If Gays Are Allowed to Target and Discriminate Against Christian Businesses. . . .

[mikegriffith1]

Here's a bit of information that most news outlets have not mentioned about the recent Supreme Court case involving the baker in Colorado who (politely) declined to bake a gay wedding cake for a gay couple: The baker served all of his other products to his gay customers. The one and only product that he would not provide to his gay customers was a same-sex wedding cake. But, nope, that wasn't good enough for the Gay Rights Gestapo. The gay couple took legal action against the baker. Luckily, the Supreme Court ruled against the gay couple, albeit on very narrow grounds, by a vote of 7-2 (Masterpiece Cakeshop: How Can a 7-2 Supreme Court Decision Be “Narrow?”).

This example of intolerance by the Gay Rights Gestapo is a repeat of what they have done to other Christian vendors. Take, for example, the Mennonite couple in Iowa--yes, they were Mennonites--who lost their business because they would not host a gay wedding. A gay couple, who did not even live in the same town but lived 25 minutes away, asked the Mennonite couple if they would host their gay wedding in the couple's small wedding chapel that was part of their bistro and flower shop business. The Mennonite couple offered to provide any other service the gay couple wanted. They even offered to provide flowers. But, they explained to the gay couple that because of their religious beliefs, they did not want to host a gay wedding in their wedding chapel (see Another Christian Family-Run Business Closing After Refusing to Host Gay Wedding.) And get this: The Mennonite couple routinely served gay customers and even hired gays as employees (see Mennonite husband and wife say they have no hatred toward gays; media say they're 'anti-gay')!

But you guessed it: That was not good enough for the Gay Rights Nazis. The gay couple filed a complaint against the Mennonite couple, and the Mennonite family began receiving hateful and threatening phone calls, and customers were afraid to dine at the bistro anymore because of the controversy. So the Mennonite couple ended up having to close their business.

Clearly, the gay couple targeted the Mennonite family's business in the hope of finding grounds to take legal action against it, and against them. Again, the gay couple didn't even live in the same town where the bistro was located but lived 25 minutes away. Also, there were numerous venues in the Des Moines area that advertised their willingness to host and serve gay weddings, but the gay couple decided to drive 25 minutes to the small town of Grimes to demand that the Mennonite couple host their gay wedding.

If the Mennonite family had been militant atheists who did not believe in any kind of marriage and who therefore would not host any weddings in their building, the gay couple would have simply found another venue. But since the couple were Mennonites and declined to host a gay wedding on religious grounds, the gay couple took legal action against them. That's what you call "discrimination," not to mention targeting and persecution.

Getting back to the recent Colorado case for a minute: Keep in mind that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the local courts that ruled against the Masterpiece Cakeshop baker also ruled in favor of a secular baker who refused to bake a cake that celebrated traditional marriage and that implied criticism of gay marriage. Oh, okay: So it's okay for a secular baker to refuse to bake a cake that they find offensive, but it's not okay for religious baker to refuse to bake a cake that they find offensive? Got it.

 

[BULLDOG]

Here's a bit of information that most news outlets have not mentioned about the recent Supreme Court case involving the baker in Colorado who (politely) declined to bake a gay wedding cake for a gay couple: The baker served all of his other products to his gay customers. The one and only product that he would not provide to his gay customers was a same-sex wedding cake. But, nope, that wasn't good enough for the Gay Rights Gestapo. The gay couple took legal action against the baker. Luckily, the Supreme Court ruled against the gay couple, albeit on very narrow grounds, by a vote of 7-2 (Masterpiece Cakeshop: How Can a 7-2 Supreme Court Decision Be “Narrow?”).

This example of intolerance by the Gay Rights Gestapo is a repeat of what they have done to other Christian vendors. Take, for example, the Mennonite couple in Iowa--yes, they were Mennonites--who lost their business because they would not host a gay wedding. A gay couple, who did not even live in the same town but lived 25 minutes away, asked the Mennonite couple if they would host their gay wedding in the couple's small wedding chapel that was part of their bistro and flower shop business. The Mennonite couple offered to provide any other service the gay couple wanted. They even offered to provide flowers. But, they explained to the gay couple that because of their religious beliefs, they did not want to host a gay wedding in their wedding chapel (see Another Christian Family-Run Business Closing After Refusing to Host Gay Wedding.) And get this: The Mennonite couple routinely served gay customers and even hired gays as employees (see Mennonite husband and wife say they have no hatred toward gays; media say they're 'anti-gay')!

But you guessed it: That was not good enough for the Gay Rights Nazis. The gay couple filed a complaint against the Mennonite couple, and the Mennonite family began receiving hateful and threatening phone calls, and customers were afraid to dine at the bistro anymore because of the controversy. So the Mennonite couple ended up having to close their business.

Clearly, the gay couple targeted the Mennonite family's business in the hope of finding grounds to take legal action against it, and against them. Again, the gay couple didn't even live in the same town where the bistro was located but lived 25 minutes away. Also, there were numerous venues in the Des Moines area that advertised their willingness to host and serve gay weddings, but the gay couple decided to drive 25 minutes to the small town of Grimes to demand that the Mennonite couple host their gay wedding.

If the Mennonite family had been militant atheists who did not believe in any kind of marriage and who therefore would not host any weddings in their building, the gay couple would have simply found another venue. But since the couple were Mennonites and declined to host a gay wedding on religious grounds, the gay couple took legal action against them. That's what you call "discrimination," not to mention targeting and persecution.

Getting back to the recent Colorado case for a minute: Keep in mind that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the local courts that ruled against the Masterpiece Cakeshop baker also ruled in favor of a secular baker who refused to bake a cake that celebrated traditional marriage and that implied criticism of gay marriage. Oh, okay: So it's okay for a secular baker to refuse to bake a cake that they find offensive, but it's not okay for religious baker to refuse to bake a cake that they find offensive? Got it.

Hard to understand why anyone would expect a business that is registered or licensed to serve the public should actually serve the public.

 

[TNHarley]

Here's a bit of information that most news outlets have not mentioned about the recent Supreme Court case involving the baker in Colorado who (politely) declined to bake a gay wedding cake for a gay couple: The baker served all of his other products to his gay customers. The one and only product that he would not provide to his gay customers was a same-sex wedding cake. But, nope, that wasn't good enough for the Gay Rights Gestapo. The gay couple took legal action against the baker. Luckily, the Supreme Court ruled against the gay couple, albeit on very narrow grounds, by a vote of 7-2 (Masterpiece Cakeshop: How Can a 7-2 Supreme Court Decision Be “Narrow?”).

This example of intolerance by the Gay Rights Gestapo is a repeat of what they have done to other Christian vendors. Take, for example, the Mennonite couple in Iowa--yes, they were Mennonites--who lost their business because they would not host a gay wedding. A gay couple, who did not even live in the same town but lived 25 minutes away, asked the Mennonite couple if they would host their gay wedding in the couple's small wedding chapel that was part of their bistro and flower shop business. The Mennonite couple offered to provide any other service the gay couple wanted. They even offered to provide flowers. But, they explained to the gay couple that because of their religious beliefs, they did not want to host a gay wedding in their wedding chapel (see Another Christian Family-Run Business Closing After Refusing to Host Gay Wedding.) And get this: The Mennonite couple routinely served gay customers and even hired gays as employees (see Mennonite husband and wife say they have no hatred toward gays; media say they're 'anti-gay')!

But you guessed it: That was not good enough for the Gay Rights Nazis. The gay couple filed a complaint against the Mennonite couple, and the Mennonite family began receiving hateful and threatening phone calls, and customers were afraid to dine at the bistro anymore because of the controversy. So the Mennonite couple ended up having to close their business.

Clearly, the gay couple targeted the Mennonite family's business in the hope of finding grounds to take legal action against it, and against them. Again, the gay couple didn't even live in the same town where the bistro was located but lived 25 minutes away. Also, there were numerous venues in the Des Moines area that advertised their willingness to host and serve gay weddings, but the gay couple decided to drive 25 minutes to the small town of Grimes to demand that the Mennonite couple host their gay wedding.

If the Mennonite family had been militant atheists who did not believe in any kind of marriage and who therefore would not host any weddings in their building, the gay couple would have simply found another venue. But since the couple were Mennonites and declined to host a gay wedding on religious grounds, the gay couple took legal action against them. That's what you call "discrimination," not to mention targeting and persecution.

Getting back to the recent Colorado case for a minute: Keep in mind that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the local courts that ruled against the Masterpiece Cakeshop baker also ruled in favor of a secular baker who refused to bake a cake that celebrated traditional marriage and that implied criticism of gay marriage. Oh, okay: So it's okay for a secular baker to refuse to bake a cake that they find offensive, but it's not okay for religious baker to refuse to bake a cake that they find offensive? Got it.

Hard to understand why anyone would expect a business that is registered or licensed to serve the public should actually serve the public.

Statist logic

 

[mikegriffith1]

Hard to understand why anyone would expect a business that is registered or licensed to serve the public should actually serve the public.

No, what's hard to understand is why any couple would drive to a small town just to target a Mennonite couple because of their religious beliefs.

How about the secular Colorado baker who refused to bake a pro-traditional marriage wedding cake? Oh, let me guess: Somehow, someway, that's okay, right?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Here's a bit of information that most news outlets have not mentioned about the recent Supreme Court case involving the baker in Colorado who (politely) declined to bake a gay wedding cake for a gay couple: The baker served all of his other products to his gay customers. The one and only product that he would not provide to his gay customers was a same-sex wedding cake. But, nope, that wasn't good enough for the Gay Rights Gestapo. The gay couple took legal action against the baker. Luckily, the Supreme Court ruled against the gay couple, albeit on very narrow grounds, by a vote of 7-2 (Masterpiece Cakeshop: How Can a 7-2 Supreme Court Decision Be “Narrow?”).

This example of intolerance by the Gay Rights Gestapo is a repeat of what they have done to other Christian vendors. Take, for example, the Mennonite couple in Iowa--yes, they were Mennonites--who lost their business because they would not host a gay wedding. A gay couple, who did not even live in the same town but lived 25 minutes away, asked the Mennonite couple if they would host their gay wedding in the couple's small wedding chapel that was part of their bistro and flower shop business. The Mennonite couple offered to provide any other service the gay couple wanted. They even offered to provide flowers. But, they explained to the gay couple that because of their religious beliefs, they did not want to host a gay wedding in their wedding chapel (see Another Christian Family-Run Business Closing After Refusing to Host Gay Wedding.) And get this: The Mennonite couple routinely served gay customers and even hired gays as employees (see Mennonite husband and wife say they have no hatred toward gays; media say they're 'anti-gay')!

But you guessed it: That was not good enough for the Gay Rights Nazis. The gay couple filed a complaint against the Mennonite couple, and the Mennonite family began receiving hateful and threatening phone calls, and customers were afraid to dine at the bistro anymore because of the controversy. So the Mennonite couple ended up having to close their business.

Clearly, the gay couple targeted the Mennonite family's business in the hope of finding grounds to take legal action against it, and against them. Again, the gay couple didn't even live in the same town where the bistro was located but lived 25 minutes away. Also, there were numerous venues in the Des Moines area that advertised their willingness to host and serve gay weddings, but the gay couple decided to drive 25 minutes to the small town of Grimes to demand that the Mennonite couple host their gay wedding.

If the Mennonite family had been militant atheists who did not believe in any kind of marriage and who therefore would not host any weddings in their building, the gay couple would have simply found another venue. But since the couple were Mennonites and declined to host a gay wedding on religious grounds, the gay couple took legal action against them. That's what you call "discrimination," not to mention targeting and persecution.

Getting back to the recent Colorado case for a minute: Keep in mind that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the local courts that ruled against the Masterpiece Cakeshop baker also ruled in favor of a secular baker who refused to bake a cake that celebrated traditional marriage and that implied criticism of gay marriage. Oh, okay: So it's okay for a secular baker to refuse to bake a cake that they find offensive, but it's not okay for religious baker to refuse to bake a cake that they find offensive? Got it.

Hard to understand why anyone would expect a business that is registered or licensed to serve the public should actually serve the public.

Statist logic

^ lives in a state, pretends not to

 

[mikegriffith1]

You see liberal bigotry on display here already. In both cases, the Christian vendors were willing to do anything else except the one thing the gay couple wanted, and so the gay couple sued the Christian vendors. Heck, in the Mennonite case, the Mennonite couple even had gay employees. But, nope, not good enough for the Gay Rights Nazis.

 

[TNHarley]

Here's a bit of information that most news outlets have not mentioned about the recent Supreme Court case involving the baker in Colorado who (politely) declined to bake a gay wedding cake for a gay couple: The baker served all of his other products to his gay customers. The one and only product that he would not provide to his gay customers was a same-sex wedding cake. But, nope, that wasn't good enough for the Gay Rights Gestapo. The gay couple took legal action against the baker. Luckily, the Supreme Court ruled against the gay couple, albeit on very narrow grounds, by a vote of 7-2 (Masterpiece Cakeshop: How Can a 7-2 Supreme Court Decision Be “Narrow?”).

This example of intolerance by the Gay Rights Gestapo is a repeat of what they have done to other Christian vendors. Take, for example, the Mennonite couple in Iowa--yes, they were Mennonites--who lost their business because they would not host a gay wedding. A gay couple, who did not even live in the same town but lived 25 minutes away, asked the Mennonite couple if they would host their gay wedding in the couple's small wedding chapel that was part of their bistro and flower shop business. The Mennonite couple offered to provide any other service the gay couple wanted. They even offered to provide flowers. But, they explained to the gay couple that because of their religious beliefs, they did not want to host a gay wedding in their wedding chapel (see Another Christian Family-Run Business Closing After Refusing to Host Gay Wedding.) And get this: The Mennonite couple routinely served gay customers and even hired gays as employees (see Mennonite husband and wife say they have no hatred toward gays; media say they're 'anti-gay')!

But you guessed it: That was not good enough for the Gay Rights Nazis. The gay couple filed a complaint against the Mennonite couple, and the Mennonite family began receiving hateful and threatening phone calls, and customers were afraid to dine at the bistro anymore because of the controversy. So the Mennonite couple ended up having to close their business.

Clearly, the gay couple targeted the Mennonite family's business in the hope of finding grounds to take legal action against it, and against them. Again, the gay couple didn't even live in the same town where the bistro was located but lived 25 minutes away. Also, there were numerous venues in the Des Moines area that advertised their willingness to host and serve gay weddings, but the gay couple decided to drive 25 minutes to the small town of Grimes to demand that the Mennonite couple host their gay wedding.

If the Mennonite family had been militant atheists who did not believe in any kind of marriage and who therefore would not host any weddings in their building, the gay couple would have simply found another venue. But since the couple were Mennonites and declined to host a gay wedding on religious grounds, the gay couple took legal action against them. That's what you call "discrimination," not to mention targeting and persecution.

Getting back to the recent Colorado case for a minute: Keep in mind that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the local courts that ruled against the Masterpiece Cakeshop baker also ruled in favor of a secular baker who refused to bake a cake that celebrated traditional marriage and that implied criticism of gay marriage. Oh, okay: So it's okay for a secular baker to refuse to bake a cake that they find offensive, but it's not okay for religious baker to refuse to bake a cake that they find offensive? Got it.

Hard to understand why anyone would expect a business that is registered or licensed to serve the public should actually serve the public.

Statist logic

^ lives in a state, pretends not to

Oh please

 

[TheOldSchool]

You see liberal bigotry on display here already. In both cases, the Christian vendors were willing to do anything else except the one thing the gay couple wanted, and so the gay couple sued the Christian vendors. Heck, in the Mennonite case, the Mennonite couple even had gay employees. But, nope, not good enough for the Gay Rights Nazis.

Yeah there was another water fountain right down the street. They could have just walked over to that one.

 

[TheOldSchool]

View attachment 199693

^ when far right conservatism is allowed to run wild

 

[TNHarley]

You see liberal bigotry on display here already. In both cases, the Christian vendors were willing to do anything else except the one thing the gay couple wanted, and so the gay couple sued the Christian vendors. Heck, in the Mennonite case, the Mennonite couple even had gay employees. But, nope, not good enough for the Gay Rights Nazis.

Yeah there was another water fountain right down the street. They could have just walked over to that one.

A public water fountain?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Here's a bit of information that most news outlets have not mentioned about the recent Supreme Court case involving the baker in Colorado who (politely) declined to bake a gay wedding cake for a gay couple: The baker served all of his other products to his gay customers. The one and only product that he would not provide to his gay customers was a same-sex wedding cake. But, nope, that wasn't good enough for the Gay Rights Gestapo. The gay couple took legal action against the baker. Luckily, the Supreme Court ruled against the gay couple, albeit on very narrow grounds, by a vote of 7-2 (Masterpiece Cakeshop: How Can a 7-2 Supreme Court Decision Be “Narrow?”).

This example of intolerance by the Gay Rights Gestapo is a repeat of what they have done to other Christian vendors. Take, for example, the Mennonite couple in Iowa--yes, they were Mennonites--who lost their business because they would not host a gay wedding. A gay couple, who did not even live in the same town but lived 25 minutes away, asked the Mennonite couple if they would host their gay wedding in the couple's small wedding chapel that was part of their bistro and flower shop business. The Mennonite couple offered to provide any other service the gay couple wanted. They even offered to provide flowers. But, they explained to the gay couple that because of their religious beliefs, they did not want to host a gay wedding in their wedding chapel (see Another Christian Family-Run Business Closing After Refusing to Host Gay Wedding.) And get this: The Mennonite couple routinely served gay customers and even hired gays as employees (see Mennonite husband and wife say they have no hatred toward gays; media say they're 'anti-gay')!

But you guessed it: That was not good enough for the Gay Rights Nazis. The gay couple filed a complaint against the Mennonite couple, and the Mennonite family began receiving hateful and threatening phone calls, and customers were afraid to dine at the bistro anymore because of the controversy. So the Mennonite couple ended up having to close their business.

Clearly, the gay couple targeted the Mennonite family's business in the hope of finding grounds to take legal action against it, and against them. Again, the gay couple didn't even live in the same town where the bistro was located but lived 25 minutes away. Also, there were numerous venues in the Des Moines area that advertised their willingness to host and serve gay weddings, but the gay couple decided to drive 25 minutes to the small town of Grimes to demand that the Mennonite couple host their gay wedding.

If the Mennonite family had been militant atheists who did not believe in any kind of marriage and who therefore would not host any weddings in their building, the gay couple would have simply found another venue. But since the couple were Mennonites and declined to host a gay wedding on religious grounds, the gay couple took legal action against them. That's what you call "discrimination," not to mention targeting and persecution.

Getting back to the recent Colorado case for a minute: Keep in mind that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the local courts that ruled against the Masterpiece Cakeshop baker also ruled in favor of a secular baker who refused to bake a cake that celebrated traditional marriage and that implied criticism of gay marriage. Oh, okay: So it's okay for a secular baker to refuse to bake a cake that they find offensive, but it's not okay for religious baker to refuse to bake a cake that they find offensive? Got it.

Hard to understand why anyone would expect a business that is registered or licensed to serve the public should actually serve the public.

"No shirt.
No shoes.
No service."

 

[TheOldSchool]

You see liberal bigotry on display here already. In both cases, the Christian vendors were willing to do anything else except the one thing the gay couple wanted, and so the gay couple sued the Christian vendors. Heck, in the Mennonite case, the Mennonite couple even had gay employees. But, nope, not good enough for the Gay Rights Nazis.

Yeah there was another water fountain right down the street. They could have just walked over to that one.

A public water fountain?

Could have been either

 

[TNHarley]

You see liberal bigotry on display here already. In both cases, the Christian vendors were willing to do anything else except the one thing the gay couple wanted, and so the gay couple sued the Christian vendors. Heck, in the Mennonite case, the Mennonite couple even had gay employees. But, nope, not good enough for the Gay Rights Nazis.

Yeah there was another water fountain right down the street. They could have just walked over to that one.

A public water fountain?

Could have been either

Definitely no on the public fountain.
Most people that dont agree with PA laws do not support discrimination by the govt.
However, most people that do support PA laws support discrimination from the govt.

 

[Syriusly]

Here's a bit of information that most news outlets have not mentioned about the recent Supreme Court case involving the baker in Colorado who (politely) declined to bake a gay wedding cake for a gay couple: The baker served all of his other products to his gay customers. The one and only product that he would not provide to his gay customers was a same-sex wedding cake. But, nope, that wasn't good enough for the Gay Rights Gestapo. The gay couple took legal action against the baker. Luckily, the Supreme Court ruled against the gay couple, albeit on very narrow grounds, by a vote of 7-2 (Masterpiece Cakeshop: How Can a 7-2 Supreme Court Decision Be “Narrow?”).

This example of intolerance by the Gay Rights Gestapo is a repeat of what they have done to other Christian vendors. Take, for example, the Mennonite couple in Iowa--yes, they were Mennonites--who lost their business because they would not host a gay wedding. A gay couple, who did not even live in the same town but lived 25 minutes away, asked the Mennonite couple if they would host their gay wedding in the couple's small wedding chapel that was part of their bistro and flower shop business. The Mennonite couple offered to provide any other service the gay couple wanted. They even offered to provide flowers. But, they explained to the gay couple that because of their religious beliefs, they did not want to host a gay wedding in their wedding chapel (see Another Christian Family-Run Business Closing After Refusing to Host Gay Wedding.) And get this: The Mennonite couple routinely served gay customers and even hired gays as employees (see Mennonite husband and wife say they have no hatred toward gays; media say they're 'anti-gay')!

But you guessed it: That was not good enough for the Gay Rights Nazis. The gay couple filed a complaint against the Mennonite couple, and the Mennonite family began receiving hateful and threatening phone calls, and customers were afraid to dine at the bistro anymore because of the controversy. So the Mennonite couple ended up having to close their business.

Clearly, the gay couple targeted the Mennonite family's business in the hope of finding grounds to take legal action against it, and against them. Again, the gay couple didn't even live in the same town where the bistro was located but lived 25 minutes away. Also, there were numerous venues in the Des Moines area that advertised their willingness to host and serve gay weddings, but the gay couple decided to drive 25 minutes to the small town of Grimes to demand that the Mennonite couple host their gay wedding.

If the Mennonite family had been militant atheists who did not believe in any kind of marriage and who therefore would not host any weddings in their building, the gay couple would have simply found another venue. But since the couple were Mennonites and declined to host a gay wedding on religious grounds, the gay couple took legal action against them. That's what you call "discrimination," not to mention targeting and persecution.

Getting back to the recent Colorado case for a minute: Keep in mind that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the local courts that ruled against the Masterpiece Cakeshop baker also ruled in favor of a secular baker who refused to bake a cake that celebrated traditional marriage and that implied criticism of gay marriage. Oh, okay: So it's okay for a secular baker to refuse to bake a cake that they find offensive, but it's not okay for religious baker to refuse to bake a cake that they find offensive? Got it.

http://www.slate.com/human-interest...inize-their-voices-through-voice-therapy.html

The Odgaards once ran a for-profit art gallery, flower shop, and bistro in a former church, which they also rented out for weddings. But the Odgaards refused to rent out the space to same-sex couples, humiliating one gay couple by telling them: “I can’t take your money, and we don’t do anything for free.” The couple filed a complaint with the state civil rights commission; the Odgaards ultimately settled the case for $5,000, which the gay couple donated to an anti-gay bullying program. The Odgaards then stopped renting out the space for any weddings, and eventually sold it to Harvest Bible Chapel, an evangelical congregation.

 

[Syriusly]

You see liberal bigotry on display here already. In both cases, the Christian vendors were willing to do anything else except the one thing the gay couple wanted, and so the gay couple sued the Christian vendors. Heck, in the Mennonite case, the Mennonite couple even had gay employees. But, nope, not good enough for the Gay Rights Nazis.

And by 'gay rights nazis' you mean of course gay couples taking advantage of the exact same law that would apply if the Christian couples were discriminated against by Jews or Muslims.

Those kinds of nazis.

 

[Aldo Raine]

Here's a bit of information that most news outlets have not mentioned about the recent Supreme Court case involving the baker in Colorado who (politely) declined to bake a gay wedding cake for a gay couple: The baker served all of his other products to his gay customers. The one and only product that he would not provide to his gay customers was a same-sex wedding cake. But, nope, that wasn't good enough for the Gay Rights Gestapo. The gay couple took legal action against the baker. Luckily, the Supreme Court ruled against the gay couple, albeit on very narrow grounds, by a vote of 7-2 (Masterpiece Cakeshop: How Can a 7-2 Supreme Court Decision Be “Narrow?”).

This example of intolerance by the Gay Rights Gestapo is a repeat of what they have done to other Christian vendors. Take, for example, the Mennonite couple in Iowa--yes, they were Mennonites--who lost their business because they would not host a gay wedding. A gay couple, who did not even live in the same town but lived 25 minutes away, asked the Mennonite couple if they would host their gay wedding in the couple's small wedding chapel that was part of their bistro and flower shop business. The Mennonite couple offered to provide any other service the gay couple wanted. They even offered to provide flowers. But, they explained to the gay couple that because of their religious beliefs, they did not want to host a gay wedding in their wedding chapel (see Another Christian Family-Run Business Closing After Refusing to Host Gay Wedding.) And get this: The Mennonite couple routinely served gay customers and even hired gays as employees (see Mennonite husband and wife say they have no hatred toward gays; media say they're 'anti-gay')!

But you guessed it: That was not good enough for the Gay Rights Nazis. The gay couple filed a complaint against the Mennonite couple, and the Mennonite family began receiving hateful and threatening phone calls, and customers were afraid to dine at the bistro anymore because of the controversy. So the Mennonite couple ended up having to close their business.

Clearly, the gay couple targeted the Mennonite family's business in the hope of finding grounds to take legal action against it, and against them. Again, the gay couple didn't even live in the same town where the bistro was located but lived 25 minutes away. Also, there were numerous venues in the Des Moines area that advertised their willingness to host and serve gay weddings, but the gay couple decided to drive 25 minutes to the small town of Grimes to demand that the Mennonite couple host their gay wedding.

If the Mennonite family had been militant atheists who did not believe in any kind of marriage and who therefore would not host any weddings in their building, the gay couple would have simply found another venue. But since the couple were Mennonites and declined to host a gay wedding on religious grounds, the gay couple took legal action against them. That's what you call "discrimination," not to mention targeting and persecution.

Getting back to the recent Colorado case for a minute: Keep in mind that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the local courts that ruled against the Masterpiece Cakeshop baker also ruled in favor of a secular baker who refused to bake a cake that celebrated traditional marriage and that implied criticism of gay marriage. Oh, okay: So it's okay for a secular baker to refuse to bake a cake that they find offensive, but it's not okay for religious baker to refuse to bake a cake that they find offensive? Got it.

Hard to understand why anyone would expect a business that is registered or licensed to serve the public should actually serve the public.

I get that, but you should be allowed to serve who you want from a business standpoint! If you want to turn down an opportunity to make money, that is on you!

 

[JGalt]

Here's a bit of information that most news outlets have not mentioned about the recent Supreme Court case involving the baker in Colorado who (politely) declined to bake a gay wedding cake for a gay couple: The baker served all of his other products to his gay customers. The one and only product that he would not provide to his gay customers was a same-sex wedding cake. But, nope, that wasn't good enough for the Gay Rights Gestapo. The gay couple took legal action against the baker. Luckily, the Supreme Court ruled against the gay couple, albeit on very narrow grounds, by a vote of 7-2 (Masterpiece Cakeshop: How Can a 7-2 Supreme Court Decision Be “Narrow?”).

This example of intolerance by the Gay Rights Gestapo is a repeat of what they have done to other Christian vendors. Take, for example, the Mennonite couple in Iowa--yes, they were Mennonites--who lost their business because they would not host a gay wedding. A gay couple, who did not even live in the same town but lived 25 minutes away, asked the Mennonite couple if they would host their gay wedding in the couple's small wedding chapel that was part of their bistro and flower shop business. The Mennonite couple offered to provide any other service the gay couple wanted. They even offered to provide flowers. But, they explained to the gay couple that because of their religious beliefs, they did not want to host a gay wedding in their wedding chapel (see Another Christian Family-Run Business Closing After Refusing to Host Gay Wedding.) And get this: The Mennonite couple routinely served gay customers and even hired gays as employees (see Mennonite husband and wife say they have no hatred toward gays; media say they're 'anti-gay')!

But you guessed it: That was not good enough for the Gay Rights Nazis. The gay couple filed a complaint against the Mennonite couple, and the Mennonite family began receiving hateful and threatening phone calls, and customers were afraid to dine at the bistro anymore because of the controversy. So the Mennonite couple ended up having to close their business.

Clearly, the gay couple targeted the Mennonite family's business in the hope of finding grounds to take legal action against it, and against them. Again, the gay couple didn't even live in the same town where the bistro was located but lived 25 minutes away. Also, there were numerous venues in the Des Moines area that advertised their willingness to host and serve gay weddings, but the gay couple decided to drive 25 minutes to the small town of Grimes to demand that the Mennonite couple host their gay wedding.

If the Mennonite family had been militant atheists who did not believe in any kind of marriage and who therefore would not host any weddings in their building, the gay couple would have simply found another venue. But since the couple were Mennonites and declined to host a gay wedding on religious grounds, the gay couple took legal action against them. That's what you call "discrimination," not to mention targeting and persecution.

Getting back to the recent Colorado case for a minute: Keep in mind that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the local courts that ruled against the Masterpiece Cakeshop baker also ruled in favor of a secular baker who refused to bake a cake that celebrated traditional marriage and that implied criticism of gay marriage. Oh, okay: So it's okay for a secular baker to refuse to bake a cake that they find offensive, but it's not okay for religious baker to refuse to bake a cake that they find offensive? Got it.

Hard to understand why anyone would expect a business that is registered or licensed to serve the public should actually serve the public.

Their business, their rules. Like the signs say, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone..."

 

[Slyhunter]

You see liberal bigotry on display here already. In both cases, the Christian vendors were willing to do anything else except the one thing the gay couple wanted, and so the gay couple sued the Christian vendors. Heck, in the Mennonite case, the Mennonite couple even had gay employees. But, nope, not good enough for the Gay Rights Nazis.

Yeah there was another water fountain right down the street. They could have just walked over to that one.

You can't force an artist to create a work of art he doesn't want to.

 

[Syriusly]

You see liberal bigotry on display here already. In both cases, the Christian vendors were willing to do anything else except the one thing the gay couple wanted, and so the gay couple sued the Christian vendors. Heck, in the Mennonite case, the Mennonite couple even had gay employees. But, nope, not good enough for the Gay Rights Nazis.

Yeah there was another water fountain right down the street. They could have just walked over to that one.

You can't force an artist to create a work of art he doesn't want to.

The Pope clearly didn't agree with you.
Michelangelo Biography

 

[Moonglow]

Here's a bit of information that most news outlets have not mentioned about the recent Supreme Court case involving the baker in Colorado who (politely) declined to bake a gay wedding cake for a gay couple: The baker served all of his other products to his gay customers. The one and only product that he would not provide to his gay customers was a same-sex wedding cake. But, nope, that wasn't good enough for the Gay Rights Gestapo. The gay couple took legal action against the baker. Luckily, the Supreme Court ruled against the gay couple, albeit on very narrow grounds, by a vote of 7-2 (Masterpiece Cakeshop: How Can a 7-2 Supreme Court Decision Be “Narrow?”).

This example of intolerance by the Gay Rights Gestapo is a repeat of what they have done to other Christian vendors. Take, for example, the Mennonite couple in Iowa--yes, they were Mennonites--who lost their business because they would not host a gay wedding. A gay couple, who did not even live in the same town but lived 25 minutes away, asked the Mennonite couple if they would host their gay wedding in the couple's small wedding chapel that was part of their bistro and flower shop business. The Mennonite couple offered to provide any other service the gay couple wanted. They even offered to provide flowers. But, they explained to the gay couple that because of their religious beliefs, they did not want to host a gay wedding in their wedding chapel (see Another Christian Family-Run Business Closing After Refusing to Host Gay Wedding.) And get this: The Mennonite couple routinely served gay customers and even hired gays as employees (see Mennonite husband and wife say they have no hatred toward gays; media say they're 'anti-gay')!

But you guessed it: That was not good enough for the Gay Rights Nazis. The gay couple filed a complaint against the Mennonite couple, and the Mennonite family began receiving hateful and threatening phone calls, and customers were afraid to dine at the bistro anymore because of the controversy. So the Mennonite couple ended up having to close their business.

Clearly, the gay couple targeted the Mennonite family's business in the hope of finding grounds to take legal action against it, and against them. Again, the gay couple didn't even live in the same town where the bistro was located but lived 25 minutes away. Also, there were numerous venues in the Des Moines area that advertised their willingness to host and serve gay weddings, but the gay couple decided to drive 25 minutes to the small town of Grimes to demand that the Mennonite couple host their gay wedding.

If the Mennonite family had been militant atheists who did not believe in any kind of marriage and who therefore would not host any weddings in their building, the gay couple would have simply found another venue. But since the couple were Mennonites and declined to host a gay wedding on religious grounds, the gay couple took legal action against them. That's what you call "discrimination," not to mention targeting and persecution.

Getting back to the recent Colorado case for a minute: Keep in mind that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the local courts that ruled against the Masterpiece Cakeshop baker also ruled in favor of a secular baker who refused to bake a cake that celebrated traditional marriage and that implied criticism of gay marriage. Oh, okay: So it's okay for a secular baker to refuse to bake a cake that they find offensive, but it's not okay for religious baker to refuse to bake a cake that they find offensive? Got it.

Hard to understand why anyone would expect a business that is registered or licensed to serve the public should actually serve the public.

Equally...without malice of forethought.