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

[Foxfyre]

NOTICE: Not one single person who agrees that it was good, just, and right that the bakery was forced out of business will answer my question about whether those who refuse to serve certain other entities should also be forced out of business.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

I have no problem with that. But should you be able to threaten the folks at Chick-fil-a? Threaten their customers? Threaten their suppliers? Intentionally and willingfully destroy them? Answer that please. If the baker had refused to deliver to the organizations I listed, would you think it just and right to threaten and coerce and willfully destroy the business because of that?

 

[g5000]

NOTICE: Not one single person who agrees that it was good, just, and right that the bakery was forced out of business will answer my question about whether those who refuse to serve certain other entities should also be forced out of business.

I will gladly answer this.

If the community does not feel a business meets its needs, they should be able to exercise their right to not patronize that business, and to use their free speech to rally a community boycott.

If a business refused to serve Christians or Jews, and the community did not like that, they could stop using that business.

Easy peasey!

 

[Kondor3]

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?

"All hands... stand by to repel Drama Queens, starboard..."

 

[g5000]

I have no problem with that. But should you be able to threaten the folks at Chick-fil-a? Threaten their customers? Threaten their suppliers? Intentionally and willingfully destroy them? Answer that please. If the baker had refused to deliver to the organizations I listed, would you think it just and right to do anything to destroy the business because of that?

"I hope you die" is not a threat. "I am going to kill you" is. Learn the difference.

 

[Vandalshandle]

NOTICE: Not one single person who agrees that it was good, just, and right that the bakery was forced out of business will answer my question about whether those who refuse to serve certain other entities should also be forced out of business.

By using the words, "forced out of business", you mean that they lost their customers, well, gee Fox, the same thing is happening to J.C. Penny....and to me when I owned a coffee shop in a mall that lost 2 of their three anchor stores.

 

[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?

"All hands... stand by to repel Drama Queens, starboard..."

You poor fool. You don't even know your ship has already sailed.

 

[Foxfyre]

NOTICE: Not one single person who agrees that it was good, just, and right that the bakery was forced out of business will answer my question about whether those who refuse to serve certain other entities should also be forced out of business.

By using the words, "forced out of business", you mean that they lost their customers, well, gee Fox, the same thing is happening to J.C. Penny....and to me when I owned a coffee shop in a mall that lost 2 of their three anchor stores.

You won't answer the question will you.

And "forced out of business" means threatening the owners and employees of the business, threatening their customers, threatening their suppliers. Willfully and intentionally destroying the livelihood of people purely because they hold a point of view you don't accept.

And those of you who think that is just fine are far more dangerous, even evil, bigots than any Christian baker will ever be.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I have not seen a credible source of any "threats" to the owners of this store. If they were threatened, which I am not buying without a source, then that is a crime.I don't see how I can give you a more precise answer than that.

 

[g5000]

NOTICE: Not one single person who agrees that it was good, just, and right that the bakery was forced out of business will answer my question about whether those who refuse to serve certain other entities should also be forced out of business.

By using the words, "forced out of business", you mean that they lost their customers, well, gee Fox, the same thing is happening to J.C. Penny....and to me when I owned a coffee shop in a mall that lost 2 of their three anchor stores.

You won't answer the question will you.

And "forced out of business" means threatening the owners and employees of the business, threatening their customers, threatening their suppliers. Willfully and intentionally destroying the livelihood of people purely because they hold a point of view you don't accept.

And those of you who think that is just fine are far more dangerous, even evil, bigots than any Christian baker will ever be.

"I hope you die" is not a threat, no matter how deeply you swallow Glenn Beck's tool.

 

[Foxfyre]

g5000 won't answer the question.
g5000 won't answer the question.
g5000 won't answer the question.

 

[g5000]

g5000 won't answer the question.
g5000 won't answer the question.
g5000 won't answer the question.

Are you in the third grade?

I did answer your question, child. Go back and look.

 

[WorldWatcher]

NOTICE: Not one single person who agrees that it was good, just, and right that the bakery was forced out of business will answer my question about whether those who refuse to serve certain other entities should also be forced out of business.

I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws in general, both at the State and Federal level because they encroach on the property rights of private individuals acting in a private capacity. Public Accommodation laws should only apply to government entities in (a) how they conduct their operations, and (b) the ability of those entities to contract or securer goods and services from business who have a demonstrated history of discrimination.

The market should determine whether a business survives or tanks.

There should be no "special privileges" for those based on "religious grounds", ALL Public Accommodation laws (whether based on race, gender, age, sexual orientation, parental status, veterans status, ethnicity, country of origin, etc.) should be repealed. With modern communications information is much more readily available to the populous through news, radio, email, social networks, the internet, and various review sites like Yelp and Angie's List etc. If a business conducts their business in a discriminatory way, then it is up to the customers to decide to avail themselves of the business or not.


That good enough?


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

NOTICE: Not one single person who agrees that it was good, just, and right that the bakery was forced out of business will answer my question about whether those who refuse to serve certain other entities should also be forced out of business.

By using the words, "forced out of business", you mean that they lost their customers, well, gee Fox, the same thing is happening to J.C. Penny....and to me when I owned a coffee shop in a mall that lost 2 of their three anchor stores.

You won't answer the question will you.

And "forced out of business" means threatening the owners and employees of the business, threatening their customers, threatening their suppliers. Willfully and intentionally destroying the livelihood of people purely because they hold a point of view you don't accept.

And those of you who think that is just fine are far more dangerous, even evil, bigots than any Christian baker will ever be.

No, "forced out of business" means that expenses exceeded revenues.

Personal threats of violence are illegal and should have been reported to the police for criminal prosecution.

Telling a business "I won't buy from you" is a boycott. Telling business that refer customers to another business "I won't buy from you" as long as you support the other business is a boycott. Boycotts are an accepted and promoted practice for those that find companies that treat homosexuals equally.


>>>>

 

[Skull Pilot]

Well, if you believe it is okay to intentionally and with malice of forethought destroy somebody's business because they hold a view you don't share, I think you might be part of the problem here.

Boycotting bigots should not be attached to the language used for first degree murder.

As I said if these bigots were consistent in their refusals to serve anyone who they believed lived a life that they felt was against their religious beliefs I might have more sympathy for them.

But that is obviously not the case here now is it?

They were happy to take other peoples money who were living in sin according to their religion weren't they?

Hypocritical bigots are even worse than run of the mill bigots.

And what gives you the moral superiority to judge these people in what they are and are not to consider sin?

I am not taking a moral stance here. never was. The term bigot is defined

a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

The simple fact is they pissed off a large enough segment of their market and their community with their bigotry so as to lose good will in the end that's all a business has.

Should I be able to destroy your livelihood or your business because I don't like the words you use or the beliefs you hold? Again, if they refused to serve people who come to their place of business, that is unacceptable discrimination. To refuse to be part of something that they could not condone at another location is something else quite again.

It had nothing to do with their beliefs and everything to do with their bigotry. As I said they didn't have to attend the wedding or the reception all they had to do was make a cake and set it up in a reception hall. Hell they could have said that the couple needed to buy and place their own topper on the cake to avoid the gay sin.

But they chose to take a stand for whatever reason and I don't believe it was moral stance because as I said I'm sure they made and delivered cakes for people who weren't married in church sanctioned ceremonies and therefore were also committing a sin.

Had they refused to deliver a cake to the Westboro Baptist Church or a KKK convention or a cock fight or Rush Limbaugh's birthday party, there wouldn't have been a murmer of protest from anybody.

Comparing those groups to the homosexual community is a bit of a stretch.

As Katz pointed out they didn't refuse service to the couple. They just didn't want to attend a gay wedding at another location. That should be their right as much as it should be any of our right to not be forced to go to something we can't condone.

And as I pointed out they didn't have to attend the wedding or the reception all they had to do was set the cake up in the reception hall and leave. Maybe they didn't want to take the chance of stepping foot in a place where gay people might be. Second hand sin is deadly too.

The baker does not usually attend the wedding ceremony or the reception. No baker I have ever known did and I never saw the cake maker at any wedding I ever attended unless of course that baker was on the guest list.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Taking a moral stand solely on gay marriage and not refusing all gay people is hypocritical at best.

As I asked before would these people have refused a gay couple for simply buying a cupcake or a birthday cake for their artificially conceived child?

Surely all of the above are contradictory to their religious beliefs.

You are correct.

That would, indeed, be hypocritical.

Is that what happened here?

Or is it that the Bakers refused service to Gays, period, on such grounds, which would be more consistent?

Did that every come up, while they were still in business?

If 'yes', then I may have missed something.

Then again, hypocrisy, in itself, is not a barrier to acting in such-and-so a fashion, if it can be counterpointed by such factors as (1) now knowing the orientation of the people being served, (2) being so busy in the shop that orientation never came-up on their scope, (3) or they simply changed their minds and viewpoint, upon further reflection upon the moral implications.

Hypocrisy, while unattractive under most circumstances, is not necessarily a barrier to defensible actions.

And people are allowed to change their minds, as the grow and mature and reflect further upon the world around them...

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.

So being gay performing gay sex acts living together in sin is all OK with them and they have no problem taking money from those people.

like I said bigots and hypocrites.

 

[Moonglow]

NOTICE: Not one single person who agrees that it was good, just, and right that the bakery was forced out of business will answer my question about whether those who refuse to serve certain other entities should also be forced out of business.

I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws in general, both at the State and Federal level because they encroach on the property rights of private individuals acting in a private capacity. Public Accommodation laws should only apply to government entities in (a) how they conduct their operations, and (b) the ability of those entities to contract or securer goods and services from business who have a demonstrated history of discrimination.

The market should determine whether a business survives or tanks.

There should be no "special privileges" for those based on "religious grounds", ALL Public Accommodation laws (whether based on race, gender, age, sexual orientation, parental status, veterans status, ethnicity, country of origin, etc.) should be repealed. With modern communications information is much more readily available to the populous through news, radio, email, social networks, the internet, and various review sites like Yelp and Angie's List etc. If a business conducts their business in a discriminatory way, then it is up to the customers to decide to avail themselves of the business or not.


That good enough?


>>>>

I can't wait to be able to eat where there is no wet backs.

 

[Foxfyre]

Boycotting bigots should not be attached to the language used for first degree murder.

As I said if these bigots were consistent in their refusals to serve anyone who they believed lived a life that they felt was against their religious beliefs I might have more sympathy for them.

But that is obviously not the case here now is it?

They were happy to take other peoples money who were living in sin according to their religion weren't they?

Hypocritical bigots are even worse than run of the mill bigots.

And what gives you the moral superiority to judge these people in what they are and are not to consider sin?

I am not taking a moral stance here. never was. The term bigot is defined



The simple fact is they pissed off a large enough segment of their market and their community with their bigotry so as to lose good will in the end that's all a business has.



It had nothing to do with their beliefs and everything to do with their bigotry. As I said they didn't have to attend the wedding or the reception all they had to do was make a cake and set it up in a reception hall. Hell they could have said that the couple needed to buy and place their own topper on the cake to avoid the gay sin.

But they chose to take a stand for whatever reason and I don't believe it was moral because as I said I'm sure they made and delivered cakes for people who weren't married in church sanctioned ceremonies and therefore were also committing a sin.

Had they refused to deliver a cake to the Westboro Baptist Church or a KKK convention or a cock fight or Rush Limbaugh's birthday party, there wouldn't have been a murmer of protest from anybody.

Comparing those groups to the homosexual community is a bit of a stretch.

As Katz pointed out they didn't refuse service to the couple. They just didn't want to attend a gay wedding at another location. That should be their right as much as it should be any of our right to not be forced to go to something we can't condone.

And as I pointed out they didn't have to attend the wedding or the reception all they had to do was set the cake up in the reception hall and leave.

The baker does not usually attend the wedding ceremony or the reception. No baker I have ever known did and I never saw the cake maker at any wedding I ever attended unless of course that baker was on the guest list.

You have never seen a large wedding cake assembled have you. It isn't done at the bakery. It is done at the reception. The baker had no problem baking a cake. But it was his moral conviction that it would be a sin for him to attend even the preparations for the reception.

That may sound stupid and unreasonable to you. But there is no law against convictions that make no sense to us no matter who holds them.

Will you answer my question whether the baker should be required to deliver a cake to:

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

Or would there be the same degree of outrage if he refused to deliver a cake to those places based on moral convictions?

 

[The Irish Ram]

Gay rights go far FAR beyond gay marriage. It's a whole re-educative political agenda. Is about making people feel bad for being "homophobic". The definition of homophobia is changing and it will ultimately include people (and churches and businessmen) who oppose gay marriage.

When there is no legit reason to oppose marriage, one must wonder if the opposition is not, in fact, homophobia.

That is exactly what I meant by drawing a bulls eye on the perceived politically incorrect. Label them, then attack them because they don't believe what you believe.
Is there anyone else you insist the owners of their own business serve? KKK? Black Panthers? Politicians? Maybe you should make a list for them so they'll know how you want them to run their affairs?

We are drawing a chalk outline around freedom.

 

[WorldWatcher]

And what gives you the moral superiority to judge these people in what they are and are not to consider sin?

I am not taking a moral stance here. never was. The term bigot is defined



The simple fact is they pissed off a large enough segment of their market and their community with their bigotry so as to lose good will in the end that's all a business has.



It had nothing to do with their beliefs and everything to do with their bigotry. As I said they didn't have to attend the wedding or the reception all they had to do was make a cake and set it up in a reception hall. Hell they could have said that the couple needed to buy and place their own topper on the cake to avoid the gay sin.

But they chose to take a stand for whatever reason and I don't believe it was moral because as I said I'm sure they made and delivered cakes for people who weren't married in church sanctioned ceremonies and therefore were also committing a sin.





Comparing those groups to the homosexual community is a bit of a stretch.

As Katz pointed out they didn't refuse service to the couple. They just didn't want to attend a gay wedding at another location. That should be their right as much as it should be any of our right to not be forced to go to something we can't condone.

And as I pointed out they didn't have to attend the wedding or the reception all they had to do was set the cake up in the reception hall and leave.

The baker does not usually attend the wedding ceremony or the reception. No baker I have ever known did and I never saw the cake maker at any wedding I ever attended unless of course that baker was on the guest list.

You have never seen a large wedding cake assembled have you. It isn't done at the bakery. It is done at the reception. The baker had no problem baking a cake. But it was his moral conviction that it would be a sin for him to attend even the preparations for the reception.

That may sound stupid and unreasonable to you. But there is no law against convictions that make no sense to us no matter who holds them.

Will you answer my question whether the baker should be required to deliver a cake to:

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

Or would there be the same degree of outrage if he refused to deliver a cake to those places based on moral convictions?

The Westboro Baptist church - If the reason given was that WBC was a Christian organization. Yes, they would be in violation of the law.

A KKK convention - If the reason stated was that the KKK members where white, Yes that would be a violation of the law. If the reason stated was that the KKK is a political organization the member does not support, then NO that is not a violation of the law as political entities are not covered.

A cock fight or dog fight - It would not be a violation of the law as cock fighting and dog fighting are illegal activities.

Rush Limbaugh's birthday party - If the reason stated was that the Rush Limbaugh is white, Yes that would be a violation of the law. If the reason stated was that the Rush Limbaugh is a political commentator, then NO that is not a violation of the law as political entities are not covered.



Hope that helps.


>>>>