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

[WorldWatcher]

Since your post is extensive, I will break it down into parts. Beginning with this one.

That analogy is flawed. None of these people are being told to violate their religious convictions. So therefore, I feel they should be obligated to serve anyone and everyone willing to pay for their services. What you speak of is blatant discrimination with no basis in reality. The couple in this bakery were torn apart for denying service to people who would have had them bake a cake for and deliver it to a gay couple and their wedding. On its face, they were being asked to break all the teachings of their faith they held dear.

As I made clear in my previous response, unless the person has a religious objection based on reality, then by law they should be required to accommodate anyone willing to pay for their service. The crux of this entire matter is their religious objection. It is a non sequitur to argue about race as it pertains to religion and public accommodation. I abhor racism, but I despise religious intolerance, conversely. And once again, these examples are flawed. God does not personally speak to one individual and command him or her to do his bidding, namely to discriminate against someone out of spite. One has to possess an explicit knowledge of the faith and of God himself to even attempt to render such a theory. I am a Christian myself, and the only things God has told me to do can be found in the bible, not in direct divinations from the Almighty himself.

I'm sorry, but God stopped giving direct divinations and signs in the days of the Old Testament. So to say God directly impels me or anyone else to do anything is wrong. I will maintain that as the crux of my argument, because I am actually a Christian, I would assume I'm not talking out of my rear end here. Talk about law all you wish, but I don't think God would ask me to discriminate against someone out of hatred, but for a legitimate reason.

11 The Pharisees came and began to question Jesus. To test him, they asked him for a sign from heaven. 12 He sighed deeply and said, “Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to it.” 13 Then he left them, got back into the boat and crossed to the other side.

Mark 8:11-13

When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.’ 3 And in the morning, ‘It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret lthe signs of the times. 4 An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” So he left them and departed.

Matthew 16:1-4

Wait a minute, you value the law so much, why do you ignore what the Constitution says about freedom of religion, association, and expression? And yes, the Constitution still matters.

By repealing Publiic Accommodation laws in general then ALL people can have their religious beliefs and convictionis protected. They will be able to act as they see fit in the conduct of private business.

However from the series of posts above, you have demonstrated that your position appears to be that only certain religious beliefs (or convictions) should be respected. That there is to be some kind of test and judgement on which claims of religiouos beliefs (or convictions) are valid.

If it's Christians discriminating against gays - well that OK because I agree with it.

If the owner of an Auto Repair shop claims religious beliefs (or convictions) that servicing the cars of black people - that's not good enough.

If the owner of an plumber claims religious beliefs (or convictions) that servicing the toilets of Jewish people is wrong - that's not good enough.

If a Muslim cab driver says the Koran doesn't allow him to drive a blind woman and her service dog - that's not good enough.

If a hotel owner claims religious beliefs (or convictions) in not renting to a room to someone from Ireland - that's not good enough.​

****************************************************

What you've asked for is a "special privilege" for faith based discrimination against homosexuals while not arguing that a person should also be able to claim a faith based argument for any other type of discrimination the person attempts to justify based on a personal religious belief (or conviction). Your justification appears to be, we'll the others are invalid because the Bible says this or that. However if the law were to allow special privileges for discrimination against gays, then those same exemptions would have to be available to anyone claiming a religious belief (or conviction) to discriminate against anyone. And no the exemption would not need to be just on "Christian" beliefs, Christians are free to have personal religious beliefs (or convictions) about their own interpretation of the Bible and in fact there are other religious belifs (or convictions) not based on our Bible.

One of the arguments proposed by the Commonwealth of Virginia in the Loving case to justify upholding interracial Marriage bans was "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." That was a religious belief held by many people in the early part of the 20th century.

In Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith the SCOTUS squarely addressed the idea with the following:

"We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] 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. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):

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. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.​

The Public Accommodation law which is the subject of this tread is an Oregon based law. The Constitution allows the Federal government to regulate Interstate Commerce and the 10th Amendment reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the Federal government. Therefore States have the inherent power to regulate instra-state commerce. Public Accommodation laws are laws written which are general in nature and which can be argued are valid for the state to regulate and such laws have been consistently upheld in the past going back to Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States.

If we want these laws changed, it is very unlikely to happen in the courts because (a) they are not targeted against religous persons, (b) they have general applicability and are otherwise valid, and (c) they fall within the purview of the State under the 10th Amendment to regulate commerce within their State. If we want these laws changed we need to get the legislature to repeal them because (while they may be seen as needful in the past), there is no longer the need for big government interference and and that the property rights of the private individual should be restored.



Loving v. Virginia
Employment Division v. Smith
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States


>>>>

 

[RKMBrown]

But, the Bible says homosexuality is a sin.

Not so much. There's maybe one vague reference to marriage being between a man and a woman in the new testament that has nothing to do with gays at all. And the old testament just had one mention to my understanding. The new testament is more than just an augmentation of the old testament. Would you say slavery is not a sin because it's in the bible? Just because there is one reference in the old test. to a Jewish law of antiquity, does not make being gay a sin. Should we be sacrificing goats and stoning sinners in the streets?

Theologians for centuries have all agreed that the Bible is opposed to homosexuality, but YOU, in your infinite wisdom, are now going to declare that they're all incorrect, and God's actually okay with it?

Even if it WAS "just one mention", the Bible actually only NEEDS to mention something once for it to be . . . y'know, Biblical. Duh.

Here's a thought, putz. Why don't you let people decide for themselves what their beliefs are and aren't, instead of trying to tell them that it's okay to invalidate their Constitutional right to exercise their religious beliefs because they're "wrong" about what they are? Sheesh.

Here's a thought, putz. Why don't you let people decide for themselves what their beliefs are and aren't.

 

[Katzndogz]

You all know that the bakery didn't discriminate don't you? These gays were regulars at that bakery. No one forced them into the streets to starve begging from Christian hovels. They could walk in at any time, and did, to get their chocolate cookie fix.

The objection came because of the actual participation the bakers had to engage in for the same sex wedding. That's where they drew the line. It was a reasonable line.

 

[Katzndogz]

Not so much. There's maybe one vague reference to marriage being between a man and a woman in the new testament that has nothing to do with gays at all. And the old testament just had one mention to my understanding. The new testament is more than just an augmentation of the old testament. Would you say slavery is not a sin because it's in the bible? Just because there is one reference in the old test. to a Jewish law of antiquity, does not make being gay a sin. Should we be sacrificing goats and stoning sinners in the streets?

Theologians for centuries have all agreed that the Bible is opposed to homosexuality, but YOU, in your infinite wisdom, are now going to declare that they're all incorrect, and God's actually okay with it?

Even if it WAS "just one mention", the Bible actually only NEEDS to mention something once for it to be . . . y'know, Biblical. Duh.

Here's a thought, putz. Why don't you let people decide for themselves what their beliefs are and aren't, instead of trying to tell them that it's okay to invalidate their Constitutional right to exercise their religious beliefs because they're "wrong" about what they are? Sheesh.

Here's a thought, putz. Why don't you let people decide for themselves what their beliefs are and aren't.

Why don't you? If someone decides for themselves whether or not THEY are committing a sin, isn't that really their right? If a Jehovah's Witness says it's a sin to give a gift at Christmas should they be forced into the company's Secret Santa policy?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I would have thought that most Christians would be opposed to human cloning considering that it destroys a human embryo.

That is an overtly asinine thing to say. Not only does this have nothing to do with the discussion, you are simply trying avert people's eyes from the true issue. Human cloning has nothing to do with our rejection of homosexuality. Nothing. I implore you to speak to that issue rather than bashing us about human cloning. Also your science is off about cloning, you can take stem cells from any one ANY one and clone them.

 

[RKMBrown]

In the context of the question, you would act regardless of their religious beliefs. That is called intolerance, bigotry and insensitivity.

Intolerant-

adj (foll by of )

1. lacking respect for practices and beliefs other than one's own

You are as guilty of this as you claim we are. Game. Set. Match.

I admit to being a bigot against homophobes and racists of all religions.

Really? I admit to being a bigot against bigots and hypocrites of all persuasions. Probably why YOU make me want to vomit.

Was this supposed to be clever? "I'm a bigot, but only against bigots. Of course, I define that as anyone to disagrees with me, so that means I only have to tolerate people who agree with me!" Yeah, and the Pope "tolerates" Catholics.

Like virtually everything you say, this doesn't pass the laugh test for anyone intelligent . . . which is probably why you thought it was brilliant.

Are you really this retarded? Or are you just kidding?

 

[RKMBrown]

To you, gay members of this board I posit these questions:

In this instance of this bakery, do you think it was okay for others of your mindset to drive them out of business as they did? What if these bakers were gay? And what if Christians decided to mount such a ruckus that they were driven out of business?

Are you getting me here?

(Inhaled deeply through his nose)

Ahh, the smell of hypocrisy is on the air.

Not gay, but now I see the problem here.

You actually think 2% of the population drove this baker out of business. ROFL OMG that's funny. No dude. The business was abandoned by the other 98% because this business refused to serve the 2%. Duh.

Actually, we think LESS than 2% of the population drove this baker out of business, since I expect more than 98% of the population JUST IN HIS TOWN knew nothing about what was going on, and wouldn't have given a damn if they had.

It doesn't really take very many vitriolic, hate-filled, hypocritical bigots to write threatening letters and making intimidating phone calls, after all.

The business was closed because you and your ilk quite clearly showed us EXACTLY what sort of "tolerance" you deserve from now on.

Get back satan. You don't scare me one bit.

 

[RKMBrown]

I am not arguing for or against a law. I am arguing for a principle that the law SHOULD protect and defend whether it actually does or not. And I brought in the Christian component only because you did.

#1 - Incorrect, no where in any of the examples (and since they have been quoted you will note that none have been changed) did I site "Christians", as a matter of fact I included "God (or Gods)" in most of the examples the exception being one specifically involving Muslims (where I used the singular God instead).

#2 - The only place in the post where it mentioned Christians was "In other words, does this "special privilege" only apply to Christians and their views of homosexuality, or can anyone just claim "it's my faith" and therefore be exempt from the law?" where I was asking if the same standard applied to non-Christian beliefs. (That standard being that all someone had to do was claim their individual faith barred something, and therefore they should receive the same special treatment under the law.
>>>>

I am not basing my argument on anybody's faith, Christian or otherwise.

Nobody should be forced to serve anybody in this country. We fought a long and bloody war to free people from slavery, and the law should never be able to put one person under bondage to another.

As a matter of ethics, morality, and common sense, I will serve anybody who comes to my place of business and I don't care who or what brand they are.. But I should not be required by law or any other edict to go someplace else that I do not want to go or be someplace that I do not choose to be whether that be because I am Christian, Jew, Druid, anti-accordian players, or just don't happen to feel like it today.

And I still say those who would destroy a person's business and livelihood or threaten their person, their family, their friends, associates, customers, etc. purely because they disagree with an opinion or conviction the person holds -

such people are bigoted far more than this Christian baker could ever be and such people are doing evil that no freedom loving American should ever condone.

You are displaying an ignorance of the law. The law does not force you to sell to the public marketplace, but it does place rules on those who do. You don't like the civil rights laws on the public marketplace? Fine create a private marketplace. Is perfectly legal within the law to be a homophobic christian bigot who refuses to serve gays in a private marketplace.

What you are asking for, clearly, is an ability to change the public marketplace laws by allowing certain groups to be restricted from buying in the public marketplace based on the religious views of the "public" at large.

 

[RKMBrown]

Theologians for centuries have all agreed that the Bible is opposed to homosexuality, but YOU, in your infinite wisdom, are now going to declare that they're all incorrect, and God's actually okay with it?

Even if it WAS "just one mention", the Bible actually only NEEDS to mention something once for it to be . . . y'know, Biblical. Duh.

Here's a thought, putz. Why don't you let people decide for themselves what their beliefs are and aren't, instead of trying to tell them that it's okay to invalidate their Constitutional right to exercise their religious beliefs because they're "wrong" about what they are? Sheesh.

Here's a thought, putz. Why don't you let people decide for themselves what their beliefs are and aren't.

Why don't you? If someone decides for themselves whether or not THEY are committing a sin, isn't that really their right? If a Jehovah's Witness says it's a sin to give a gift at Christmas should they be forced into the company's Secret Santa policy?

Where did I state anything different?

 

[beagle9]

Translation: You would make it legal to starve gays out of christian hovels by refusing to sell them goods and services. Is that your idea of a good law? To repeal our civil rights laws?

In a word, yes.

Thanks for being honest. That's much better than pretending I'm a liar by stating the clear meaning of their views that christian bigotry against gays should be protected.

I would defend civil rights laws, based on the fact that without them great harm is done by the majority on minority groups. Everyone has the basic right to life and liberty. Shopping in the public marketplace is a necessity for all of us. The ability of the majority to literally and figuratively starve out a minority group must be restrained. If not where does the line move? Do christians then move into gay hovels like israeli settlers and thus then move gays out of counties and states? Where does that end? With gays being pushed out of the states? That may be preferable to you. But I warn you, some day some majority group may target you and your family as not being of the right race, creed, religion, or "sexual orientation."

The problem is always this defining groups as being a blanketed "minority", and not defining them by their anti-American cultures if so be the case, or their anti-American belief systems, their radicalism, their wanting to dominate another, their wanting to convert another, their wanting to corrupt another, just as it should be being defined by their actions and words spoken, therefore giving them a much broader label than just being a blanket "minority" in which sadly includes the bad in with the good under this blanket label, and this is a major problem in America now. Our understandings of these groups who are in and amongst the societies who are at large now, shows us that there in lies groups within groups whom stage their attacks from within these groups upon their enemies who are Americans, and this has been a huge problem these days for Americans who believe in America as they had understood America to be for them, and not for those who are anti-American that see America as something they need to change big time as according to them.

There are many groups out there whom don't believe in Americanism as it had been defined over the years, and are now attacking the American united groups, by using the defining of their group as found under one label "minority" instead of what should be a boarder multi label in which would better define the groups and their intended goals that which needs to be understood by all under such a blanket label. The government has not represented us properly in all of this, and it has created vast weaknesses within all of their lazy blanketing terms, thus defining the country and it's occupants as being somehow the same, and with the same intentions under such labeling, therefore setting the nation up for losers and winners be it one way or the other, yet all depending on which way the government decides to enforce it's will upon the nation, ether by using the labeling or terms in which it uses to describe whole groups of people under one label, instead of looking into these groups properly as it always should be doing instead.

By this vague defining under the word "minority", we who have a certain way of belief systems for raising a family, believing in God and the American way, are then placed in a dangerous situation where we are to open our arms to groups who may want to destroy our way of life, just because they fall into a vague category in which the feds decided that they need to be allowed into any area they want to venture into, and this regardless of their anti-stance against the area in which they have been allowed into by government order against the area in which they choose to destroy instead of assimilate when they decide to venture in. It has become a major problem in a backlash situation that has developed over time, because the feds have been to lazy to do the right thing in all of this, and they have allowed a vague defining of what a groups intentions are when forcing others to accept them, and this has become a huge problem for Americans now.

 

[beagle9]

You all know that the bakery didn't discriminate don't you? These gays were regulars at that bakery. No one forced them into the streets to starve begging from Christian hovels. They could walk in at any time, and did, to get their chocolate cookie fix.

The objection came because of the actual participation the bakers had to engage in for the same sex wedding. That's where they drew the line. It was a reasonable line.

I agree with a line being drawn in this way.. Yes !

 

[Immanuel]

To you, gay members of this board I posit these questions:

In this instance of this bakery, do you think it was okay for others of your mindset to drive them out of business as they did? What if these bakers were gay? And what if Christians decided to mount such a ruckus that they were driven out of business?

Are you getting me here?

(Inhaled deeply through his nose)

Ahh, the smell of hypocrisy is on the air.

Not gay, but now I see the problem here.

You actually think 2% of the population drove this baker out of business. ROFL OMG that's funny. No dude. The business was abandoned by the other 98% because this business refused to serve the 2%. Duh.

Actually, we think LESS than 2% of the population drove this baker out of business, since I expect more than 98% of the population JUST IN HIS TOWN knew nothing about what was going on, and wouldn't have given a damn if they had.

It doesn't really take very many vitriolic, hate-filled, hypocritical bigots to write threatening letters and making intimidating phone calls, after all.

The business was closed because you and your ilk quite clearly showed us EXACTLY what sort of "tolerance" you deserve from now on.

I suspect that you are absolutely correct in that 98% of the population knew nothing about it. If they did I think many would have recognized the bigoted and hypocritical attack for what it was and probably would have been buying extra cakes to support the bakery. I wonder how many in the next year will find out their favorite baker was put out of business when they drive by to order a birthday cake fr their son or daughter. There is a reason this barrage was not publicized. It would have failed if the general public knew about it and could have countered it.

Immie

 

[RKMBrown]

In a word, yes.

Thanks for being honest. That's much better than pretending I'm a liar by stating the clear meaning of their views that christian bigotry against gays should be protected.

I would defend civil rights laws, based on the fact that without them great harm is done by the majority on minority groups. Everyone has the basic right to life and liberty. Shopping in the public marketplace is a necessity for all of us. The ability of the majority to literally and figuratively starve out a minority group must be restrained. If not where does the line move? Do christians then move into gay hovels like israeli settlers and thus then move gays out of counties and states? Where does that end? With gays being pushed out of the states? That may be preferable to you. But I warn you, some day some majority group may target you and your family as not being of the right race, creed, religion, or "sexual orientation."

The problem is always this defining groups as being a blanketed "minority", and not defining them by their anti-American cultures if so be the case, or their anti-American belief systems, their radicalism, their wanting to dominate another, their wanting to convert another, their wanting to corrupt another, just as it should be being defined by their actions and words spoken, therefore giving them a much broader label than just being a blanket "minority" in which sadly includes the bad in with the good under this blanket label, and this is a major problem in America now. Our understandings of these groups who are in and amongst the societies who are at large now, shows us that there in lies groups within groups whom stage their attacks from within these groups upon their enemies who are Americans, and this has been a huge problem these days for Americans who believe in America as they had understood America to be for them, and not for those who are anti-American that see America as something they need to change big time as according to them.

There are many groups out there whom don't believe in Americanism as it had been defined over the years, and are now attacking the American united groups, by using the defining of their group as found under one label "minority" instead of what should be a boarder multi label in which would better define the groups and their intended goals that which needs to be understood by all under such a blanket label. The government has not represented us properly in all of this, and it has created vast weaknesses within all of their lazy blanketing terms, thus defining the country and it's occupants as being somehow the same, and with the same intentions under such labeling, therefore setting the nation up for losers and winners be it one way or the other, yet all depending on which way the government decides to enforce it's will upon the nation, ether by using the labeling or terms in which it uses to describe whole groups of people under one label, instead of looking into these groups properly as it always should be doing instead.

By this vague defining under the word "minority", we who have a certain way of belief systems for raising a family, believing in God and the American way, are then placed in a dangerous situation where we are to open our arms to groups who may want to destroy our way of life, just because they fall into a vague category in which the feds decided that they need to be allowed into any area they want to venture into, and this regardless of their anti-stance against the area in which they have been allowed into by government order against the area in which they choose to destroy instead of assimilate when they decide to venture in. It has become a major problem in a backlash situation that has developed over time, because the feds have been to lazy to do the right thing in all of this, and they have allowed a vague defining of what a groups intentions are when forcing others to accept them, and this has become a huge problem for Americans now.

Huh...

You are talking about philosophy and moral degradation of our culture through mixing with those who are traditionally seen as vile within the culture.

Ok. Interesting discussion. But what does that have to do with the right of those who are not within the mainstream culture to refuse the ostracized service? You don't have to approve of a culture to sell goods to a person who does. Public accommodation laws, within the civil rights act, were to separate private culture (bigotry etc.) from the public marketplace. Do we ban Islamic from football stadiums because we fear an Islamic terrorist may strap a bomb on his chest? Do we ban Hispanic immigration because we fear Hispanics may bring the South American drug trade to our shores?

Where does your fear of other cultures end and the recognition that fear is the mind killer begin?

 

[RKMBrown]

You all know that the bakery didn't discriminate don't you? These gays were regulars at that bakery. No one forced them into the streets to starve begging from Christian hovels. They could walk in at any time, and did, to get their chocolate cookie fix.

The objection came because of the actual participation the bakers had to engage in for the same sex wedding. That's where they drew the line. It was a reasonable line.

I agree with a line being drawn in this way.. Yes !

If they draw the line at servicing public weddings at all then I agree. However, what they did was draw the line at servicing only public weddings that were not gay weddings, which is discriminatory against gays on face and thus against the public accommodation laws.

 

[Katzndogz]

You all know that the bakery didn't discriminate don't you? These gays were regulars at that bakery. No one forced them into the streets to starve begging from Christian hovels. They could walk in at any time, and did, to get their chocolate cookie fix.

The objection came because of the actual participation the bakers had to engage in for the same sex wedding. That's where they drew the line. It was a reasonable line.

I agree with a line being drawn in this way.. Yes !

The court in New Mexico drew a new line. It too is a reasonable line. That's the one that should be followed. It came out of the court, it satisfies both sides. Let that one stand.

 

[paperview]

Not gay, but now I see the problem here.

You actually think 2% of the population drove this baker out of business. ROFL OMG that's funny. No dude. The business was abandoned by the other 98% because this business refused to serve the 2%. Duh.

Actually, we think LESS than 2% of the population drove this baker out of business, since I expect more than 98% of the population JUST IN HIS TOWN knew nothing about what was going on, and wouldn't have given a damn if they had.

It doesn't really take very many vitriolic, hate-filled, hypocritical bigots to write threatening letters and making intimidating phone calls, after all.

The business was closed because you and your ilk quite clearly showed us EXACTLY what sort of "tolerance" you deserve from now on.

I suspect that you are absolutely correct in that 98% of the population knew nothing about it. If they did I think many would have recognized the bigoted and hypocritical attack for what it was and probably would have been buying extra cakes to support the bakery. I wonder how many in the next year will find out their favorite baker was put out of business when they drive by to order a birthday cake fr their son or daughter. There is a reason this barrage was not publicized. It would have failed if the general public knew about it and could have countered it.

Immie

Immie, since February, this bakery has received widespread local coverage, with the bakers discussing it on screen to local TV news stations, and in other forms of media. The bakers called up conservative radio talk shows since March (Lars Larson is one, have to dig up the otehr) and they used the oportunity to cry victim nationally there -- they received an temporary upsurge in business because it was reported widely there and in segments of con-media.

Then business dropped off. The local Portland Food critic had a story that reviews were not very good for the bakery and their cupcakes were dry. They were having troubles before that. They have FIVE kids, and quite frankly, I think they just did a sucky job of running a business. which leads me to wonder, who was taking care of the kids while they were running the business?

 

[Foxfyre]

How are they standing up for their faith? When they believe that human cloning is fine, but homosexuality is not?

Quick question, even if they believe that, why does it prove they are not sincere? Who appointed you judge of what is, and is not, permissible for Christians? Aren't your words simply bigotry and hate speech aimed at people who have a different world view than you do? Doesn't that make you worse than the people who do not believe that it is wrong to discriminate based on personal beliefs?

That brings us to the very principle this thread should be about. Why is it less immoral to believe that Christians are delusional and should be required to keep their religion out of sight and to themselves than it is to believe that gays should be required to keep their marriages out of sight and to themselves? I'm going to guess that more gay people think Christians are an abomination than Christians think gays are an abomination.

I would lay odds that a very large percentage of Christian bakers would have delivered and set up that cake at a gay wedding. I would have. Everybody I know would have. But that isn't the point.

I do not want my government having the power to order me to go anywhere or do anything in the service of others that I do not choose to do. No matter who the others are. The Founders intended that we all have an unalienable right to our thoughts, opinions, beliefs, and convictions with impunity.

It costs the bakers nothing to sell cakes and cookies over the counter to anybody at the store. How would the baker even KNOW who the people are unless the people tell them? But it is quite something else again to require the baker to participate in something which he or she does not wish to participate.

To intentionally and deliberately destroy somebody purely because you don't agree with their belief or conviction is unAmerican. And it is evil.

 

[Immanuel]

Actually, we think LESS than 2% of the population drove this baker out of business, since I expect more than 98% of the population JUST IN HIS TOWN knew nothing about what was going on, and wouldn't have given a damn if they had.

It doesn't really take very many vitriolic, hate-filled, hypocritical bigots to write threatening letters and making intimidating phone calls, after all.

The business was closed because you and your ilk quite clearly showed us EXACTLY what sort of "tolerance" you deserve from now on.

I suspect that you are absolutely correct in that 98% of the population knew nothing about it. If they did I think many would have recognized the bigoted and hypocritical attack for what it was and probably would have been buying extra cakes to support the bakery. I wonder how many in the next year will find out their favorite baker was put out of business when they drive by to order a birthday cake fr their son or daughter. There is a reason this barrage was not publicized. It would have failed if the general public knew about it and could have countered it.

Immie

Immie, since February, this bakery has received widespread local coverage, with the bakers discussing it on screen to local TV news stations, and in other forms of media. The bakers called up conservative radio talk shows since March (Lars Larson is one, have to dig up the otehr) and they used the oportunity to cry victim nationally there -- they received an temporary upsurge in business because it was reported widely there and in segments of con-media.

Then business dropped off. The local Portland Food critic had a story that reviews were not very good for the bakery and their cupcakes were dry. They were having troubles before that. They have FIVE kids, and quite frankly, I think they just did a sucky job of running a business. which leads me to wonder, who was taking care of the kids while they were running the business?

Okay, then maybe I am mistaken. Maybe the threats of violence against anyone who would dare to oppose the homosexual agenda have had its intended effect. That just goes to show that it is even more sinister and outrageous.

Immie

 

[paperview]

I suspect that you are absolutely correct in that 98% of the population knew nothing about it. If they did I think many would have recognized the bigoted and hypocritical attack for what it was and probably would have been buying extra cakes to support the bakery. I wonder how many in the next year will find out their favorite baker was put out of business when they drive by to order a birthday cake fr their son or daughter. There is a reason this barrage was not publicized. It would have failed if the general public knew about it and could have countered it.

Immie

Immie, since February, this bakery has received widespread local coverage, with the bakers discussing it on screen to local TV news stations, and in other forms of media. The bakers called up conservative radio talk shows since March (Lars Larson is one, have to dig up the otehr) and they used the oportunity to cry victim nationally there -- they received an temporary upsurge in business because it was reported widely there and in segments of con-media.

Then business dropped off. The local Portland Food critic had a story that reviews were not very good for the bakery and their cupcakes were dry. They were having troubles before that. They have FIVE kids, and quite frankly, I think they just did a sucky job of running a business. which leads me to wonder, who was taking care of the kids while they were running the business?

Okay, then maybe I am mistaken. Maybe the threats of violence against anyone who would dare to oppose the homosexual agenda have had its intended effect. That just goes to show that it is even more sinister and outrageous.

Immie

The only one who has made claim of threats of violence, and I denounce them strongly if true, is the baker. So far, AFAIK, the baker has not reported these threats to the officials.

Why?

 

[RKMBrown]

How are they standing up for their faith? When they believe that human cloning is fine, but homosexuality is not?

Quick question, even if they believe that, why does it prove they are not sincere? Who appointed you judge of what is, and is not, permissible for Christians? Aren't your words simply bigotry and hate speech aimed at people who have a different world view than you do? Doesn't that make you worse than the people who do not believe that it is wrong to discriminate based on personal beliefs?

That brings us to the very principle this thread should be about. Why is it less immoral to believe that Christians are delusional and should be required to keep their religion out of sight and to themselves than it is to believe that gays should be required to keep their marriages out of sight and to themselves? I'm going to guess that more gay people think Christians are an abomination than Christians think gays are an abomination.

I would lay odds that a very large percentage of Christian bakers would have delivered and set up that cake at a gay wedding. I would have. Everybody I know would have. But that isn't the point.

I do not want my government having the power to order me to go anywhere or do anything in the service of others that I do not choose to do. No matter who the others are. The Founders intended that we all have an unalienable right to our thoughts, opinions, beliefs, and convictions with impunity.

It costs the bakers nothing to sell cakes and cookies over the counter to anybody at the store. How would the baker even KNOW who the people are unless the people tell them? But it is quite something else again to require the baker to participate in something which he or she does not wish to participate.

To intentionally and deliberately destroy somebody purely because you don't agree with their belief or conviction is unAmerican. And it is evil.

>>> To intentionally and deliberately destroy somebody purely because you don't agree with their belief or conviction is unAmerican. And it is evil.

How many hundreds of times are you going to make this completely baseless accusation. No one was destroyed. NO ONE! A bad baker lost their business because their customers did not want to buy their CRAPPY product. You are delusional.

>>> But it is quite something else again to require the baker to participate in something which he or she does not wish to participate.

NO ONE FORCED THE BAKER OR REQUIRED THE BAKER TO PARTICIPATE IN ANYTHING. The baker's customer came in asking for a public accommodation that the baker provided to his customers. The baker refused based on sexual orientation. The customer filed a complaint that he baker refused public accommodation based on sexual orientation, which is against the law.

You are being irrational and delusional. If you don't want to sell products to the public, don't sell products to the public, it's not that hard to understand.