No Cake for You

[HereWeGoAgain]

Edgetho

Put your head between your knees and take long slow breaths.

And, PLEASE, take your meds.

I can't, not with your head in the way

Ouch!!!

 

[BULLDOG]

If your sole purpose is to destroy a business instead of giving them business, then you are taking place in militant activism. You are purposefully targeting someone in order to expose and destroy them because of a difference in beliefs. You have crossed the line from holding a mere opinion to using that opinion to inflict damage on other individuals. I'm sorry, but I don't believe for one moment those two ladies had any intention of buying a cake. The law is clear, but the intent was not commercial. Those two women, in fact, were repeat customers there and knowing full well the beliefs of the proprietor(s). But suddenly out of the blue they ask them to bake a cake for a same sex wedding. To me, that is the definition of "ulterior motive."

Every business owner has their own beliefs, their own convictions, and suddenly they have to sacrifice them just to run a business in compliance with the law, and yes, sacrifices must be made. But here's the catch: that's wrong. There is something woefully wrong. Yes, the law is important, and rules are rules; don't misunderstand me here.

But if you have to sacrifice something sacred to you in order to succeed in business and appease the rule of law, then this is justice run amok. I agree, business is business, and money is money and rightly so; but as someone who admires the law, the law also isn't perfect. There are good laws, and not so well thought out ones. Though, until the law changes, people must obey it. To be succinct, however, obedience should not come at the price of your own morals and convictions.

Call me a homophobe, a bigot, ignorant, stupid, misguided or whatever you like, but that is my observation on this topic. I don't hate gay people, but I don't like the ones who would force other people to accept their lifestyle. I mean, if the act of forcing your religious beliefs on others is wrong, just imagine how they feel when the same is done to them! Behavior like such is only self serving and only widens the chasm between supporters and opposition. It breeds more hatred than understanding. If respect and acceptance is the goal, then one must strive to show it also. The double edged sword sitting next to me would agree.



No Icing on the Cake for Christian Business Owners Who Refused to Bake for Lesbian Couple

Could you explain what you mean by "justice run amuck" ? All businesses are required to abide by the laws, and if someone's beliefs are a problem with the requirements for that business, then they should do something else. I agree that some laws should be changed, but that doesn't give me the right to just ignore them. What makes you think that cake store should be able to ignore the laws they don't like?

 

[bodecea]

If your sole purpose is to destroy a business instead of giving them business, then you are taking place in militant activism. You are purposefully targeting someone in order to expose and destroy them because of a difference in beliefs. You have crossed the line from holding a mere opinion to using that opinion to inflict damage on other individuals. I'm sorry, but I don't believe for one moment those two ladies had any intention of buying a cake. The law is clear, but the intent was not commercial. Those two women, in fact, were repeat customers there and knowing full well the beliefs of the proprietor(s). But suddenly out of the blue they ask them to bake a cake for a same sex wedding. To me, that is the definition of "ulterior motive."

Every business owner has their own beliefs, their own convictions, and suddenly they have to sacrifice them just to run a business in compliance with the law, and yes, sacrifices must be made. But here's the catch: that's wrong. There is something woefully wrong. Yes, the law is important, and rules are rules; don't misunderstand me here.

But if you have to sacrifice something sacred to you in order to succeed in business and appease the rule of law, then this is justice run amok. I agree, business is business, and money is money and rightly so; but as someone who admires the law, the law also isn't perfect. There are good laws, and not so well thought out ones. Though, until the law changes, people must obey it. To be succinct, however, obedience should not come at the price of your own morals and convictions.

Call me a homophobe, a bigot, ignorant, stupid, misguided or whatever you like, but that is my observation on this topic. I don't hate gay people, but I don't like the ones who would force other people to accept their lifestyle. I mean, if the act of forcing your religious beliefs on others is wrong, just imagine how they feel when the same is done to them! Behavior like such is only self serving and only widens the chasm between supporters and opposition. It breeds more hatred than understanding. If respect and acceptance is the goal, then one must strive to show it also. The double edged sword sitting next to me would agree.



No Icing on the Cake for Christian Business Owners Who Refused to Bake for Lesbian Couple

So, you feel that way about the Southern Baptists who called for a boycott of Disney, right?

 

[bodecea]

The left are the new morality police, and they will use any government force available to either force you to accept their morals, or beat you into the ground so hard you are unable to resist their dogma.

Damn those PA laws that make any business have to serve Christians!

 

[bodecea]

If you are a repeat customer, who else would you go to for your wedding cake?

What an idiotic OP.

The Hall I booked for my wedding is providing the cake. We were considering our local baker, but the cake was included in the cost, so we went for the hall cake.

Good for you.....what would you do if they suddenly informed you that, because of your religion, or your job, or just the way you look, they will not serve you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

But if you have to sacrifice something sacred to you in order to succeed in business and appease the rule of law, then this is justice run amok

The left are the new morality police, and they will use any government force available to either force you to accept their morals, or beat you into the ground so hard you are unable to resist their dogma.

In contrast to whom? Conservatives?

lol

Do you see conservatives recently trying to pass any of the crap you idiots try to enforce on a daily basis? Face it, you are the Moral Majority of the 21st century, the only difference is you don't have bibles in your hand and you use the government instead of pitchforks.

Yes. A constitutional amendment to ban all abortion. A constitutional amendment to outlaw same sex marriage.

A small tiny percentage want both of those. Most would accept the issues being settled by the States via legislative action. And at least they use the amendment process, which would require 2/3 of each house of the legislature, and 3/4 of the states to pass.

And both of those are in response to overreach by activist supreme courts, which created "rights" out of thin fucking air. Your side uses judges (un-elected ones usually) and hope you get ones that agree with your politics and have a fuzzy concept of constitutionality.

A tiny percentage of conservatives want them? Then how do they make their way into the GOP platform every time?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The power of the boycott is the only economic weapon the downtrodden have at their disposal. And it has historically proven to be very, very effective.

You want to be a discriminatory asshole? Go ahead, and let the invisible hand decide your fate.

No one is destroying your business but yourself. No windows get broken, just your bank account when people stop buying your stuff.

I have no issues with boycotts or people deciding not to do business with people they don't like. My concern is when government is used as the mechanism for this.

The bakers violated state non-discrimination laws.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If your sole purpose is to destroy a business instead of giving them business, then you are taking place in militant activism. You are purposefully targeting someone in order to expose and destroy them because of a difference in beliefs. You have crossed the line from holding a mere opinion to using that opinion to inflict damage on other individuals. I'm sorry, but I don't believe for one moment those two ladies had any intention of buying a cake. The law is clear, but the intent was not commercial. Those two women, in fact, were repeat customers there and knowing full well the beliefs of the proprietor(s). But suddenly out of the blue they ask them to bake a cake for a same sex wedding. To me, that is the definition of "ulterior motive."

Every business owner has their own beliefs, their own convictions, and suddenly they have to sacrifice them just to run a business in compliance with the law, and yes, sacrifices must be made. But here's the catch: that's wrong. There is something woefully wrong. Yes, the law is important, and rules are rules; don't misunderstand me here.

But if you have to sacrifice something sacred to you in order to succeed in business and appease the rule of law, then this is justice run amok. I agree, business is business, and money is money and rightly so; but as someone who admires the law, the law also isn't perfect. There are good laws, and not so well thought out ones. Though, until the law changes, people must obey it. To be succinct, however, obedience should not come at the price of your own morals and convictions.

Call me a homophobe, a bigot, ignorant, stupid, misguided or whatever you like, but that is my observation on this topic. I don't hate gay people, but I don't like the ones who would force other people to accept their lifestyle. I mean, if the act of forcing your religious beliefs on others is wrong, just imagine how they feel when the same is done to them! Behavior like such is only self serving and only widens the chasm between supporters and opposition. It breeds more hatred than understanding. If respect and acceptance is the goal, then one must strive to show it also. The double edged sword sitting next to me would agree.



No Icing on the Cake for Christian Business Owners Who Refused to Bake for Lesbian Couple

Could you explain what you mean by "justice run amuck" ? All businesses are required to abide by the laws, and if someone's beliefs are a problem with the requirements for that business, then they should do something else. I agree that some laws should be changed, but that doesn't give me the right to just ignore them. What makes you think that cake store should be able to ignore the laws they don't like?

He means that all you have to do is declare your point of view 'sacred' and you magically (should) rise above the law.

 

[BULLDOG]

If your sole purpose is to destroy a business instead of giving them business, then you are taking place in militant activism. You are purposefully targeting someone in order to expose and destroy them because of a difference in beliefs. You have crossed the line from holding a mere opinion to using that opinion to inflict damage on other individuals. I'm sorry, but I don't believe for one moment those two ladies had any intention of buying a cake. The law is clear, but the intent was not commercial. Those two women, in fact, were repeat customers there and knowing full well the beliefs of the proprietor(s). But suddenly out of the blue they ask them to bake a cake for a same sex wedding. To me, that is the definition of "ulterior motive."

Every business owner has their own beliefs, their own convictions, and suddenly they have to sacrifice them just to run a business in compliance with the law, and yes, sacrifices must be made. But here's the catch: that's wrong. There is something woefully wrong. Yes, the law is important, and rules are rules; don't misunderstand me here.

But if you have to sacrifice something sacred to you in order to succeed in business and appease the rule of law, then this is justice run amok. I agree, business is business, and money is money and rightly so; but as someone who admires the law, the law also isn't perfect. There are good laws, and not so well thought out ones. Though, until the law changes, people must obey it. To be succinct, however, obedience should not come at the price of your own morals and convictions.

Call me a homophobe, a bigot, ignorant, stupid, misguided or whatever you like, but that is my observation on this topic. I don't hate gay people, but I don't like the ones who would force other people to accept their lifestyle. I mean, if the act of forcing your religious beliefs on others is wrong, just imagine how they feel when the same is done to them! Behavior like such is only self serving and only widens the chasm between supporters and opposition. It breeds more hatred than understanding. If respect and acceptance is the goal, then one must strive to show it also. The double edged sword sitting next to me would agree.



No Icing on the Cake for Christian Business Owners Who Refused to Bake for Lesbian Couple

Could you explain what you mean by "justice run amuck" ? All businesses are required to abide by the laws, and if someone's beliefs are a problem with the requirements for that business, then they should do something else. I agree that some laws should be changed, but that doesn't give me the right to just ignore them. What makes you think that cake store should be able to ignore the laws they don't like?

He means that all you have to do is declare your point of view 'sacred' and you magically (should) rise above the law.

That's what I thought.

 

[OKTexas]

If your sole purpose is to destroy a business instead of giving them business, then you are taking place in militant activism. You are purposefully targeting someone in order to expose and destroy them because of a difference in beliefs. You have crossed the line from holding a mere opinion to using that opinion to inflict damage on other individuals. I'm sorry, but I don't believe for one moment those two ladies had any intention of buying a cake. The law is clear, but the intent was not commercial. Those two women, in fact, were repeat customers there and knowing full well the beliefs of the proprietor(s). But suddenly out of the blue they ask them to bake a cake for a same sex wedding. To me, that is the definition of "ulterior motive."

Every business owner has their own beliefs, their own convictions, and suddenly they have to sacrifice them just to run a business in compliance with the law, and yes, sacrifices must be made. But here's the catch: that's wrong. There is something woefully wrong. Yes, the law is important, and rules are rules; don't misunderstand me here.

But if you have to sacrifice something sacred to you in order to succeed in business and appease the rule of law, then this is justice run amok. I agree, business is business, and money is money and rightly so; but as someone who admires the law, the law also isn't perfect. There are good laws, and not so well thought out ones. Though, until the law changes, people must obey it. To be succinct, however, obedience should not come at the price of your own morals and convictions.

Call me a homophobe, a bigot, ignorant, stupid, misguided or whatever you like, but that is my observation on this topic. I don't hate gay people, but I don't like the ones who would force other people to accept their lifestyle. I mean, if the act of forcing your religious beliefs on others is wrong, just imagine how they feel when the same is done to them! Behavior like such is only self serving and only widens the chasm between supporters and opposition. It breeds more hatred than understanding. If respect and acceptance is the goal, then one must strive to show it also. The double edged sword sitting next to me would agree.



No Icing on the Cake for Christian Business Owners Who Refused to Bake for Lesbian Couple

This was already settled in the Hobby Lobby decision, a closely held company can not be required to violate their religious beliefs.

 

[hortysir]

Where next?

Can a restaurant refuse to cook a steak for a gay man or an omelette for a lesbian?

Sorry, but I don't take the side of the bakers, and others, in these cases

 

[martybegan]

If you are a repeat customer, who else would you go to for your wedding cake?

What an idiotic OP.

The Hall I booked for my wedding is providing the cake. We were considering our local baker, but the cake was included in the cost, so we went for the hall cake.

Good for you.....what would you do if they suddenly informed you that, because of your religion, or your job, or just the way you look, they will not serve you?

They would have stated it before I signed the contract, I would have found another place to go, and I would have castigated them on Yelp with a scathing review.

If they did it AFTER I signed the contract, and If I had not changed ANY condition from that point, they I would sue them myself for damages, not for having my feeewings hurt.

 

[martybegan]

The power of the boycott is the only economic weapon the downtrodden have at their disposal. And it has historically proven to be very, very effective.

You want to be a discriminatory asshole? Go ahead, and let the invisible hand decide your fate.

No one is destroying your business but yourself. No windows get broken, just your bank account when people stop buying your stuff.

I have no issues with boycotts or people deciding not to do business with people they don't like. My concern is when government is used as the mechanism for this.

The bakers violated state non-discrimination laws.

Which are stupid, vindictive, and no longer needed in current society for something as trivial as a wedding cake. If you want to argue commerce vital to human life and economic interests, you may have a point.

 

[martybegan]

Where next?

Can a restaurant refuse to cook a steak for a gay man or an omelette for a lesbian?

Sorry, but I don't take the side of the bakers, and others, in these cases

Point of sale items are different than a contracted service specific to an event a person finds morally objectionable.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The power of the boycott is the only economic weapon the downtrodden have at their disposal. And it has historically proven to be very, very effective.

You want to be a discriminatory asshole? Go ahead, and let the invisible hand decide your fate.

No one is destroying your business but yourself. No windows get broken, just your bank account when people stop buying your stuff.

I have no issues with boycotts or people deciding not to do business with people they don't like. My concern is when government is used as the mechanism for this.

The bakers violated state non-discrimination laws.

Which are stupid, vindictive, and no longer needed in current society for something as trivial as a wedding cake. If you want to argue commerce vital to human life and economic interests, you may have a point.

You can support getting rid of all discrimination laws if you want but you will be forever beating a dead horse on that one.

 

[martybegan]

But if you have to sacrifice something sacred to you in order to succeed in business and appease the rule of law, then this is justice run amok

The left are the new morality police, and they will use any government force available to either force you to accept their morals, or beat you into the ground so hard you are unable to resist their dogma.

In contrast to whom? Conservatives?

lol

Do you see conservatives recently trying to pass any of the crap you idiots try to enforce on a daily basis? Face it, you are the Moral Majority of the 21st century, the only difference is you don't have bibles in your hand and you use the government instead of pitchforks.

Yes. A constitutional amendment to ban all abortion. A constitutional amendment to outlaw same sex marriage.

A small tiny percentage want both of those. Most would accept the issues being settled by the States via legislative action. And at least they use the amendment process, which would require 2/3 of each house of the legislature, and 3/4 of the states to pass.

And both of those are in response to overreach by activist supreme courts, which created "rights" out of thin fucking air. Your side uses judges (un-elected ones usually) and hope you get ones that agree with your politics and have a fuzzy concept of constitutionality.

A tiny percentage of conservatives want them? Then how do they make their way into the GOP platform every time?

Yep, they are there. A little "meat" for the base. However they again support using the amendment process, which means those views would have to be so prevalent that supermajorities at the federal and state level would have to agree to it.

On the other hand your side uses courts to get what you want, and middle of the night legislative sessions (The NY SAFE act atrocity).

 

[martybegan]

The power of the boycott is the only economic weapon the downtrodden have at their disposal. And it has historically proven to be very, very effective.

You want to be a discriminatory asshole? Go ahead, and let the invisible hand decide your fate.

No one is destroying your business but yourself. No windows get broken, just your bank account when people stop buying your stuff.

I have no issues with boycotts or people deciding not to do business with people they don't like. My concern is when government is used as the mechanism for this.

The bakers violated state non-discrimination laws.

Which are stupid, vindictive, and no longer needed in current society for something as trivial as a wedding cake. If you want to argue commerce vital to human life and economic interests, you may have a point.

You can support getting rid of all discrimination laws if you want but you will be forever beating a dead horse on that one.

Just wait until black businesses start getting sued over this stuff. Watching the Democratic infighting over it will be popcorn worthy.

 

[martybegan]

The left are the new morality police, and they will use any government force available to either force you to accept their morals, or beat you into the ground so hard you are unable to resist their dogma.

Damn those PA laws that make any business have to serve Christians!

I don't see Christians going around suing over this stuff.

 

[bodecea]

If you are a repeat customer, who else would you go to for your wedding cake?

What an idiotic OP.

The Hall I booked for my wedding is providing the cake. We were considering our local baker, but the cake was included in the cost, so we went for the hall cake.

Good for you.....what would you do if they suddenly informed you that, because of your religion, or your job, or just the way you look, they will not serve you?

They would have stated it before I signed the contract, I would have found another place to go, and I would have castigated them on Yelp with a scathing review.

If they did it AFTER I signed the contract, and If I had not changed ANY condition from that point, they I would sue them myself for damages, not for having my feeewings hurt.

Well, there you go.

 

[martybegan]

If you are a repeat customer, who else would you go to for your wedding cake?

What an idiotic OP.

The Hall I booked for my wedding is providing the cake. We were considering our local baker, but the cake was included in the cost, so we went for the hall cake.

Good for you.....what would you do if they suddenly informed you that, because of your religion, or your job, or just the way you look, they will not serve you?

They would have stated it before I signed the contract, I would have found another place to go, and I would have castigated them on Yelp with a scathing review.

If they did it AFTER I signed the contract, and If I had not changed ANY condition from that point, they I would sue them myself for damages, not for having my feeewings hurt.

Well, there you go.

Only if I had a valid contract and they then changed their minds, and it would be for breach of contract, and only to recover any actual damages. If they told me sorry, they don't want to host the wedding while we were looking, I would just walk away and raise a stink on my own, without using the government.