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

[Cecilie1200]

No. The bakery was put out of business by it's owners. The owners lost their business when their customers abandoned them. Their customers abandoned them because the bakery owner refused to serve to a gay couple at a gay wedding. If the baker had taken the funds from the "gay" wedding and donated it to a christian charity, then the baker would still be in business. Further if the LGBT/democrats called for a boycott because the baker donated to a charity, the christians would have trippled the baker's business.

You see, it's not about political correctness. It's about treating people as human beings.

Uh-huh.. you want gay people to be treated as human beings, but in return you allow them to dehumanize others. What a colossal double standard, Mr. Brown.

Explain please. How was the baker dehumanized? If that happened, I'll defend the baker against that act. Bring me to your side of the argument. How was the baker dehumanized. If that happened I will be every bit as angry as you are. All humor would be gone... I would ask you to sign me up. Uhm what are you protesting against again... protesters exercising free speech?

Oh, riiiight. You can't see HOW the bakers have been dehumanized by essentially being told, "Your beliefs, your conscience, and your Constitional rights mean nothing before our demands on you, now do what we say or suffer", but I'll bet hard money you could RHAPSODIZE about how those lesbian twats were "dehumanized" by being told that someone didn't want to participate in their stupid ******* "wedding".

How much more dehumanized can a person get than to be told they must contribute their talents and labor toward a goal they oppose on behalf of someone they do not wish to work for, and that they have no rights in the matter? We USED to call that slavery, and consider it the most dehumanizing experience imaginable.

And if you really think "Burn in hell, pig; fall off a cliff; stop associating with these people or suffer" is "exercising freedom of speech", then perhaps someone should send those messages to YOUR family and friends, and see if you still think that way. Somehow, I think not.

 

[emilynghiem]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...bakery-wants-to-give-you-a-free-gay-cake.html

Hey everyone! This thread inspired me to set up a real business spoofing the bigotry
and promoting awareness of free spiritual healing. Please see above link to the announcement
before I really try to set up a website to promote this concept...

Image with slogan "WAT"

Hi TK: I guess your reaction is appropriate given you believe no liberals are really
about inclusion. I do recognize why Christians are divided about the gay issue,
because some cases are unnatural and can be healed, and people are excluding this knowledge.

So it's more like

WTF

Yes, I am a progressive Democrat, and Yes I believe in spiritual healing of
cases where homosexuality is not natural and the person wants to pray to be healed.

I believe that leaving this out of the gay marriage issue and the health care issue
is against the First and Fourteenth Amendment protections of religious freedom.

So as a Constitutionalist first, before my own beliefs either way,
I believe all individual and group beliefs, whether religious political or secular,
should be included and protected equally, while conflicts are RESOLVED to prevent issues.

if funding and policies need to be separated, I think this can be done by PARTY
so I have NO PROBLEM with tolerating and including whatever beliefs people
have as long as responsibility is taken for them. And not dumped on those who
believe differently and want to fund/represent their own values/principles separately.

I believe these things can be worked out.

So whatever perceptions you have of intolerant liberals who are closet bigots,
I probably agree with you! That doesn't mean I'm not willing to address
the issue. So I both acknowledge the mutual bigotry and seek solutions
that let people believe as they do without faulting either side of conflicts
for those differences.

Thanks and I hope people like you and me on this board
can do more to change the environment so these conflicts
can be resolved, and solutions found to all related political issues.

TK if we can solve this problem,
we can learn how to address other problems as well.
So there is more to be gained than just this issue itself.

Hope to work with you and other who care as much as I do!

Yours truly,
Emily

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

No. The bakery was put out of business by it's owners. The owners lost their business when their customers abandoned them. Their customers abandoned them because the bakery owner refused to serve to a gay couple at a gay wedding
....

Not just refused service, the lesbian walked into a bakery and asked to have a wedding cake made. Happy repeat customer.

Owner informs her he doesn't do same-sex wedding cakes and then proceeds to tell her she was an abomination, and that her "money is not equal."

Temmy-boy leaves that part out.

Probably because it never happened anywhere but in your own diseased imagination, but even if it had - and I know this will shock you - but being rude STILL falls under the heading of "freedom of speech".

There is NOTHING that is going to justify, "You don't like the people I tell you to. I'm going to kill your family, I hope your kids die, my friends and I are going to destroy your business to force you to kowtow to us."

You and your ilk are filthy, hypocritical, bigoted vermin. You are what you claim to hate, but to an exponential power. Own it. You have nothing bad to say about these bakers, because even if they had done every lie you try to pin on them, they STILL would be better people than you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

As I said before simply baking a cake for someone in no way makes the baker liable for the sins of the customer.

The baker did not have to attend the wedding or the reception all he had to do was treat this couple like he would anyone else. if he did that he would still be in business with happy customers referring new customers to him.

That is game set match.

If they participated in a same sex wedding, they are not responsible for the sins of their customer, they have committed their own, personal, sin for which they are answerable.

Yes, they would have to attend the wedding. Had they thought ahead and considered it more carefully, the baker might have agreed to bake the cake, but leave set up and construction of the tiers to the customer. This same baker had baked cakes for this same customer before. The customer ordered the cake, picked it up and took it to the birthday party. Treat the wedding cake the same way.

Katz, PLEASE get off this "attending the wedding was the problem" kick. It wasn't. They wanted no participation in or contribution to the wedding in any form, because they considered the entire event to be contrary to their religious beliefs. There was no "make it and send it with someone else" solution that would have solved it.

 

[Immanuel]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...bakery-wants-to-give-you-a-free-gay-cake.html

Hey everyone! This thread inspired me to set up a real business spoofing the bigotry
and promoting awareness of free spiritual healing. Please see above link to the announcement
before I really try to set up a website to promote this concept...

Image with slogan "WAT"

Hi TK: I guess your reaction is appropriate given you believe no liberals are really
about inclusion. I do recognize why Christians are divided about the gay issue,
because some cases are unnatural and can be healed, and people are excluding this knowledge.

So it's more like

WTF

Yes, I am a progressive Democrat, and Yes I believe in spiritual healing of
cases where homosexuality is not natural and the person wants to pray to be healed.

I believe that leaving this out of the gay marriage issue and the health care issue
is against the First and Fourteenth Amendment protections of religious freedom.

So as a Constitutionalist first, before my own beliefs either way,
I believe all individual and group beliefs, whether religious political or secular,
should be included and protected equally, while conflicts are RESOLVED to prevent issues.

if funding and policies need to be separated, I think this can be done by PARTY
so I have NO PROBLEM with tolerating and including whatever beliefs people
have as long as responsibility is taken for them. And not dumped on those who
believe differently and want to fund/represent their own values/principles separately.

I believe these things can be worked out.

So whatever perceptions you have of intolerant liberals who are closet bigots,
I probably agree with you! That doesn't mean I'm not willing to address
the issue. So I both acknowledge the mutual bigotry and seek solutions
that let people believe as they do without faulting either side of conflicts
for those differences.

Thanks and I hope people like you and me on this board
can do more to change the environment so these conflicts
can be resolved, and solutions found to all related political issues.

TK if we can solve this problem,
we can learn how to address other problems as well.
So there is more to be gained than just this issue itself.

Hope to work with you and other who care as much as I do!

Yours truly,
Emily

I was with you Emily until you used the words "closet bigots" with respect to progressives ie "intolerant liberals". In fact, after those words, I caught up again. It seems apparent to me that the vast majority of progressives are bigots and not a one of them hide that fact in the closet.

Immie

 

[TemplarKormac]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...bakery-wants-to-give-you-a-free-gay-cake.html

Hey everyone! This thread inspired me to set up a real business spoofing the bigotry
and promoting awareness of free spiritual healing. Please see above link to the announcement
before I really try to set up a website to promote this concept...

Image with slogan "WAT"

Hi TK: I guess your reaction is appropriate given you believe no liberals are really
about inclusion. I do recognize why Christians are divided about the gay issue,
because some cases are unnatural and can be healed, and people are excluding this knowledge.

So it's more like

WTF

Yes, I am a progressive Democrat, and Yes I believe in spiritual healing of
cases where homosexuality is not natural and the person wants to pray to be healed.

I believe that leaving this out of the gay marriage issue and the health care issue
is against the First and Fourteenth Amendment protections of religious freedom.

So as a Constitutionalist first, before my own beliefs either way,
I believe all individual and group beliefs, whether religious political or secular,
should be included and protected equally, while conflicts are RESOLVED to prevent issues.

if funding and policies need to be separated, I think this can be done by PARTY
so I have NO PROBLEM with tolerating and including whatever beliefs people
have as long as responsibility is taken for them. And not dumped on those who
believe differently and want to fund/represent their own values/principles separately.

I believe these things can be worked out.

So whatever perceptions you have of intolerant liberals who are closet bigots,
I probably agree with you! That doesn't mean I'm not willing to address
the issue. So I both acknowledge the mutual bigotry and seek solutions
that let people believe as they do without faulting either side of conflicts
for those differences.

Thanks and I hope people like you and me on this board
can do more to change the environment so these conflicts
can be resolved, and solutions found to all related political issues.

TK if we can solve this problem,
we can learn how to address other problems as well.
So there is more to be gained than just this issue itself.

Hope to work with you and other who care as much as I do!

Yours truly,
Emily

I will end this notion that Christians are divided about homosexuality right here and now. Homosexuality goes against the divine order of the human race God set into motion in Genesis. In the New Testament, people who knowingly participate in this behavior are given away by God to their sinful and unnatural passions. It speaks to the fact that God does not approve of it, and thusly, I disapprove. You had me reeled in for a minute there, but I can hardly believe a "Progressive Democrat" could ever espouse what is written in your post. I smell a lie.

 

[emilynghiem]

No. The bakery was put out of business by it's owners. The owners lost their business when their customers abandoned them. Their customers abandoned them because the bakery owner refused to serve to a gay couple at a gay wedding. If the baker had taken the funds from the "gay" wedding and donated it to a christian charity, then the baker would still be in business. Further if the LGBT/democrats called for a boycott because the baker donated to a charity, the christians would have trippled the baker's business.

You see, it's not about political correctness. It's about treating people as human beings.

Uh-huh.. you want gay people to be treated as human beings, but in return you allow them to dehumanize others. What a colossal double standard, Mr. Brown.

Explain please. How was the baker dehumanized? If that happened, I'll defend the baker against that act. Bring me to your side of the argument. How was the baker dehumanized. If that happened I will be every bit as angry as you are. All humor would be gone... I would ask you to sign me up. Uhm what are you protesting against again... protesters exercising free speech?

Dear TK and RKMB:

I think Paperview gave a good example of dehumanization:

Not just refused service, the lesbian walked into a bakery and asked to have a wedding cake made. Happy repeat customer.

Owner informs her he doesn't do same-sex wedding cakes and then proceeds to tell her she was an abomination, and that her "money is not equal."

Temmy-boy leaves that part out.

Two wrongs don't make a right; just like eye for an eye means losing two eyes.

A. If the owner expressed their religious beliefs in a way that demeaned
and insulted a human being (not condemning the action but judging the person individually)
that is dehumanizing on the part of the recipient of such a rebuke
NOT DONE In the spirit of Forgiveness and Healing which is the spirit of Christ

B. If the response was equally unchristian, ie not for the sake of RESTORING
good faith relations, but to condemn the PERSONS not rebuking the offensive act,
then THAT is equally dehumanizing. What attempt was made to CORRECT anything?
All that was done was to protest, attack and judge the business owners.

It is faulting and attacking the PERSON as representing the Action.

So instead of CORRECTING the issue,
in both sides the PERSONS were made to feel PUNISHED and JUDGED

This Was NOT to restore the relationships.

It was NOT in the spirit of corrections.

So both sides lost.

A. person A is still seen as not acknowledging acts considered abominations
so that did NOT solve the problem

B. business people were judged and punished
WITHOUT giving them equal opportunity to remedy the situation

If this part is corrected, that might save the relationship
and sense of humanity for the people on both sides of the issue.

Thanks RKMB for asking and trying to understand what the upset is about.
I hope more people look into BOTH SIDES as well as solutions so
we can grow in our humanity and not lose it!

I did not understand FoxFyre's posts until I msg'd personally
to get it. FF did not come across that way in the msgs posted here,
but sounded like something else to me. I can't imagine what my
msgs/posts must sound like if I did not understand FF either!

Yours truly,
Emily
__________________

 

[TemplarKormac]

Uh-huh.. you want gay people to be treated as human beings, but in return you allow them to dehumanize others. What a colossal double standard, Mr. Brown.

Explain please. How was the baker dehumanized? If that happened, I'll defend the baker against that act. Bring me to your side of the argument. How was the baker dehumanized. If that happened I will be every bit as angry as you are. All humor would be gone... I would ask you to sign me up. Uhm what are you protesting against again... protesters exercising free speech?

Dear TK and RKMB:

I think Paperview gave a good example of dehumanization:

Not just refused service, the lesbian walked into a bakery and asked to have a wedding cake made. Happy repeat customer.

Owner informs her he doesn't do same-sex wedding cakes and then proceeds to tell her she was an abomination, and that her "money is not equal."

Temmy-boy leaves that part out.

Two wrongs don't make a right; just like eye for an eye means losing two eyes.

A. If the owner expressed their religious beliefs in a way that demeaned
and insulted a human being (not condemning the action but judging the person individually)
that is dehumanizing on the part of the recipient of such a rebuke
NOT DONE In the spirit of Forgiveness and Healing which is the spirit of Christ

B. If the response was equally unchristian, ie not for the sake of RESTORING
good faith relations, but to condemn the PERSONS not rebuking the offensive act,
then THAT is equally dehumanizing. What attempt was made to CORRECT anything?
All that was done was to protest, attack and judge the business owners.

It is faulting and attacking the PERSON as representing the Action.

So instead of CORRECTING the issue,
in both sides the PERSONS were made to feel PUNISHED and JUDGED

This Was NOT to restore the relationships.

It was NOT in the spirit of corrections.

So both sides lost.

A. person A is still seen as not acknowledging acts considered abominations
so that did NOT solve the problem

B. business people were judged and punished
WITHOUT giving them equal opportunity to remedy the situation

If this part is corrected, that might save the relationship
and sense of humanity for the people on both sides of the issue.

Thanks RKMB for asking and trying to understand what the upset is about.
I hope more people look into BOTH SIDES as well as solutions so
we can grow in our humanity and not lose it!

I did not understand FoxFyre's posts until I msg'd personally
to get it. FF did not come across that way in the msgs posted here,
but sounded like something else to me. I can't imagine what my
msgs/posts must sound like if I did not understand FF either!

Yours truly,
Emily
__________________

The fact you are agreeing with paperview, RKMB and alfalfa only confirm my suspicions about you. You cannot hide your bias under the cloak of neutrality. Good day, miss.

 

[Foxfyre]

Explain please. How was the baker dehumanized? If that happened, I'll defend the baker against that act. Bring me to your side of the argument. How was the baker dehumanized. If that happened I will be every bit as angry as you are. All humor would be gone... I would ask you to sign me up. Uhm what are you protesting against again... protesters exercising free speech?

Dear TK and RKMB:

I think Paperview gave a good example of dehumanization:

Not just refused service, the lesbian walked into a bakery and asked to have a wedding cake made. Happy repeat customer.

Owner informs her he doesn't do same-sex wedding cakes and then proceeds to tell her she was an abomination, and that her "money is not equal."

Temmy-boy leaves that part out.

Two wrongs don't make a right; just like eye for an eye means losing two eyes.

A. If the owner expressed their religious beliefs in a way that demeaned
and insulted a human being (not condemning the action but judging the person individually)
that is dehumanizing on the part of the recipient of such a rebuke
NOT DONE In the spirit of Forgiveness and Healing which is the spirit of Christ

B. If the response was equally unchristian, ie not for the sake of RESTORING
good faith relations, but to condemn the PERSONS not rebuking the offensive act,
then THAT is equally dehumanizing. What attempt was made to CORRECT anything?
All that was done was to protest, attack and judge the business owners.

It is faulting and attacking the PERSON as representing the Action.

So instead of CORRECTING the issue,
in both sides the PERSONS were made to feel PUNISHED and JUDGED

This Was NOT to restore the relationships.

It was NOT in the spirit of corrections.

So both sides lost.

A. person A is still seen as not acknowledging acts considered abominations
so that did NOT solve the problem

B. business people were judged and punished
WITHOUT giving them equal opportunity to remedy the situation

If this part is corrected, that might save the relationship
and sense of humanity for the people on both sides of the issue.

Thanks RKMB for asking and trying to understand what the upset is about.
I hope more people look into BOTH SIDES as well as solutions so
we can grow in our humanity and not lose it!

I did not understand FoxFyre's posts until I msg'd personally
to get it. FF did not come across that way in the msgs posted here,
but sounded like something else to me. I can't imagine what my
msgs/posts must sound like if I did not understand FF either!

Yours truly,
Emily
__________________

The fact you are agreeing with paperview, RKMB and alfalfa only confirm my suspicions about you. You cannot hide your bias under the cloak of neutrality. Good day, miss.

No I think Emily is really trying to hit a good balance of views here actually. Her error is in not seeing the intentional obfusication on the part of RKM and believing Paperview's version of the facts which, frankly, I believe must have been his own creation or was picked up at some leftwing hate site, because there is no way that I believe the bakers said anything like that to the gay couple. I believe they told the gay couple they couldn't do a gay wedding, but that is the worst thing I believe they said to them.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Dear TK and RKMB:

I think Paperview gave a good example of dehumanization:



Two wrongs don't make a right; just like eye for an eye means losing two eyes.

A. If the owner expressed their religious beliefs in a way that demeaned
and insulted a human being (not condemning the action but judging the person individually)
that is dehumanizing on the part of the recipient of such a rebuke
NOT DONE In the spirit of Forgiveness and Healing which is the spirit of Christ

B. If the response was equally unchristian, ie not for the sake of RESTORING
good faith relations, but to condemn the PERSONS not rebuking the offensive act,
then THAT is equally dehumanizing. What attempt was made to CORRECT anything?
All that was done was to protest, attack and judge the business owners.

It is faulting and attacking the PERSON as representing the Action.

So instead of CORRECTING the issue,
in both sides the PERSONS were made to feel PUNISHED and JUDGED

This Was NOT to restore the relationships.

It was NOT in the spirit of corrections.

So both sides lost.

A. person A is still seen as not acknowledging acts considered abominations
so that did NOT solve the problem

B. business people were judged and punished
WITHOUT giving them equal opportunity to remedy the situation

If this part is corrected, that might save the relationship
and sense of humanity for the people on both sides of the issue.

Thanks RKMB for asking and trying to understand what the upset is about.
I hope more people look into BOTH SIDES as well as solutions so
we can grow in our humanity and not lose it!

I did not understand FoxFyre's posts until I msg'd personally
to get it. FF did not come across that way in the msgs posted here,
but sounded like something else to me. I can't imagine what my
msgs/posts must sound like if I did not understand FF either!

Yours truly,
Emily
__________________

The fact you are agreeing with paperview, RKMB and alfalfa only confirm my suspicions about you. You cannot hide your bias under the cloak of neutrality. Good day, miss.

No I think Emily is really trying to hit a good balance of views here actually. Her error is in not seeing the intentional obfuscation on the part of RKM and believing Paperview's version of the facts which, frankly, I believe must have been his own creation or was picked up at some leftwing hate site, because there is no way that I believe the bakers said anything like that to the gay couple. I believe they told the gay couple they couldn't do a gay wedding, but that is the worst thing I believe they said to them.

I see.

But the fact is, such gullibility cannot be ignored. She goes looking for things that closely match her ideals, and then at the same time wants to strike this balance you speak of. To a lesser extent though, I will remain suspicious. Although I was just as wayward once. Liberals will always and forever remain an enigma to me.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yeah, all those posts about this couple being pranked into doing cakes for cults, then the claim they called them abominations.. it's all a smear campaign.

 

[RKMBrown]

Dear TK and RKMB:

I think Paperview gave a good example of dehumanization:



Two wrongs don't make a right; just like eye for an eye means losing two eyes.

A. If the owner expressed their religious beliefs in a way that demeaned
and insulted a human being (not condemning the action but judging the person individually)
that is dehumanizing on the part of the recipient of such a rebuke
NOT DONE In the spirit of Forgiveness and Healing which is the spirit of Christ

B. If the response was equally unchristian, ie not for the sake of RESTORING
good faith relations, but to condemn the PERSONS not rebuking the offensive act,
then THAT is equally dehumanizing. What attempt was made to CORRECT anything?
All that was done was to protest, attack and judge the business owners.

It is faulting and attacking the PERSON as representing the Action.

So instead of CORRECTING the issue,
in both sides the PERSONS were made to feel PUNISHED and JUDGED

This Was NOT to restore the relationships.

It was NOT in the spirit of corrections.

So both sides lost.

A. person A is still seen as not acknowledging acts considered abominations
so that did NOT solve the problem

B. business people were judged and punished
WITHOUT giving them equal opportunity to remedy the situation

If this part is corrected, that might save the relationship
and sense of humanity for the people on both sides of the issue.

Thanks RKMB for asking and trying to understand what the upset is about.
I hope more people look into BOTH SIDES as well as solutions so
we can grow in our humanity and not lose it!

I did not understand FoxFyre's posts until I msg'd personally
to get it. FF did not come across that way in the msgs posted here,
but sounded like something else to me. I can't imagine what my
msgs/posts must sound like if I did not understand FF either!

Yours truly,
Emily
__________________

The fact you are agreeing with paperview, RKMB and alfalfa only confirm my suspicions about you. You cannot hide your bias under the cloak of neutrality. Good day, miss.

No I think Emily is really trying to hit a good balance of views here actually. Her error is in not seeing the intentional obfusication on the part of RKM and believing Paperview's version of the facts which, frankly, I believe must have been his own creation or was picked up at some leftwing hate site, because there is no way that I believe the bakers said anything like that to the gay couple. I believe they told the gay couple they couldn't do a gay wedding, but that is the worst thing I believe they said to them.

They were not asked to sanctify a gay wedding. They were asked to bake a cake. They refused based on their bigotry against gays. Case closed.

You have your panties in a twist because some gays are accused by the bigots of daring to picket against them for what they did.

Intentional Obfuscation? Where did I obfuscate?

You are deflecting to me. It's not about me or you.

 

[paperview]

That he called them "abominations" is in the original complaint filed with the state. That is an official legal form signed under penalty of perjury.

I'm sure calling the lesbians liars is pretty tame, considering some of the things they have been called, so you go right ahead and say they perjured themselves.

People you've never heard, seen, met or know a smidgeon about, other than one went with her mother to arrange to create a cake for her Civil ceremony -- and did not get past "it's for two women" and were told NO -- and knowing the law, decided to file a complaint -- that is ALL you know.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi TK:
1. So are you saying that Christians who tolerate cases of homosexuality as "spiritually born
that way" (by the Bible passage some "eunuchs" are made by God and some by man)
are NOT "real Christian" and that is how you explain the Christians are not divided?

Also, do you recognize that some Christians do not believe in spiritual healing through
deliverance prayer, that they believe this is demonic or spiritism and manipulating the
will of God. So that the CHristians who actively heal homosexuality are not in unison
with those who (a) do not know or believe homosexuality can be healed or (b) do
not believe that spiritual healing is authorized by God or Christ (b1) if NOBODY should
be doing it or (b2) the Catholic church believes only ordained priests can do exorcisms

2. about being a progressive Democrat
YES, I am registered and work to resolve issues in Democrat Precinct 30
where Black Democrat hypocrites have DESTROYED a national historic district of
FREED SLAVE churches and African American civil rights history and even gravesites.

The only way I could address such corruption and destruction is to work
WITH and WITHIN the liberal Democrat party and surrounding progressive networks.
To bring in the missing principles of Constitution and respect for Christian churches
to preserve their own history which the secular City of Houston has allowed destroyed.

The person apptd by our Democrat Mayor announced at a public forum that the
reason the City has not worked with Freedmen's Town churches on a plan to
preserve this Nationally Historic church district was "separation of church and state"

So this is why we need A CONSTITUTIONALIST to get involved or else nobody
would enforce equal religious freedom and protections of Christian churches
instead of discriminating against the church community for being
1. poor (having no money to buy the land, preserve the churches, etc.
and no knowledge of how to finance loans or business plans to sustain their church community)
2. black (and thus tied to black leaders who have sold them out while leaving them
unable to address this, since the current stage the black community is in
is to rally around Obama Sheila Jackson Lee and all the ministers who speak out
nationally but don't do anything to save Freedmens' Town history)
3. Christian (where as long as they keep forgiving and don't want to sue the
City for constitutional violations, then the City keeps on its current track of
not respecting constitutional laws because they aren't legally required without a lawsuit.
the City of Houston is a private municipality and takes full advantage to do business
however it can justify, and does not commit to follow Constitutional restraints first)

So all my friends who are Constitutionalists don't believe I should be working
with the Democrat party either. They all tell me I'm with the wrong camp.

But Jesus did not come to heal the well.
He came to heal the sick.

So if you want to stop violations and abuses against Constitutional law,
you have to go to where the ppl are who are not following it
and teach them to correct the problem.

The Dems will only listen to their own supporters and voters.
So I have to educate all the members and voters in order to teach
the damn Democrats to following the Constitution first.

And if that doesn't work, then I believe in separating parties like religions
and let Dems have their own denomination and not ask me or
anyone else to fund or be under their policies if that's not Constitutional by
our standards and beliefs.

So yes, I am with the Democrats and liberal progressives.

Most of my friends into sustainable soltuions work with either
Greens or Peace and Justice groups and have issues with Dems
being hypocrites and sell outs, So it's not like we are ignoring the problem.

The last tie I went to a meeting with Greens/Progressives trying to reform
things within the Dem Party, one member said she RESENTED having
to work with that party but that was the best option to organize and get things
going at all.

I end up working with independent Republicans Libertarians Green
Occupy and Tea Party also, anyone who puts Constitutional ethics and laws
before party politics. So it's astruggle to find people in all parties willing to go there.

There are Good Germans like me within any group.
We just have to find each other and work to reform whole groups
that go off on their tangents and biases.

Thanks for asking TK

most ppl think I cannot be a liberal Democrat either.
and a Constitutionalist
no way!

Image with slogan "WAT"

Hi TK: I guess your reaction is appropriate given you believe no liberals are really
about inclusion. I do recognize why Christians are divided about the gay issue,
because some cases are unnatural and can be healed, and people are excluding this knowledge.

So it's more like

WTF

Yes, I am a progressive Democrat, and Yes I believe in spiritual healing of
cases where homosexuality is not natural and the person wants to pray to be healed.

I believe that leaving this out of the gay marriage issue and the health care issue
is against the First and Fourteenth Amendment protections of religious freedom.

So as a Constitutionalist first, before my own beliefs either way,
I believe all individual and group beliefs, whether religious political or secular,
should be included and protected equally, while conflicts are RESOLVED to prevent issues.

if funding and policies need to be separated, I think this can be done by PARTY
so I have NO PROBLEM with tolerating and including whatever beliefs people
have as long as responsibility is taken for them. And not dumped on those who
believe differently and want to fund/represent their own values/principles separately.

I believe these things can be worked out.

So whatever perceptions you have of intolerant liberals who are closet bigots,
I probably agree with you! That doesn't mean I'm not willing to address
the issue. So I both acknowledge the mutual bigotry and seek solutions
that let people believe as they do without faulting either side of conflicts
for those differences.

Thanks and I hope people like you and me on this board
can do more to change the environment so these conflicts
can be resolved, and solutions found to all related political issues.

TK if we can solve this problem,
we can learn how to address other problems as well.
So there is more to be gained than just this issue itself.

Hope to work with you and other who care as much as I do!

Yours truly,
Emily

I will end this notion that Christians are divided about homosexuality right here and now. Homosexuality goes against the divine order of the human race God set into motion in Genesis. In the New Testament, people who knowingly participate in this behavior are given away by God to their sinful and unnatural passions. It speaks to the fact that God does not approve of it, and thusly, I disapprove. You had me reeled in for a minute there, but I can hardly believe a "Progressive Democrat" could ever espouse what is written in your post. I smell a lie.

 

[Foxfyre]

The fact you are agreeing with paperview, RKMB and alfalfa only confirm my suspicions about you. You cannot hide your bias under the cloak of neutrality. Good day, miss.

No I think Emily is really trying to hit a good balance of views here actually. Her error is in not seeing the intentional obfuscation on the part of RKM and believing Paperview's version of the facts which, frankly, I believe must have been his own creation or was picked up at some leftwing hate site, because there is no way that I believe the bakers said anything like that to the gay couple. I believe they told the gay couple they couldn't do a gay wedding, but that is the worst thing I believe they said to them.

I see.

But the fact is, such gullibility cannot be ignored. She goes looking for things that closely match her ideals, and then at the same time wants to strike this balance you speak of. To a lesser extent though, I will remain suspicious. Although I was just as wayward once.

LOL. Well it is refreshing to hear somebody be honest about their changing views over time, and admitting that we don't always get it right. That is very rare on these message boards. But I imagine a lot of us have held convictions that just didn't make it over time or in the face of better information or in the light of superior reason and logic, and we have changed our position about this or that.

But Emily and everybody else is every bit as entitled to their opinions and beliefs as is anybody else, including the Christian bakers AND the gay couple who tried to order a wedding cake from them.

Nobody has shaken my belief in the principle I hold as conviction on this though. It doesn't matter if the Christian baker is right or wrong. It doesn't matter if the gay couple is right or wrong.

What DOES matter is that each has an unalienable right to be right or wrong with impunity so long as no participation or contribution is required of anybody else. To require the bakers to acquiesce to the demands of the gay couple is not acceptable any more than it would be acceptable for the Christian bakers to demand the gay couple denounce their homosexuality.

The hatemongers and bigots of the world want to force, demand, or coerce others into adopting and professing a single point of view. It isn't enough for them to live and let live. They seek to punish and destroy those who refuse to toe the political correctness line.

And that is evil.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The fact you are agreeing with paperview, RKMB and alfalfa only confirm my suspicions about you. You cannot hide your bias under the cloak of neutrality. Good day, miss.

No I think Emily is really trying to hit a good balance of views here actually. Her error is in not seeing the intentional obfusication on the part of RKM and believing Paperview's version of the facts which, frankly, I believe must have been his own creation or was picked up at some leftwing hate site, because there is no way that I believe the bakers said anything like that to the gay couple. I believe they told the gay couple they couldn't do a gay wedding, but that is the worst thing I believe they said to them.

1. They were not asked to sanctify a gay wedding.

2. They were asked to bake a cake. They refused based on their bigotry against gays.

3. Case closed.

4. You have your panties in a twist because some gays are accused by the bigots of daring to picket against them for what they did.

5. Intentional Obfuscation? Where did I obfuscate?

6. You are deflecting to me. It's not about me or you.

1. No, but they were asked to service it, to enable it. It would be like me forcing a flaming homo to marry a straight at gunpoint.

2. Read 1.

3. Far from it.

4. But then you make a sexist comment towards Foxfyre? Of all the people on this board, she is the most mild mannered person. Never does she "have her panties in a wad." Guess what, RKM, that was a truly bigoted comment against women. Hope you're happy now.

5. Obfuscation by repetition. You continue to call this couple bigots without even trying to prove they are. All you and your friends can do is go on tirades about how this couple are bigots. It's quite intellectually dishonest, to tell the truth.

6. Step off your pedestal, sir. Spewing anecdotes will not erase the lack of an argument.

 

[paperview]

Read up folks. Things you will learn on this thread: baking a cake with two brides on the top is now like forcing a "flaming homo" to gay marry a straitz. At gunpoint!

 

[JOSweetHeart]

The religious rights and beliefs of this Christian couple were violated. There is no way around it. The gay mafia won.

To me it wasn't just their rights that were violated. The rights of everyone else in the area were violated too. People who had nothing to do with the problem may have liked going to that bakery too and now they have to find another one to go to. What about the rights of them people? Did the homosexual group who got the place shut down ever once stop to think of them people? Obviously never because all that they cared about were their own selves. To me, the homosexual group could have just washed their hands of the place and found somewhere else to go, but no, they had to make sure that everyone paid for what they thought that just a select few were guilty of and that is having the freedom to exercise what they believe.

God bless you and those who have paid always!!!

Holly

P.S. I hate when people who have nothing to do with the situation end up losing something too!

 

[Alfalfa]

No I think Emily is really trying to hit a good balance of views here actually. Her error is in not seeing the intentional obfusication on the part of RKM and believing Paperview's version of the facts which, frankly, I believe must have been his own creation or was picked up at some leftwing hate site, because there is no way that I believe the bakers said anything like that to the gay couple. I believe they told the gay couple they couldn't do a gay wedding, but that is the worst thing I believe they said to them.

1. They were not asked to sanctify a gay wedding.

2. They were asked to bake a cake. They refused based on their bigotry against gays.

3. Case closed.

4. You have your panties in a twist because some gays are accused by the bigots of daring to picket against them for what they did.

5. Intentional Obfuscation? Where did I obfuscate?

6. You are deflecting to me. It's not about me or you.

1. No, but they were asked to service it, to enable it. It would be like me forcing a flaming homo to marry a straight at gunpoint.

2. Read 1.

3. Far from it.

4. But then you make a sexist comment towards Foxfyre? Of all the people on this board, she is the most mild mannered person. Never does she "have her panties in a wad." Guess what, RKM, that was a truly bigoted comment against women. Hope you're happy now.

5. Obfuscation by repetition. You continue to call this couple bigots without even trying to prove they are. All you and your friends can do is go on tirades about how this couple are bigots. It's quite intellectually dishonest, to tell the truth.

6. Step off your pedestal, sir. Spewing anecdotes will not erase the lack of an argument.

Yes, it's exactly like that....

 

[TemplarKormac]

No I think Emily is really trying to hit a good balance of views here actually. Her error is in not seeing the intentional obfuscation on the part of RKM and believing Paperview's version of the facts which, frankly, I believe must have been his own creation or was picked up at some leftwing hate site, because there is no way that I believe the bakers said anything like that to the gay couple. I believe they told the gay couple they couldn't do a gay wedding, but that is the worst thing I believe they said to them.

I see.

But the fact is, such gullibility cannot be ignored. She goes looking for things that closely match her ideals, and then at the same time wants to strike this balance you speak of. To a lesser extent though, I will remain suspicious. Although I was just as wayward once.

1.LOL. Well it is refreshing to hear somebody be honest about their changing views over time, and admitting that we don't always get it right. That is very rare on these message boards. But I imagine a lot of us have held convictions that just didn't make it over time or in the face of better information or in the light of superior reason and logic, and we have changed our position about this or that.

But Emily and everybody else is every bit as entitled to their opinions and beliefs as is anybody else, including the Christian bakers AND the gay couple who tried to order a wedding cake from them.

Nobody has shaken my belief in the principle I hold as conviction on this though. It doesn't matter if the Christian baker is right or wrong. It doesn't matter if the gay couple is right or wrong.

2.What DOES matter is that each has an unalienable right to be right or wrong with impunity so long as no participation or contribution is required of anybody else. To require the bakers to acquiesce to the demands of the gay couple is not acceptable any more than it would be acceptable for the Christian bakers to demand the gay couple denounce their homosexuality.

The hatemongers and bigots of the world want to force, demand, or coerce others into adopting and professing a single point of view. It isn't enough for them to live and let live. They seek to punish and destroy those who refuse to toe the political correctness line.

And that is evil.

1. I have no issue with people having their own opinions. It's when they force them on others that I gird myself for battle. Honesty is my weapon of choice.

2. Those who fear something or oppose something because of that fear will always demand individual acquiescence to such fears, so as to assuage those fears. Homosexuals for instance... I need not elaborate their patterns of behavior, you have such examples on this very thread. Men who do evil don't want evil done upon them, which is evil in itself.