Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close shop

[Foxfyre]

"...No one refused service to gays. The bakery didn't even refuse service to this gay couple. The bakery had baked event cakes for them in the past. They just refused to bake a wedding cake for them."

Yes... that is what I thought I saw, earlier; thanks for the refresher or confirmation.

So, in this case, they had no trouble in providing products and services for events which they did not see as morally questionable...

But refused to provide products and services for an event which they perceived as morally reprehensible and anathema in the eyes of their God...

And the community responded by refusing to buy any more products from ignorant bigots they found to be morally reprehensible, and the business went under.

God bless America!

Now a bakery that serves ALL the needs of the community can open.

Had the community done that, I would have no quibble. But the 'community' rather picketed, threated the proprietors and their friends and family, threatened and coerced their suppliers, and intentionally and with willful malice of forethought destroyed this business.

And you're okay with that? If somebody holds convictions or views you don't support, it's okay to financially destroy them? Is it okay if we do that to you?

 

[Kondor3]

"...No one refused service to gays. The bakery didn't even refuse service to this gay couple. The bakery had baked event cakes for them in the past. They just refused to bake a wedding cake for them."

Yes... that is what I thought I saw, earlier; thanks for the refresher or confirmation.

So, in this case, they had no trouble in providing products and services for events which they did not see as morally questionable...

But refused to provide products and services for an event which they perceived as morally reprehensible and anathema in the eyes of their God...

No, that is not what he said.

They were perfectly willing to bake a cake for the gay couple. They were not willing to be present at an event they could not morally condone. A large wedding cake is generally assembled at the location of the reception.

Should a place of business be REQUIRED to provide services at a customer location regardless of what or where that location is?

Again, should the baker be punished and destroyed, as he was, if he had refused to deliver and assemble a cake at:

The Westboro Baptist Church?
A KKK convention?
A dog fight or cock fight?
Rush Limbaugh's birthday party?

Perhaps everybody should include in their advertising:
While we do try to accommodate our customers, we cannot agree to deliver some orders.

Ahhhhhhhh... right... this was merely a matter of not DELIVERING the product... even better.

 

[g5000]

Yes... that is what I thought I saw, earlier; thanks for the refresher or confirmation.

So, in this case, they had no trouble in providing products and services for events which they did not see as morally questionable...

But refused to provide products and services for an event which they perceived as morally reprehensible and anathema in the eyes of their God...

And the community responded by refusing to buy any more products from ignorant bigots they found to be morally reprehensible, and the business went under.

God bless America!

Now a bakery that serves ALL the needs of the community can open.

Had the community done that, I would have no quibble. But the 'community' rather picketed, threated the proprietors and their friends and family, threatened and coerced their suppliers, and intentionally and with willful malice of forethought destroyed this business.

And you're okay with that? If somebody holds convictions or views you don't support, it's okay to financially destroy them? Is it okay if we do that to you?

It's called free speech. It's called a boycott. You can try to twist it to more than that all you want, but that's what it was.

And it worked.

Exactly the way libertarians envisioned such things should work.

And don't pretend gays have not been threatened FOR REAL for longer than you have been alive or that you came running to their defense. The hypocrisy is ripe in this topic.

They fought back, and won. That's what's really pissing you off.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes... that is what I thought I saw, earlier; thanks for the refresher or confirmation.

So, in this case, they had no trouble in providing products and services for events which they did not see as morally questionable...

But refused to provide products and services for an event which they perceived as morally reprehensible and anathema in the eyes of their God...

No, that is not what he said.

They were perfectly willing to bake a cake for the gay couple. They were not willing to be present at an event they could not morally condone. A large wedding cake is generally assembled at the location of the reception.

Should a place of business be REQUIRED to provide services at a customer location regardless of what or where that location is?

Again, should the baker be punished and destroyed, as he was, if he had refused to deliver and assemble a cake at:

The Westboro Baptist Church?
A KKK convention?
A dog fight or cock fight?
Rush Limbaugh's birthday party?

Perhaps everybody should include in their advertising:
While we do try to accommodate our customers, we cannot agree to deliver some orders.

Ahhhhhhhh... right... this was merely a matter of not DELIVERING the product... even better.

It was a matter of them explaining to the gay couple that they could not be present at the wedding, so doing a large wedding cake that would have to be assembled at the wedding location was something they could not do. Had the gay couple asked them to bake the cake and the gay couple would arrange to have it assembled, I'm pretty sure the Christian baker would have been more than happy to do that.

 

[Foxfyre]

And the community responded by refusing to buy any more products from ignorant bigots they found to be morally reprehensible, and the business went under.

God bless America!

Now a bakery that serves ALL the needs of the community can open.

Had the community done that, I would have no quibble. But the 'community' rather picketed, threated the proprietors and their friends and family, threatened and coerced their suppliers, and intentionally and with willful malice of forethought destroyed this business.

And you're okay with that? If somebody holds convictions or views you don't support, it's okay to financially destroy them? Is it okay if we do that to you?

It's called free speech. It's called a boycott. You can try to twist it to more than that all you want, but that's what it was.

And it worked.

Exactly the way libertarians envisioned such things should work.

And don't pretend gays have not been threatened for as long as you have been alive and you came running to their defense.

That gays have been threatened has nothing to do with this. This couple that was ruined threatened nobody. And they treated the gay couple like any other people when they came to their store in the past. And if you are too bigoted to see that this was much much more than a boycott--this was a deliberate effort to financially ruin the baker--and you're okay with that, you are a far bigger bigot than they could ever be.

Again, I don't like your attitude about this. Is it okay with you if I financially ruin you because you are bigoted against Christians?

 

[g5000]

Had the community done that, I would have no quibble. But the 'community' rather picketed, threated the proprietors and their friends and family, threatened and coerced their suppliers, and intentionally and with willful malice of forethought destroyed this business.

And you're okay with that? If somebody holds convictions or views you don't support, it's okay to financially destroy them? Is it okay if we do that to you?

It's called free speech. It's called a boycott. You can try to twist it to more than that all you want, but that's what it was.

And it worked.

Exactly the way libertarians envisioned such things should work.

And don't pretend gays have not been threatened for as long as you have been alive and you came running to their defense.

That gays have been threatened has nothing to do with this. This couple that was ruined threatened nobody. And if you are too bigoted to see that this was much much more than a boycott--this was a deliberate effort to financially ruin the baker--and you're okay with that, you are a far bigger bigot than they could ever be.

Again, I don't like your attitude about this. Is it okay with you if I financially ruin you because you are bigoted against Christians?

The gays fought back, and won. That is what is actually pissing you off. They didn't accept being discriminated against, and that bothers you.

 

[Katzndogz]

How many people that are now complaining about refusing to bake this cake supported the bakery who refused to bake a birthday cake saying "Happy Birthday Adolph Hitler".

Stupid Idiots Name Son Adolph Hitler, Bakery Refuses To Make Birthday Cake For The Young Terrorist. Sadly, It Gets Even Worse | Geekologie

Shouldn't that bakery be run out of business for refusing to bake a birthday cake for a child?

 

[Vandalshandle]

As near as I can tell, nobodody "forced" them to close their shop. They chose to do so, so that they can cry to the press about how mean everyone is to them...after they published a hate filled rant on Facebook which would have been enough to drive any customer away.

 

[eagle7_31]

It's called free speech. It's called a boycott. You can try to twist it to more than that all you want, but that's what it was.

And it worked.

Exactly the way libertarians envisioned such things should work.

And don't pretend gays have not been threatened for as long as you have been alive and you came running to their defense.

That gays have been threatened has nothing to do with this. This couple that was ruined threatened nobody. And if you are too bigoted to see that this was much much more than a boycott--this was a deliberate effort to financially ruin the baker--and you're okay with that, you are a far bigger bigot than they could ever be.

Again, I don't like your attitude about this. Is it okay with you if I financially ruin you because you are bigoted against Christians?

The gays fought back, and won. That is what is actually pissing you off.

'Some of those threats were shocking. One emailer wished for the couple’s children to fall ill. Another expressed hope that Mr. Klein should be shot and even raped, The Blaze reported.

And yet another wrote: “Here’s hoping you go out of business, you bigot.”

The couple said on top of that, their vendors were “badgered and harassed” into stopping all associations with the bakery.'



I'm sure the above threats the bakery got don't bother you either.

 

[g5000]

Waaaah! The gayz wouldn't take being discriminated against! They would not lie down. Boo hoo!

They fought back. Not fair!

 

[g5000]

That gays have been threatened has nothing to do with this. This couple that was ruined threatened nobody. And if you are too bigoted to see that this was much much more than a boycott--this was a deliberate effort to financially ruin the baker--and you're okay with that, you are a far bigger bigot than they could ever be.

Again, I don't like your attitude about this. Is it okay with you if I financially ruin you because you are bigoted against Christians?

The gays fought back, and won. That is what is actually pissing you off.

'Some of those threats were shocking. One emailer wished for the couple’s children to fall ill. Another expressed hope that Mr. Klein should be shot and even raped, The Blaze reported.

And yet another wrote: “Here’s hoping you go out of business, you bigot.”

The couple said on top of that, their vendors were “badgered and harassed” into stopping all associations with the bakery.'



I'm sure the above threats the bakery got don't bother you either.

Would you please link to the Blaze article about all the actual threats gays regularly receive? I'm not talking about bad wishes of ill will. I am talking about the actual threats gays receive. I can't seem to find any Blaze articles about that.

Thanks.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's called free speech. It's called a boycott. You can try to twist it to more than that all you want, but that's what it was.

And it worked.

Exactly the way libertarians envisioned such things should work.

And don't pretend gays have not been threatened for as long as you have been alive and you came running to their defense.

That gays have been threatened has nothing to do with this. This couple that was ruined threatened nobody. And if you are too bigoted to see that this was much much more than a boycott--this was a deliberate effort to financially ruin the baker--and you're okay with that, you are a far bigger bigot than they could ever be.

Again, I don't like your attitude about this. Is it okay with you if I financially ruin you because you are bigoted against Christians?

The gays fought back, and won. That is what is actually pissing you off.

I'm not pissed off at all. But you absolutely will not answer the question.

Is it okay to intentionally and deliberately destroy somebody because they refused to provide services at:

A KKK convention?
The Westboro Baptist Church?
A cock fight or dog fight?
Rush Limbaugh's birthday party?

. . . or go after g5000 and destroy his livelihood because he holds views I don't condone and consider bigoted?

I double dog dare you to answer that question. And then explain to draw the guidelines for when it is okay to deliberately and intentionally destroy a person's livelihood and when it is not.

 

[g5000]

Every topic. Every single gay marriage topic, bigots flood in and compare being gay to incest, bestiality, pedophilia, and all manner of harmful and evil practices.

So don't give me this pathetic Blaze propaganda about gays behaving badly.

They are fighting back. Fire with fire. You earned it, assholes. Reap what you have sown.

 

[Katzndogz]

No, that is not what he said.

They were perfectly willing to bake a cake for the gay couple. They were not willing to be present at an event they could not morally condone. A large wedding cake is generally assembled at the location of the reception.

Should a place of business be REQUIRED to provide services at a customer location regardless of what or where that location is?

Again, should the baker be punished and destroyed, as he was, if he had refused to deliver and assemble a cake at:

The Westboro Baptist Church?
A KKK convention?
A dog fight or cock fight?
Rush Limbaugh's birthday party?

Perhaps everybody should include in their advertising:
While we do try to accommodate our customers, we cannot agree to deliver some orders.

Ahhhhhhhh... right... this was merely a matter of not DELIVERING the product... even better.

It was a matter of them explaining to the gay couple that they could not be present at the wedding, so doing a large wedding cake that would have to be assembled at the wedding location was something they could not do. Had the gay couple asked them to bake the cake and the gay couple would arrange to have it assembled, I'm pretty sure the Christian baker would have been more than happy to do that.

The whole point of this little exercise is to force Christians to participate in same sex weddings. Just to get them used to the idea and see that there's nothing to be afraid of. The photographer offered to take any photos the same sex couple wanted, as many studio shots as they wanted, but would not attend the wedding. She got sued too. She lost, but the judge was very clear about what the rules were and every Christian should follow them.

If it were me forced to attend a same sex wedding, I would do it, and I would make it a special point of absolutely destroying any pleasant memory the couple had. Of course, they could always tell me to leave, but they could not say I refused to perform the service.

 

[Kondor3]

"...It was a matter of them explaining to the gay couple that they could not be present at the wedding, so doing a large wedding cake that would have to be assembled at the wedding location was something they could not do. Had the gay couple asked them to bake the cake and the gay couple would arrange to have it assembled, I'm pretty sure the Christian baker would have been more than happy to do that."

Exactly so.

You've nailed it.

And the vicious little phukkers who drove these good, decent folk out of business were wrong to do so.

They may very well have been within their rights.

But they were wrong.

That goes double for the part of that crowd who wished that the Klein's children would fall ill, and who wished that Mr. Klein would be attacked and raped.

Vicious little phukkers.

There will come a time, in the not too distant future, when the temporary and anomalous ascendancy of this Tyranny of a Tiny Minority will be set aside...

Society at large has a tendency to level things out and to find a middle ground and to overturn the more radical aspects of idiotic social engineering...

It's merely a matter of how many good and decent normal folk will suffer before things get totally out of hand and an inevitable and righteous reaction manifests itself...

This too, shall pass...

 

[g5000]

There will come a time, in the not too distant future, when the temporary and anomalous ascendancy of this Tyranny of a Tiny Minority will be set aside...

Got your Cross all ready for burning, do you?

 

[RKMBrown]

Existing marriage laws defining marriage as one man and one woman discriminated against nobody. They did not discriminate based on race, creed, ethncitiy, age, socioeconomic status, or sexual orientation. Every man, woman, and child was treated exactly the same under the existing laws.

You appear to be a person of reason on most topics.

However, please recognize that your statement here is a circular argument.

You are attempting to prove "marriage laws defining marriage as one man and one woman discriminated against nobody" because "every man, woman, and child was treated exactly the same under the existing laws."

Your supposition, thus, is that laws discriminating against a particular group, in this case gays, are ok because everyone is treated the same. Your supposition is that it's ok to discriminate based on sexual orientation, because they don't have to have a sexual orientation that the law discriminates against.

Your argument attempts, poorly, to defend discrimination as long as everyone is discriminated against in the same way. But the law did not ban all marriages irregardless of sexual orientation did it? Nope. It discriminated only against gay couples, because the majority believed at some point in time that discriminating against gay couples was good for society.

I double dog dare you to answer to your support of discriminating against gays.

 

[Katzndogz]

Normalizing homosexual sex always passes. It always has. This isn't the first time in human history that homosexuals have demanded and gotten the right to have their perversion declared normal. It just doesn't last long and it is never passed on as being beneficial. It is destroyed with the expected slaughter of homosexuals in the process.

 

[Vandalshandle]

That gays have been threatened has nothing to do with this. This couple that was ruined threatened nobody. And if you are too bigoted to see that this was much much more than a boycott--this was a deliberate effort to financially ruin the baker--and you're okay with that, you are a far bigger bigot than they could ever be.

Again, I don't like your attitude about this. Is it okay with you if I financially ruin you because you are bigoted against Christians?

The gays fought back, and won. That is what is actually pissing you off.

I'm not pissed off at all. But you absolutely will not answer the question.

Is it okay to intentionally and deliberately destroy somebody because they refused to provide services at:

A KKK convention?
The Westboro Baptist Church?
A cock fight or dog fight?
Rush Limbaugh's birthday party?

. . . or go after g5000 and destroy his livelihood because he holds views I don't condone and consider bigoted?

I double dog dare you to answer that question. And then explain to draw the guidelines for when it is okay to deliberately and intentionally destroy a person's livelihood and when it is not.

I'll answer your question. Chick-Fil-A will never see a dime of my money, and if they go out of business as a result of that, I would not give a rat's ass.

 

[g5000]

It's the Libertarian dream. A business that did not meet all the needs of the community went under, without the law forcing them to do something they did not want to do.

Libertarians should be popping champagne.