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

[Alfalfa]

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.

You are the one that supports mob majority rule government, not me.
I could care less about your beliefs as long as you do not want to use government to force others to ACT on them.
You believe homosexuals are 2nd class citizens and support government keeping them in their place. You support mob majority rule referendums forcing government to deny homosexuals equal protection under the law.
Did you support government when they ended the ban on interracial marriage?
Did you support government when they ended the ban on segregation?
Did you support government when women were allowed to vote?
Did you support when they ended prohibition?
Why did YOU insist that the government have the ability in each of those matters to force people to do what YOU want?
You single out homosexuals and put them in a certain group because your religious beliefs and/or prejudices tell you to do so.
And you do not have the balls to admit it.
Do you support referendums that ban gay marriage and use the strong arm of government to do so?
You have run from that question like a monkey on fire for how long now?

Did you support government when they ended the ban on interracial marriage?
Did you support government when they ended the ban on segregation?
Did you support government when women were allowed to vote?
Did you support when they ended prohibition?

Weird. Xtians were against all those as well and used the bible to defend their positions.

 

[Alfalfa]

Amen an amen. It would be as wrong to force a PETA person to provide services at a butchers convention as it would to force black bakers (or anybody else) to provide services at a KKK ceremony or to force a strong AGW advocate to provide services at a anti-global warming meeting.

Nobody should be required to participate in anything they have moral reservations with or for any other reason. Nobody should have the right to tell anybody where they have to go or what they have to do for the benefit of another.

Sorry to burst your bubble but in all 3 scenarios you put forth the service providers would be legally protected in not serving those customers since political positions are not protected classes.

This is said over and over and over and over but the xtian bigots and haters who want their pervasive form of bigotry enshrined in law don't listen because these kinds of arguments, that are immaterial to the issue at hand, are all they have.

Pathetic and sad.

Want to explain why someone who is a member of PETA would be able to argue that not bringing flowers to a convention of butchers is OK because cutting up meat is a political position?

Because butchers are not a protected class.

how many times must this be said before it penetrates that thick bible cranium god gave you?

 

[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.

You are the one that supports mob majority rule government, not me.
I could care less about your beliefs as long as you do not want to use government to force others to ACT on them.
You believe homosexuals are 2nd class citizens and support government keeping them in their place. You support mob majority rule referendums forcing government to deny homosexuals equal protection under the law.
Did you support government when they ended the ban on interracial marriage?
Did you support government when they ended the ban on segregation?
Did you support government when women were allowed to vote?
Did you support when they ended prohibition?
Why did YOU insist that the government have the ability in each of those matters to force people to do what YOU want?
You single out homosexuals and put them in a certain group because your religious beliefs and/or prejudices tell you to do so.
And you do not have the balls to admit it.
Do you support referendums that ban gay marriage and use the strong arm of government to do so?
You have run from that question like a monkey on fire for how long now?

There you go again. Your only defense when someone pins you down is to accuse other people of having your viewpoint, and then attacking it.

I oppose all laws that impose a duty on private individuals to associate with anyone, even if I think they make sense. That is a principle because I don't want the government that can tell people that they have to do something simply because the majority thinks it is a good idea. Somehow, this warps inside your head to me supporting majority rule over freedom.

I oppose all government definition of marraige. The only reason the government regulates marraige is to tell people who they can associate with, and in what way. This means that I have no problem if 250 consenting adults want to gt together and call it a marraige. It is not the government's business, mine, or yours, how they conduct themselves as long as they are not forcing their views on another person.

You, on the other hand, would require them to get government approval, and then force anyone who disagreed with you to obey because it is the law.

I haven't run from anything. My position has always been consistently against the government being allowed to control people, which is why you cannot fathom it. You cannot imagine a world where the government does not tell you what to think, it scares you.

It doesn't scare me.

 

[Alfalfa]

Behind the Name: Meaning, Origin and History of the Name Cecilie

jus sayin

CECILIE
GENDER: Feminine
USAGE: Norwegian, Danish, Czech
Meaning & History
Norwegian, Danish and Czech form of CECILIA


Thanks. Evidently Cecilie doesn't know the origins of his own name.

He's named after a girl. His parent's should have just named him "Sue".

Johnny Cash bada bing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sorry to burst your bubble but in all 3 scenarios you put forth the service providers would be legally protected in not serving those customers since political positions are not protected classes.

This is said over and over and over and over but the xtian bigots and haters who want their pervasive form of bigotry enshrined in law don't listen because these kinds of arguments, that are immaterial to the issue at hand, are all they have.

Pathetic and sad.

Want to explain why someone who is a member of PETA would be able to argue that not bringing flowers to a convention of butchers is OK because cutting up meat is a political position?

Because butchers are not a protected class.

how many times must this be said before it penetrates that thick bible cranium god gave you?

The law says that anyone that has a business has to take any customer that walks through their door. This explains why a PETA freak can walk into a restaurant and demand to be served, and the restaurant cannot refuse them service. If that PETA florists hanldes a convention, it has to handle all of them despite your idiotic belief that human rights are based on classes.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And you think this is a persuasive argument? Heheh...

When you stick to prevaricated opinions like you do, nothing will ever persuade you. Given that I am a "Fundie" I can change my views on a dime if I think they are superior to the ones I held previously. I can, however, accuse you of being closed minded.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Behind the Name: Meaning, Origin and History of the Name Cecilie

jus sayin

CECILIE
GENDER: Feminine
USAGE: Norwegian, Danish, Czech
Meaning & History
Norwegian, Danish and Czech form of CECILIA


Thanks. Evidently Cecilie doesn't know the origins of his own name.

He's named after a girl. His parent's should have just named him "Sue".

Johnny Cash bada bing.

You, Paper, and RKM all have been systematically dismantled, and the result is this, making fun of people's names. Funny, I thought we were the bigots? How childish you are.

 

[bendog]

Behind the Name: Meaning, Origin and History of the Name Cecilie

jus sayin

CECILIE
GENDER: Feminine
USAGE: Norwegian, Danish, Czech
Meaning & History
Norwegian, Danish and Czech form of CECILIA


Thanks. Evidently Cecilie doesn't know the origins of his own name.

He's named after a girl. His parent's should have just named him "Sue".

Johnny Cash bada bing.

I have no dog in the fight, but confusion seems understandable.

 

[paperview]

Behind the Name: Meaning, Origin and History of the Name Cecilie

jus sayin

CECILIE
GENDER: Feminine
USAGE: Norwegian, Danish, Czech
Meaning & History
Norwegian, Danish and Czech form of CECILIA


Thanks. Evidently Cecilie doesn't know the origins of his own name.

He's named after a girl. His parent's should have just named him "Sue".

Johnny Cash bada bing.

You, Paper, and RKM all have been systematically dismantled, and the result is this, making fun of people's names. Funny, I thought we were the bigots? How childish you are.

lol. Systematically dismantled. Only in your head.

Reading your posts elicits the Holy Grail torso.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Amen an amen. It would be as wrong to force a PETA person to provide services at a butchers convention as it would to force black bakers (or anybody else) to provide services at a KKK ceremony or to force a strong AGW advocate to provide services at a anti-global warming meeting.

Nobody should be required to participate in anything they have moral reservations with or for any other reason. Nobody should have the right to tell anybody where they have to go or what they have to do for the benefit of another.

So could you clarify your position regarding the Oregon Bakery:

1. Two woman come in and orders a sheet cake for a small wedding reception and it becomes clear it is for her and her soon to be wife, said cake to be picked up at the shop. The inscriptions reads "May Jane and Joan enjoy many years of marital happiness!".

2. Two woman come in and orders a tiered cake for a small wedding reception and it becomes clear it is for her and her soon to be wife, said cake to be delivered to the reception hall. The inscriptions reads "May Jane and Joan enjoy many years of marital happiness!".​

The shop owner objects to same gender weddings based on personal conviction, yet under #1 the government is allowed to limit the conditions under which discrimination occurs but under #2 is not? Is that correct?

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

Using a similar scenario to the Oregon Bakery:

1. A black woman and white man come in and orders a sheet cake for a small wedding reception and it becomes clear it is for her and her soon to be husband, said cake to be picked up at the shop. The inscriptions reads "May Jane and Johan enjoy many years of marital happiness!".

2. A black woman and white man come in and orders a tiered cake for a small wedding reception and it becomes clear it is for her and her soon to be husband, said cake to be delivered to the reception hall. The inscriptions reads "May Jane and Johan enjoy many years of marital happiness!".​

The shop owner objects to interracial weddings based on personal conviction, yet under #1 the government is allowed to limit the conditions under which discrimination occurs but under #2 is not? Is that correct?


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

Trying to mince whether a business transaction takes place in the person's shop or at a client location just doesn't make any logical sense. In BOTH scenario's the location of the delivery of services is irrelevant to the fundamental violation of the law. The law encroaches on the private property rights of the owner in BOTH scenario's and trying to justify discrimination based on the fact that in one case a cake is picked up in the store and in another it's delivered to a reception hall (which BTW is not taking part in the ceremony) seems like a stretch.



>>>>

Why do you keep defending laws you say you do not agree with?

I'm not.

I'm showing the hypocrisy of saying that private business should be able to refuse gay customers because they have moral objections to homosexuals and then those same people say that it's OK for big government to require private businesses to not discriminate on other factors (race, religion, gender, age, etc.).

To say "my group should be able to discriminate against he gays because that is our our conviction", but agree that the government has the power to force other people to violate their convictions when it is a different group is a hypocritical position as it is using big government to force other people to violate their convictions.

The solution isn't carving out "special privileges" for people of faith to justify discrimination against gays, the solution is to return the decision to private business for any reason.

Is it because you really don't understand that it is acceptable to challenge them on the basis of personal principle, even if everyone else on the planet disagrees with you?

#1 - I don't have a problem with someone challenging my position. I deal with them in a respectful and considerate manner. Unlike you.

#2 - I don't have an issue with private business discriminating based on whatever criteria they wish to choose. As the Oregon Bakery case shows, if the public doesn't like it, they will take their business elsewhere.

Grow some balls and argue what you say your position is, or shut up.

I've stated my position very clearly, sorry you don't understand it.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.



>>>>

So what is the argument you're making? "This should be the law, because it's the law"? You're talking about what the law IS, as though that settles some question about what the law SHOULD BE, which is what Foxfyre appears to be discussing.

I discuss the topic with the recognition that I have an opinion of what the law (or lack of actually) should be, but that does not preclude a discussion of reality and what the current status of the law is.


>>>>

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

I agree with most of what you say,
but wouldn't call this evil. It is selfish and human
as most people are. People are hurt and express this
by hurting others back. Not trying to be evil, just seeking justice
in ways that end up hurting both sides until we learn better ways.

Thanks, this is the best explanation of your view so far and I think this should be clear!

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.



>>>>

So what is the argument you're making? "This should be the law, because it's the law"? You're talking about what the law IS, as though that settles some question about what the law SHOULD BE, which is what Foxfyre appears to be discussing.

I discuss the topic with the recognition that I have an opinion of what the law (or lack of actually) should be, but that does not preclude a discussion of reality and what the current status of the law is.


>>>>

You extol the law, but you do not extol the rights the first laws of this country gave to the people, namely the U.S. Constitution, which I can discern has no bearing on your opinion of the law.

 

[TemplarKormac]

CECILIE
GENDER: Feminine
USAGE: Norwegian, Danish, Czech
Meaning & History
Norwegian, Danish and Czech form of CECILIA


Thanks. Evidently Cecilie doesn't know the origins of his own name.

He's named after a girl. His parent's should have just named him "Sue".

Johnny Cash bada bing.

You, Paper, and RKM all have been systematically dismantled, and the result is this, making fun of people's names. Funny, I thought we were the bigots? How childish you are.

lol. Systematically dismantled. Only in your head.

Reading your posts elicits the Holy Grail torso.

Given that for the past dozen of your responses to me, you have done nothing but insult me instead of argue or debate... I think that conjures up images of that flower in your avatar being not a rose but a stem of thorns.

 

[Mertex]

It might. Suppose it was a heterosexual couple and a cohabitation ceremony without marriage? The Christians opposed living in sin. It would end up the exact same way.

That's come up with landlords and inn keepers who refused to rent to couples just living together or running off to the Notell Motel.

They told the reporter (from the Pulitzer prize winning newspaper) they would bake a baby shower cake for a lady having her second baby with her boyfriend.

And a pagan solstice cake they would bake too.

With a pentagram design.

They's all in on that. Cafeteria christians as well as bakers.

In other words, they don't believe what YOU do, and they don't believe what you THINK they should if they're going to disagree with you. Ergo, they can't REALLY be Christians, because YOU are the final arbiter on what ALL Christians do and don't believe.

Piss off.

They can be Christians, but their application of Christianity is a bit screwed up. You can't claim you are adhering to your faith when you pick and choose what you will obey.

 

[RKMBrown]

They told the reporter (from the Pulitzer prize winning newspaper) they would bake a baby shower cake for a lady having her second baby with her boyfriend.

And a pagan solstice cake they would bake too.

With a pentagram design.

They's all in on that. Cafeteria christians as well as bakers.

In other words, they don't believe what YOU do, and they don't believe what you THINK they should if they're going to disagree with you. Ergo, they can't REALLY be Christians, because YOU are the final arbiter on what ALL Christians do and don't believe.

Piss off.

They can be Christians, but their application of Christianity is a bit screwed up. You can't claim you are adhering to your faith when you pick and choose what you will obey.

Why not? Since when are Christians without sin?

 

[WorldWatcher]

So what is the argument you're making? "This should be the law, because it's the law"? You're talking about what the law IS, as though that settles some question about what the law SHOULD BE, which is what Foxfyre appears to be discussing.

I discuss the topic with the recognition that I have an opinion of what the law (or lack of actually) should be, but that does not preclude a discussion of reality and what the current status of the law is.


>>>>

You extol the law, but you do not extol the rights the first laws of this country gave to the people, namely the U.S. Constitution, which I can discern has no bearing on your opinion of the law.

Your position, special privileges for any moral/religious/faith position should be added and everyone else is on their own, but when asked if someone could then discriminate against blacks your dodged and said discrimination against blacks wasn't in the Bible, since it wasn't in the Bible (in your opinion) then it wouldn't count event that it might be the moral/religious/faith position of another person. That results in the government then having to pick and choose which moral/religious/faith positions are valid or invalid.

My position, Public Accommodation laws should be repealed as a class of laws that apply to private business in recognition of the property rights of the private business owner. If repealed the moral/religious/faith question becomes irrelevant because private business can exercise their property rights as they see fit in terms of which customers to choose to which to sell goods or services.



Your position appears to be targeted to allow only discrimination against the gays, but it's OK for big government to protect other groups. I want is smaller less intrusive government for everyone. It protects ALL religious/moral/faith views - like them or not - instead of just creating laws for open season on gays. Now which is the more Constitutional?


>>>>

 

[Mertex]

This thread seems to have proven that perpetual motion, of a sorts, is, in fact possible! I like to check in every couple of days to see where it has headed. Now, I see that the baker who lost his customers and went out of business, is equivenelent to "It would be like me forcing a flaming homo to marry a straight at gunpoint. ". Now, under some circumstances, I would be forced by my couriosity to research this twisted path of logic, but, I would rather just let my imagination be my guide as to how this consclusion was reached! I'll be back in a couple of days, and I am sure that somehow or another, Hitler, JFK's assasination , and global warming will somehow be tied into this issue....

In a couple days these 2 bakers will be nominated for beatification...

No, they will be offered jobs at Faux News.

 

[NLT]

I would have jerked off in the cake batter.

Repeat customer! Did Plasma Balls order another cake?

 

[RKMBrown]

Here's you cake... enjoy the frosting. Nudge.

I make it a point to never piss off someone that is making my food.