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

[Quantum Windbag]

I see it as no different if they had said they won't serve Black people.

And I agree they had the right to refuse but now they have to live with the consequences of that decision.

And the consequences for bigotry in today's society are severe.

Wrong. They did NOT refuse to serve gay people. They refused to participate in an activity they did not condone. They don't refuse to serve black people. But if the black people were wanting them to deliver and set up products at some sort of voodoo ceremony or Satanic festival, and they refused the order on that basis due to their religious convictions, THAT would be comparable to refusing to serve a gay wedding.

And if you think it is okay to destroy somebody's livelihood for what YOU define as bigotry, then it is okay if they destroy your livelihood for what THEY define as bigotry?

If holding unpopular beliefs is justification for having one's business destroyed due to the bigotry of others, then we have no freedom left in America. Because to condemn and intentionally destroy people for what they believe is the worst form of bigotry.

And freedom loving people will condemn it every time because it is pure evil.

Baking a cake is not participating in a marriage it is baking a cake.

Baking a cake is art, and protected under the 1st Amendment.

Want to try and argue that your grandmother didn't consider what she did art?

 

[Immanuel]

there is a way to be able to discriminate in your business.

you have to declare you business a private club and only allow in members.

all members must be served.

but if you don't blacks, Jews, gays, whatever...all you have to do is not invite them to be members.

But they would go out of business pretty quick.

Really? Ever heard of Augusta National Golf Club? No women allowed for how many years?

Immie

 

[paperview]

For thousands of years, The bible was used to justify slavery, wife-beating, condemning "witches" to death, denying women the vote, or even any position of power; it was used to justify wars, genocide, segregation, child abuse and the divine right of kings. I could go on and on.
The bible is currently being used to justify the bigotry against homosexuals in the US.

Time moves on and but some folks will always use that book to deny rights to others.

Always was. Always will be. Eventually, enough people see how ridiculous it is, and things change.

150 years ago, slavery was an established societal norm.

100 years ago, only allowing men to vote was an established societal norm.

50 years ago, segregation was an established societal norm.


And 50 years from now (or less) same-sex marriage will be an established societal norm.

That is something you can take to the bank.

And, if there was no Bible, all that stuff would still have happened.

The part you seem to be forgetting is how people used the Bible to fight against all those things. Is that because you hate the truth?

Now...Alfalfa, the Windbag here...

Just think of him as another doombug.

 

[TemplarKormac]

How many times have I said in this thread that my aunt used to make wedding cakes and I would deliver them with her?

At least 3.
That's how I know that as a baker you do not attend the wedding or the reception.

But you people who have never delivered wedding cakes seem to think that the baker must attend the ceremony and the reception.

@Foxfyre: already told you that's a lie. Don't try that argument again.

Hear ye Hear ye.

Foxfyre has been anointed the spokesperson for all wedding cakes straight and gay, that have ever happened in all of America.

So don't you dare try that again.

Can't take the fact you were blown out of the water by someone who actually deals with wedding cakes, can you? Yeah, I'll try that again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is no law against being a bigot or thinking bigoted thoughts. there are however laws about how a public business conducts itself and one of them is that one cannot discriminate against customers on the basis of race, ethnicity, age, gender, religion and yes, sexual orientation.

Go ahead and be the biggest bigot in private you want, but once you start a public business who serves the general public and put those bigotries into action in that business you are breaking the law.

And if you don't like the law change it or move your business to country more to your sentiments...like Russia.

I see you too avoided the question about the black gun shop owner. Why does everyone avoid that question?

I'm honestly not sure I would support the over-turning of public accommodation laws as wrong as I believe they are in extreme cases such as this. I'd like to think that if a bigot owned a restaurant here and refused to sell to blacks, Mexicans and Asians that most of us would refuse to do business with the asshole and send him packing. Sadly, I don't think that would happen.

In the case of the baker and the lesbian couple, we actually have two of those "protected classes" butting heads with each other, religion and sexual orientation. Who is actually doing the discriminating here? I might be able to make the case that it is actually the gay community who are the aggressors here and thus they are the ones guilty of discrimination. I see no reason why the lesbian couple should be favored by the court. The baker was not rude. He simply stated that the couple should find another bakery.

I have actually had a similar thing happen to me between Memphis and Jackson MI because my family was white. We were refused lunch in a sandwich shop in 1989 and told we should go elsewhere. We had been to the gates of Graceland, I was too cheap to actually go in, and drove South into Mississippi. We stopped for lunch. Sat down in a very dark as in the room was not lit, room and waited. After waiting a minute or two a woman's voice hollered from the counter, "can I help you?" It was obvious she was black. We conversed briefly, I stated we would like some lunch and that we were from California. She actually told me we should go somewhere else. She was not rude, but she clearly was not going to serve us. It wasn't until I left and drove a half mile or so that I realized we were the only white people around. I have told myself ever since that she did that for our safety. Now, I wish I could go back and meet her personally again. There is no place in this world for such fear and distrust. Like I said, she wasn't rude, but there was definitely something that brought her to not want to serve a 30ish white man, his wife and two little girls under the age of 5.

It would be so cool to meet her again and get to understand the dynamics of that encounter. Was she protecting us or was she afraid of us?

Too bad we have to fear each other because of the color of our skin!

Immie

I'm guessing no one answered because it or questions like it have been answered over and over. The black gun shop owner does not have the serve the KKK member because KKK members, or bigots, or racists are not a protected class.

Will we get the bacon/Deli question now...again?

You are an idiot, and a bigot, but you think you are smart, so that should help.

Public accommodation laws apply to every business, even those owned by blacks, and force them to serve the KKK if they show up. I have an actual case to back my position up, all you have is your delusional belief that you are smarter than I am.

 

[Immanuel]

There is no law against being a bigot or thinking bigoted thoughts. there are however laws about how a public business conducts itself and one of them is that one cannot discriminate against customers on the basis of race, ethnicity, age, gender, religion and yes, sexual orientation.

Go ahead and be the biggest bigot in private you want, but once you start a public business who serves the general public and put those bigotries into action in that business you are breaking the law.

And if you don't like the law change it or move your business to country more to your sentiments...like Russia.

I see you too avoided the question about the black gun shop owner. Why does everyone avoid that question?

I'm honestly not sure I would support the over-turning of public accommodation laws as wrong as I believe they are in extreme cases such as this. I'd like to think that if a bigot owned a restaurant here and refused to sell to blacks, Mexicans and Asians that most of us would refuse to do business with the asshole and send him packing. Sadly, I don't think that would happen.

In the case of the baker and the lesbian couple, we actually have two of those "protected classes" butting heads with each other, religion and sexual orientation. Who is actually doing the discriminating here? I might be able to make the case that it is actually the gay community who are the aggressors here and thus they are the ones guilty of discrimination. I see no reason why the lesbian couple should be favored by the court. The baker was not rude. He simply stated that the couple should find another bakery.

I have actually had a similar thing happen to me between Memphis and Jackson MI because my family was white. We were refused lunch in a sandwich shop in 1989 and told we should go elsewhere. We had been to the gates of Graceland, I was too cheap to actually go in, and drove South into Mississippi. We stopped for lunch. Sat down in a very dark as in the room was not lit, room and waited. After waiting a minute or two a woman's voice hollered from the counter, "can I help you?" It was obvious she was black. We conversed briefly, I stated we would like some lunch and that we were from California. She actually told me we should go somewhere else. She was not rude, but she clearly was not going to serve us. It wasn't until I left and drove a half mile or so that I realized we were the only white people around. I have told myself ever since that she did that for our safety. Now, I wish I could go back and meet her personally again. There is no place in this world for such fear and distrust. Like I said, she wasn't rude, but there was definitely something that brought her to not want to serve a 30ish white man, his wife and two little girls under the age of 5.

It would be so cool to meet her again and get to understand the dynamics of that encounter. Was she protecting us or was she afraid of us?

Too bad we have to fear each other because of the color of our skin!

Immie

I'm guessing no one answered because it or questions like it have been answered over and over. The black gun shop owner does not have the serve the KKK member because KKK members, or bigots, or racists are not a protected class.

Will we get the bacon/Deli question now...again?

Race is a protected class and just as the gay community could make the claim that this bakery refused service to gays when according to the bakery it is only for same sex weddings, the KKK can make the case that they are being discriminated against because of their race.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wrong. They did NOT refuse to serve gay people. They refused to participate in an activity they did not condone. They don't refuse to serve black people. But if the black people were wanting them to deliver and set up products at some sort of voodoo ceremony or Satanic festival, and they refused the order on that basis due to their religious convictions, THAT would be comparable to refusing to serve a gay wedding.

And if you think it is okay to destroy somebody's livelihood for what YOU define as bigotry, then it is okay if they destroy your livelihood for what THEY define as bigotry?

If holding unpopular beliefs is justification for having one's business destroyed due to the bigotry of others, then we have no freedom left in America. Because to condemn and intentionally destroy people for what they believe is the worst form of bigotry.

And freedom loving people will condemn it every time because it is pure evil.

Baking a cake is not participating in a marriage it is baking a cake.

Plus they're getting paid for it.

What I would like to know is if these xtian bakers refused to bake cakes for people on their second marriage because divorce AND adultery is also forbidden in the bible, for people who engaged in premarital sex since that is forbidden, anal and oral sex, masturbation since those are forbidden and any kind of recreational sex except for the purpose of procreation since THAT is forbidden as well.

I'm thinking if they really held true to ALL their religious dictates they wold be awfully lonely as well as broke. The gay thing is easy because they are only 3% of the pop and they can hate them without too much blowback...well, until now. Plus the added bonus of knowing THEY aren't gay and consequently will be going straight to heaven.

I think the anal sex one is particularly juicy since studies show that over 40% of heteros have experimented with that one at one time or another.

What I want to know is why you would care if they did or not.

 

[paperview]

there is a way to be able to discriminate in your business.

you have to declare you business a private club and only allow in members.

all members must be served.

but if you don't blacks, Jews, gays, whatever...all you have to do is not invite them to be members.

But they would go out of business pretty quick.

Really? Ever heard of Augusta National Golf Club? No women allowed for how many years?

Immie

But because of ****Free Speech Rights*** -- and that alone, not gov't intervention, they started to allow women golfers. Or didn't you notice?

 

[Immanuel]

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."

Historic? As in from the late 1800's? How do those apply to today?

Immie

No, From the 1940's and 50's.

The Irish ones not so much, those are from earlier, the other ones, yep. Not that long ago.

It's applicable because that's what *did* happen in America....not that long ago.

The 40's and 50's are ancient history, by gosh! We even had desegregation since then! This country has changed in regards to race relations since those days. Unfortunately not enough, but it has changed.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Did BDBoop post?

She's not here now, but heads up: She's a good 'un.

I'll vouch for that as well even though she favors the left.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For thousands of years, The bible was used to justify slavery, wife-beating, condemning "witches" to death, denying women the vote, or even any position of power; it was used to justify wars, genocide, segregation, child abuse and the divine right of kings. I could go on and on.
The bible is currently being used to justify the bigotry against homosexuals in the US.

Time moves on and but some folks will always use that book to deny rights to others.

Always was. Always will be. Eventually, enough people see how ridiculous it is, and things change.

150 years ago, slavery was an established societal norm.

100 years ago, only allowing men to vote was an established societal norm.

50 years ago, segregation was an established societal norm.


And 50 years from now (or less) same-sex marriage will be an established societal norm.

That is something you can take to the bank.

And, if there was no Bible, all that stuff would still have happened.

The part you seem to be forgetting is how people used the Bible to fight against all those things. Is that because you hate the truth?

Now...Alfalfa, the Windbag here...

Just think of him as another doombug.

Want to explain why things like that happened in China even though they did not have a Bible if the Bible is the cause of that type of behavior?

 

[TemplarKormac]

But they would go out of business pretty quick.

Really? Ever heard of Augusta National Golf Club? No women allowed for how many years?

Immie

But because of ****Free Speech Rights*** -- and that alone, not gov't intervention, they started to allow women golfers. Or didn't you notice?

Wait, how do woman golfers relate to this discussion?

 

[paperview]

I see you too avoided the question about the black gun shop owner. Why does everyone avoid that question?

I'm honestly not sure I would support the over-turning of public accommodation laws as wrong as I believe they are in extreme cases such as this. I'd like to think that if a bigot owned a restaurant here and refused to sell to blacks, Mexicans and Asians that most of us would refuse to do business with the asshole and send him packing. Sadly, I don't think that would happen.

In the case of the baker and the lesbian couple, we actually have two of those "protected classes" butting heads with each other, religion and sexual orientation. Who is actually doing the discriminating here? I might be able to make the case that it is actually the gay community who are the aggressors here and thus they are the ones guilty of discrimination. I see no reason why the lesbian couple should be favored by the court. The baker was not rude. He simply stated that the couple should find another bakery.

I have actually had a similar thing happen to me between Memphis and Jackson MI because my family was white. We were refused lunch in a sandwich shop in 1989 and told we should go elsewhere. We had been to the gates of Graceland, I was too cheap to actually go in, and drove South into Mississippi. We stopped for lunch. Sat down in a very dark as in the room was not lit, room and waited. After waiting a minute or two a woman's voice hollered from the counter, "can I help you?" It was obvious she was black. We conversed briefly, I stated we would like some lunch and that we were from California. She actually told me we should go somewhere else. She was not rude, but she clearly was not going to serve us. It wasn't until I left and drove a half mile or so that I realized we were the only white people around. I have told myself ever since that she did that for our safety. Now, I wish I could go back and meet her personally again. There is no place in this world for such fear and distrust. Like I said, she wasn't rude, but there was definitely something that brought her to not want to serve a 30ish white man, his wife and two little girls under the age of 5.

It would be so cool to meet her again and get to understand the dynamics of that encounter. Was she protecting us or was she afraid of us?

Too bad we have to fear each other because of the color of our skin!

Immie

I'm guessing no one answered because it or questions like it have been answered over and over. The black gun shop owner does not have the serve the KKK member because KKK members, or bigots, or racists are not a protected class.

Will we get the bacon/Deli question now...again?

You are an idiot, and a bigot, but you think you are smart, so that should help.

Public accommodation laws apply to every business, even those owned by blacks, and force them to serve the KKK if they show up. I have an actual case to back my position up, all you have is your delusional belief that you are smarter than I am.

Er...

From the other case (from a Mar 2103 story):

"Questions from the Supreme Court justices during the hearing centered on how to differentiate between photography being a business or protected artistic expression.


"Are there no limits to this?" asked Justice Richard Bosson. "Can you force an African-American photographer to take photos of the Ku Klux Klan?"


Justice Charles Daniels noted the Klan is not a protected class. But he did say the questions in the case revolve around the rights of the couple and the photographer."


Appeal by photographer in gay bias case is heard


And then the Court addressed that here, in it's ruling:


{55}
Elane Photography also suggests that enforcing the NMHRA against it would mean that an African-American photographer could not legally refuse to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally.

This hypothetical suffers from the reality that political views and political group membership, including membership in the Klan, are not protected categories under the NMHRA.

See § 28-1-7(F) (prohibiting public accommodation discrimination based on“race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity,spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap&#8221.

Therefore, an African-American could decline to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. However, the point is well-taken when the roles in the hypothetical are reversed—a Ku Klux Klan member who operates a photography business as a public accommodation would be compelled to photograph an African-American under the NMHRA.

This result is required by the NMHRA, which seeks to promote equal rights and access to public accommodations by prohibiting discrimination based on certain specified protected classifications.

Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But they would go out of business pretty quick.

Really? Ever heard of Augusta National Golf Club? No women allowed for how many years?

Immie

But because of ****Free Speech Rights*** -- and that alone, not gov't intervention, they started to allow women golfers. Or didn't you notice?

Did you pay attention to what you just said? If people can solve problems without government, why do you insist on the government being involved in fixing things?

 

[Katzndogz]

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?

They were quite nice about it and explained it clearly. Discrimination was not an often used word in 1960. Ii had worked for them for two years. Since I was 13. I mentioned it solely to illustrate the level of freedom people had in 1960 compared to what people have today. To me, then and now, those women had an absolute right to fire me for any reason or no reason. They had the same right to fire me as I had to quit. The baker should have the same right to decline a customer as the customer has to go to another bakery.

It's called freedom the US should try it again.

 

[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.



>>>>>

Yeah FoxFyre Does that make the SOCONS (you) "evil" as well?

Dot Com, your mirror is calling. It's begging you to give it a look.

 

[Immanuel]

But they would go out of business pretty quick.

Really? Ever heard of Augusta National Golf Club? No women allowed for how many years?

Immie

But because of ****Free Speech Rights*** -- and that alone, not gov't intervention, they started to allow women golfers. Or didn't you notice?

Yes, I knew. I said "for how many years"?

They should have opened their membership up decades ago. Well actually, membership should never have been closed to women, but not much we can do about that now... by the way, who wants to belong to any club without women anyway?

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm guessing no one answered because it or questions like it have been answered over and over. The black gun shop owner does not have the serve the KKK member because KKK members, or bigots, or racists are not a protected class.

Will we get the bacon/Deli question now...again?

You are an idiot, and a bigot, but you think you are smart, so that should help.

Public accommodation laws apply to every business, even those owned by blacks, and force them to serve the KKK if they show up. I have an actual case to back my position up, all you have is your delusional belief that you are smarter than I am.

Er...

From the other case (from a Mar 2103 story):

"Questions from the Supreme Court justices during the hearing centered on how to differentiate between photography being a business or protected artistic expression.


"Are there no limits to this?" asked Justice Richard Bosson. "Can you force an African-American photographer to take photos of the Ku Klux Klan?"


Justice Charles Daniels noted the Klan is not a protected class. But he did say the questions in the case revolve around the rights of the couple and the photographer."


Appeal by photographer in gay bias case is heard


And then the Court addressed that here, in it's ruling:


{55}
Elane Photography also suggests that enforcing the NMHRA against it would mean that an African-American photographer could not legally refuse to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally.

This hypothetical suffers from the reality that political views and political group membership, including membership in the Klan, are not protected categories under the NMHRA.

See § 28-1-7(F) (prohibiting public accommodation discrimination based on“race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity,spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap&#8221.

Therefore, an African-American could decline to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. However, the point is well-taken when the roles in the hypothetical are reversed—a Ku Klux Klan member who operates a photography business as a public accommodation would be compelled to photograph an African-American under the NMHRA.

This result is required by the NMHRA, which seeks to promote equal rights and access to public accommodations by prohibiting discrimination based on certain specified protected classifications.

Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock

Now we have an idiot that thinks he can read minds.

Guess what, you can't. I was talking about a biker gang wearing Nazi symbols in a restaurant, and the restaraunt losing when they were sued for not serving them and calling the police.

Don't worry though, you have a fake thick skin, so being so stupid you think you can read minds, and being ***** slapped as a result, shouldn't bother you.

 

[Immanuel]

I'm guessing no one answered because it or questions like it have been answered over and over. The black gun shop owner does not have the serve the KKK member because KKK members, or bigots, or racists are not a protected class.

Will we get the bacon/Deli question now...again?

You are an idiot, and a bigot, but you think you are smart, so that should help.

Public accommodation laws apply to every business, even those owned by blacks, and force them to serve the KKK if they show up. I have an actual case to back my position up, all you have is your delusional belief that you are smarter than I am.

From the other case (from a Mar 2103 story):

"Questions from the Supreme Court justices during the hearing centered on how to differentiate between photography being a business or protected artistic expression.


"Are there no limits to this?" asked Justice Richard Bosson. "Can you force an African-American photographer to take photos of the Ku Klux Klan?"


Justice Charles Daniels noted the Klan is not a protected class. But he did say the questions in the case revolve around the rights of the couple and the photographer."


Appeal by photographer in gay bias case is heard


And then the Court addressed that here, in it's ruling:


{55}
Elane Photography also suggests that enforcing the NMHRA against it would mean that an African-American photographer could not legally refuse to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally.

This hypothetical suffers from the reality that political views and political group membership, including membership in the Klan, are not protected categories under the NMHRA.

See § 28-1-7(F) (prohibiting public accommodation discrimination based on“race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity,spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap”).

Therefore, an African-American could decline to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. However, the point is well-taken when the roles in the hypothetical are reversed—a Ku Klux Klan member who operates a photography business as a public accommodation would be compelled to photograph an African-American under the NMHRA.

This result is required by the NMHRA, which seeks to promote equal rights and access to public accommodations by prohibiting discrimination based on certain specified protected classifications.

Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock

2103? Hell, I thought you said you dealt in historic documents not fantasy or futuristic documents!

Immie

 

[paperview]

Really? Ever heard of Augusta National Golf Club? No women allowed for how many years?

Immie

But because of ****Free Speech Rights*** -- and that alone, not gov't intervention, they started to allow women golfers. Or didn't you notice?

Wait, how do woman golfers relate to this discussion?

Because Immie brought it up?

Doofus.