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

[TemplarKormac]

There's a big big difference between saying you won't do something because someone is gay, and not doing it because it violates the religious teachings of your faith. That's one critical thing all of you pro gay folks missed.

If I openly discriminated against gays, I would not be a good Christian. I don't stop them from enjoying the rights I have, the things I have, the freedom that I have. They are Americans just as I am. But I will not in a quintillion years violate the teachings of my faith just to sate the whims of a homosexual. I can be friendly and tolerant of them, but I will not capitulate to them.

But then again, you don't mind placing unfair obligations on people, do you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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?

Can the sarcasm. And read the my comment above this one. I am entitled to believe that marriage is a union between male and female. To do so in any other order is a violation of God's natural order. You are entitled to believe gay folks can get married, but that sort of belief is best kept to those who support it, and not those who feel like it is being forced on them.

 

[paperview]

There were five reporters from the local paper, Willamette Week, who contacted Sweet Cakes (and other bakeries in the area) asking about different options for cakes.

WW Asks - I was calling to get a quote on a cake for a midsummer solstice party. My coven is celebrating on Friday, June 21. The decoration would be very simple: just a green pentagram. We’d like to pick it up sometime that afternoon, before the bonfire. It’ll be for about 30 people.


Sweet Cake says - “For 30 people we have a couple options... We have two kind of cakes you could have. About the diagram you want on the cake, I’m not sure how much extra that would be.”


Cake Wars: Asking Shops Who Denied Gays Cakes What Cakes They'll Make


It is revealing once the Sweet Cakey bakers found out they were caught going against another tenant of the Christian faith, they contacted Lars Larson to cry victimhood some more.


"Sweet Cakes owners Melissa and Aaron Klein were upset that we “would even try to entrap a business” and contacted conservative talk-show host Lars Larson. "

 

[TemplarKormac]

It strikes me quite odd, how Gay people feel Christians are forcing themselves on them, when they are the ones saying that Christians should be made to adapt, to ignore the teachings of their faith to accept homosexuality. That is wrong.

 

[Katzndogz]

It would seem that a gay couple would more naturally be drawn to a business that said "same sex weddings a specialty. Large selection of same sex cake toppers". Rather than make a point of looking for someone who might object. A decent person, that is a person with a sense of decency, would not ask an overtly Christian business to make the cake in the first place. If only not to give those nasty Christians their patronage.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There were five reporters from the local paper, Willamette Week, who contacted Sweet Cakes (and other bakeries in the area) asking about different options for cakes.

WW Asks - I was calling to get a quote on a cake for a midsummer solstice party. My coven is celebrating on Friday, June 21. The decoration would be very simple: just a green pentagram. We’d like to pick it up sometime that afternoon, before the bonfire. It’ll be for about 30 people.


Sweet Cake says - “For 30 people we have a couple options... We have two kind of cakes you could have. About the diagram you want on the cake, I’m not sure how much extra that would be.”


Cake Wars: Asking Shops Who Denied Gays Cakes What Cakes They'll Make


It is revealing once the Sweet Cakey bakers found out they were caught going against another tenant of the Christian faith, they contacted Lars Larson to cry victimhood some more.


"Sweet Cakes owners Melissa and Aaron Klein were upset that we “would even try to entrap a business” and contacted conservative talk-show host Lars Larson. "

And different bakeries. Game over. Screw off. WWeek is a pro gay website too... you really think they would do honest reporting? Yes, I knew you'd try that. You dishonest prick!

 

[Asclepias]

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?

Can the sarcasm. And read the my comment above this one. I am entitled to believe that marriage is a union between male and female. To do so in any other order is a violation of God's natural order. You are entitle to believe gay folks can get married, but that sort of belief is best kept to those who support it, and not those who feel like it is being forced on them.

I really am trying to understand. No sarcasm intended. No one is forcing you to change your beliefs. It just doesn't make sense to me what you are saying.

 

[paperview]

It strikes me quite odd, how Gay people feel Christians are forcing themselves on them, when they are the ones saying that Christians should be made to adapt, to ignore the teachings of their faith to accept homosexuality. That is wrong.

You don;t like it, change the freakin' law.

You think members of the Native American Church can ingest peyote (it's long been a sacrament for them) and claim they are allowed to break the law just because it's their religious belief?

Think again.

Let's hear from that gay-loving liberal, Anthony Scalia, on if you are allowed to break a law because: First Amendment!

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.

And, also (quoting Justice Frankfurter):


Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs.

And, also, too:


Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)."

And, finally:


It may fairly be said that leaving accommodation to the political process will place at a relative disadvantage those religious practices that are not widely engaged in; but that unavoidable consequence of democratic government must be preferred to a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself or in which judges weigh the social importance of all laws against the centrality of all religious beliefs.

​

*ouch*

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

It's not equal treatment is it? An applicant can outright say he or she refuses to work for gays, blacks or anyone else and the employer is pretty much helpless. The applicant can get downright insulting can't they?

No equality and no discrmination either. You know that has to change.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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?

Can the sarcasm. And read the my comment above this one. I am entitled to believe that marriage is a union between male and female. To do so in any other order is a violation of God's natural order. You are entitled to believe gay folks can get married, but that sort of belief is best kept to those who support it, and not those who feel like it is being forced on them.

I really am trying to understand. No sarcasm intended. No one is forcing you to change your beliefs. It just doesn't make sense to me what you are saying.

I have told you repeatedly. If you fail to understand me this one last time, there is nothing further I can do for you. I appreciate your willingness to learn about what I believe, however. I believe marriage is between a male and a female. I believe that is how God ordained it. I also believe that the couple in that Bakery had the right to deny service on the basis of such belief. My faith teaches me that homosexuality is a sin of the world, and as such I am not to be of the world, but merely exist in this world as a servant of God. Acting as an enabler to sin would be me straying from my path as a Christian. I see any actions that enable or encourage homosexuality as sinful. I am wholly repulsed by it. I will however be caring and kind to a homosexual, I will never display hatred for them. I am taught to love one another as Jesus loved me. Caring and kindness does not equal condonement.

Did that clear anything up for you? Asclepias?

 

[TemplarKormac]

It strikes me quite odd, how Gay people feel Christians are forcing themselves on them, when they are the ones saying that Christians should be made to adapt, to ignore the teachings of their faith to accept homosexuality. That is wrong.

You don;t like it, change the freakin' law.

You think members of the Native American Church can ingest peyote (it's long been a sacrament for them) and claim they are allowed to break the law just because it's their religious belief?

Think again.

Let's hear from that gay-loving liberal, Anthony Scalia, on if you are allowed to break a law because: First Amendment!

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.

And, also (quoting Justice Frankfurter):


Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs.

And, also, too:


Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)."

And, finally:


It may fairly be said that leaving accommodation to the political process will place at a relative disadvantage those religious practices that are not widely engaged in; but that unavoidable consequence of democratic government must be preferred to a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself or in which judges weigh the social importance of all laws against the centrality of all religious beliefs.

​

*ouch*

I will not hear any further dishonesty from you. The bakers constitutional rights trump state law. So if he claims it. Game over for you.

 

[paperview]

There were five reporters from the local paper, Willamette Week, who contacted Sweet Cakes (and other bakeries in the area) asking about different options for cakes.

WW Asks - I was calling to get a quote on a cake for a midsummer solstice party. My coven is celebrating on Friday, June 21. The decoration would be very simple: just a green pentagram. We’d like to pick it up sometime that afternoon, before the bonfire. It’ll be for about 30 people.


Sweet Cake says - “For 30 people we have a couple options... We have two kind of cakes you could have. About the diagram you want on the cake, I’m not sure how much extra that would be.”


Cake Wars: Asking Shops Who Denied Gays Cakes What Cakes They'll Make


It is revealing once the Sweet Cakey bakers found out they were caught going against another tenant of the Christian faith, they contacted Lars Larson to cry victimhood some more.


"Sweet Cakes owners Melissa and Aaron Klein were upset that we “would even try to entrap a business” and contacted conservative talk-show host Lars Larson. "

And different bakeries. Game over. Screw off. WWeek is a pro gay website too... you really think they would do honest reporting?

It's pro gay! lol (nothing I've seen shows that - they are the local paper there)...and lookie loo, you out yourself some more (leading me to think you don't really have gay friends) -- just by the mere fact they are what you call a "gay website" -- you jump off the bridge and call them liars.

"you really think they would do honest reporting?" See, right there. Gays are apparently, to you, inherently dishonest. Do we need more proof?

Yes, I knew you'd try that. You dishonest prick!

There's that ever-so Jesusy Christianity shining through again.

 

[Hoffstra]

Do businessmen have the right to be bigots?

Yes.

Do we have the right to boycott and picket their business in retaliation?

Yes.

 

[paperview]

It strikes me quite odd, how Gay people feel Christians are forcing themselves on them, when they are the ones saying that Christians should be made to adapt, to ignore the teachings of their faith to accept homosexuality. That is wrong.

You don;t like it, change the freakin' law.

You think members of the Native American Church can ingest peyote (it's long been a sacrament for them) and claim they are allowed to break the law just because it's their religious belief?

Think again.

Let's hear from that gay-loving liberal, Anthony Scalia, on if you are allowed to break a law because: First Amendment!

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.

And, also (quoting Justice Frankfurter):


Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs.

And, also, too:


Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)."

And, finally:


It may fairly be said that leaving accommodation to the political process will place at a relative disadvantage those religious practices that are not widely engaged in; but that unavoidable consequence of democratic government must be preferred to a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself or in which judges weigh the social importance of all laws against the centrality of all religious beliefs.

​

*ouch*

I will not hear any further dishonesty from you. The bakers constitutional rights trump state law. So if he claims it. Game over for you.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaannnd, we're into Jump the Shark territory now.

The US Supreme Court Ruling with the opinion written by ultra conservative Anthony Scalia affirming you can't claim First Amendment rights to break the law is "more dishonesty."

I think you're on you're own at this point buddy.

By the way, the picture on your profile page of you...is pretty much exactly what I thought you looked like.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There were five reporters from the local paper, Willamette Week, who contacted Sweet Cakes (and other bakeries in the area) asking about different options for cakes.

WW Asks - I was calling to get a quote on a cake for a midsummer solstice party. My coven is celebrating on Friday, June 21. The decoration would be very simple: just a green pentagram. We’d like to pick it up sometime that afternoon, before the bonfire. It’ll be for about 30 people.


Sweet Cake says - “For 30 people we have a couple options... We have two kind of cakes you could have. About the diagram you want on the cake, I’m not sure how much extra that would be.”


Cake Wars: Asking Shops Who Denied Gays Cakes What Cakes They'll Make


It is revealing once the Sweet Cakey bakers found out they were caught going against another tenant of the Christian faith, they contacted Lars Larson to cry victimhood some more.


"Sweet Cakes owners Melissa and Aaron Klein were upset that we “would even try to entrap a business” and contacted conservative talk-show host Lars Larson. "

And different bakeries. Game over. Screw off. WWeek is a pro gay website too... you really think they would do honest reporting?

It's pro gay! lol (nothing I've seen shows that - they are the local paper there)...and lookie loo, you out yourself some more (leading me to think you don't really have gay friends) -- just by the mere fact they are what you call a "gay website" -- you jump off the bridge and call them liars.

"you really think they would do honest reporting?" See, right there. Gays are apparently, to you, inherently dishonest. Do we need more proof?

Yes, I knew you'd try that. You dishonest prick!

There's that ever-so Jesusy Christianity shining through again.

Yeah, WWeek describes itself as an "alternative news source for the Portland area." Really?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You don;t like it, change the freakin' law.

You think members of the Native American Church can ingest peyote (it's long been a sacrament for them) and claim they are allowed to break the law just because it's their religious belief?

Think again.

Let's hear from that gay-loving liberal, Anthony Scalia, on if you are allowed to break a law because: First Amendment!

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.

And, also (quoting Justice Frankfurter):


Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs.

And, also, too:


Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)."

And, finally:


It may fairly be said that leaving accommodation to the political process will place at a relative disadvantage those religious practices that are not widely engaged in; but that unavoidable consequence of democratic government must be preferred to a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself or in which judges weigh the social importance of all laws against the centrality of all religious beliefs.

​

*ouch*

I will not hear any further dishonesty from you. The bakers constitutional rights trump state law. So if he claims it. Game over for you.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaannnd, we're into Jump the Shark territory now.

The US Supreme Court Ruling with the opinion written by ultra conservative Anthony Scalia affirming you can't claim First Amendment rights to break the law is "more dishonesty."

I think you're on you're own at this point buddy.

By the way, the picture on your profile page of you...is pretty much exactly what I thought you looked like.

Thanks for sharing.

In place of an argument you insult my appearance. How cute. I wonder why you hide your face from us? You who hide in anonymity?

 

[Asclepias]

Can the sarcasm. And read the my comment above this one. I am entitled to believe that marriage is a union between male and female. To do so in any other order is a violation of God's natural order. You are entitled to believe gay folks can get married, but that sort of belief is best kept to those who support it, and not those who feel like it is being forced on them.

I really am trying to understand. No sarcasm intended. No one is forcing you to change your beliefs. It just doesn't make sense to me what you are saying.

I have told you repeatedly. If you fail to understand me this one last time, there is nothing further I can do for you. I appreciate your willingness to learn about what I believe, however. I believe marriage is between a male and a female. I believe that is how God ordained it. I also believe that the couple in that Bakery had the right to deny service on the basis of such belief. My faith teaches me that homosexuality is a sin of the world, and as such I am not to be of the world, but merely exist in this world as a servant of God. Acting as an enabler to sin would be me straying from my path as a Christian. I see any actions that enable or encourage homosexuality as sinful. I am wholly repulsed by it. I will however be caring and kind to a homosexual, I will never display hatred for them. I am taught to love one another as Jesus loved me. Caring and kindness does not equal condonement.

Did that clear anything up for you? Asclepias?

Yes it does.

I understand you believe they were within their rights to deny service to the gay couple but its against the law to do that correct? I am having trouble understanding why someone that is attempting to avoid sin or encouraging sin would open up a business that serves the public. The world is full of sinners. Where do you draw the line on the level of sin you will tolerate in your store?

 

[Katzndogz]

Do businessmen have the right to be bigots?

Yes.

Do we have the right to boycott and picket their business in retaliation?

Yes.

Customers have the right to be bigots. We knew that all along. They just don't exercise that right enough. Targeting a few gay owned businesses should do quite nicely. Nothing nasty just identifying the business as gay owned and let everyone make up their own minds.

 

[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.

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?

Sorry, still smells.

I'm not buying that your two lesbo employers were fine with you being a straight employee but locked you out when you got married. Plus, you were 15?

 

[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

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.

That would be the association I am talking about. There are all types of relationships not mentioned in the Constitution, does that mean that because they are not mentioned, we do not have the very same freedom as those dealt with?

As for business relationships and the idea that a business must serve all customers if they advertise their wares, I have asked this before and no one seems to answer. Should a black gun shop owner be required to sell weapons and ammo to individuals who enter his shop wearing sheets and hoods? I do not think so. Should a vendor of surgical equipment who happens to be pro-life be required to sell scalpels and other equipment to an abortion clinic? Again, I do not think so. Should a movie theater which has consistently shown family oriented films and never shown anything above a PG rating suddenly be forced to rent the rights of an X-Rated film and show it on its screen? Again I do not think so.

Should a cathouse be required to serve the vice squad that busted its employees last week come Friday night? Don't think so.

Public accommodation laws are wrong. The government should not interfere with the rights of business owners to choose whom to serve. I say that knowing full well that someone will say, "should a white bigot be allowed not to serve black people"? As disgusting as I think that is, I have to say yes. I also realize that if that were the case we would still be the backward country we were 50 years ago. I simply believe that even a bigot has the right to be a bigot. No matter how sorry I feel for them.

Immie