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

[TemplarKormac]

No one is forcing them to enter into the private free enterprise market.

We open up a large can of worms if we allow everyone that falls back on their faith as their reason to judge one group of folks different than others based on what their religion is.

It isn't matter of judgement. This refusal was only specific to their beliefs! There was no evil intent, no malice, no hatred. What this is is a non allowance for them to practice their beliefs and convictions as they pertain to their personal lives! What ever happened to individual liberty in this country?

Ok, so if my beliefs and convictions that I do not want to marry blacks to whites then I can deny service to them.
Can of worms. Individual liberty goes as far as another persons nose. When you put your shingle out to serve the public then the discrimination laws apply.
But like I say this is rare if anything. "I am covered up" is sufficient to deny almost anyone service.

That is an incorrect application of the logic used by the couple in the bakery, sir. Because as a Christian I have nothing wrong with interracial marriage. I doubt they would either. I find it odd people continue to deflect from the central issue of people standing up for their religious convictions.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It isn't matter of judgement. This refusal was only specific to their beliefs! There was no evil intent, no malice, no hatred. What this is is a non allowance for them to practice their beliefs and convictions as they pertain to their personal lives! What ever happened to individual liberty in this country?

Ok, so if my beliefs and convictions that I do not want to marry blacks to whites then I can deny service to them.
Can of worms. Individual liberty goes as far as another persons nose. When you put your shingle out to serve the public then the discrimination laws apply.
But like I say this is rare if anything. "I am covered up" is sufficient to deny almost anyone service.

That is an incorrect application of the logic used by the couple in the bakery, sir. Because as a Christian I have nothing wrong with interracial marriage. I doubt they would either. I find it odd people continue to deflect from the central issue of people standing up for their religious convictions.

The logic used by the couple in the bakery is irrelevant to Gadawg's post.

The legal logic is what is in question.

Person "A" states their religious conviction is that races shouldn't intermarry - therefore based on Person "A" conviction they discriminate based on race.

Person "B" states their religious conviction is that gender shouldn't marry the same gender - therefore based on Person "B" conviction they discriminate based on the gender composition of the couple.​

Now remembering that this is based on religious convitions and (a) not all religious convictions are based on the Bible, and (b) even then some may interpret the Bible differently from others - then please explain why Person "A's" should not receive the same exemption under the law as Person "B".

If both should, any person under the law can discriminate based on race, gender, sexual orientation, age, parental status, martial status, veteran's status, etc simply by claiming that it is their personal religious conviction.

If only Christians can discriminate against gays because of their religious convictions, but others with differing convictions cannot, then it's really not about upholding religious convictions. It's asking for an exemption to only be able to discriminate against the "gheys".



>>>>

 

[Kondor3]

We are busy pissing and moaning about the Logic or Illogic utilized by the Bakery Couple when deciding to refuse to deliver their product to a Gay Wedding.

I seriously doubt that anything crossed their minds other than (1) Gay Marriage is an abomination in the eyes of God and (2) we should not be doing anything that God would not approve of.

Logic probably figured very little into the equation at the time.

All of our armchair quaterbacking is about what was probably a 2-second snapshot decision based upon religious convictions derived from condemnations (explicit and implicit) found in an ancient (yet still operative) religious texts.

They acted as their hearts and conscience led them to act, and I respect anyone who acts in that manner, in matters of principle and morality and ethics, as these apply to everyday life.

 

[WorldWatcher]

We are busy pissing and moaning about the Logic or Illogic utilized by the Bakery Couple when deciding to refuse to deliver their product to a Gay Wedding.

I seriously doubt that anything crossed their minds other than (1) Gay Marriage is an abomination in the eyes of God and (2) we should not be doing anything that God would not approve of.

Logic probably figured very little into the equation at the time.

All of our armchair quaterbacking is about what was probably a 2-second snapshot decision based upon religious convictions derived from condemnations (explicit and implicit) found in an ancient (yet still operative) religious texts.

They acted as their hearts and conscience led them to act, and I respect anyone who acts in that manner, in matters of principle and morality and ethics, as these apply to everyday life.

Unlike snapshot emotional decisions made by the individual, the application of the law must be logical and consistent. Public Accommodation laws should be repealed because the are the government usurping rights of private property, but while they exist they should be applied equally.

So you say that you support people that would discriminate against a black and white couple because their personal morality and ethics?



>>>>

 

[Vandalshandle]

God talked to me about this, and told me that he doesn't give a rat's ass about it one way or another.

 

[TemplarKormac]

We are busy pissing and moaning about the Logic or Illogic utilized by the Bakery Couple when deciding to refuse to deliver their product to a Gay Wedding.

I seriously doubt that anything crossed their minds other than (1) Gay Marriage is an abomination in the eyes of God and (2) we should not be doing anything that God would not approve of.

Logic probably figured very little into the equation at the time.

All of our armchair quarterbacking is about what was probably a 2-second snapshot decision based upon religious convictions derived from condemnations (explicit and implicit) found in an ancient (yet still operative) religious texts.

They acted as their hearts and conscience led them to act, and I respect anyone who acts in that manner, in matters of principle and morality and ethics, as these apply to everyday life.

Fine. Religious belief or conviction is no longer tolerable under the law. The only beliefs that are tolerable are ones sanctioned by the law. So be it. I get it now. The law does not allow a man to adhere to his faith for want of legality under the law. Funny, I thought it was the law that allowed a man to adhere to his faith. I guess I was wrong. We can tolerate homosexuals, but the rest of the world isn't obligated to tolerate us in return.

How invariably one sided.

 

[Foxfyre]

We are busy pissing and moaning about the Logic or Illogic utilized by the Bakery Couple when deciding to refuse to deliver their product to a Gay Wedding.

I seriously doubt that anything crossed their minds other than (1) Gay Marriage is an abomination in the eyes of God and (2) we should not be doing anything that God would not approve of.

Logic probably figured very little into the equation at the time.

All of our armchair quaterbacking is about what was probably a 2-second snapshot decision based upon religious convictions derived from condemnations (explicit and implicit) found in an ancient (yet still operative) religious texts.

They acted as their hearts and conscience led them to act, and I respect anyone who acts in that manner, in matters of principle and morality and ethics, as these apply to everyday life.

Unlike snapshot emotional decisions made by the individual, the application of the law must be logical and consistent. Public Accommodation laws should be repealed because the are the government usurping rights of private property, but while they exist they should be applied equally.

So you say that you support people that would discriminate against a black and white couple because their personal morality and ethics?
>>>>

It isn't a matter of supporting or not supporting anyone. If one has moral reservations about mixed race messages, it doesn't matter what any of the rest of us think about that. The person has an unalienable right to his moral reservations.

He has no leg to stand on to inflict those moral reservations on a customer who comes to his place of business. It costs him nothing to sell a product to or provide a service to that customer in his own shop. He has no reason to even know what the circumstances or convictions are of his customers at his own shop.

But to require him to set up a wedding cake at the wedding at THEIR premises, no. He should not be required to condone that with his presence even if all the rest of us in the world have no problem with that wedding.

 

[WorldWatcher]

We are busy pissing and moaning about the Logic or Illogic utilized by the Bakery Couple when deciding to refuse to deliver their product to a Gay Wedding.

I seriously doubt that anything crossed their minds other than (1) Gay Marriage is an abomination in the eyes of God and (2) we should not be doing anything that God would not approve of.

Logic probably figured very little into the equation at the time.

All of our armchair quaterbacking is about what was probably a 2-second snapshot decision based upon religious convictions derived from condemnations (explicit and implicit) found in an ancient (yet still operative) religious texts.

They acted as their hearts and conscience led them to act, and I respect anyone who acts in that manner, in matters of principle and morality and ethics, as these apply to everyday life.

Unlike snapshot emotional decisions made by the individual, the application of the law must be logical and consistent. Public Accommodation laws should be repealed because the are the government usurping rights of private property, but while they exist they should be applied equally.

So you say that you support people that would discriminate against a black and white couple because their personal morality and ethics?
>>>>

It isn't a matter of supporting or not supporting anyone. If one has moral reservations about mixed race messages, it doesn't matter what any of the rest of us think about that. The person has an unalienable right to his moral reservations.

He has no leg to stand on to inflict those moral reservations on a customer who comes to his place of business. It costs him nothing to sell a product to or provide a service to that customer in his own shop. He has no reason to even know what the circumstances or convictions are of his customers at his own shop.

But to require him to set up a wedding cake at the wedding at THEIR premises, no. He should not be required to condone that with his presence even if all the rest of us in the world have no problem with that wedding.

I'm sorry, but you are legally mistaken. The location of the discrimination when the business model calls for on-site services makes no difference as the NM case points out.

A Plumber can no more refuse to unclog the Jewish persons toilet in their home, based on religion, then they can refuse to someone a toilet wax ring in their storefront.

The solution is not defining "special privileges" that people can claim on morality/convictions/faith, the solution is true freedom and the repeal of Public Accommodation laws as applied to private businesses in general.



>>>>

 

[Foxfyre]

Unlike snapshot emotional decisions made by the individual, the application of the law must be logical and consistent. Public Accommodation laws should be repealed because the are the government usurping rights of private property, but while they exist they should be applied equally.

So you say that you support people that would discriminate against a black and white couple because their personal morality and ethics?
>>>>

It isn't a matter of supporting or not supporting anyone. If one has moral reservations about mixed race messages, it doesn't matter what any of the rest of us think about that. The person has an unalienable right to his moral reservations.

He has no leg to stand on to inflict those moral reservations on a customer who comes to his place of business. It costs him nothing to sell a product to or provide a service to that customer in his own shop. He has no reason to even know what the circumstances or convictions are of his customers at his own shop.

But to require him to set up a wedding cake at the wedding at THEIR premises, no. He should not be required to condone that with his presence even if all the rest of us in the world have no problem with that wedding.

I'm sorry, but you are legally mistaken. The location of the discrimination when the business model calls for on-site services makes no difference as the NM case points out.

A Plumber can no more refuse to unclog the Jewish persons toilet in their home, based on religion, then they can refuse to someone a toilet wax ring in their storefront.

The solution is not defining "special privileges" that people can claim on morality/convictions/faith, the solution is true freedom and the repeal of Public Accommodation laws as applied to private businesses in general.
>>>>

Again I am not arguing the law. There are good laws, just laws, stupid laws, bad laws. But for me, the law is not the issue in this case.

I am arguing a principle of unalienable rights that our Founders risked all their blood and treasure to defend. I am arguing a principle of being allowed our beliefs and convictions that require no contribution or participation by any other.

If the baker broke an existing law, I have no problem with the proper authorities enforcing the consequences of the law. If it is bad law, I have no problem with people petitioning their government to change the law and, if I agree with them, I would cheerfully join in that process.

But for me, unalienable rights trump all other considerations. For people to take upon themselves the moral authority to punish and destroy the baker for holding a conviction the mob does not share is wrong. It is hateful. It is evil. And it should be condoned by nobody.

 

[Cecilie1200]

who pulled Cecilie1200's cord

Awww, wuzz oo get oo feewings hurt?

GOOD!

 

[Cecilie1200]

who pulled Cecilie1200's cord

I think Cecille yanks his own cord.

His? You know a lot of men named Cecilie, do you, halfwit? Or do you just have trouble with that whole "boys have outties, girls have innies" thing?

 

[JOSweetHeart]

People who don't believe that they are doing anything wrong in the first place are not going to believe that they have a reason to repent either, so the smart money would not be on them if you are a person who bets.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

Agreed but do you convince someone they are in jeopardy of eternal damnation by beating them over the head and screaming at them, "YOU ARE GOING TO BURN IN HELL". Is that what Jesus did? Is that the way Christ came to you?

Immie

No that is not how the Lord came to me, but for some people in this world sadly, what needs to be said can not be sugar coated. It needs to be said flat out.

Paper,
I grew up in the deep South in the 1950's and 1960's. The majority of preachers and ministers taugh that segregation was "God's Plan". They told us that was why the black man was in Africa, and we were not (apparantly god did not anticipate ships being invented). Anyway, everything Holly has said about gays is just a word for word rehash of what the Christains taught us about blacks in Georgia. Only the miniority has been changed. i lived in a world of deep bigottry for 26 years, and failed to embrace it. Too bad that Holly does not take a good long look at herself in the miirror.

What do you think would happen if a heterosexual person was refused service at a homosexual bar? Which brings me to another question. If homosexual bars are allowed to exist, why can't heterosexual bakeries exist?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

Let me guess...fail you're GED?

I never had to take one because I graduated with the rest of my class back in 2000.

By the way, you messed up what you say to me here. Its "You failed your GED?"

Going the homosexual route is not Christ like.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

No, it is not, but put two gay men in the place of the adulteress brought to Christ to be stoned. If they were brought to him do you really think Jesus would have cast the first stone rather than tell those around him, "Ye without sin cast the first stone", knowing full well none of them would?

I know you have the right answer to that. Jesus would have done the same thing he did with the adulteress. Once the crowd broke up he would have said, "go and sin no more".

Immie

Yes, but the modern gay couple would sue him for not accepting them as they are, and win in court. As a Christian, I cannot watch them in sin and not warn them of the consequences, not should I be forced to accommodate their behavior simply because I own a business.

That does not mean the state should be judging them as long as they are not harming anyone else. It just means I should have the freedom to believe what I want, just like they insist they want.

Amen to what you say here, QW. If I were on a road that only led to a dead end and drove past people who knew it, I would very much appreciate it if they had given me the heads up that anyone in my position would like to have had.

God bless you three always!!!

Holly

 

[Alfalfa]

who pulled Cecilie1200's cord

I think Cecille yanks his own cord.

His? You know a lot of men named Cecilie, do you, halfwit? Or do you just have trouble with that whole "boys have outties, girls have innies" thing?

Well, you post like a dude...and yes, there are men named Cecil.

 

[Cecilie1200]

People who don't believe that they are doing anything wrong in the first place are not going to believe that they have a reason to repent either, so the smart money would not be on them if you are a person who bets.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

Agreed but do you convince someone they are in jeopardy of eternal damnation by beating them over the head and screaming at them, "YOU ARE GOING TO BURN IN HELL". Is that what Jesus did? Is that the way Christ came to you?

Immie

What did Jesus do when people refused to repent? I can find plenty of examples of him insulting people, berating them, and even resorting to physical violence. Just a thought, perhaps you should think about the side of Jesus that took a scourge to make his point rather than telling others what Jesus wouldn't do.

Is anyone else almighty tired of this make-believe pacifist Jesus the lefty dribblers have invented over the last few decades to try to co-opt Christianity for their own bullshit?

 

[bodecea]

It isn't matter of judgement. This refusal was only specific to their beliefs! There was no evil intent, no malice, no hatred. What this is is a non allowance for them to practice their beliefs and convictions as they pertain to their personal lives! What ever happened to individual liberty in this country?

Ok, so if my beliefs and convictions that I do not want to marry blacks to whites then I can deny service to them.
Can of worms. Individual liberty goes as far as another persons nose. When you put your shingle out to serve the public then the discrimination laws apply.
But like I say this is rare if anything. "I am covered up" is sufficient to deny almost anyone service.

That is an incorrect application of the logic used by the couple in the bakery, sir. Because as a Christian I have nothing wrong with interracial marriage. I doubt they would either. I find it odd people continue to deflect from the central issue of people standing up for their religious convictions.

Not all Christians agree with you AND with the Loving v. Virginia case, Christianity and the bible was used to argue for keeping the different races from legally marrying. 50 years from now, what do you think your christianity's position will be on gay marriage?

 

[paperview]

Ok, so if my beliefs and convictions that I do not want to marry blacks to whites then I can deny service to them.
Can of worms. Individual liberty goes as far as another persons nose. When you put your shingle out to serve the public then the discrimination laws apply.
But like I say this is rare if anything. "I am covered up" is sufficient to deny almost anyone service.

That is an incorrect application of the logic used by the couple in the bakery, sir. Because as a Christian I have nothing wrong with interracial marriage. I doubt they would either. I find it odd people continue to deflect from the central issue of people standing up for their religious convictions.

Not all Christians agree with you AND with the Loving v. Virginia case, Christianity and the bible was used to argue for keeping the different races from legally marrying. 50 years from now, what do you think your christianity's position will be on gay marriage?

I don't know how people can so consistently miss this point.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ok, so if my beliefs and convictions that I do not want to marry blacks to whites then I can deny service to them.
Can of worms. Individual liberty goes as far as another persons nose. When you put your shingle out to serve the public then the discrimination laws apply.
But like I say this is rare if anything. "I am covered up" is sufficient to deny almost anyone service.

Why is a can of worms for individuals to not be ordered around by the government?

Seriously, given your repeated assertions that you support individual freedom, a small government, and your constant complaints about other people wanting to shove their beliefs down your throat, why do you insist that the government have the ability to force people to do what you want?

I only see one answer to that question, and it ain't a pretty one.

 

[Foxfyre]

No one is forcing them to enter into the private free enterprise market.

We open up a large can of worms if we allow everyone that falls back on their faith as their reason to judge one group of folks different than others based on what their religion is.

It isn't matter of judgement. This refusal was only specific to their beliefs! There was no evil intent, no malice, no hatred. What this is is a non allowance for them to practice their beliefs and convictions as they pertain to their personal lives! What ever happened to individual liberty in this country?

Ok, so if my beliefs and convictions that I do not want to marry blacks to whites then I can deny service to them.
Can of worms. Individual liberty goes as far as another persons nose. When you put your shingle out to serve the public then the discrimination laws apply.
But like I say this is rare if anything. "I am covered up" is sufficient to deny almost anyone service.

No pastor should be required to marry anybody to anybody. Whether it is a case of divorcees wishing to marry or mixed races wishing to marry or same sex couples wishing to marry or what he suspects is a bigamous situation or if he just thinks the couple is too young and immature, it should be his unalienable right to choose what he will or will not participate in.

This is the principle that should apply in all these cases. Where the vendor or serviceman or store owner or whatever is not required to participate, then certainly non discrimination laws should apply. But when a person is required to participate in something with which he has moral convictions against, that is just wrong. And it violates unalienable rights.

 

[Warrior102]

I would have jerked off in the cake batter.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ok, so if my beliefs and convictions that I do not want to marry blacks to whites then I can deny service to them.
Can of worms. Individual liberty goes as far as another persons nose. When you put your shingle out to serve the public then the discrimination laws apply.
But like I say this is rare if anything. "I am covered up" is sufficient to deny almost anyone service.

That is an incorrect application of the logic used by the couple in the bakery, sir. Because as a Christian I have nothing wrong with interracial marriage. I doubt they would either. I find it odd people continue to deflect from the central issue of people standing up for their religious convictions.

The logic used by the couple in the bakery is irrelevant to Gadawg's post.

The legal logic is what is in question.

Person "A" states their religious conviction is that races shouldn't intermarry - therefore based on Person "A" conviction they discriminate based on race.

Person "B" states their religious conviction is that gender shouldn't marry the same gender - therefore based on Person "B" conviction they discriminate based on the gender composition of the couple.​

Now remembering that this is based on religious convitions and (a) not all religious convictions are based on the Bible, and (b) even then some may interpret the Bible differently from others - then please explain why Person "A's" should not receive the same exemption under the law as Person "B".

If both should, any person under the law can discriminate based on race, gender, sexual orientation, age, parental status, martial status, veteran's status, etc simply by claiming that it is their personal religious conviction.

If only Christians can discriminate against gays because of their religious convictions, but others with differing convictions cannot, then it's really not about upholding religious convictions. It's asking for an exemption to only be able to discriminate against the "gheys".



>>>>

I repeat my question, why the **** should the government be able to force people to do something just because you think it is right? What happens when you find the government focing you to do something you don't like and people come back and point out how you defended it when you liked it?

I categorically oppose the government being able to impose any beliefs on people, even ones I am sure are right, because it will not stop there.