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

[TemplarKormac]

Your definition of "sued out of business" is whether of not a business remains open? Huh?

...

Free market. It's a *****.

Free speech. It's a *****.

 

[paperview]

Ironically, paperview never linked me to where the bakers told this gay couple they were "abominations" or that "their money is not equal."

It's in the original complaint. Or didn't you read the story?

"The complaint says an owner of Sweet Cakes by Melissa referred to a lesbian couple as "abominations unto the lord [sic].""We were then informed that our money was not equal, my fiance reduced to tears," the complaint reads. "This is absolutely unacceptable.""


Gresham bakery won't make cake for gay wedding - KPTV - FOX 12


That's the story from Feb. There the owner says he denies making the statement. Since then there have been reports he backtracked and didn't deny it. I can't find the story now on that, and I'm not going to go hunting around for you. If you want to stick with him denying it, fine. I'll agree to that.


The complainants did make a statement under oath he said it. The Bureau of Labor is investigating. Since we know he denied them on account of sexual orientation -- that they agree they did, it's just a side point at this juncture. We know he discriminated. He admits to it. This violates Oregon law.



Klein did cite the Old Testament in one of his video's, and he has an internet post from last year disparaging gays, so it's not very difficult to imagine he used the term abominations. If you want to call the lesbians liars, be my guest.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Ironically, paperview never linked me to where the bakers told this gay couple they were "abominations" or that "their money is not equal."

It's in the original complaint. Or didn't you read the story?

"The complaint says an owner of Sweet Cakes by Melissa referred to a lesbian couple as "abominations unto the lord [sic].""We were then informed that our money was not equal, my fiance reduced to tears," the complaint reads. "This is absolutely unacceptable.""


Gresham bakery won't make cake for gay wedding - KPTV - FOX 12


That's the story from Feb. There the owner says he denies making the statement. Since then there have been reports he backtracked and didn't deny it. I can't find the story now on that, and I'm not going to go hunting around for you. If you want to stick with him denying it, fine. I'll agree to that.


The complainants did make a statement under oath he said it. The Bureau of Labor is investigating. Since we know he denied them on account of sexual orientation -- that they agree they did, it's just a side point at this juncture. We know he discriminated. He admits to it. This violates Oregon law.



Klein did cite the Old Testament in one of his video's, and he has an internet post from last year disparaging gays, so it's not very difficult to imagine he used the term abominations. If you want to call the lesbians liars, be my guest.

Now, find find video of Klien invoking the Old Testament, and the pdf of the complaint citing this, plus the internet post supposedly disparaging gays. Oh, and the reason I know that he did not physically say "your money isn't equal" is in the fact the couple got the implication of such, not that he ever uttered such a thing. Yes, nice way to spin it though. Score one for hyperbole.

 

[paperview]

Ironically, paperview never linked me to where the bakers told this gay couple they were "abominations" or that "their money is not equal."

It's in the original complaint. Or didn't you read the story?

"The complaint says an owner of Sweet Cakes by Melissa referred to a lesbian couple as "abominations unto the lord [sic].""We were then informed that our money was not equal, my fiance reduced to tears," the complaint reads. "This is absolutely unacceptable.""


Gresham bakery won't make cake for gay wedding - KPTV - FOX 12


That's the story from Feb. There the owner says he denies making the statement. Since then there have been reports he backtracked and didn't deny it. I can't find the story now on that, and I'm not going to go hunting around for you. If you want to stick with him denying it, fine. I'll agree to that.


The complainants did make a statement under oath he said it. The Bureau of Labor is investigating. Since we know he denied them on account of sexual orientation -- that they agree they did, it's just a side point at this juncture. We know he discriminated. He admits to it. This violates Oregon law.



Klein did cite the Old Testament in one of his video's, and he has an internet post from last year disparaging gays, so it's not very difficult to imagine he used the term abominations. If you want to call the lesbians liars, be my guest.

Now, find find video of Klien invoking the Old Testament, and the pdf of the complaint citing this, plus the internet post supposedly disparaging gays. Oh, and the reason I know that he did not physically say "your money isn't equal" is in the fact the couple got the implication of such, not that he ever uttered such a thing. Yes, nice way to spin it though. Score one for hyperbole.

**** off. I'm not your monkey.

Do your own homework. I've already provided more than enough for your lazy ass.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's in the original complaint. Or didn't you read the story?

"The complaint says an owner of Sweet Cakes by Melissa referred to a lesbian couple as "abominations unto the lord [sic].""We were then informed that our money was not equal, my fiance reduced to tears," the complaint reads. "This is absolutely unacceptable.""


Gresham bakery won't make cake for gay wedding - KPTV - FOX 12


That's the story from Feb. There the owner says he denies making the statement. Since then there have been reports he backtracked and didn't deny it. I can't find the story now on that, and I'm not going to go hunting around for you. If you want to stick with him denying it, fine. I'll agree to that.


The complainants did make a statement under oath he said it. The Bureau of Labor is investigating. Since we know he denied them on account of sexual orientation -- that they agree they did, it's just a side point at this juncture. We know he discriminated. He admits to it. This violates Oregon law.



Klein did cite the Old Testament in one of his video's, and he has an internet post from last year disparaging gays, so it's not very difficult to imagine he used the term abominations. If you want to call the lesbians liars, be my guest.

Now, find find video of Klien invoking the Old Testament, and the pdf of the complaint citing this, plus the internet post supposedly disparaging gays. Oh, and the reason I know that he did not physically say "your money isn't equal" is in the fact the couple got the implication of such, not that he ever uttered such a thing. Yes, nice way to spin it though. Score one for hyperbole.

**** off. I'm not your monkey.

Do your own homework. I've already provided more than enough for your lazy ass.

So are you saying what you said isn't true? Your reaction is telling. You can find those things or be deemed a liar and a disgrace to your cause.

 

[Katzndogz]

According to current law they don't if the mother decides to kill it before the last trimester. But that's another thread.

Granting same sex marriage rights is bad law. Giving gays protected class status is bad law. When sexual orientation is added to the Laws on civil rights, it will also add child molestation (minor attracted persons) to the list.

Why? Because when a society starts on the road to depravity and perversion, it does not stop until it is totally destroyed. Just like every other time.

Please show me where anyone has ever defended child molestation in this or any other country in the last 500 years. Perhaps you are projecting your perverted desires on others.

Okay, I'll show you.

B4U-ACT.org: Seeking acceptance for "minor attracted person" and pedophiles | Washington Times Communities

B4U-ACT is a Maryland-based group of mental health professionals, psychiatrists and pedophiles who want to normalize pedophilia. Instead of pejoratively calling them “pedophiles,” “fiends,” “deviants,” “freaks,” “perverts,” “degenerates,” “predators” or “pedophiles,” they would prefer that society refer to them by the sensitive and socially-accepting term: minor attracted persons. (Daily Caller)

The groups latest symposium “Pedophilia, Minor-Attracted Persons, and the DSM: Issues and Controversies” was held today, August 17, 2011, in Baltimore, Maryland

The point of this symposium is to promote “tolerance” and “normalization.” The group hopes it will lead to eventual acceptance of their peculiar desires and behaviors. It opposes treatment to change feelings of attraction to children, arguing that, “No one chooses to be emotionally and sexually attracted to children or adolescents. The cause is unknown; in fact, the development of attraction to adults is not understood.


Read more: B4U-ACT.org: Seeking acceptance for "minor attracted person" and pedophiles | Washington Times Communities
Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter

Normalization of Pedophilia Urged by Psychiatrists - The Periled Sea

A conference of mental health professionals is presenting a process whereby pedophiles will contribute to an effort to remove pedophilia from the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in its 2013 revision -- the similar strategy employed several decades ago to normalize homosexual behavior.

Normalizing Pedophilia | National Review Online

The reclassification of paedophilia as a sexual orientation would, however, play into what Goode calls “the sexual liberation discourse”, which has existed since the 1970s. “There are a lot of people,” she says, “who say: we outlawed homosexuality, and we were wrong. Perhaps we’re wrong about paedophilia.”

Conference aims to normalize pedophilia | The Daily Caller

If a small group of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals have their way at a conference this week, pedophiles themselves could play a role in removing pedophilia from the American Psychiatric Association’s bible of mental illnesses — the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), set to undergo a significant revision by 2013. Critics warn that their success could lead to the decriminalization of pedophilia

Your only excuse is you didn't know this was going on. Now you know.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Just like I thought.

 

[Esmeralda]

This thread is about gay marriage and prejudice against that.

This thread is not about pedophilia. That is a completely different topic, and, as well, pedophilia and homosexuality are two completely different things. Pedophiles are gay and straight; especially important to note is that not all gays are pedophiles anymore than all heterosexuals are pedophiles.

It's quite hilarious and also annoying how so many threads on this message board descend into completely off topic discussions or hissy fit arguments between two or three posters.

As far as the idea of normalizing pedophilia: it is a small group of people and psychiatrists, and also the Catholic Church has suggested it, that are in favor of such a thing. The vast majority of people, liberals and conservatives, and everyone in between, are not in favor of such a thing.
__________________

 

[RKMBrown]

Granting same sex marriage rights is bad law. Giving gays protected class status is bad law. When sexual orientation is added to the Laws on civil rights, it will also add child molestation (minor attracted persons) to the list.

Why? Because when a society starts on the road to depravity and perversion, it does not stop until it is totally destroyed. Just like every other time.

Please show me where anyone has ever defended child molestation in this or any other country in the last 500 years. Perhaps you are projecting your perverted desires on others.

Okay, I'll show you.

B4U-ACT.org: Seeking acceptance for "minor attracted person" and pedophiles | Washington Times Communities

B4U-ACT is a Maryland-based group of mental health professionals, psychiatrists and pedophiles who want to normalize pedophilia. Instead of pejoratively calling them “pedophiles,” “fiends,” “deviants,” “freaks,” “perverts,” “degenerates,” “predators” or “pedophiles,” they would prefer that society refer to them by the sensitive and socially-accepting term: minor attracted persons. (Daily Caller)

The groups latest symposium “Pedophilia, Minor-Attracted Persons, and the DSM: Issues and Controversies” was held today, August 17, 2011, in Baltimore, Maryland

The point of this symposium is to promote “tolerance” and “normalization.” The group hopes it will lead to eventual acceptance of their peculiar desires and behaviors. It opposes treatment to change feelings of attraction to children, arguing that, “No one chooses to be emotionally and sexually attracted to children or adolescents. The cause is unknown; in fact, the development of attraction to adults is not understood.


Read more: B4U-ACT.org: Seeking acceptance for "minor attracted person" and pedophiles | Washington Times Communities
Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter

Normalization of Pedophilia Urged by Psychiatrists - The Periled Sea

A conference of mental health professionals is presenting a process whereby pedophiles will contribute to an effort to remove pedophilia from the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in its 2013 revision -- the similar strategy employed several decades ago to normalize homosexual behavior.

Normalizing Pedophilia | National Review Online

The reclassification of paedophilia as a sexual orientation would, however, play into what Goode calls “the sexual liberation discourse”, which has existed since the 1970s. “There are a lot of people,” she says, “who say: we outlawed homosexuality, and we were wrong. Perhaps we’re wrong about paedophilia.”

Conference aims to normalize pedophilia | The Daily Caller

If a small group of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals have their way at a conference this week, pedophiles themselves could play a role in removing pedophilia from the American Psychiatric Association’s bible of mental illnesses — the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), set to undergo a significant revision by 2013. Critics warn that their success could lead to the decriminalization of pedophilia

Your only excuse is you didn't know this was going on. Now you know.

Negative, I don't count child molesters as people. That is truly a sickness.

 

[R.C. Christian]

It's very sad that love for degenerate homosexuals and their transgendered freaks have turned this ridiculous, terrorist nation into a political witch hunt that will someday lead to their incarceration. As it stands, a white Christian person is the only being not protected by federal law. I suppose they'll be wearing flair next.

 

[WorldWatcher]

But in both instances LGBT folks called for boycotts. Interesting is it not? They both had the intent of destroying the said business in question. This bakery was put out of business because nobody is allowed to be politically incorrect in this society.

You do realize that SOCON's frequently call for boycotts of businesses they perceive as "gay friendly" right?

The boycott is not just the tool of the liberals.



>>>>>

 

[TemplarKormac]

But in both instances LGBT folks called for boycotts. Interesting is it not? They both had the intent of destroying the said business in question. This bakery was put out of business because nobody is allowed to be politically incorrect in this society.

You do realize that SOCON's frequently call for boycotts of businesses they perceive as "gay friendly" right?

The boycott is not just the tool of the liberals.



>>>>>

Heck, I'd buy from a gay store owner anytime. But I'm not going to force my beliefs on him. Nor will I sic militant Christian or Christian activist groups on his business if he refuses to serve me. He has a living to make just as much as I would. Gee, what a concept!

 

[Vox]

Please show me where anyone has ever defended child molestation in this or any other country in the last 500 years. Perhaps you are projecting your perverted desires on others.

thread next door - teachers defending their colleague and basically saying - he had a right to do it.
Oh, and it was a child rape.

 

[RKMBrown]

But in both instances LGBT folks called for boycotts. Interesting is it not? They both had the intent of destroying the said business in question. This bakery was put out of business because nobody is allowed to be politically incorrect in this society.

You do realize that SOCON's frequently call for boycotts of businesses they perceive as "gay friendly" right?

The boycott is not just the tool of the liberals.



>>>>>

Heck, I'd buy from a gay store owner anytime. But I'm not going to force my beliefs on him. Nor will I sic militant Christian or Christian activist groups on his business if he refuses to serve me. He has a living to make just as much as I would. Gee, what a concept!

Make up your mind. Are you or are you not trying to force your belief on us that we should be intolerant of gays because of this incident where some gays supposedly ran this baker out of business. Yes or no.

 

[WorldWatcher]

This is America and we have the freedom to say and believe what our conscience tells us. Get over yourself.

I'm confused. First you decry people for speaking out against the bakery's discrimination, not you post that Americaqn's are free to say and believe what our conscience tells us.


Does that not apply to the people that boycotted the bakery, posted about it online, and possibly demonstrated in front of the store.


(And no, personal treats are not covered as that is criminal activity.)



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

But in both instances LGBT folks called for boycotts. Interesting is it not? They both had the intent of destroying the said business in question. This bakery was put out of business because nobody is allowed to be politically incorrect in this society.

You do realize that SOCON's frequently call for boycotts of businesses they perceive as "gay friendly" right?

The boycott is not just the tool of the liberals.



>>>>>

Heck, I'd buy from a gay store owner anytime. But I'm not going to force my beliefs on him. Nor will I sic militant Christian or Christian activist groups on his business if he refuses to serve me. He has a living to make just as much as I would. Gee, what a concept!

What you would do is irrelevant. You attempted to disparage LGBT organizations for using a boycott, but hate to be the bearer of bad news, the use of boycotts to pressure businesses is old had practiced by SoCon's for years.

Did you have a problem when the AFA called for boycotts of 7-Eleven, Abercrombie & Fitch, American Airlines, American Girl, Blockbuster Video, Burger King, Calvin Klein, Carl's Jr., Clorox, Comcast, Crest, Ford, Hallmark Cards, Hardee's, Kmart, Kraft Foods, S. C. Johnson & Son, Movie Gallery, Microsoft, MTV, Mary Kay, NutriSystem, Old Navy, IKEA, Sears, Pampers, Procter & Gamble, Target, Tide, Walt Disney Company, and PepsiCo?


You realize that when boycotts are called for, even with major companies if sales is reduced people loose their jobs right?



>>>>

 

[Foxfyre]

I still say that if we truly believe in freedom, liberty, and the American way, everybody is entitled to their own opinions and convictions about anything so long as they do not try to force thise opinions and convictions upon others. Which is exactly what you do when you boycott this business for no other reason than you don't like what they think--you are forcing your opinions and convictions upon them.

You folks condoning the destruction of this "Christian" bakery would almost certainly be condemning a boycott of a gay business or Muslim business or minority business that said they didn't condone Christianity or that spoke against traditional marriage or declined to provide services for that KKK convention or whatever.

We can't have it both ways without being totally hypocritical people. Either a person has an unalienable right to their own beliefs and convictions or they don't. And if it is okay to destroy a Christian business because they don't condone gay marriage, it logically follows that it is okay to destroy anybody who holds a belief or convictions that you don't share. And we become Stalinist Russia or worse instead of America.

To destroy these people purely because they hold a conviction and belief that you consider bigoted is far more evil and sinister than any bigotry could ever be.

 

[Katzndogz]

It wasn't a boycott that forced the baker out of business. It was the level of threatened violence to them and their customers.

 

[Alfalfa]

It's very sad that love for degenerate homosexuals and their transgendered freaks have turned this ridiculous, terrorist nation into a political witch hunt that will someday lead to their incarceration. As it stands, a white Christian person is the only being not protected by federal law. I suppose they'll be wearing flair next.

As a matter of fact white christians are protected under anti-discrimination laws relating to race, ethnicity and religion. Just because you're the group doing most of the discriminating against others and consequently rarely need or avail themselves of it does not change that you have that protection and it is available if necessary.

 

[RKMBrown]

I still say that if we truly believe in freedom, liberty, and the American way, everybody is entitled to their own opinions and convictions about anything so long as they do not try to force thise opinions and convictions upon others. Which is exactly what you do when you boycott this business for no other reason than you don't like what they think--you are forcing your opinions and convictions upon them.

You folks condoning the destruction of this "Christian" bakery would almost certainly be condemning a boycott of a gay business or Muslim business or minority business that said they didn't condone Christianity or that spoke against traditional marriage or declined to provide services for that KKK convention or whatever.

We can't have it both ways without being totally hypocritical people. Either a person has an unalienable right to their own beliefs and convictions or they don't. And if it is okay to destroy a Christian business because they don't condone gay marriage, it logically follows that it is okay to destroy anybody who hold a belief or convictions that you don't share.

To destroy these people purely because they hold a conviction and belief that you consider bigoted is far more evil and sinister than any bigotry could ever be.

Yeah, why am I not surprised. First you were for, FORCING, me to buy into your SS ponzi scheme. Now you you are for, FORCING, me to buy cupcakes from homophobe bigots. And forcing people to never protest against racism and bigotry because that would be anti-American.

WOW