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

[Dot Com]

I disagree.

The world is changing, social attitudes are changing, markets are changing.

as a business you adapt or die.

They did not adapt.

And I have yet to have explained in any reasonable terms how baking a cake for someone is against anyone's religious convictions.

If a gay couple wanted a birthday cake for their adopted kid would they have been refused by this bakery?

If a gay couple came in holding hands to buy a cupcake would they have been refused?

If this was about marriage then don't Christian churches refuse to recognize civil marriage?

If two atheists came in and wanted a wedding cake would they have been refused because they weren't really getting married and were going to be living in sin?

This was about bigotry and nothing more and quite frankly I don't care if bigots suffer because of their bigotry.

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.

good post

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Wildflower Inn in Vermont has a court order that it must never again have a wedding at their venue, gay or straight as a result of the actions of the gay mafia.

Christians should impose their own limitations that allow for very private parties, BEFORE they get a court order.

Not true. The Wildflower in is under a binding settlement agreement that they voluntarily entered into, it's what the parties agreed to and was accepted by the court.

At any time in the future they can readdress the stipulation with the parties and the court and agree to hold weddings again on a non-discriminatory basis and they will be fine.


https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/fully_executed_settlement_agreement_8_23_12_0.pdf


>>>>

 

[bodecea]

Bar owner fined for banning transgender patrons | Local News | The Seattle Times

Colorado baker faces year in jail for refusing to make cake for gay wedding - National Crime & Courts | Examiner.com


But this lady was portrayed as a hero:
Martha Boggs, Tennessee Restaurant Owner Who Kicked Out Senator Stacey Campfield For Anti-Gay Remarks, Describes Encounter

If Tennessee has a law preventing her from refusing him service, then what she did is illegal. But most restaurants have policies posted that they can refuse service to anyone. And if this Senator has a following, they are welcome to call for a boycott of that restaurant. Have at it.

This reminds me of all the Hooters in San Diego Co. refusing to serve Mayor Bob Filner. Had no problem with that either.

 

[Gadawg73]

Here's an idea...

The Bakers, and every single soul serving-up product and services to the public, and who object to being forced to provide services to those whom they belief practice aberration and uncleanness in the eyes of the Lord, should find a way, philosophically, to provide such product and services, so as to remain in compliance with laws that force them into that mode...

And, while complying, work very hard, amongst themselves, their elected representatives, their friends, families and communities, to overturn such laws and such interpretations of laws, and to vote into power those who side with a mindset which does not force people into business relationships with those which their Faith teaches them to shun, but, rather, permits such business-folk to choose for themselves...

It's one thing to refuse service to somebody based upon their race, religion, ethnicity, etc.; none of which have moral implications...

It's an entirely different matter to refuse service to somebody whom you believe is regularly engaged in evil and unclean and ungodly behaviors; a state fo affairs which DOES have moral implications...

It's an apples-and-apples comparison at-law... as that body of law is currently being spun... but it's an apples-and-oranges comparison on the religious-moral front... and something is going to have to be done about this forcible imposition upon business-folk of goodwill and faith, whose belief-system steers them irreversibly down such a path... generation after generation...

Mind your own business...

Ahhhh, but, metaphorically speaking, I AM minding my own business, in playing Devil's Advocate on behalf of the Bakers, with an eye towards preserving or restoring their rights, and the prerogatives and rights of a great many others just like them, who might eventually fall prey to such a state of affairs.



Agreed.

Completely.

I will not tell you what is moral, Godly, evil or not.

But please respect my right to decide for myself what is moral and Godly and evil or not, and do not impose your perspective upon me, either.

And, of course, you are doing just that - imposing your viewpoint upon me - when you force me to serve and associate with people whom I believe engage in unclean behaviors.

If you wish to serve them and to bake a cake, that's fine; I'm all good with that; go for it; it's none of my business; I really don't care.

But don't hypocritically force ME to bake them a cake, when I have valid moral objections.

Goose and gander and all that.



And I respect that, as I respect you as a colleague.

Sometime last night, in this very thread, I, for one, acknowledged a wide range of opinion and values and judgments about this topic, within each of the mainstream religions.

There is plenty of room for disagreement, so long as one side does not have the upper hand, with an ability to shove its viewpoint down the throats of the Opposition, as appears to be happening in the case of the Bakers.

"...Stop pushing your religious beliefs on others..."

If the Bakers had been evangelizing in active opposition against homosexuality, and had used their business as a vehicle and stepping stone for that purpose, I might even be inclined to agree with you.

However, we are talking about folks who believe in their hearts and spirit that homosexuality is evil and that to associate with such folks is an immoral or unclean thing to do.

You (we, the Nation, through our laws) are pushing our SECULAR beliefs upon the Bakers, in direct contravention to centuries - milennia - of secular and canon law and philosophy which holds such practices to be morally reprehensible and injurious to the state and its people and its moral fiber.

"...We respect them but do not want them in the law."

It is my perception that you DISrespect them (those beliefs) when you attempt to silence those who would interject them as a salient point in related conversations.

As to wanting them in the law or not wanting them in the law... well... frankly... I see what is unfolding around us now, as the opening shots in a very long, protracted, multi-generational struggle between those willing to 'normalize' such behaviors and those who find them Libertine and dissipated and injurious to the state and its citizenry.

I'm guessing that if we could time-warp ahead 50 years, we would find our Older Selves or our descendants still arguing like hell over this one.

But I don't claim any particular future sight nor do I possess a crystal ball.

I respect all of that but you need to know that many of us were raised that Christians never have to go around telling anyone what our beliefs are and that we are Christian.
They will know it by our ACTIONS.
To walk with Christ is to be Christlike.
You never, ever have to say a word.
Actions always speak louder with than words, with your pads on the football field and with how you treat everyone else as we walk with Christ.
No offense but I am very skeptical of anyone that goes around labeling homosexuals as evil and 2nd class citizens. You took it further than that.

 

[Dot Com]

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

[MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION] I triple dog dare you to answer to your support of discriminating against gays.

I don't and have never supported discriminating against gays.

The marriage laws were written to protect children pure and simple; i.e. being aware of any communicable diseases, age limitations, restrictions on marrying persons too closely related, etc. Most are rules and regs that are entirely unnecessary in a same sex marriage.

Otherwise there would be no need for marriage laws of any kind. But children do require one man and one woman to create same, and while single parents or gay parents can be great parents, children nevertheless benefit from having a loving mother and father, i.e. positive role models from each gender, in the home.

Further, though there are always exceptions, the traditional family is the surest safeguard against child poverty, it helps keep track of the genetic blood lines that might be important to know, it promotes more stable, more affluent, more safe, and more aesthetically pleasing quality of life, and most societies have found it promotes the general welfare to encourage traditional marriage.

Nobody was discriminated against in the marriage laws that existed in all 50 states. You didn't have to be 'in love' to get married. You could be of any race, any ethnicity, any sexual orientation, etc. etc. etc. The requirement was purely that a marriage consisted of one man and one woman. You cannot change the definition of something without making it into something different than it was.

Did that mean that people, straight or gay, who for whatever reason could not or did not want to marry were somewhat disadvantaged over people who could and did marry? Yes it did. Which is why I have long been an active hands on up close and personal advocate for laws that would help other people form family units with the tax and social and economic advantages that married people have enjoyed. That way we get everybody what they need and leave traditional marriage intact.

Does that make me a bigot? Ya'll think you should picket my place of business, threaten me and my friends and family and customers, threaten my suppliers? Destroy me. Wreck me financially? All because most of you do not agree with my views on this?

If you think so, in my opinion you are far more evil and dangerous than a fundamentalist Christian baker will ever be.

Evil? Being a secular humanist, I don't believe in such things. You, OTOH, must be a part of the Repub "Base" I take it?

 

[WorldWatcher]

"...(BTW - I'm not joyful about what are basically good people who made a business decision that the community did support were damaged, but choices have consequences.)"

The "community", as in the Community-at-Large, or the Gay Community, which is a miniscule subset of the larger one, in the vast majority of locales which one might name?

If their 'Community' is like most communities, then, I seriously doubt that the vast majority of folks in that community had Clue One, as to what was going on at the time.

Do you seriously think that the retail storefront for the business tanked because only gay people stopped buying baked goods there? Seeing as how homosexuals number - what - 3 to 5% of the population you really think the store closed for a loss of revenue of 3-5%.



>>>>

 

[Dot Com]

Put it on church property and have it be non-profit otherwise accommodate EVERYONE. That is the law, as was mentioned earlier by WorldWatcher I believe. You know the thing that Rand Paul- type libertarians hate? public accomodation .

 

[WorldWatcher]

Put it on church property and have it be non-profit otherwise accommodate EVERYONE. That is the law, as was mentioned earlier by WorldWatcher I believe. You know the thing that Rand Paul- type libertarians hate? public accomodation .

Psst - I support the repeal of Pubic Accommodation laws as applied to private business entities.

Just say'n.



>>>>

 

[Dot Com]

I respect all of that but you need to know that many of us were raised that Christians never have to go around telling anyone what our beliefs are and that we are Christian.
They will know it by our ACTIONS.
To walk with Christ is to be Christlike.
You never, ever have to say a word.
Actions always speak louder with than words, with your pads on the football field and with how you treat everyone else as we walk with Christ.
No offense but I am very skeptical of anyone that goes around labeling homosexuals as evil and 2nd class citizens. You took it further than that.

agreed. Same goes w/ praying in secret. Those who go about shouting their beliefs from the rooftops and praying in public are only attention seekers AOT true believers.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I am frankly saddened and discouraged that so many people I thought to be reasonable and thoughtful posters have no problem with destroying somebody just because of the opinions they hold.

God help us if this becomes the norm in America. We will be no different than militant Islam or the Inquisition who punished heretics in terrible ways.

Too late. IT IS the norm in America today.

These people weren't merely forced out of business by a customer boycott. They were being investigated by state agencies. In Colorado it's jail time for exercising religious rights.

Colorado baker faces year in jail for refusing to make cake for gay wedding - National Crime & Courts | Examiner.com

What you're afraid of has already happened. The next step is the jihadist burning of the Churches.

No, it's against the law to discriminate. Christians have been discriminating for centuries and it's about time they were stopped.

Democrats/Liberals have been discriminating since the late 18th Century, it's about time they were stopped.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Put it on church property and have it be non-profit otherwise accommodate EVERYONE. That is the law, as was mentioned earlier by WorldWatcher I believe. You know the thing that Rand Paul- type libertarians hate? public accomodation .

Psst - I support the repeal of Pubic Accommodation laws as applied to private business entities.

Just say'n.



>>>>

Forget it, World. You can take my handicapped placard out of my cold, dead hands.

 

[TemplarKormac]

[MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION] I triple dog dare you to answer to your support of discriminating against gays.

I don't and have never supported discriminating against gays.

The marriage laws were written to protect children pure and simple; i.e. being aware of any communicable diseases, age limitations, restrictions on marrying persons too closely related, etc. Most are rules and regs that are entirely unnecessary in a same sex marriage.

Otherwise there would be no need for marriage laws of any kind. But children do require one man and one woman to create same, and while single parents or gay parents can be great parents, children nevertheless benefit from having a loving mother and father, i.e. positive role models from each gender, in the home.

Further, though there are always exceptions, the traditional family is the surest safeguard against child poverty, it helps keep track of the genetic blood lines that might be important to know, it promotes more stable, more affluent, more safe, and more aesthetically pleasing quality of life, and most societies have found it promotes the general welfare to encourage traditional marriage.

Nobody was discriminated against in the marriage laws that existed in all 50 states. You didn't have to be 'in love' to get married. You could be of any race, any ethnicity, any sexual orientation, etc. etc. etc. The requirement was purely that a marriage consisted of one man and one woman. You cannot change the definition of something without making it into something different than it was.

Did that mean that people, straight or gay, who for whatever reason could not or did not want to marry were somewhat disadvantaged over people who could and did marry? Yes it did. Which is why I have long been an active hands on up close and personal advocate for laws that would help other people form family units with the tax and social and economic advantages that married people have enjoyed. That way we get everybody what they need and leave traditional marriage intact.

Does that make me a bigot? Ya'll think you should picket my place of business, threaten me and my friends and family and customers, threaten my suppliers? Destroy me. Wreck me financially? All because most of you do not agree with my views on this?

If you think so, in my opinion you are far more evil and dangerous than a fundamentalist Christian baker will ever be.

Evil? Being a secular humanist, I don't believe in such things. You, OTOH, must be a part of the Repub "Base" I take it?

You must be part of the Secular Liberal Base, I gather?

 

[Gadawg73]

My ancestors came here in the 1650s and many ended up in the Hudson River valley in NY. One can Google Terhune, Minard or Walker and Clintondale NY Friends Church to see our history there.
We were persecuted for many years by other Christians when we arrived because of our beliefs that Jesus did not condemn those that follow him. Our path included freeing slaves while Washington and many of the Founders kept them. We ran underground RR up until the Civil War and suffered deaths at the hands of slave bounty hunters as far north as Maine. We fought against segregation in the South. In the 40s we included homosexuals in our cause and sought equal rights for them.
Why? Because Jesus told us to do those things and he never once labeled any of them any less of a person than any of us.
That is my walk and duty. I used to be the polar opposite of that, just the culture I was in for a long time, not what I was taught at home.
I changed almost 20 years ago and it feels so much better living this way!

 

[TemplarKormac]

Too late. IT IS the norm in America today.

These people weren't merely forced out of business by a customer boycott. They were being investigated by state agencies. In Colorado it's jail time for exercising religious rights.

Colorado baker faces year in jail for refusing to make cake for gay wedding - National Crime & Courts | Examiner.com

What you're afraid of has already happened. The next step is the jihadist burning of the Churches.

I think you might be right. If so, this is no longer American, home of the free.

It's more free now than when the Christians had a stranglehold on society.

Gee, and you call us Christians bigots?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Certainly Christians have no problem when it is Christians doing mafia things.

Or liberals when gays do gay mafia things, i.e. this Bakery for example.

 

[RKMBrown]

Does that make me a bigot? Ya'll think you should picket my place of business, threaten me and my friends and family and customers, threaten my suppliers? Destroy me. Wreck me financially? All because most of you do not agree with my views on this?

>>> Does that make me a bigot?
bigot: a person who has strong, unreasonable ideas, esp. about race or religion, and who thinks anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong.

Yes, your opinion that it is ok to discriminate against gays makes you a bigot against gays. You could argue that I'm a bigot for gays. No, I'm not gay. I'm a liberty loving constitutional conservative, married to my lovely wife for 27 years.

>>> Ya'll think you should picket my place of business, threaten me and my friends and family and customers, threaten my suppliers? Destroy me. Wreck me financially?

Picket, yes. I'm picketing you right now with my posts.

Threaten you, your friends, and suppliers? Is my post "threatening" in any way?

>>> Destroy me.
You mean like the type of destruction and pain your support for laws against gay couples causes?

>>> Wreck me financially?
I don't have to buy from people who are bigots against blacks, gays, jews or any other groups if I don't want to. I don't owe you a thing. If your love of your pet bigotries are greater than desire for me to be a customer of your establishment then so be it.

 

[Katzndogz]

The gay mafia will have a brand new challege after they force vendors tto participate in their weddings the will have to force acceptance by suing guests who refuse at participate in gay weddings.

 

[TemplarKormac]

My ancestors came here in the 1650s and many ended up in the Hudson River valley in NY. One can Google Terhune, Minard or Walker and Clintondale NY Friends Church to see our history there.
We were persecuted for many years by other Christians when we arrived because of our beliefs that Jesus did not condemn those that follow him. Our path included freeing slaves while Washington and many of the Founders kept them. We ran underground RR up until the Civil War and suffered deaths at the hands of slave bounty hunters as far north as Maine. We fought against segregation in the South. In the 40s we included homosexuals in our cause and sought equal rights for them.
Why? Because Jesus told us to do those things and he never once labeled any of them any less of a person than any of us.
That is my walk and duty. I used to be the polar opposite of that, just the culture I was in for a long time, not what I was taught at home.
I changed almost 20 years ago and it feels so much better living this way!

Homosexuality is not some special practice that is exempt from God's righteous judgment simply because they claim they are "born that way," or "just want to be free to love," or say that "it is normal," Gadawg. The Bible clearly condemns homosexuality as sinful, and even as it stands, God still loves them, hoping for them to turn away from it. But that does not shield them from the consequences.

I wrote down a snippet of an article from a Christian Apologetics website which reads:

"Just because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (her). Homosexuality is a sin and like any other sin it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible. It needs to be laid at the cross and forsaken.

People are born with a tendency to lie. Does that make it okay? People want to love each other, but since when is "love" the determiner of what is right and wrong? If homosexuality is normal, then why is it practiced by so few? The great majority of people are heterosexual. Are they "more" normal?

But, the Bible says homosexuality is a sin and the solution to the problem of sin (the breaking of God's Law, 1 John 3:4) is found only in Jesus. He is the Lord, the Savior, the risen King. Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1,14) and he died to save sinners. We are all sinners and we need salvation (Eph. 2:8-9) that is found in receiving Christ (John 1:12-13).

We Christians should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same as we would for any other person trapped in any other sin. This is not an issue of arrogance or judgmentalism. We don't want anyone to be lost due to their sin and that includes gays, lesbians, and transgenders.

The homosexual is still made in the image of God -- even though he (or she) is in rebellion. Therefore, we Christians should show homosexuals the same dignity as anyone else with whom we come in contact. Don't injure them. Don't hate them. Don't judge them. Inform them that freedom and forgiveness are found in Jesus. Let them know that God loves us and died for us so that we might be delivered from the consequences of our sin.

But, this does not mean that you are to approve of what they do. Don't compromise your witness for a socially acceptable opinion that is void of rationality, godliness, and biblical truth. Instead, stand firm in the word that God has revealed and patiently love him/her biblically, and pray for their salvation. Be kind to them. Be loving. And, when appropriate, tell them the gospel."

 

[Euroconservativ]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/30/portland-bar-transgender-discrimination-_n_3845452.html

Right now you are winning the game. After all, how can anyone oppose equality, happiness, etc? But people will realize this was not only about equal rights... but special rights. Special rights for another group oppresed by the evil "straight white male" (the trifecta of privilege, according to a MSNBC anchor). Eventually all these fines, mandates and suffocating political correctness will backfire.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Put it on church property and have it be non-profit otherwise accommodate EVERYONE. That is the law, as was mentioned earlier by WorldWatcher I believe. You know the thing that Rand Paul- type libertarians hate? public accomodation .

Psst - I support the repeal of Pubic Accommodation laws as applied to private business entities.

Just say'n.



>>>>

Forget it, World. You can take my handicapped placard out of my cold, dead hands.

Public Accommodation laws are different then ADA laws.



>>>>