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

[Alfalfa]

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.

What participation was that? Driving the cake to the reception hall?

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

I would have baked the cake, decorated the cake, delivered the cake and told the couple that obtaining a topper and set up was their responsibility.

 

[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.

What participation was that? Driving the cake to the reception hall?

Unless this was a sheet cake, it was a tiered wedding cake that required construction of the tiers at the venue. This same couple had ordered birthday cakes, that required no participation, several times before without incident.

 

[Immanuel]

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?

Maybe you didn't read the article from the OP?

I saw several threats against the bakers and their children. Tell me you do not condone those.

Here is the quote from the OP:

Some of those threats were shocking. One emailer wished for the couple’s children to fall ill. Another expressed hope that Mr. Klein should be shot and even raped, The Blaze reported.
And yet another wrote: “Here’s hoping you go out of business, you bigot.”
The couple said on top of that, their vendors were “badgered and harassed” into stopping all associations with the bakery.
The Kleins say they’re now closing up their doors and moving their operations to their home. Their business, they say, has suffered a serious revenue hit from the unexpected activism and backlash.

It mentions threats against the couple's children and others. It was the Blaze article, which I do not care to hunt down on my iPad that listed the threats more succinctly.

Sorry, I initially misread what you posted.

Why not report them? First we do not know they have not. Secondly, what good would it do? Those threats were made anonymously, even if you could find the computer from which they came, proving who sent them would be impossible, not to mention a waste of time because unless, these bakers were public officials no crime worth pursuing was broken.

Immie

 

[Alfalfa]

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.

I said it before but it got ignored.

There is no gay marriage in Oregon. So what deeply help christian beliefs of the bakers were being violated? It appears this may have been a celebration of a civil union...which is not a marriage, it's a contract!

Where in the bible does it say no contracts between homos?

 

[paperview]

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?

Maybe you didn't read the article from the OP?

I saw several threats against the bakers and their children. Tell me you do not condone those.

Immie

Geezez Immie...can't you READ? Don't make me whip your little hiney! ;p

See the red in bold there?

NOW: Please answer the question: WHY? Do you think if there were actual threats on their life as they have said, there would be reports to the police?

I have read reports that police have not been contacted regarding threats on their lives. If you have something that says they reported it, then I'm happy to see it. That's what most people do when they receive threats.

 

[Alfalfa]

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.

What participation was that? Driving the cake to the reception hall?

Unless this was a sheet cake, it was a tiered wedding cake that required construction of the tiers at the venue. This same couple had ordered birthday cakes, that required no participation, several times before without incident.

How is setting up the tired cakes a different kind of participation then baking and decorating the cakes?

 

[Sunshine]

It's their own fault. People have the right to refuse to buy from them, which they did, and they are complaining about it?
Get over it. Your business closed its doors because of your backward opinions, and that vile Facebook post didn't help matters.

It's "people exercising their right to refuse to buy" when assholes call their vendors and issue threats? Really? That's what passes for a free market where you come from?

Oh, I forgot. That probably IS what passes for freedom in that benighted pisshole you call a country.

Get over it. Their business closed because leftists are intolerant, bigoted, close-minded, tyrannical, jack-booted, hypocritical asshats who want to feel morally superior to everyone else without ever doing the work of actually acquiring a moral standard.

I'm just WAITING for the next time a homosexual (I'm certainly not calling these humorless, self-absorbed pieces of shit "gay") starts whining at me about "tolerance". I'm a big believer in the Golden Rule Corollary: Treat others the way you want to be treated, and then get treated the way you've demonstrated you want.

[MENTION=14617]Cecilie1200[/MENTION]

Someone who gets the Golden Rule. How refreshing!

 

[Immanuel]

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?

Maybe you didn't read the article from the OP?

I saw several threats against the bakers and their children. Tell me you do not condone those.

Immie

Geezez Immie...can't you READ? Don't make me whip your little hiney! ;p

See the red in bold there?

NOW: Please answer the question: WHY? Do you think if there were actual threats on their life as they have said, there would be reports to the police?

I have read reports that police have not been contacted regarding threats on their lives. If you have something that says they reported it, then I'm happy to see it. That's what most people do when they receive threats.

See my edited reply. I stopped reading when it appeared you claimed the baker was the only one that made threats. Then after making my post, I went back and read the rest of you post.

When I skimmed your post, this was what I first caught...

The only one who has made threats of violence, and I denounce them strongly if true, is the baker

I couldn't believe you said that... And then I went back and read what you had said.

My apologies edit damn iPad changing my words! Note the difference between what you actually said and what I thought you were saying.

Immie

 

[Sunshine]

sure and why don't we go back to refusing black people a ride on the front of the bus while we are at it.

That was actually the government, not the private bus companies. Maybe you should learn your history before advocating that the government should tell businesses how to run.

Or maybe you should just shut your flapping piehole and stop trying to sound like you have any sort of moral high ground at all. You want to evoke civil rights? Really? YOU?! You're on the side of people who sent these folks' children messages like "burn in hell". That's YOUR "civil rights". That's YOUR tolerance. That's who you are. You have NOTHING to say to any of us on the subject. You own this. Enjoy it.

[MENTION=14617]Cecilie1200[/MENTION]

Look up how Noomi boob's government treats its indigenous people, the aborigines. She has no room to lecture anyone.

 

[Katzndogz]

What participation was that? Driving the cake to the reception hall?

Unless this was a sheet cake, it was a tiered wedding cake that required construction of the tiers at the venue. This same couple had ordered birthday cakes, that required no participation, several times before without incident.

How is setting up the tired cakes a different kind of participation then baking and decorating the cakes?

Because you have to actually attend the wedding venue.

 

[Alfalfa]

Unless this was a sheet cake, it was a tiered wedding cake that required construction of the tiers at the venue. This same couple had ordered birthday cakes, that required no participation, several times before without incident.

How is setting up the tired cakes a different kind of participation then baking and decorating the cakes?

Because you have to actually attend the wedding venue.

There was no wedding so there was no wedding venue. It appears that there may have been a reception venue for a civil union, but that isn't a marriage, is it.

Next, the cake is delivered and set up long before any guests arrive, then the baker leaves. They don't go to any wedding/civil union ceremonies nor stay for the reception.

So now you're saying the objection the xtian bakers had was being forced to visit the reception hall to deliver the cake. Does that mean they can never visit that hall again in their life? Is it filled with gay cooties now?

 

[paperview]

How is setting up the tired cakes a different kind of participation then baking and decorating the cakes?

Because you have to actually attend the wedding venue.

There was no wedding so there was no wedding venue. It appears that there may have been a reception venue for a civil union, but that isn't a marriage, is it.

Next, the cake is delivered and set up long before any guests arrive, then the baker leaves. They don't go to any wedding/civil union ceremonies nor stay for the reception.

So now you're saying the objection the xtian bakers had was being forced to visit the reception hall to deliver the cake. Does that mean they can never visit that hall again in their life? Is it filled with gay cooties now?

You know what's strange about all this? NO ONE knows how big this civil ceremony was going to be, whether it was even *at* a reception hall (I have attended a number of post-ceremony evens at people's houses, even one in a local park) or ANY other details about this event. NONE.

It could have been a small ceremony with a gathering after, where they had no tiers, a moderate sized cake, planned pick-up...any number of variables
NO
ONE
KNOWS

All we know is, they went in to discuss a cake for the ceremony, and it never went past "it's for two women" -- (not exact phrase, they said the names of the brides) --

That.was.it.

So all this cracky crap about halls, tiers, attending, bla bla bla is just speculation about a dork head who got his figgety ass all tailed up when heard it was a same-sex wedding.

Then proceeded to tell them they were "abominations."

All these other speculations are ridiculous.

 

[Katzndogz]

How is setting up the tired cakes a different kind of participation then baking and decorating the cakes?

Because you have to actually attend the wedding venue.

There was no wedding so there was no wedding venue. It appears that there may have been a reception venue for a civil union, but that isn't a marriage, is it.

Next, the cake is delivered and set up long before any guests arrive, then the baker leaves. They don't go to any wedding/civil union ceremonies nor stay for the reception.

So now you're saying the objection the xtian bakers had was being forced to visit the reception hall to deliver the cake. Does that mean they can never visit that hall again in their life? Is it filled with gay cooties now?

No. It means that these Christians will not commit a personal sin by attending a same sex commitment ceremony. There might be and probably are hundreds if not thousands of Christians who do not see their own personal sin in making a wedding cake for a same sex couple. These do. They should not be compelled by law or someone else's desire to carry that sin in their hearts. They are being spiritually raped. They are forced into committing an act that they find personally reprehensible.

 

[Katzndogz]

It might not be understandable to someone without a moral code or moral compass. Only someone with principles can understand the refusal to participate in same sex ceremonies. It doesn't really matter what those principles are, being forced to violate them is the same no matter what it is.

 

[TemplarKormac]

How is setting up the tired cakes a different kind of participation then baking and decorating the cakes?

Because you have to actually attend the wedding venue.

There was no wedding so there was no wedding venue. It appears that there may have been a reception venue for a civil union, but that isn't a marriage, is it.

Then why the wedding cake? Surely you aren't this malinformed?

 

[Foxfyre]

It might not be understandable to someone without a moral code or moral compass. Only someone with principles can understand the refusal to participate in same sex ceremonies. It doesn't really matter what those principles are, being forced to violate them is the same no matter what it is.

And that again is the absolute point. It does not MATTER if the bakers are bigoted. It does not matter that to most of the free world they are in the wrong. It does not matter that their point of view makes no sense whatsoever to anybody else. They are nevertheless entitled to their beliefs and convictions.

And again, even if their reason was that they just didn't feel like doing a wedding cake on any given day, we must not condone their destruction purely because we do not agree with their views on something. And we must not condone our government forcing us to serve others against our beliefs, our convictions, our will or in any other circumstance.

If folks can't get that through their heads, then unalienable rights no longer are recognized in this country and no longer protected. And we are no longer free.

 

[Katzndogz]

If the baker was Jewish and the wedding to take place on a Saturday, what would the gay couple do when they learn they won't get their cake at all? Would they sue or change the date?

 

[paperview]

If the baker was Jewish and the wedding to take place on a Saturday, what would the gay couple do when they learn they won't get their cake at all? Would they sue or change the date?

You didn't think that one through, did you?

 

[Sunshine]

If the baker was Jewish and the wedding to take place on a Saturday, what would the gay couple do when they learn they won't get their cake at all? Would they sue or change the date?

Jews do not close their stores any day of the week in the US. That scenario wouldn't happen. Jews even sell Christmas merchandise including decorations. Jews like money. How did you miss that part?