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

[Immanuel]

I agree with Noomi. No one wants to do business with bigots.

Obviously that is incorrect as this couple wanted very much to do business with this bakery, even to the point of denying what most of us consider a fundamental right... that being the freedom of association. Now I am a Christian, but I am one who believes that this baker is wrong in not serving "sinners". Christ never taught such garbage and would have gladly used his carpentry skills for them had he been asked.

By the way, if they were set on not serving sinners, they would have to close up shop because they could not serve any of us.

Immie

 

[RKMBrown]

Refusing to participate in a same sex wedding isn't rape. If you want to use rape, the Christians forced to participate in a same sex wedding against their will were spiritually raped.

Ok now you are on point.

We have two people who each have a valid grievance. One was refused service based on sexual orientation, thus violating their civil right to be served in a public marketplace. One was boycotted for refusing to provide said service as a services provider in said public marketplace.

The law is clearly on the side of the public having the right to be served without discrimination. We have civil rights laws for that. The law is also on the side of the baker, in so far as the baker only has to provide services to the public if the baker is selling to the public at large from a public shop. The law is further on the side of the baker, in so far as if the boycott is "slanderous" then the baker can sue for lost business.

The baker has the right to close up shop if they don't want to serve gay people.

Problem solved.

 

[Papageorgio]

Yeah, that's the pt. You cannot logically disagree with a boycott, regardless of how you feel about this issue or any other issue. If a store sells playboy, for example, people can boycott. If a store actively says they welcome GLBT, people can boycott. Everyone has free speech and right to patronize whomever they wish.

Personally, I find the state anti-discrimination laws to be more govt than i wish. However, I also think Lester Maddux had a right to choose not to serve African Americans, even though I personnally would never buy anything from such a person. However, state anti-discrimination laws are the law, and my personal opinion is irrelevant, except to disinguish the laws effect on christian bakers from the boycott's effect.

If businesses would put out signs that tells us they refuse to service certain people, I'd be all for that. Then when I see the sign, I can make my choice and not go in there or do business with them. That would probably be to easy though.

Yeah sure, no shirt, no shoes, black, or gay = no service. Yeah that might have gone over well in the sixties.

Would you spend money in such establishments? I wouldn't. I'd stay away and so would others. Right now we don't know whether an owner is a bigot asshole or not. Why give your money to a bigoted asshole?

 

[Mertex]

5

You have nothing to fear.
Idiocy isn't a sin.

We have ALL sinned.
The 'trick' is to not REPEAT that sinful behavior

Ah, but that's the rub. If a GLBT person finds homosexuality not a sin, can a person who sees it as a sin treat the GLBT as a sinner w/o the GLBT responding in kind?

A true Christian would not judge the GLBT person as a sinner but only their own conduct in relation to the GLBT person. Just as the baker did.

Wrong, the baker called them "an abomination to the Lord". He could have said their relationship was an abomination to the Lord, but instead insulted them.

Should a GLBT person have the power to force some unwilling person into committing a personal sin just because it entertains them?

It is not a personal sin to treat everyone equally. Where do some Christians get the idea that hating people for what they are is "Christian"?

Isn't Jesus' all for "forgiveness"? Some Christians need some introspection. They are putting themselves on the same level as God.

 

[Katzndogz]

My first little job was working as a waitress for two lesbians who owned a luncheonette. That was in 1960. They were very nice people. When I was getting married they said that having a straight female working there could be tolerated but a female married to a man was so insulting to them and their friends they would not put up with that behavior. I was so young, I thought they were kidding. I showed up for work and promptly got thrown out. I figured they had as much right to fire me as I had to quit. No harm done. What happened to that kind of freedom?

 

[Alfalfa]

I agree with Noomi. No one wants to do business with bigots.

Obviously that is incorrect as this couple wanted very much to do business with this bakery, even to the point of denying what most of us consider a fundamental right... that being the freedom of association. Now I am a Christian, but I am one who believes that this baker is wrong in not serving "sinners". Christ never taught such garbage and would have gladly used his carpentry skills for them had he been asked.

By the way, if they were set on not serving sinners, they would have to close up shop because they could not serve any of us.

Immie

I appreciate your comments but can you explain the "freedom of association" as a fundamental right? Because I have no idea what you're talking about. The Freedom of Association mentioned in the BOR dealt with actually forming "associations" such as political parties, trade unions, etc. It had nothing to do with personal realtionships or the interaction between a business owner and a customer.

 

[Immanuel]

5

Ah, but that's the rub. If a GLBT person finds homosexuality not a sin, can a person who sees it as a sin treat the GLBT as a sinner w/o the GLBT responding in kind?

A true Christian would not judge the GLBT person as a sinner but only their own conduct in relation to the GLBT person. Just as the baker did.

Wrong, the baker called them "an abomination to the Lord". He could have said their relationship was an abomination to the Lord, but instead insulted them.

Should a GLBT person have the power to force some unwilling person into committing a personal sin just because it entertains them?

It is not a personal sin to treat everyone equally. Where do some Christians get the idea that hating people for what they are is "Christian"?

Isn't Jesus' all for "forgiveness"? Some Christians need some introspection. They are putting themselves on the same level as God.

According to the story I read, the Christian was very polite. It was someone on site who used that phrase, "abomination to The Lord". Do you have a link to back this up. Mine was the article in the Blaze presented earlier. I am unsure which version is true, but I think the abomination statement is seeped in hyperbole and probably not what actually happened.

Immie

 

[Alfalfa]

My first little job was working as a waitress for two lesbians who owned a luncheonette. That was in 1960. They were very nice people. When I was getting married they said that having a straight female working there could be tolerated but a female married to a man was so insulting to them and their friends they would not put up with that behavior. I was so young, I thought they were kidding. I showed up for work and promptly got thrown out. I figured they had as much right to fire me as I had to quit. No harm done. What happened to that kind of freedom?

Sorry, doesn't pass the smell test.

 

[Mertex]

If businesses would put out signs that tells us they refuse to service certain people, I'd be all for that. Then when I see the sign, I can make my choice and not go in there or do business with them. That would probably be to easy though.

Yeah sure, no shirt, no shoes, black, or gay = no service. Yeah that might have gone over well in the sixties.

Would you spend money in such establishments? I wouldn't. I'd stay away and so would others. Right now we don't know whether an owner is a bigot asshole or not. Why give your money to a bigoted asshole?

I guess you weren't around in the 50's? Businesses had such signs, and people still patronized them. Today, there are plenty of people that would do business with such bigots because they are the same as the bigots.

The film brought to light how prevalent racism and discrimination practices were rooted in Texas since the Mexican-American War (1846-1848). Mexican-Americans have been treated as second class citizens in Texas and the U.S. since then. The film showed visible signs that read “no dogs, no Negros, no Mexicans” and “we serve whites only, no Spanish or Mexicans.” It’s amazing to think that this kind of bigotry and racism was tolerated.

Read more: No Dogs, No Negros, No Mexicans: The Roots of Discrimination in Texas | Care2 Causes
No Dogs, No Negros, No Mexicans: The Roots of Discrimination in Texas | Care2 Causes


Part of the sign reads: "Halloween 2011. No blacks welcomed to trick or treat."
Racist Sign Sparks Outrage in Northeast El Paso | KTSM News Channel 9 | News, Weather and Sports | El Paso, Las Cruces, Juarez

 

[Alfalfa]

5

A true Christian would not judge the GLBT person as a sinner but only their own conduct in relation to the GLBT person. Just as the baker did.

Wrong, the baker called them "an abomination to the Lord". He could have said their relationship was an abomination to the Lord, but instead insulted them.

Should a GLBT person have the power to force some unwilling person into committing a personal sin just because it entertains them?

It is not a personal sin to treat everyone equally. Where do some Christians get the idea that hating people for what they are is "Christian"?

Isn't Jesus' all for "forgiveness"? Some Christians need some introspection. They are putting themselves on the same level as God.

According to the story I read, the Christian was very polite. It was someone on site who used that phrase, "abomination to The Lord". Do you have a link to back this up. Mine was the article in the Blaze presented earlier. I am unsure which version is true, but I think the abomination statement is seeped in hyperbole and probably not what actually happened.

Immie

If it was in The Blaze it must be true...

 

[RKMBrown]

My first little job was working as a waitress for two lesbians who owned a luncheonette. That was in 1960. They were very nice people. When I was getting married they said that having a straight female working there could be tolerated but a female married to a man was so insulting to them and their friends they would not put up with that behavior. I was so young, I thought they were kidding. I showed up for work and promptly got thrown out. I figured they had as much right to fire me as I had to quit. No harm done. What happened to that kind of freedom?

Easy. Congress passed the civil rights act in 1964, which "outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce."

The point on interstate commerce, being that if you create a "private" club you can discriminate all you want.

 

[Asclepias]

It is because we believe in God that we are seen as homophobic. I have no issue with homosexuals as far as the person is concerned, but I will not capitulate the tenets of my faith to beck to the every whim of theirs that I see as sinful. If marriage is about devotion, so is my faith. I am devoted to my Lord God and his ways, and I will not stray from him for the likes of anyone.

But all you have to do is not be gay and youre pretty much covered right?

How asinine. Were you not even reading my comment?

I read your comment but it didnt make much sense. I know people that believe in God and are against being gay but they treat people with respect and do not discriminate. I get the impression you think its godlike to discriminate against gay people.

 

[bendog]

5[Should a GLBT person have the power to force some unwilling person into committing a personal sin just because it entertains them?

Ah, but the baker was not forced BY THE BOYCOTT to do anything. If he thought catering their wedding was a sin, he was free not to cater. He applied a consequence to people having a wedding he considered sinful. They applied a consequence to him, as a result.
The Baker was free to continue catering to all those who would hire him.

The State anti-discrimination laws did force the Baker to comply, or cease baking commercially. But, as I said, I personally find the anti-discrimantion laws to be "too much govt" for me.

 

[Mertex]

5

A true Christian would not judge the GLBT person as a sinner but only their own conduct in relation to the GLBT person. Just as the baker did.

Wrong, the baker called them "an abomination to the Lord". He could have said their relationship was an abomination to the Lord, but instead insulted them.

Should a GLBT person have the power to force some unwilling person into committing a personal sin just because it entertains them?

It is not a personal sin to treat everyone equally. Where do some Christians get the idea that hating people for what they are is "Christian"?

Isn't Jesus' all for "forgiveness"? Some Christians need some introspection. They are putting themselves on the same level as God.

According to the story I read, the Christian was very polite. It was someone on site who used that phrase, "abomination to The Lord". Do you have a link to back this up. Mine was the article in the Blaze presented earlier. I am unsure which version is true, but I think the abomination statement is seeped in hyperbole and probably not what actually happened.

Immie

The link I provided, said the woman filed a complaint and claimed he said that. He denies it, but the fact that he refused to serve them because of their sexual orientation is against the law in Oregon.

I would not be surprised if he did say that to them, because so many proclaimed Christians have used the term quite openly on many of these Forums.

 

[paperview]

5

A true Christian would not judge the GLBT person as a sinner but only their own conduct in relation to the GLBT person. Just as the baker did.

Wrong, the baker called them "an abomination to the Lord". He could have said their relationship was an abomination to the Lord, but instead insulted them.

Should a GLBT person have the power to force some unwilling person into committing a personal sin just because it entertains them?

It is not a personal sin to treat everyone equally. Where do some Christians get the idea that hating people for what they are is "Christian"?

Isn't Jesus' all for "forgiveness"? Some Christians need some introspection. They are putting themselves on the same level as God.

According to the story I read, the Christian was very polite. It was someone on site who used that phrase, "abomination to The Lord". Do you have a link to back this up. Mine was the article in the Blaze presented earlier. I am unsure which version is true, but I think the abomination statement is seeped in hyperbole and probably not what actually happened.

Immie

It's in the original formal complaint made by the lesbians.

They stated it as truthful under penalty of perjury.

He said it, unless you are calling what the lesbian said under oath a lie.

 

[Katzndogz]

My first little job was working as a waitress for two lesbians who owned a luncheonette. That was in 1960. They were very nice people. When I was getting married they said that having a straight female working there could be tolerated but a female married to a man was so insulting to them and their friends they would not put up with that behavior. I was so young, I thought they were kidding. I showed up for work and promptly got thrown out. I figured they had as much right to fire me as I had to quit. No harm done. What happened to that kind of freedom?

Sorry, doesn't pass the smell test.

It disagrees with your personally held opinions.

In 1960, I could be fired for getting married or they could have told a black person to leave. In 1960 I was 15 years old and there weren't any work permits. There was a lot more freedom in 1960 than today.

So what happens TODAY, if a job applicant shows up for an interview and refuses the job solely because the boss is gay? If there is a civil right to the labor of another can the applicant be forced to work there?

 

[paperview]

Yeah sure, no shirt, no shoes, black, or gay = no service. Yeah that might have gone over well in the sixties.

Would you spend money in such establishments? I wouldn't. I'd stay away and so would others. Right now we don't know whether an owner is a bigot asshole or not. Why give your money to a bigoted asshole?

I guess you weren't around in the 50's? Businesses had such signs, and people still patronized them. Today, there are plenty of people that would do business with such bigots because they are the same as the bigots.

The film brought to light how prevalent racism and discrimination practices were rooted in Texas since the Mexican-American War (1846-1848). Mexican-Americans have been treated as second class citizens in Texas and the U.S. since then. The film showed visible signs that read “no dogs, no Negros, no Mexicans” and “we serve whites only, no Spanish or Mexicans.” It’s amazing to think that this kind of bigotry and racism was tolerated.

Read more: No Dogs, No Negros, No Mexicans: The Roots of Discrimination in Texas | Care2 Causes
No Dogs, No Negros, No Mexicans: The Roots of Discrimination in Texas | Care2 Causes


Part of the sign reads: "Halloween 2011. No blacks welcomed to trick or treat."
Racist Sign Sparks Outrage in Northeast El Paso | KTSM News Channel 9 | News, Weather and Sports | El Paso, Las Cruces, Juarez

I deal in historical paper a lot, and I have seen a lot of brochures,ads and signs where the owner states clearly "No Irish need apply" and "Hebrews are not welcome."

Then of course, the really sick ones, saying "N-- 's stay out."

 

[TemplarKormac]

But all you have to do is not be gay and youre pretty much covered right?

How asinine. Were you not even reading my comment?

I read your comment but it didnt make much sense. I know people that believe in God and are against being gay but they treat people with respect and do not discriminate. I get the impression you think its godlike to discriminate against gay people.

Why would I do that when I have gay friends? I will not do something that violates the teachings of my faith. There's a difference between that and openly discriminating against them. Your assumption was a preconception.

Don't you get it?

 

[Asclepias]

How asinine. Were you not even reading my comment?

I read your comment but it didnt make much sense. I know people that believe in God and are against being gay but they treat people with respect and do not discriminate. I get the impression you think its godlike to discriminate against gay people.

Why would I do that when I have gay friends? I will not do something that violates the teachings of my faith. There's a difference between that and openly discriminating against them. Your assumption was a preconception.

Don't you get it?

Your faith teaches you to not make wedding cakes for gay couples because you believe that only a man and woman should get married? Is this correct?

 

[Mertex]

My first little job was working as a waitress for two lesbians who owned a luncheonette. That was in 1960. They were very nice people. When I was getting married they said that having a straight female working there could be tolerated but a female married to a man was so insulting to them and their friends they would not put up with that behavior. I was so young, I thought they were kidding. I showed up for work and promptly got thrown out. I figured they had as much right to fire me as I had to quit. No harm done. What happened to that kind of freedom?

Sorry, doesn't pass the smell test.

It disagrees with your personally held opinions.

It sounds petty and made up.

In 1960, I could be fired for getting married or they could have told a black person to leave. In 1960 I was 15 years old and there weren't any work permits. There was a lot more freedom in 1960 than today.

Freedom for us whites, but not for blacks, or Hispanics. Funny how perspective affects our reaction. How could it be freedom to be told you had to sit at the back of the bus, or had to go to the upper level in movie theaters, or drink from separate fountains?

So what happens TODAY, if a job applicant shows up for an interview and refuses the job solely because the boss is gay? If there is a civil right to the labor of another can the applicant be forced to work there?

No, the applicant doesn't have to do anything he doesn't want to, however, businesses cannot deny a "taxpayer" a job because he is gay, white, black, Hispanic.

I'm sure that business owners are savvy enough to make up some other excuse, but if he is stupid enough to go against the law and tell the applicant that he isn't hiring him because he is white, black, brown or gay, then he is responsible for the consequences.