Christian baker not backing down after Gov't punishes him for refusing to make gay wedding cake

[JoeB131]

A man puts a knife to a woman's throat. He forces her to have sex. He puts twenty dollars in her hand. She made a profit. End of transaction.

Not really comparable, because that woman, unless she was a prostitute, was not having sex for money. And sorry to say, our society doesn't treat the rape of prostitutes as a serious matter.

The Masterpiece Bakery case is different. As a result of the court action. The bakery was to stop discriminating and file quarterly reports as to each wedding cake request. Jack Phillips, the baker complied, fully complied. He refuses all wedding cakes and dutifully filed his quarterly reports. He still masterfully decorates cakes. Just not wedding cakes.

I guess if he wants to drive himself out of business, that's awesome. kind of stupid, but awesome.[/QUOTE]

 

[JoeB131]

you have far more in common with the snippy mustached asshole than I do, by a long margin. You advocate government force against those who disagree with you politically. That is the quintessential definition of fascism.

I expect Government to protect my rights as a citizen, worker and consumer.

You want government to protect the wealthy and the business owner. (And to a degree, it should.)

Now, in a truly libertarian society, the baker should be free to not bake a cake and an angry mob of gays should be free to burn down his bakery. Right. You know, because "Freedom" and shit.

You want a society where the cops arrest the gays for arson, but not the baker for discrimination.

I want one where both sides have to play fair.

 

[martybegan]

you have far more in common with the snippy mustached asshole than I do, by a long margin. You advocate government force against those who disagree with you politically. That is the quintessential definition of fascism.

I expect Government to protect my rights as a citizen, worker and consumer.

You want government to protect the wealthy and the business owner. (And to a degree, it should.)

Now, in a truly libertarian society, the baker should be free to not bake a cake and an angry mob of gays should be free to burn down his bakery. Right. You know, because "Freedom" and shit.

You want a society where the cops arrest the gays for arson, but not the baker for discrimination.

I want one where both sides have to play fair.

How is a pair of people owning a bake shop "wealthy"?

That is anarchy, not libertarianism, and you know it.

And yes, I want a society where unjustified violence is prosecuted. What type of asshole wants a society where the people they agree with are given license to use violence to get what they want?

Oh right, dickholes like you.....

 

[Iceweasel]

i disagree with the notion wedding vendors rise to the level of "participant". Vendors supply goods and services. Period. They do not provide an imperator, approval or sanctioning of the marriage. They do not give the bride away or stomp on a small goblet and shout 'Mazel Tov'. There is no baker's dance at the reception. In fact, none of the weddings I've ever attended were directly served by the cake provider other than delivery. And that delivery was made before any of the invited guests arrived at the venue.

In truth, this resistance by wedding vendors is little more than individual protest against marriage equality. Let's stop the pretense of religious rights. It's old fashioned Gay bashing clumsily wrapped in religious fervor. Seeking to defend homophobia with an aegis of religious freedom is disingenuous at best, hypocritical at worst.

It's hard to be part of a wedding ceremony if you are not a participant. You can disagree with gravity if you want, that's no reflection on reality though. You, like all liberals, are intellectually dishonest. You pretend you know the operation of others' minds better than they do so you're uniquely qualified to define hate.

Nor is it an equality issue. Two brothers can't marry and we don't call it unequal treatment. And the only thing that limits marriage to two people is tradition, exactly what the gays fought. So using your definition anyone who supports limits to two in a marriage are promoting inequality.

You either can't see the inconsistency in your position or you don't care.

 

[Nosmo King]

i disagree with the notion wedding vendors rise to the level of "participant". Vendors supply goods and services. Period. They do not provide an imperator, approval or sanctioning of the marriage. They do not give the bride away or stomp on a small goblet and shout 'Mazel Tov'. There is no baker's dance at the reception. In fact, none of the weddings I've ever attended were directly served by the cake provider other than delivery. And that delivery was made before any of the invited guests arrived at the venue.

In truth, this resistance by wedding vendors is little more than individual protest against marriage equality. Let's stop the pretense of religious rights. It's old fashioned Gay bashing clumsily wrapped in religious fervor. Seeking to defend homophobia with an aegis of religious freedom is disingenuous at best, hypocritical at worst.

It's hard to be part of a wedding ceremony if you are not a participant. You can disagree with gravity if you want, that's no reflection on reality though. You, like all liberals, are intellectually dishonest. You pretend you know the operation of others' minds better than they do so you're uniquely qualified to define hate.

Nor is it an equality issue. Two brothers can't marry and we don't call it unequal treatment. And the only thing that limits marriage to two people is tradition, exactly what the gays fought. So using your definition anyone who supports limits to two in a marriage are promoting inequality.

You either can't see the inconsistency in your position or you don't care.

My family owns and operates a print shop. When my brother prints raffle tickets, is he a 'participant' in that raffle? No. He merely provided services. If that raffle turns out to be a scam, is he then liable as a 'participant' and therefore subject to prosecution for fraud?

The marriage license effectively creates a new legal entity and a next of kin relationship where no such relationship previously existed. You example of siblings marrying is rendered moot because there already exists that next of kin relationship.

I will cast no aspersions on your character as you do with mine. I am able to rise above that immature and irrelevant behavior.

 

[martybegan]

i disagree with the notion wedding vendors rise to the level of "participant". Vendors supply goods and services. Period. They do not provide an imperator, approval or sanctioning of the marriage. They do not give the bride away or stomp on a small goblet and shout 'Mazel Tov'. There is no baker's dance at the reception. In fact, none of the weddings I've ever attended were directly served by the cake provider other than delivery. And that delivery was made before any of the invited guests arrived at the venue.

In truth, this resistance by wedding vendors is little more than individual protest against marriage equality. Let's stop the pretense of religious rights. It's old fashioned Gay bashing clumsily wrapped in religious fervor. Seeking to defend homophobia with an aegis of religious freedom is disingenuous at best, hypocritical at worst.

It's hard to be part of a wedding ceremony if you are not a participant. You can disagree with gravity if you want, that's no reflection on reality though. You, like all liberals, are intellectually dishonest. You pretend you know the operation of others' minds better than they do so you're uniquely qualified to define hate.

Nor is it an equality issue. Two brothers can't marry and we don't call it unequal treatment. And the only thing that limits marriage to two people is tradition, exactly what the gays fought. So using your definition anyone who supports limits to two in a marriage are promoting inequality.

You either can't see the inconsistency in your position or you don't care.

My family owns and operates a print shop. When my brother prints raffle tickets, is he a 'participant' in that raffle? No. He merely provided services. If that raffle turns out to be a scam, is he then liable as a 'participant' and therefore subject to prosecution for fraud?

The marriage license effectively creates a new legal entity and a next of kin relationship where no such relationship previously existed. You example of siblings marrying is rendered moot because there already exists that next of kin relationship.

I will cast no aspersions on your character as you do with mine. I am able to rise above that immature and irrelevant behavior.

actually the only thing preventing brother/sister (or nowadays brother/brother sister/sister) marriages is laws that prevent the issuance of marriage licenses in those cases, your logic of kinship doesn't play any part in it, as in certain jurisdictions first cousins can legally marry, and in some they can't, based on the local marriage laws.

 

[Iceweasel]

i disagree with the notion wedding vendors rise to the level of "participant". Vendors supply goods and services. Period. They do not provide an imperator, approval or sanctioning of the marriage. They do not give the bride away or stomp on a small goblet and shout 'Mazel Tov'. There is no baker's dance at the reception. In fact, none of the weddings I've ever attended were directly served by the cake provider other than delivery. And that delivery was made before any of the invited guests arrived at the venue.

In truth, this resistance by wedding vendors is little more than individual protest against marriage equality. Let's stop the pretense of religious rights. It's old fashioned Gay bashing clumsily wrapped in religious fervor. Seeking to defend homophobia with an aegis of religious freedom is disingenuous at best, hypocritical at worst.

It's hard to be part of a wedding ceremony if you are not a participant. You can disagree with gravity if you want, that's no reflection on reality though. You, like all liberals, are intellectually dishonest. You pretend you know the operation of others' minds better than they do so you're uniquely qualified to define hate.

Nor is it an equality issue. Two brothers can't marry and we don't call it unequal treatment. And the only thing that limits marriage to two people is tradition, exactly what the gays fought. So using your definition anyone who supports limits to two in a marriage are promoting inequality.

You either can't see the inconsistency in your position or you don't care.

My family owns and operates a print shop. When my brother prints raffle tickets, is he a 'participant' in that raffle? No. He merely provided services. If that raffle turns out to be a scam, is he then liable as a 'participant' and therefore subject to prosecution for fraud?

The marriage license effectively creates a new legal entity and a next of kin relationship where no such relationship previously existed. You example of siblings marrying is rendered moot because there already exists that next of kin relationship.

I will cast no aspersions on your character as you do with mine. I am able to rise above that immature and irrelevant behavior.

See what I mean? As dishonest as they come. The issue isn't if a gay buys a cake or a ticket. Your analogy would be meaningful if you said your family made gay wedding announcements, for example. If they wanted to, fine. If someone like me did not want to then it would not be so fine if forced to do so.

There was a Seattle Christian woman in exactly that position years ago when gay marriage was just legalized in Canada. She didn't want to print the cards so they got the city involved and fined her and they piled on for fine after fine after fine.

I hate assholes like that. You can only push people so far.

 

[emilynghiem]

I think this cake issue is kind of similar to the lunch counter issues in the south back in the day. Whites wouldn't serve Blacks, but they eventually lost since the full force of the feds forced them to. Myself, I wouldn't want to eat anything that a food preparar had to make for me against his will. He might spit in it, or worse.

That was genuine discrimination against a real minority. Homosexuals aren't a real minority, they're just dysfunctional sex fetishists, and a mental and public health issue; not even remotely similar in my mind. They were denied all sorts of rights that citizens are granted by law, while homosexuals were never denied any rights for merely being homosexual fetishists.

Dear Picaro
Maybe its because not all homosexual cases involve dysfunctional fetishes.

Did it ever occur to you there may be two totally distinct types of causes or cases?

There are some religions that are practiced as dangerous cults. But that doesn't mean all people of that following act the same way.

Not all Christians are out to practice religious abuse, although some people blame this on all of them as a group.

Same with distinguishing the pedophile predators or sick sexual fetishes from people who may spiritually be born as transgender or as homosexual.

Some can change , but some may go their whole life and not change .

If you are saying govt should not make laws protecting such people as a class, I agree it is not govt 's job to decide which cases are which and try to protect them like race or gender. These conditions are NOT genetically set and determined like race or gender.

Its more like people's personality or beliefs aligning with an identity such as Muslim or Christian, Liberal Democrat or Conservative Republican. People can't help what they believe in, but some things can change. Either way people have the right to exercise and live by their personal and political beliefs equally as their spiritual or religious beliefs.

We just can't abuse govt to force our beliefs which are faith based and free choice, onto anyone else under penalty of law. Or its discrimination, either way, if govt either establishes or prohibits, favors or penalizes a bias that belongs to individuals to practice within their civil liberties without affecting other people. If it affects others that's where people need to separate, have their own systems like private religions without imposing on others, and certainly not dragging the govt in, or dragging the issue into govt , forcing govt to take sides when both should have equal freedom to have their beliefs and not be forced to change because other people's beliefs disagree. Keeping these OUTSIDE govt allows freedom to pursue either one without compromise. Why can't people just leave each other alone, set up their own systems and quit forcing each other under the same policy if they clearly require separate ways for separate beliefs.

 

[Ame®icano]

Amid the religious liberty cases increasingly heading to the courts, there’s one prominent legal battle that could potentially have some sweeping ramifications: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. It’s a case that surrounds baker Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado. Phillips, much like Oregon bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein and numerous other wedding venders across the U.S.,


Christian Baker Not Backing Down After Gov’t Punishes Him for Refusing to Make Gay Wedding Cake

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well good for them standing their grounds on their beliefs..................
Go to another cake maker who doesn't give a rats ass would have been much simpler.
If I were to believe as they do because it was against my religion to do so I'd do the same dam thing I sure in the hell wouldn't cower down to some BS LAWS where just because some moron made it a law etc doesn't mean it is a fair nor right law.

How does a cake become gay?

Where does it say that cake is gay?

 

[emilynghiem]

The first amendment says the government won't endorse or forbid religious practice. What it does not say is someone can hide behind 'religion' to discriminate against their fellow American citizens.

The thing business people give up is discriminating against other citizens due to immutable characteristics.

Homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic. Homosexuality isn't a characteristic at all. It is a BEHAVIOR.

Hi @Tipstcatlover
How about being Muslim or Christian?
Is that behavior?
If people have freedom to express or exercise their faith without discrimination harassment or targeting, does this apply to freedom to express or practice one's beliefs in homosexuality or transgender identity?

Seriously, what would you say to the proposal to treat these as beliefs, which are faith based, someone's personal or spiritual choice, and not the business of govt either to establish or to prohibit, but the govt should remain neutral. And this may include beliefs that homosexuality is a choice of behavior (or not, which is faith based also) or that it is changeable or not (again, both approaches being faith based and a personal choice left to people, not govt to pick sides and enforce one belief over another ).

Being homosexual or transgender are not religious beliefs. There is no faith to them. They are behaviors. A man might fiercely believe he is a woman but this is not a spiritual belief. He could just as easily believe he is a dragon. A woman might firmly believe she is a cat. These are not beliefs that get protection.

No Tipsycatlover
Identifying as a Christian is not the same as believing you are a supernatural being. One is their real spiritual identity or path in life, and cannot be compared with something imaginary. Those are two separate types of beliefs

Likewise, identifying as a transgender or homosexual person is part of their REAL spiritual process and is not make believe either. Even if they change or can change, this doesn't mean it isn't real.

You have the right to believe it is a behavioral choice. In some cases yes, it can change, so you are free to believe this is applies to all cases.

But because that's faith based, then other ppl have the equal right to believe it may not be changed or that people are born that way, which are equally faith based views.

Do you agree Tipsycatlover that the VIEWS of homosexuality are all FAITH based, both sides are, neither has been proven to be true in all cases.

So until a consensus is reached on proof of either side, govt should remain neutral and not endorse either side sbeliefs.

I think I kind of get what you mean by being a *** or tranny being part of one's 'spirtual' process....But I think that would apply more so to a tranny than a homo though. The tranny is confused of what sex they are...the butt pirate isn't, they know they like the same sex.

Dear OffensivelyOpenMinded
KUDOS to you for trying to give this a shot, and trying to understand the other side. If everyone did that, even meeting halfway, we'd be okay.

We can never think like each other, but we can try to think in closest parallels or equivalents.

If you can see the difference spiritually between transgender and homosexual, then a SIMILAR type of "difference" would explain why some people have the unnatural dangerous type of pedophile addiction or other fetish vs. people who are naturally homosexual and aren't addicted to any fetish and don't harbor any signs of "mental illness" any more than anyone else experiences with hardships and facing abuses and bullying that we run into in life. Not all cases of "depression" are the same, some are chronic, some are deadly, others are natural reactions that come and go. We don't take cases of cancer, and assume they are all the same: some are born and some are caused by external factors. Why do we treat all cases of homosexuality as if these have to be the same? What if they are radically different? Is it fair to treat them and group them together under one generalization?

You do not see transgender or homosexual the same. Can you see there is also a distinction between the unnatural fetish type of homosexual activity people are opposed to vs. a natural spiritual affinity between two soul mates who may happen to be incarnated as both male or both female in this lifetime?

This may blow your mind, and I apologize if this is too far out in the outfield: but I actually met people who had "past life recollections" of why they were attracted to each other in THIS lifetime. a group of 3 people in a triad had "memories" of being spiritually connected by karma to a similar triad, a love triangle, that recurred not only in one past life, but more than one. So they decided to break this off because the bad karma kept repeating. They recognized it was abusive, and decided to refrain from any further acting on it. But they all had memories that it came from "unresolved karma" from bad relationships never forgiven from the past.

Another couple was gay in this lifetime, two men with memories of being spiritually connected to a married couple traumatically separated at death who weren't ready to let go. They vowed to meet in a future life. But they were both born men. So they crossed paths and recognized their karma, but let it go and moved on.

So this is what I mean there CAN BE spiritual reasons, purpose or process behind why people are born into homosexual orientation or relations. The same karma that may cause abuses can be born into EITHER heterosexual or homosexual relations. These are private and no govt entity or policy can possibly dictate how to view or manage these. I would leave it to spiritual counseling and get govt out of it.

People have a hard enough time reconciling these things spiritually. We don't need to compound the issue by getting govt involved in private spiritual matters that even the Pope and Dalai Lama have difficulty counseling people through....

sorry if that's WAY too much information...

 

[emilynghiem]

Identifying as a transgender or homosexual is not a spiritual process. It is an aberration. It is a mental illness.

Dear Tipsycatlover
Let's look at other things that count as mental illness: like schizophrenic voices in people's heads.

A. There is the demonic kind, where people lose control and either abuse themselves and/or others. Andrea Yates drowned her young children "listeing to voices in her head" that claimed they were "angels" trying to save her children by sending them to heaven "while they were still pure and innocent." Former "Son of Sam" David Berkowitz shares an amazing testimony, of how he was cured of the occult/cult driven madness, where in that state of sickness he stalked tortured and murdered people thinking they were demonic when he was the one under demonic influence and controls.

B. Contrast that with people who have visions or voices outside the norm, but which are part of their spiritual purpose and guidance. They use this wisdom to minister and watch out for others, or to diagnose what is in their spiritual past that needs to be forgiven and resolved to heal of sickness and ill will that is biasing their decisions and destroying their relations.

BOTH of these would count as MENTAL ILLNESS. Both are showing signs of hearing voices and acting as agents of God.

BOTH are part of a spiritual process.

So just because someone isn't AWARE of their spiritual process or purpose doesn't mean it isn't spiritual what is going on with them.

NOTE: with the negative/demonic type, the POSITIVE type of spiritual healers can use this same knowledge to diagnose, cure and HEAL the negative types. So the more knowledge we have, the more we can study and master through medical research and development we can one day CURE the dangerous sick type of mental illness, while respecting the POSITIVE aspects of such spiritual gifts and processes.

Sources for further/formal medical research studies and development are posted at freespiritualhealing

 

[emilynghiem]

The problem is not the cake but the actions of the baker.

And if I understand your last sentence, you're in favor of unfairness. An untenable position

The issue is punishing the baker for the butt hurt of others, and no actual harm.

There is going to be unfairness regardless of which side wins. How is it fair to force a baker to bake and provide a cake they don't want to provide?

If you had ever been on the receiving end of discrimination, you would not be so cavalier or dismissive. You call it "butt hurt", but you utterly fail to see it for what it is. Unwarranted, unnecessary and impolite treatment and humiliation of a customer who came to ytour shop expecting the same high level of service every other customer enjoys. Couples are impressed with the artistry produced by your shop and fully expect that their money is just as green as everyone else's

But when obscure 'Christian' dogma confronts them, they are left not only without the baker of their choice, but the feeling that they are unworthy of service simply because some 'Christian' deems them so. No actual harm? Get told that you are not welcome simply because someone else disagrees with your way of life. Sure, you're an American citizen protected by law. But not if someone without legal standing thinks so. What kind of Land of the Free do you want? Perhaps you could look to Apartheid South
Africa or Jim Crow south as your paradigm of freedom then give up all the pretense of loving America for our freedoms.

This isn't a point of sale service in front of other customers, it is a contracted service which was politely denied.

I have been picked on for being smaller, smarter and less outgoing than my classmates. I didn't advocate banning them or ruining them, which is what is going on here. I got over it and moved on, and I am a stronger person because of it.

Having to go to another baker is an easier solution, and a more fair one than forcing the baker out of business because it doesn't want to provide a contracted service to one type of customer.

Maybe progressives like you need to be actually picked on a bit to grow a ******* spine.

The baker might happily prepare a wedding cake for a Mafia princess, even though they know it would be paid for with blood money. bakers routinely prepare wedding cakes.

Your classmates were kids. They were not business people with state issued business licenses.

And, in small towns and rural settings, going to another baker might not be so easy. Additionally, going to another baker might result in getting an inferior product.

In a small town or a rural setting, if its the entire town doing it, then government can get involved. If its one baker of many, it just isn't justified to ruin them over butt hurt.

It's not up to you or government to decide a person's religious morals or codes, unless there is a compelling government interest, and butt hurt isn't compelling government interest.

Thanks martybegan
I think it's in the best interest of Constitutional ethics and equal protections to mediate such conflicts, and either agree on policies that can be implemented as public or agree to SEPARATE on policies that remain private.

Trying to force certain policies or biases on all the public is not working.

If everyone wants to defend their own beliefs, why can't we do that equally. How is imposing one side over the other, especially abusing govt to do so, treating beliefs equally?

 

[JoeB131]

And yes, I want a society where unjustified violence is prosecuted. What type of asshole wants a society where the people they agree with are given license to use violence to get what they want?

Who are you to decide what violence is unjustified?

I've never met a Christian who was beaten up or discriminated against because they were Christian.

I know gays who've gotten that treatment because they were gay.

 

[JoeB131]

actually the only thing preventing brother/sister (or nowadays brother/brother sister/sister) marriages is laws that prevent the issuance of marriage licenses in those cases, your logic of kinship doesn't play any part in it, as in certain jurisdictions first cousins can legally marry, and in some they can't, based on the local marriage laws.

Actually, the act of close relation incest is what is illegal, not just the marrying part, but never mind, Marty....

 

[IsaacNewton]

'Jewish surgeon refuses to operate on Christian baker, man dies on operating table'.

Kristians, this is what your world would look like.

 

[jasonnfree]

'Jewish surgeon refuses to operate on Christian baker, man dies on operating table'.

Kristians, this is what your world would look like.

Silly comparison, refusing to perform life threatening operation with someone refusing to bake a cake.

 

[JoeB131]

'Jewish surgeon refuses to operate on Christian baker, man dies on operating table'.

Kristians, this is what your world would look like.

Silly comparison, refusing to perform life threatening operation with someone refusing to bake a cake.

Why is it silly? I mean, if you want to use "my Imaginary Friend in the Sky told me to" as an excuse that exempts you from the law, where does it stop?

Shit. want to get off on a murder? "God Told Me To!"

You could probably even find something in the bible to justify it!

'He was working on the Sabbath. I caught him mowing his lawn, so I shot him, just like God said to in Exodus 31:14"

 

[martybegan]

And yes, I want a society where unjustified violence is prosecuted. What type of asshole wants a society where the people they agree with are given license to use violence to get what they want?

Who are you to decide what violence is unjustified?

I've never met a Christian who was beaten up or discriminated against because they were Christian.

I know gays who've gotten that treatment because they were gay.

Considering your views, you circle of friends is probably limited to your left hand, so your experiences are moot

 

[martybegan]

actually the only thing preventing brother/sister (or nowadays brother/brother sister/sister) marriages is laws that prevent the issuance of marriage licenses in those cases, your logic of kinship doesn't play any part in it, as in certain jurisdictions first cousins can legally marry, and in some they can't, based on the local marriage laws.

Actually, the act of close relation incest is what is illegal, not just the marrying part, but never mind, Marty....

Both are illegal.

 

[JoeB131]

Considering your views, you circle of friends is probably limited to your left hand, so your experiences are moot

Again, you are the one who comes off as an obnoxious narcissist here...

like most libertarians.