where was the constitutional right to be served at a lunch counter?

As I have stated before that was a symptom of law mandated enforced discrimination, both political and economic. It does not compare to a couple having to find another baker for their wedding cake.

And I have a feeling you would approve if this showed a picture of those bakers being covered in crap. You are far closer in ideology to Bull Conner than I am.

It was the beginning of the end for "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"

The same laws that are being applied to wedding cakes. You would think that after 50 years, the baker would have gotten the message

it's not the same thing, and you are being lazy trying to equate the two without any backup whatsoever.

It is the same thing...that is why the law was applied

Baker took it to court and the baker lost

Appeal to authority is arguing the how and not the why.

Not the same thing.

 

[Dana7360]

But homosexuals aren't being denied for being gay, people get confused over that. It's the forcing someone to serve or make a product they find objectionable. That's too USSR for me.

Sure they are. A bakery bakes wedding cakes (among other things), a heterosexual couple comes in and orders a cake. Baker says "no problem". A same-sex couple walks in and says "no way". Same cake. Whats the difference? The gender composition of the couple.


>>>>

The person you're responding to doesn't make sense

A couple orders a wedding cake from a bakery that makes wedding cakes.

How can the wedding cake be an objectionable product to the baker when the baker makes and sells wedding cakes for a living?

 

[martybegan]

But homosexuals aren't being denied for being gay, people get confused over that. It's the forcing someone to serve or make a product they find objectionable. That's too USSR for me.

Sure they are. A bakery bakes wedding cakes (among other things), a heterosexual couple comes in and orders a cake. Baker says "no problem". A same-sex couple walks in and says "no way". Same cake. Whats the difference? The gender composition of the couple.


>>>>

The person you're responding to doesn't make sense

A couple orders a wedding cake from a bakery that makes wedding cakes.

How can the wedding cake be an objectionable product to the baker when the baker makes and sells wedding cakes for a living?

Just because you think SSM and OSM relationships are equal and the same doesn't mean everyone else does. To some any form of them is morally wrong, and a wedding involving them more so.

You can make things legally equal all you want, unless you want to go the camps and lobotomy route, you can't force people to think and believe something is equal.

Of course you can force them to put a big smile on their face and pretend to care, but that just propagates the persecution belief of those you force to do what they don't want to do.

 

[Dana7360]

But homosexuals aren't being denied for being gay, people get confused over that. It's the forcing someone to serve or make a product they find objectionable. That's too USSR for me.

Sure they are. A bakery bakes wedding cakes (among other things), a heterosexual couple comes in and orders a cake. Baker says "no problem". A same-sex couple walks in and says "no way". Same cake. Whats the difference? The gender composition of the couple.


>>>>

The person you're responding to doesn't make sense

A couple orders a wedding cake from a bakery that makes wedding cakes.

How can the wedding cake be an objectionable product to the baker when the baker makes and sells wedding cakes for a living?

Just because you think SSM and OSM relationships are equal and the same doesn't mean everyone else does. To some any form of them is morally wrong, and a wedding involving them more so.

You can make things legally equal all you want, unless you want to go the camps and lobotomy route, you can't force people to think and believe something is equal.

Of course you can force them to put a big smile on their face and pretend to care, but that just propagates the persecution belief of those you force to do what they don't want to do.

So it's not the cake or the wedding.

It's about who they're making a cake for and who is getting married.

In case you didn't know, that's discrimination and illegal.

They and you can have all the beliefs you want.

You can't violate the law.

Why do you believe you and the baker should have special rights?

 

[martybegan]

But homosexuals aren't being denied for being gay, people get confused over that. It's the forcing someone to serve or make a product they find objectionable. That's too USSR for me.

Sure they are. A bakery bakes wedding cakes (among other things), a heterosexual couple comes in and orders a cake. Baker says "no problem". A same-sex couple walks in and says "no way". Same cake. Whats the difference? The gender composition of the couple.


>>>>

The person you're responding to doesn't make sense

A couple orders a wedding cake from a bakery that makes wedding cakes.

How can the wedding cake be an objectionable product to the baker when the baker makes and sells wedding cakes for a living?

Just because you think SSM and OSM relationships are equal and the same doesn't mean everyone else does. To some any form of them is morally wrong, and a wedding involving them more so.

You can make things legally equal all you want, unless you want to go the camps and lobotomy route, you can't force people to think and believe something is equal.

Of course you can force them to put a big smile on their face and pretend to care, but that just propagates the persecution belief of those you force to do what they don't want to do.

So it's not the cake or the wedding.

It's about who they're making a cake for and who is having the wedding.

In case you didn't know, that's discrimination and illegal.

They and you can have all the beliefs you want.

You can't violate the law.

Why do you believe you and the baker should have special rights?

The law is being wrongly applied. Not one of them said they wouldn't sell them cakes for other events, just for the wedding.

They think SSM relationships are sinful, and a wedding is an open tangible celebration and affirmation of said relationship, and they want nothing to do with it.

And you are arguing the "how", i.e. The law is the law is the law, not the why. The why is what tangible benefit does government get from ruining a baker over not wanting to bake a cake, a contracted, non-immediate, non-emergency good or service.

Why does the gay couple's butt hurt override without question the baker's butt hurt?

 

[Seawytch]

But homosexuals aren't being denied for being gay, people get confused over that. It's the forcing someone to serve or make a product they find objectionable. That's too USSR for me.

Sure they are. A bakery bakes wedding cakes (among other things), a heterosexual couple comes in and orders a cake. Baker says "no problem". A same-sex couple walks in and says "no way". Same cake. Whats the difference? The gender composition of the couple.


>>>>

The person you're responding to doesn't make sense

A couple orders a wedding cake from a bakery that makes wedding cakes.

How can the wedding cake be an objectionable product to the baker when the baker makes and sells wedding cakes for a living?

Just because you think SSM and OSM relationships are equal and the same doesn't mean everyone else does. To some any form of them is morally wrong, and a wedding involving them more so.

You can make things legally equal all you want, unless you want to go the camps and lobotomy route, you can't force people to think and believe something is equal.

Of course you can force them to put a big smile on their face and pretend to care, but that just propagates the persecution belief of those you force to do what they don't want to do.

So it's not the cake or the wedding.

It's about who they're making a cake for and who is having the wedding.

In case you didn't know, that's discrimination and illegal.

They and you can have all the beliefs you want.

You can't violate the law.

Why do you believe you and the baker should have special rights?

The law is being wrongly applied. Not one of them said they wouldn't sell them cakes for other events, just for the wedding.

They think SSM relationships are sinful, and a wedding is an open tangible celebration and affirmation of said relationship, and they want nothing to do with it.

And you are arguing the "how", i.e. The law is the law is the law, not the why. The why is what tangible benefit does government get from ruining a baker over not wanting to bake a cake, a contracted, non-immediate, non-emergency good or service.

Why does the gay couple's butt hurt override without question the baker's butt hurt?

We didn't care about racists that thought interracial marriage was sinful. Why should homophobes get special rights that racists don't?

 

[Silhouette]

Because race isn't the same as behavior. Consult Hively v Ivy Tech (2016) of the 7th circuit court of appeals.