Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: tu_holmes on December 17, 2013, 11:36:48 AM
-
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/10/anti-lgbt-baker-tells-fox-news-that-jesus-wants-me-to-deny-cakes-to-gay-couples/
Anti-LGBT baker tells Fox News that Jesus ‘wants me’ to deny cakes to gay couples
By David Edwards
Tuesday, December 10, 2013 9:23 EST
Fox News host Elisabeth Hasselbeck
A Colorado baker on Tuesday told Fox & Friends host Elisabeth Hasselbeck that he would be willing to go to jail after a judge ordered him to serve gay couples, saying that opposing same sex marriage is “who I am.”
Last week, administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer ruled that Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips must “cease and desist from discriminating” against LGBT couples because he refused to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple last year.
On Tuesday, Hasselbeck welcomed the baker in a Fox & Friends “Death of Free Enterprise” segment, including friendly screen titles like “Bake Shop Shakedown” and “So Much For Freedom.”
“Does becoming a business owner mean you have to check your convictions at the door?” Hasselbeck asked. “Why is it important for you to have a business and not have to abandon personal religious beliefs just to make a buck?”
“I believe that’s what God’s designed for me to do,” Phillips explained.
Attorney Nicolle Martin, who is representing Phillips, added that “if the government can force you to violate your beliefs under the threat of a jail sentence, there’s really no freedom they can’t take away, Elisabeth.”
For his part, Phillips pledged that he would go to jail before selling a wedding cake to gay or lesbian couple.
“You know, if that’s what it takes,” he said. “It’s not like I have chosen this team or that team. This is who I am, it’s what I believe.”
“Do you feel as though you are forfeiting your own rights and being forced, in other words, to participate in their wedding by making a cake for them?” Hasselbeck wondered.
“They would be taking away my rights to do what I do as a business owner, as an American citizen,” Phillips insisted. “And as a follower of Jesus Christ, I don’t believe that’s what he wants me to do. And so my priorities would be towards my faith rather than towards my safety or security.”
“We wish you well,” Hasselbeck said in conclusion.
=========================================================
Personally, I think it's sad that anyone is anti-LGBT, but it is their right to dislike it... Why a gay couple would even WANT to give their business to a baker that doesn't like them is beyond me.
The fact that a judge can FORCE you to do something you don't want to do with YOUR OWN BUSINESS is absolutely disgusting.
It's as bad as telling people who you can and can't marry in the first place.
-
It is happening.
Everything conservatives have been saying from the beginning is ALL coming true.
It begins with this man, but it will spread like AIDS in the 80s.
-
Yep. Mandates/restrictions/control of everything rapidly replacing freedom and individual liberty
-
The fact that you can't just bake them a fucking cake (what kind of fag bakes cakes?) is silly. This is how religion poisons everything, all that is wanted is a nice cake for two people to celebrate their love and this guy won't give them that because, god hates fags.
Imagine if all businesses ran like this, with discrimination out in the open. I don't like jews, I am a nazi baker. It's their perogative but what the fuck is wrong with the world. Bake them a fucking cake you moron. You have probably supplied convicts, rapists etc with cakes but not homos. they would probably make him switch the frosting to cum and the chocolate to do do.
-
Lets just assume this is true. The guy shouldn't have to bake a cake for anyone he doesn't want to regardless of his reasoning. On the flip side, hes making a huge business mistake by not catering (pun intended) to a large market of people with disposable income.
-
good, go to jail,maybe he'll get himself a little homosexual loving :D :D
-
this happened a while back with a photographer she lost,your serving the public you can't discriminate
-
Well then just bake the nastiest muthafucking cake you can. It could look nice but taste like vinegar.
-
Is this the only bakery in town?
They can't go to another baker?
It has to be him. Only him? And because of that he HAS to give in to the whim of these clients? It's as if the owner is some kind of slave. You better bake us a cake or else!
Any business owner should have the right to sell to whom they want. IF people don't like it, they can go to another business. They can tell friends and family not to patron that business.
NOooooooo. That's not enough anymore. Now the law has to come down on that business owner and threaten him with jail.
HEHEHEHE!! This is nuts. The owner has the right to reject any customer he wants. The customer has the right to make their feelings felt and go on their way. That's it.
-
Is this the only bakery in town?
They can't go to another baker?
It has to be him. Only him? And because of that he HAS to give in to the whim of these clients? It's as if the owner is some kind of slave. You better bake us a cake or else!
Any business owner should have the right to sell to whom they want. IF people don't like it, they can go to another business. They can tell friends and family not to patron that business.
NOooooooo. That's not enough anymore. Now the law has to come down on that business owner and threaten him with jail.
HEHEHEHE!! This is nuts. The owner has the right to reject any customer he wants. The customer has the right to make their feelings felt and go on their way. That's it.
well your wrong,just because you think something doesn't make it right,to bad.
-
So a Jewish baker should be made to bake a cake for a neo-nazi?
-
So a Jewish baker should be made to bake a cake for a neo-nazi?
if he's open to the public the law says yes
-
Is this the only bakery in town?
They can't go to another baker?
It has to be him. Only him? And because of that he HAS to give in to the whim of these clients? It's as if the owner is some kind of slave. You better bake us a cake or else!
Any business owner should have the right to sell to whom they want. IF people don't like it, they can go to another business. They can tell friends and family not to patron that business.
NOooooooo. That's not enough anymore. Now the law has to come down on that business owner and threaten him with jail.
HEHEHEHE!! This is nuts. The owner has the right to reject any customer he wants. The customer has the right to make their feelings felt and go on their way. That's it.
WRONG....its a public business meaning that it has to follow state and federal guidelines. You cannot refuse business based on race, sex, disability, orientation, etc.....that's the rules and if they don't wish to follow them, they need to find another line of work.
That's why we don't have "Whites Only" Restaurants anymore. ::)
-
if he's open to the public the law says yes
Doesn't sound like freedom.
-
Doesn't sound like freedom.
well discrimination doesn't sound like freedom either
-
This is a simple sign thats you see in almost every business "We reserve the right to refuse service". This decision is an infringement on private businesses. The judge can go screw himself.
-
Doesn't sound like freedom.
Run your own business and you'll figure that out quickly that it isn't YOUR BUSINESS.
-
well discrimination doesn't sound like freedom either
A customer is always free to choose another establishment.
-
This is a simple sign thats you see in almost every business "We reserve the right to refuse service". This decision is an infringement on private businesses. The judge can go screw himself.
cannot refuse business based on race, sex, disability, orientation, etc... you will lose
-
So sick of these twinks demanding everything. Maybe they should lace the cake w ex lax or something
-
A customer is always free to choose another establishment.
he doesn't have to if your open to the public
-
On the flip side, hes making a huge business mistake by not catering (pun intended) to a large market of people with disposable income.
Not necessarily, this might work out similarly to Chick-Fil-A, where people who supported their values/beliefs swarmed there to make a political statement (and buy chicken, even if they've never tried it before).
-
Just because courts call it "discrimination" doesn't make it so.
People in California voted against such disgusting unions. In almost every state, the citizens voted against it, only to have the courts go against their wishes.
So. No. Courts are not always right. Just look at crapcare.
Either way. The owner should have the right to not make the cake. The client should have only the right to move on to another business. And the courts should stay out of it.
-
That's not true... You can refuse to service anyone... It is illegal to use those things to keep from HIRING people, but you can refuse to serve anyone for any reason.
your 100% wrong
-
Run your own business and you'll figure that out quickly that it isn't YOUR BUSINESS.
That is the problem, it should be your business to do with as you choose. An owner should have the right to refuse service to a customer if they don't feel comfortable serving them.
-
cannot refuse business based on race, sex, disability, orientation, etc... you will lose
It's his business. If I see a gang banger come into my business and I don't like the way the he looks and I feel threatened (not that the gay couple was threatening) I have the right to refuse business and he can go somewhere else. I guarantee he isn't the only cake maker in town.
-
That's not true... You can refuse to service anyone... It is illegal to use those things to keep from HIRING people, but you can refuse to serve anyone for any reason.
This should help you a bit..... ::)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
Title II - (Please Note That Its Been Expanded For Orientation and Disability)
The only exception they could have would be a defined private club....can't do that with a bakery
-
WRONG....its a public business meaning that it has to follow state and federal guidelines. You cannot refuse business based on race, sex, disability, orientation, etc.....that's the rules and if they don't wish to follow them, they need to find another line of work.
That's why we don't have "Whites Only" Restaurants anymore. ::)
That is where the courts messed up.
You pole smokers are NOT A RACE.
How dare you compare your "struggle" to the Civil Rights movement?
Get the hell out of here with that garbage.
-
This should help you a bit..... ::)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
Title II - (Please Note That Its Been Expanded For Orientation and Disability)
The only exception they could have would be a defined private club....can't do that with a bakery
fuck off w that garbage.
He should put point in it.
-
That is where the courts messed up.
You pole smokers are NOT A RACE.
How dare you compare your "struggle" to the Civil Rights movement?
Get the hell out of here with that garbage.
Insults...insults....ver y pathetic. But it doesn't change anything. She bakes for gays or she goes away.....plain and simple
-
This should help you a bit..... ::)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
Title II - (Please Note That Its Been Expanded For Orientation and Disability)
The only exception they could have would be a defined private club....can't do that with a bakery
I don't think anyone is arguing whether its right to refuse to serve a gay customer but rather should it be illegal.
-
THhe gays can push this all they want...there is always a backlash. At some point enough will be enough. It happens everywhere. At some point we'll be sticking people in camps again. These people don't know when enough is enough. The guy made a business decision. If it does not work out then he suffers. Being ordered to bake for people....whatever the argument has been made by others on the the thread. Fuck the fags....fuck the left. I don't hate gays because they're gay...I hate the gay agenda. I hate the fact that a small vocal minority can't understand that most don't agree with there life style but are willing to live and let live...nope we have to like them as well. I have to love all things gay. I have to see it everywhere.....I bet most of the gays wish the gay agenda would just quit while they're ahead.
-
THhe gays can push this all they want...there is always a backlash. At some point enough will be enough. It happens everywhere. At some point we'll be sticking people in camps again. These people don't know when enough is enough. The guy made a business decision. If it does not work out then he suffers. Being ordered to bake for people....whatever the argument has been made by others on the the thread. Fuck the fags....fuck the left. I don't hate gays because they're gay...I hate the gay agenda. I hate the fact that a small vocal minority can't understand that most don't agree with there life style but are willing to live and let live...nope we have to like them as well. I have to love all things gay. I have to see it everywhere.....I bet most of the gays wish the gay agenda would just quit while they're ahead.
so if said blacks you would be alright with that
-
Run your own business and you'll figure that out quickly that it isn't YOUR BUSINESS.
And whose fault is that?
You. You moron. Morons like you who don't mind government extending its tentacles into every aspect of american life. Regulating everything. With all these regulations that only serve to make the american public slaves to a tyrannical government.
This is what obama crap care is about. CONTROL.
But, you left wing nitwits keep harping on the greatness of government.
And because of that, this business owner can't choose how to run his business. It has to be the government's way, a judge's way or the highway.
-
I don't think anyone is arguing whether its right to refuse to serve a gay customer but rather should it be illegal.
She can become a private cook for and chose the people she wishes to bake for. However she can't have a public bakery. That's the way it works
Coach can refuse anyone in his gym because its a private facility based on memberships.
-
And whose fault is that?
You. You moron. Morons like you who don't mind government extending its tentacles into every aspect of american life. Regulating everything. With all these regulations that only serve to make the american public slaves to a tyrannical government.
This is what obama crap care is about. CONTROL.
But, you left wing nitwits keep harping on the greatness of government.
And because of that, this business owner can't choose how to run his business. It has to be the government's way, a judge's way or the highway.
that's right it's the law you don't like it,oh well toooo bad
-
I don't think anyone is arguing whether its right to refuse to serve a gay customer but rather should it be illegal.
The consquence for not servinbg these people is that you loose money....thats the long and short of it...but nope, the activist left legal system has to make things fair. Never mind that 2 thousand years of christian teaching tells this guy that homosexuality is a sin...nope, your a white christian so your fucked. You get no protection under freedom of religion. I just hope as this country changes that you leftists aren't left wondering what the hell happened. You did this..and when it all goes south you have nobody to blame but you.
-
She can become a private cook for and chose the people she wishes to bake for. However she can't have a public bakery. That's the way it works
Coach can refuse anyone in his gym because its a private facility based on memberships.
It may be the way it works but its infringes on personal freedom.
-
We have 20 years at best.
-
Insults...insults....ver y pathetic. But it doesn't change anything. She bakes for gays or she goes away.....plain and simple
It doesn't change that YOUR SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS NOT A RACE.
I wonder what Martin Luther King's opinion would be about you gays thinking that your quest to have the entire nation accept your deviant sexual desires is on the same level as the blacks' struggle for civil rights.
-
The consquence for not servinbg these people is that you loose money....thats the long and short of it...but nope, the activist left legal system has to make things fair. Never mind that 2 thousand years of christian teaching tells this guy that homosexuality is a sin...nope, your a white christian so your fucked. You get no protection under freedom of religion. I just hope as this country changes that you leftists aren't left wondering what the hell happened. You did this..and when it all goes south you have nobody to blame but you.
I agree, that was my point. I might not agree with his reasoning but I respect what I believe is his right as a business owner to choose who he does business with.
-
It may be the way it works but its infringes on personal freedom.
When you run a business, personal freedoms do not apply. Chic-Fil-A is strongly against gays and lesbians however they cannot refuse service to anyone because its federal law. The same applies to this bakery.
-
Being gay...and being black are not the same thing. Its not even close. Historically gays have done a hell of alot better then American blacks. This another leftwing cause thats gotten out of hand.
-
When you run a business, personal freedoms do not apply. Chic-Fil-A is strongly against gays and lesbians however they cannot refuse service to anyone because its federal law. The same applies to this bakery.
fuck off - I refuse to represent a lot of people like yourself cause I find people like you revolting. My choice.
-
When you run a business, personal freedoms do not apply. Chic-Fil-A is strongly against gays and lesbians however they cannot refuse service to anyone because its federal law. The same applies to this bakery.
Vince, as I mentioned multiple times, I understand that this is how it works. My point is that it shouldn't be illegal and the law is ridiculous.
-
Is this the only bakery in town?
They can't go to another baker?
It has to be him. Only him? And because of that he HAS to give in to the whim of these clients? It's as if the owner is some kind of slave. You better bake us a cake or else!
Any business owner should have the right to sell to whom they want. IF people don't like it, they can go to another business. They can tell friends and family not to patron that business.
NOooooooo. That's not enough anymore. Now the law has to come down on that business owner and threaten him with jail.
HEHEHEHE!! This is nuts. The owner has the right to reject any customer he wants. The customer has the right to make their feelings felt and go on their way. That's it.
And............we're suddenly 100 yrs in the past......
-
That's not true... You can refuse to service anyone... It is illegal to use those things to keep from HIRING people, but you can refuse to serve anyone for any reason.
Lets see some legal links on refusing service to an individual based on color...
-
Vince, as I mentioned multiple times, I understand that this is how it works. My point is that it shouldn't be illegal and the law is ridiculous.
Really??? For any city or town, it would be a complete nightmare. Imagine that you're a tourist and you decide to go to...lets just say the Mission Trace Shopping Center in Lakewood, CO. I go in to a bakery...lets say the Masterpiece Cake Shop and ask for a piece of cake and they say "Sorry we don't serve fags , n iggers, slopes, or kike's"
Now visit their website....there's no indication or signs anywhere that says that they don't serve gays and lesbians.
http://masterpiececakes.com/
When you have people like that around, all business suffer in that area because an upset tourist will not only storm out of that business but likely out of the entire shopping center and generally never return to that town...once they tell others, people avoid the place like the plaque.
Because of their actions, all the businesses at that Shopping Center have suffered....some of them have closed and/or moved away , all because of that one businesses acts of discrimination.
-
Really??? For any city or town, it would be a complete nightmare. Imagine that you're a tourist and you decide to go to...lets just say the Mission Trace Shopping Center in Lakewood, CO. I go in to a bakery...lets say the Masterpiece Cake Shop and ask for a piece of cake and they say "Sorry we don't serve fags , n iggers, slopes, or kike's"
Now visit their website....there's no indication or signs anywhere that says that they don't serve gays and lesbians.
http://masterpiececakes.com/
When you have people like that around, all business suffer in that area because an upset tourist will not only storm out of that business but likely out of the entire shopping center and generally never return to that town...once they tell others, people avoid the place like the plaque.
Because of their actions, all the businesses at that Shopping Center have suffered....some of them have closed and/or moved away , all because of that one businesses acts of discrimination.
And they would quickly go out of business. End of problem. That customers can't differentiate between the baker and the surrounding businesses only goes to show how dumb the customers are.
-
Vince is a perfect example of why I have zero regard for these flamers' complaints.
-
Show me then.
Where's your legal precedence? Someone who uses "your" instead of "you're" is not who I'd expect to know about case law.
You're talking about the civil rights act, but really... Where has that even been brought to court since then?
Business owners in the 60s only did it because white people wouldn't come to their businesses if black people were there... No business owner will deny themselves revenue... If they do, then they are stupid.
This guy is stupid, but he's well within his own rights to do so.
Again, I don't understand why a gay person would WANT to do business with the guy. It's ridiculous.
I wouldn't do business with him based upon this alone.
If I provide case law showing you cannot refuse service based on color, will you leave Get Big ...again...for 30 days?
-
Show me then.
Where's your legal precedence? Someone who uses "your" instead of "you're" is not who I'd expect to know about case law.
You're talking about the civil rights act, but really... Where has that even been brought to court since then?
Business owners in the 60s only did it because white people wouldn't come to their businesses if black people were there... No business owner will deny themselves revenue... If they do, then they are stupid.
This guy is stupid, but he's well within his own rights to do so.
Again, I don't understand why a gay person would WANT to do business with the guy. It's ridiculous.
I wouldn't do business with him based upon this alone.
it's the law you don't like it to bad,and you're still wrong
-
it's the law you don't like it to bad,and you're still wrong
What about laws you don't like. To bad?
-
And they would quickly go out of business. End of problem. That customers can't differentiate between the baker and the surrounding businesses only goes to show how dumb the customers are.
How can a tourist differentiate???....they have no sign on their website or at their building that they don't serve gays and lesbians. If I had seen the business and not read or heard about it, I would prob walk in there just like anyone else....don't be a fucking dum ass.
Its not fair for other businesses to lose customers because one business wants to discriminate. They didn't come up with Civil Rights Acts just to make people feel good...they also did it so other businesses don't have to suffer with loss of revenue because of bigots and assholes.
-
What about laws you don't like. To bad?
yep, that's right,some times I speed,if I get caught I pay the fine,i don't like it but tooo bad
-
I bet they have some kind of big friggen cross or related christian symbol in the store....that might be a tip off to the butt pirates or rug munchers...and as an aside..there are few hot lesbians. They're like the yeti or bigfoot, sure they might exist..but you rarely see one.
-
How can a tourist differentiate???....they have no sign on their website or at their building that they don't serve gays and lesbians. If I had seen the business and not read or heard about it, I would prob walk in there just like anyone else....don't be a fucking dum ass.
Its not fair for other businesses to lose customers because one business wants to discriminate. They didn't come up with Civil Rights Acts just to make people feel good...they also did it so other businesses don't have to suffer with loss of revenue because of bigots and assholes.
How do they differentiate? Not all the businesses are bakeries for one and secondly most people have smart phones. I doubt a tourist will mistake a dry cleaners for a bakery. It might not be fair, none of it might be fair, but that shouldn't really matter. A lot of things aren't fair.
-
Should lace the cake w anthrax or ricin
-
yep, that's right,some times I speed,if I get caught I pay the fine,i don't like it but tooo bad
I guess you never advocate changing any laws then.
-
I bet they have some kind of big friggen cross or related christian symbol in the store....that might be a tip off to the butt pirates or rug munchers...and as an aside..there are few hot lesbians. They're like the yeti or bigfoot, sure they might exist..but you rarely see one.
and maybe they can light it on fire and kill two birds with one stone ;D
-
good, go to jail,maybe he'll get himself a little homosexual loving :D :D
ouch!
[literally]
-
Your gonna look great in prison camp stripes. ;D
-
How do they differentiate? Not all the businesses are bakeries for one and secondly most people have smart phones. I doubt a tourist will mistake a dry cleaners for a bakery. It might not be fair, none of it might be fair, but that shouldn't really matter. A lot of things aren't fair.
::)
SmartPhones??? Gimme a break. That's a fucking cop out, pal. Just face it, he's in the wrong and no judge is going to side with him. Public businesses are open to "the public".....if he doesn't like it, tough shit.
-
Your gonna look great in prison camp stripes. ;D
just as long as they run vertical ,to give me that sliming affect ;D
-
I imagine this was the talk in the 60"s when blacks were getting their rights
-
My whole life is been in preparation as a camp commandant. I might speak with a fake german accent..for atmosphere. In any event anybody playing the lottery?
-
::)
SmartPhones??? Gimme a break. That's a fucking cop out, pal. Just face it, he's in the wrong and no judge is going to side with him. Public businesses are open to "the public".....if he doesn't like it, tough shit.
And the fact you assumed people would mistake a bakery for something like a dry cleaners is pure stupidity. Its pretty certain the area isnt wall to wall bakeries. Only an idiot wouldn't be able to tell the difference. I look at it this way, an act can be wrong but at the same time shouldn't be made illegal. People who wave their hands and say tough shit had better be prepared to accept the same rebuttal when its an issue they are concerned with.
-
Oh yeah....thats why libs are full of shit. They don't want prisons near them, low cost housing, won't send their kids to public schools...allow fags in the military but won't join or allow their kids to join..the list is endless.
-
My whole life is been in preparation as a camp commandant. I might speak with a fake german accent..for atmosphere. In any event anybody playing the lottery?
thanks for the reminder,if I win i'll send you 1000 dollars
-
And the fact you assumed people would mistake a bakery for something like a dry cleaners is pure stupidity. Its pretty certain the area isnt wall to wall bakeries. Only an idiot wouldn't be able to tell the difference. I look at it this way, an act can be wrong but at the same time shouldn't be made illegal. People who wave their hands and say tough shit had better be prepared to accept the same rebuttal when its an issue they are concerned with.
if they were refusing blacks would you feel the same way ???
-
Great...I can by a ......nothing, I can't buy anything with that. I actually had an arguement with my wife over this. I told her that with that amount of money you would absoluley have to have full time security, jumping down to the grocery store would be a major armed convoy op. This isn't winning 10 million. besides the money..I want to just walk into work..naked clucking like a chicken...I'd be out in 30 days or less.
-
if they were refusing blacks would you feel the same way ???
Yes, I would feel the same. It's not personal. If I were the baker, I wouldn't refuse homosexual or blacks because I think it's morally wrong and bad for business. But at the same time I respect his right not to do business with someone whose behavior he finds morally objectionable.
-
I hope the twinks demanding this get a heart attack and die in the street
-
if they were refusing blacks would you feel the same way ???
Yeah....and he would still want everyone to check their "Smartphone" before entering a business to make sure that it was ok... ::)
-
Yes, I would feel the same. It's not personal. If I were the baker, I wouldn't refuse homosexual or blacks because I think it's morally wrong and bad for business. But at the same time I respect his right not to do business with someone whose behavior he finds morally objectionable.
ok, I think some on here are making a big thing because its gays
-
Yeah....and he would still want everyone to check their "Smartphone" before entering a business to make sure that it was ok... ::)
You should try it. Apparently you keep walking into a bakery when you want your pants pressed.
-
No shirt. No shoes. No service.
Is this bullshit as well?
The fucking guy shouldn't have to bake the cakes if he doesn't want.
-
ok, I think some on here are making a big thing because its gays
Now it gets tricky when you add the issue of public money and life or death situations.
-
No shirt. No shoes. No service.No gays
Is this bullshit as well?
The fucking guy shouldn't have to bake the cakes if he doesn't want.
fixed
-
So what if someone comes in and wants a great big fat fucking swastika on a cake for a White Supremacy rally?
Should the owner be forced to make the cake???
-
So what if someone comes in and wants a great big fat fucking swastika on a cake for a White Supremacy rally?
Should the owner be forced to make the cake???
Doesn't fall under the Civil Rights Act. He could also refuse service to a person because they are too fat. ;D
-
this happened a while back with a photographer she lost,your serving the public you can't discriminate
is that actually in law? I thought as a private citizen running a business that it was your right to choose who you do business with and what kind of business you do. One race engine builder I know wony do work for anyone that doesnt have money, because he doesnt want rhe headache of being nickel and dimed to death.
Hell flat out tell them "you dont have enough money to work with me", even with they just want a couole parts machined. Is that discrimination?
-
is that actually in law? I thought as a private citizen running a business that it was your right to choose who you do business with and what kind of business you do. One race engine builder I know wony do work for anyone that doesnt have money, because he doesnt want rhe headache of being nickel and dimed to death.
Hell flat out tell them "you dont have enough money to work with me", even with they just want a couole parts machined. Is that discrimination?
what,if they don't have money,is this a real question
-
cannot refuse business based on race, sex, disability, orientation, etc... you will lose
It's completely wrong, and unjust.
-
That is the problem, it should be your business to do with as you choose. An owner should have the right to refuse service to a customer if they don't feel comfortable serving them.
It's truly scary to me that their are people who can't see how wrong and outrageous this is.
-
It's truly scary to me that their are people who can't see how wrong and outrageous this is.
based on race, sex, disability, orientation,this is what you call outrageous
-
And whose fault is that?
You. You moron. Morons like you who don't mind government extending its tentacles into every aspect of american life. Regulating everything. With all these regulations that only serve to make the american public slaves to a tyrannical government.
This is what obama crap care is about. CONTROL.
But, you left wing nitwits keep harping on the greatness of government.
And because of that, this business owner can't choose how to run his business. It has to be the government's way, a judge's way or the highway.
Yep, it all comes down to CONTROL.
Like South Africa, the ANC thought they could force the people who built the country and made it great to serve them and their people.
It's all going to shit for them now, because YOU CANNOT FORCE PEOPLE.
The same thing is happening in the United States.
-
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-delegation-to-the-sochi-olympics-2013-12
:(
-
what,if they don't have money,is this a real question
No, they have the money to pay for the individual work they want done.. but they dont "have enough" to work with the owner. Make sense? He won't do work for poor people. Period. Even with they technically have the cash to get the work done. Because they are a pain in the ass, they try and nickel and dime, and pick the work apart. He just got sick of it and now if you arent making near 6 figures he wont even take the work.
-
based on race, sex, disability, orientation,this is what you call outrageous
I think so yes. A private business owner should be able to choose who he wants to do business with. Period. It will be reflected in his business... if people don't agree with his stance they wont shop there. One shouldn't be "forced" to do business with anyone they dont want.
When I was selling my Chevelle, I refused to sell it to a guy that I got the impression was going to chop it up or smash it up... I sold it instead to a man that was going to restore it. Is that discrimination? Dude happened to be black... and had totaled 3 Chevelles before mine street racing.
-
I think so yes. A private business owner should be able to choose who he wants to do business with. Period. It will be reflected in his business... if people don't agree with his stance they wont shop there. One shouldn't be "forced" to do business with anyone they dont want.
When I was selling my Chevelle, I refused to sell it to a guy that I got the impression was going to chop it up or smash it up... I sold it instead to a man that was going to restore it. Is that discrimination? Dude happened to be black... and had totaled 3 Chevelles before mine street racing.
so you would be happy to have it pre 1964,no blacks in this restaurant,blacks back of the bus.wow
-
so you would be happy to have it pre 1964,no blacks in this restaurant,blacks back of the bus.wow
Epic leap of logic. A restaraunt in this day and age would be out of business if they tried to deny a race of people. And busses usually a public service, thus not a PRIVATELY OWNED BUSINESS.
-
the question was so you would be happy to have it pre 1964
-
the question was so you would be happy to have it pre 1964
No, of couese not. And just because an owner could choose who to do business with does not mean the public would support him nor would it mean a sudden return to 1964 with blacks sitting on the back of the bus. Cmon dude.
-
I don't know him but he's probably one of those christians that picks and chooses the parts of the bible that suit him
-
So what if someone comes in and wants a great big fat fucking swastika on a cake for a White Supremacy rally?
Should the owner be forced to make the cake???
Retards all of ye, the point is that he won't make the cake BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY, thus discriminating against them, your scenario is not remotely the same. Swastikas are offensive symbolism, it's reasonable to deny making it. They aren't asking for a cake in the shape of a cock going in a mans ass.
Reverse the analogy for the stupid. if the owner denied the cake to a person who may have been a nazi then you have an argument, being gay and having a cake, isn't the same as being a nazi and a nazi shaped cake.
Or take you argument to it;s logical conclusion, someone comes in and wants a cake of infinity, actual infinity. Since they are impossible it's a paradox but he has to make the cake (as you recall, he has to make all cakes.) thus is set on his way into cake making eternity.
-
Retards all of ye, the point is that he won't make the cake BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY, thus discriminating against them, your scenario is not remotely the same. Swastikas are offensive symbolism, it's reasonable to deny making it. They aren't asking for a cake in the shape of a cock going in a mans ass.
Reverse the analogy for the stupid. if the owner denied the cake to a person who may have been a nazi then you have an argument, being gay and having a cake, isn't the same as being a nazi and a nazi shaped cake.
Or take you argument to it;s logical conclusion, someone comes in and wants a cake of infinity, actual infinity. Since they are impossible it's a paradox but he has to make the cake (as you recall, he has to make all cakes.) thus is set on his way into cake making eternity.
My original analogy was a neo-nazi who is not asking for anything racist but the Jewish baker knows he's a nazi.
-
This is retarded, surely there must be other places than his to get cake.
And even if he baked the cake would the gay-couples eat it? He might have pissed in it or worse.
-
Disgusting.
Hopefully he'll lace it with poo so they can enjoy it better since they love each other's shlongs in each other's butts.
It's hilarious how secularism pretends it is about preserving everyone's rights and religious freedom, but the reality is, secularism is enforcing atheism and liberalism upon everyone.
Homosexuality is frowned upon by all religions, but it seems homosexuality is the one being forced upon everyone. It's truly funny how atheists, liberals and secularists all dance around and whine about religious people 'shuving their beliefs' down their throats when they are trying to shuv their dicks down each other and their homosexuality up everyone's business.
Homo propaganda on full speed.
-
This is retarded, surely there must be other places than his to get cake.
And even if he baked the cake would the gay-couples eat it? He might have pissed in it or worse.
it has nothing to do with getting the cake somewhere else,they were probably insulted
-
it has nothing to do with getting the cake somewhere else,they were probably insulted
Who gives a fuck they were insulted? What is this kindergarden?
If you choose to live in a democracy with free speech but dont want to be insulted your are an idiot.
This is not a personal attack on you rather at the situation.
-
Who gives a fuck they were insulted? What is this kindergarden?
If you choose to live in a democracy with free speech but dont want to be insulted your are an idiot.
This is not a personal attack on you rather at the situation.
just a hyperthetical say you went to have a cake made and the jesus freak says he can't make the cake for you because your mothers a whore,you wouldn't just go to another cake maker would you
-
It seems that the bakery owner objected to wedding cakes only, not service in general.
And, as expected, he notes that after the incident last year his business has increased.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bakery-sees-business-boom-after-gay-wedding-cake-refusal
-
I'd punch him in his mouth and then go somewhere else to get my cake made.
I wouldn't give someone I don't agree with my business anyway.
Fucking whiners.
Exactly^
-
I'd punch him in his mouth and then go somewhere else to get my cake made.
I wouldn't give someone I don't agree with my business anyway.
Fucking whiners.
then you would get sued,they went the legal route
-
I'd punch him in his mouth and then go somewhere else to get my cake made.
I wouldn't give someone I don't agree with my business anyway.
Fucking whiners.
Who gives a fuck they were insulted? What is this kindergarden?
If you choose to live in a democracy with free speech but dont want to be insulted your are an idiot.
This is not a personal attack on you rather at the situation.
hahahhaa
-
hahahhaa
and after you punched him in the mouth he would call the armed guards
-
and after you punched him in the mouth he would call the armed guards
haha if they were present before hand most people would think twice ;)
-
Who gives a fuck they were insulted? What is this kindergarden?
If you choose to live in a democracy with free speech but dont want to be insulted your are an idiot.
This is not a personal attack on you rather at the situation.
Yesssssss!!
-
just a hyperthetical say you went to have a cake made and the jesus freak says he can't make the cake for you because your mothers a whore,you wouldn't just go to another cake maker would you
uh yes, I would. And I would tell all my friends to not shop at the dude. Why do people feel the need to force others that dont want to do business with them to work with them?
-
just a hyperthetical say you went to have a cake made and the jesus freak says he can't make the cake for you because your mothers a whore,you wouldn't just go to another cake maker would you
Of course i would after kicking his ass.
I would never buy a cake(or anything i eat really) from someone who has ill feelings towards me he might piss in it or worse.
-
uh yes, I would. And I would tell all my friends to not shop at the dude. Why do people feel the need to force others that dont want to do business with them to work with them?
ROFL
Of course I would go to another baker... WTF else would you do?
Sue them like some kind of fucking dirt bag cry baby?
-
This should help you a bit..... ::)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
Title II - (Please Note That Its Been Expanded For Orientation and Disability)
You have a reference for this? Here is a quote from your link: "Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of title 42 of the United States Code, prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2[40])."
-
You have a reference for this? Here is a quote from your link: "Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of title 42 of the United States Code, prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2[40])."
I'm not going to argue with homophobes and bigots around here because I have no interest in convincing morons.
He broke the law by refusing service and discriminating against the couple so he'll have to pay the consequences for his actions. If he doesn't like it, then he shouldn't run a bakery. These same arguments were used regarding interracial marriages as well and it didn't work then....it certainly won't work today
-
I'm not going to argue with homophobes and bigots around here because I have no interest in convincing morons.
He broke the law by refusing service and discriminating against the couple so he'll have to pay the consequences for his actions. If he doesn't like it, then he shouldn't run a bakery. These same arguments were used regarding interracial marriages as well and it didn't work then....it certainly won't work today
STFU - being a twink is not the same as race you fool.
-
I'm not going to argue with homophobes and bigots around here because I have no interest in convincing morons.
He broke the law by refusing service and discriminating against the couple so he'll have to pay the consequences for his actions. If he doesn't like it, then he shouldn't run a bakery. These same arguments were used regarding interracial marriages as well and it didn't work then....it certainly won't work today
I have a feeling some of the same people that have a problem with this would be the same people having a problem with blacks in the 60's
-
I have a feeling some of the same people that have a problem with this would be the same people having a problem with blacks in the 60's
Race and who who CHOOSE to have sex with are not the same thing.
-
Race and who who CHOOSE to have sex with are not the same thing.
again it's illegal,that's the law ,I guess your going to have to live with it :D
-
again it's illegal,that's the law ,I guess your going to have to live with it :D
Fine - people like Vince want to get it and give it in the crapper so much - if I were a baker - I'd take a dump right in that chocolate moose cake and give him the full dose. ;D ;D ;D
-
Martin Luther King would say to that "couple": "Hey, fags! Go to another bakery. Stupid sodomites!"
-
is that actually in law? I thought as a private citizen running a business that it was your right to choose who you do business with and what kind of business you do. One race engine builder I know wony do work for anyone that doesnt have money, because he doesnt want rhe headache of being nickel and dimed to death.
Hell flat out tell them "you dont have enough money to work with me", even with they just want a couole parts machined. Is that discrimination?
That was under the "anti-discrimination" laws of New Mexico.
The case is on its way to the Supreme Court.
-
Martin Luther King would say to that "couple": "Hey, fags! Go to another bakery. Stupid sodomites!"
and jesus would say to you,stop pretending to be a Christian your giving the real ones a bad name :D
-
Epic leap of logic. A restaraunt in this day and age would be out of business if they tried to deny a race of people. And busses usually a public service, thus not a PRIVATELY OWNED BUSINESS.
His logic is so great that he believes that if you are repulsed by the faggoty lifestyle that somehow you would be against the black Civil Rights movement.
That is how stupid these foreign libtards are.
Again. For the nitwits from Canada and Denmark or whatever third world latrine you came from: Fags are NOT A RACE
-
His logic is so great that he believes that if you are repulsed by the faggoty lifestyle that somehow you would be against the black Civil Rights movement.
That is how stupid these foreign libtards are.
Again. For the nitwits from Canada and Denmark or whatever third world latrine you came from: Fags are NOT A RACE
hey jesus freak what part of against the law don't you understand,boy your dumb, stick to talking snakes and 800 year old boat builders,more your speed :D :D :D :D :D :D and there's no doubt in my mind you're a bigot
-
His logic is so great that he believes that if you are repulsed by the faggoty lifestyle that somehow you would be against the black Civil Rights movement.
That is how stupid these foreign libtards are.
Again. For the nitwits from Canada and Denmark or whatever third world latrine you came from: Fags are NOT A RACE
Easy to talk on the internet but I've yet to run into anyone that's said it to me without getting knocked the fucked out.
The law is the law...deal with it mother fucker ;D
-
Easy to talk on the internet but I've yet to run into anyone that's said it to me without getting knocked the fucked out.
The law is the law...deal with it mother fucker ;D
Lol. So you play the knockout game too? Figured as much
-
Lol. So you play the knockout game too? Figured as much
Yes, I play the knockout game...the difference is that the folks know the reason they get knocked out ;D
-
Yes, I play the knockout game...the difference is that the folks know the reason they get knocked out ;D
So how many have to laid out?
-
WRONG....its a public business meaning that it has to follow state and federal guidelines. You cannot refuse business based on race, sex, disability, orientation, etc.....that's the rules and if they don't wish to follow them, they need to find another line of work.
That's why we don't have "Whites Only" Restaurants anymore. ::)
You can't choose your race. What sex the person is that you have relations with is YOUR CHOICE!! To act like it is a compulsion or beyond their control, is a simple way of making this CHOICE a weapon to use against society. Now some baker is FORCED to bake fucking cake for a queer wedding? Really?
What if the baker were black and the couple wanted a KKK style cake for their neo-Nazi rally? Would you all be saying the baker has to make the cake because it is discrimination? ::) Yeah right.
-
You can't choose your race. What sex the person is that you have relations with is YOUR CHOICE!! To act like it is a compulsion or beyond their control, is a simple way of making this CHOICE a weapon to use against society. Now some baker is FORCED to bake fucking cake for a queer wedding? Really?
What if the baker were black and the couple wanted a KKK style cake for their neo-Nazi rally? Would you all be saying the baker has to make the cake because it is discrimination? ::) Yeah right.
so how old were you make your choice on which sex you wanted to have a relationship with ???
-
so how old were you make your choice on which sex you wanted to have a relationship with ???
14
Any more questions?
-
Serious question Vince.
Do you think it's right that the government can force you to do business with someone?
For whatever reason?
You know I'm no homophobe and support the gay community, but do you truly believe that the government should be able to tell you what you have to do in a business sense?
I mean, where so we draw the line?
It's like the form on an application that asks if you've ever committed a felony. Technically it can't keep you from a job, but we know it does right?
Should there not be any limitation on what the government can make you do with your business?
Great post! I think homophobia is silly and stupid but I strongly dislike government deciding whom a person should do business with.
-
14
Any more questions?
so your saying you were teetering on whether to be gay or straight,ok. I think we both know your full of shit ;D
-
Remember - leftists and communists believe "you didn't build that" so according to them and their collectivist mentality - the baker does not own the business since he didn't build it. Society own the business according to these worthless parasites and vultures.
-
Serious question Vince.
Do you think it's right that the government can force you to do business with someone?
For whatever reason?
You know I'm no homophobe and support the gay community, but do you truly believe that the government should be able to tell you what you have to do in a business sense?
I mean, where so we draw the line?
It's like the form on an application that asks if you've ever committed a felony. Technically it can't keep you from a job, but we know it does right?
Should there not be any limitation on what the government can make you do with your business?
This business owner set up a bakery in a shopping center.....placed no sign or indication whatsoever on his windows, website, etc that he did not accept business from gays and lesbians, and when they came in for getting their cake, they were told essentially...."I don't do business with fags".
He can argue that he's against gay marriage....except the problem is that he's made cakes for dog weddings.. . ::)
The laws were written so people were not discriminated against along with the surrounding businesses to suffer loss of revenue from the discrimination.
As far as the laws are concerned...if you open any type of business there are rules you have to follow....I have to pay taxes, I can't sell ephedra or prohormones, etc. These are laws written by people who were elected to office by a free election. Follow the rules or don't open a business...go work as a private chef and choose your own clients.
-
I'm not going to argue with homophobes and bigots around here because I have no interest in convincing morons.
He broke the law by refusing service and discriminating against the couple so he'll have to pay the consequences for his actions. If he doesn't like it, then he shouldn't run a bakery. These same arguments were used regarding interracial marriages as well and it didn't work then....it certainly won't work today
I asked you a question and you call me a homophobe and bigot? Seriously? Are you that insecure?
You said this:
This should help you a bit..... ::)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
Title II - (Please Note That Its Been Expanded For Orientation and Disability)
My understanding is The Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not include sexual orientation. You claim it has been "expanded for orientation." Maybe that has happened and I'm just not aware of it, which is why I asked the question.
What is your source or reference for the Act being "expanded for orientation"?
-
My original analogy was a neo-nazi who is not asking for anything racist but the Jewish baker knows he's a nazi.
Then yes I beleive that is discrimination, if there isn't anything out of the ordinary and it's simply an exchange of cake for money then I see no issue. I disagree with it to be honest, but if you allow it, it opens a slippery slope where people can discriminate based on all kinds of feelings.
As someone who runs a small business (not the same, medicine) it's bad business sense as well, keeping business business is the best solution. The other thing that erks me is that these are people to, they are hurt, sad and have a hard enough life as it is without being chastized because they simply want a fucking cake, what is wrong with people?
Probably ruined these people week, month etc over nothing. Time to evolve people, gays are ok, there is no rational argument against gayness as it stands today.
-
Easy to talk on the internet but I've yet to run into anyone that's said it to me without getting knocked the fucked out.
Tough talk from someone who got spit on by a Derek Anthony...
-
That is where the courts messed up.
You pole smokers are NOT A RACE.
How dare you compare your "struggle" to the Civil Rights movement?
Get the hell out of here with that garbage.
It IS a civil rights issue.
It would be one thing if they were being difficult to such an extent, where the business owner says the headache or hassles aren't worth the meagre profit I'd make on the cake... Go elsewhere. This is a case of I don't like what you are, so I'm choosing to discriminate against you on that basis. It is against the law.
-
It IS a civil rights issue.
It would be one thing if they were being difficult to such an extent, where the business owner says the headache or hassles aren't worth the meagre profit I'd make on the cake... Go elsewhere. This is a case of I don't like what you are, so I'm choosing to discriminate against you on that basis. It is against the law.
Its against the law but it shouldn't be.
-
Being gay...and being black are not the same thing. Its not even close. Historically gays have done a hell of alot better then American blacks. This another leftwing cause thats gotten out of hand.
I didn't see people being thrown in psychiatric facilities and being subjected to shock treatment in the 70's, simply for being Black.
And as for even being allowed to serve their country in the military, or having the right to marry, file joint tax returns, inheriting property, etc., etc., gays have tremendous ground to cross if they're going to catch up to Blacks.
-
if they were refusing blacks would you feel the same way ???
Are you kidding me? Archer would give them a bloody medal, and nominate them for business of the year!
-
Are you kidding me? Archer would give them a bloody medal, and nominate them for business of the year!
Another weak attempt at calling me a racist. Yet, you have never given me an example of my racism. I just so happen to disagree with your stupidity and like all weak minded individuals you resort to the race card.
-
No shirt. No shoes. No service.
Is this bullshit as well?
The fucking guy shouldn't have to bake the cakes if he doesn't want.
That's different. There are hygienic & sanitary reasons, and potential liabilities involved for the business.
-
Tough talk from someone who got spit on by a Derek Anthony...
right? I almost spit out my drink with laughter when I read that. Vince is that guy that gets super angry and everyone laughs because he literally is as dangerous as a fly, and since no one takes him seriously he tries to talk super tough.
Its hilarious. I think id laugh if Goodrum threatened to knock me out tonky face.
-
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-delegation-to-the-sochi-olympics-2013-12
:(
This could be interesting to see if they are even allowed into the country.
Selena Gomez was denied entry into Russia because she had previously promoted LBGT causes,
...so the official delegation will consist of gays & lesbians? Lol. I guess that's one way to make a statement.
-
This could be interesting to see if they are even allowed into the country.
Selena Gomez was denied entry into Russia because she had previously promoted LBGT causes,
...so the official delegation will consist of gays & lesbians? Lol. I guess that's one way to make a statement.
Come on, don't be a chicken shit and prove Im racist. You duck the question every time.
-
I see... Would you have done business with Kieth or Derek?
One of them made fun of you every day almost and the other spit on you at a public place.
You think the government should have been able to force you to work with them? At it's core, the fact is that this guy doesn't like something about another, just as I'm sure you didn't like something about those guys.
Basically, you are saying it's ok for the government to choose your clientele... If I'm understanding your position correctly.
I agree and it's just bad financials... I do a lot of side contracts and it would be foolish for me to deny anyone my service if they are willing to pay for it.
Do you realize how stupid it would be to turn down every homosexual in Los Angeles that's in the entertainment industry?
Not only is it just silly to deny someone a cake, it's bad for his business.
But, it's not MY business, so I don't give a shit if it fails or not.
Would you guys then say he can charge a different rate for his "Homo-cake"?
I am not sure what the last sentence means brah. If you are asking if he could charge more or should charge more I think that's bad business as well.
-
Disgusting.
Hopefully he'll lace it with poo so they can enjoy it better since they love each other's shlongs in each other's butts.
It's hilarious how secularism pretends it is about preserving everyone's rights and religious freedom, but the reality is, secularism is enforcing atheism and liberalism upon everyone.
Homosexuality is frowned upon by all religions, but it seems homosexuality is the one being forced upon everyone. It's truly funny how atheists, liberals and secularists all dance around and whine about religious people 'shuving their beliefs' down their throats when they are trying to shuv their dicks down each other and their homosexuality up everyone's business.
Homo propaganda on full speed.
That's where you're wrong. This is not a case of a couple shoving their homosexuality up everyone's business, this is the case of a business owner getting into their business, and making their homosexuality an issue.
This was a couple who simply wanted a cake. The bakery is out of line.
-
It seems that the bakery owner objected to wedding cakes only, not service in general.
And, as expected, he notes that after the incident last year his business has increased.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bakery-sees-business-boom-after-gay-wedding-cake-refusal
Who is he to decide? Seriously? Does he make the same call when he sees heterosexual couples who he feels shouldn't be married? I'm sure a judgemental prick like that is going to be making value judgements against everyone. We've all seen them... those couples we know have no business getting married. Does he refuse to make wedding cakes for heterosexual train wrecks waiting to happen. What about couples who engage in premarital sex? Do they also refuse birthday cakes for illegitimate bastards born out of wedlock.
-
Who is he to decide? Seriously? Does he make the same call when he sees heterosexual couples who he feels shouldn't be married? I'm sure a judgemental prick like that is going to be making value judgements against everyone. We've all seen them... those couples we know have no business getting married. Does he refuse to make wedding cakes for heterosexual train wrecks waiting to happen. What about couples who engage in premarital sex? Do they also refuse birthday cakes for illegitimate bastards born out of wedlock.
Im waiting! You can't just play the race card and expect to not have to back it up with facts.
-
Disgusting.
Hopefully he'll lace it with poo so they can enjoy it better since they love each other's shlongs in each other's butts.
It's hilarious how secularism pretends it is about preserving everyone's rights and religious freedom, but the reality is, secularism is enforcing atheism and liberalism upon everyone.
Homosexuality is frowned upon by all religions, but it seems homosexuality is the one being forced upon everyone. It's truly funny how atheists, liberals and secularists all dance around and whine about religious people 'shuving their beliefs' down their throats when they are trying to shuv their dicks down each other and their homosexuality up everyone's business.
Homo propaganda on full speed.
Just really too stupid a post to comment on...
-
Ironically, this thread is a prime example of why government had to step in to protect peoples rights. There are people who are too prejudice to treat people with respect and equality in the marketplace. Surprisingly, in 2013 they are still in abundance and still need to be shown how to act civily.
-
You can't choose your race. What sex the person is that you have relations with is YOUR CHOICE!! To act like it is a compulsion or beyond their control, is a simple way of making this CHOICE a weapon to use against society. Now some baker is FORCED to bake fucking cake for a queer wedding? Really?
What if the baker were black and the couple wanted a KKK style cake for their neo-Nazi rally? Would you all be saying the baker has to make the cake because it is discrimination? ::) Yeah right.
Prove your point for these morons Dago... starting tomorrow, choose to be attracted to the same sex.. show these people how its done! ::)
-
Im waiting! You can't just play the race card and expect to not have to back it up with facts.
Watch your tone mister. >:( You are talking to someone with the self-proclaimed IQ of Einstein (160).
-
Fine - people like Vince want to get it and give it in the crapper so much - if I were a baker - I'd take a dump right in that chocolate moose cake and give him the full dose. ;D ;D ;D
That was one of my favourite scenes from "The Help", ...Miss Hilly's special chocolate pie. :D
-
Watch your tone mister. >:( You are talking to someone with the self-proclaimed IQ of Einstein (160).
She is exactly right, her intellectual capacity is the equivalent of a dead Einstein.
-
Prove your point for this morons Dago... starting tomorrow, choose to be attracted to the same sex.. show these people how its done! ::)
I choose not to. 8)
Don't worry cupcake, I'm sure you will find a boyfriend any day now, be patient.
-
I choose not to. 8)
Don't worry cupcake, I'm sure you will find a boyfriend any day now, be patient.
hahahaha cupcake,pretty good fits the theme of the post :D
-
hahahaha cupcake,pretty good fits the theme of the post :D
;)
-
this happened a while back with a photographer she lost,your serving the public you can't discriminate
Uh why not? You own the biz, and customers are free to go to any competing biz.....
I don't get the fascist attitude....and its veyr dangerous because it can justify government telling anyone to do anything, because few politicians think its 'right'.
Very anti freedom.
-
Easy to talk on the internet but I've yet to run into anyone that's said it to me without getting knocked the fucked out.
The law is the law...deal with it mother fucker ;D
DA spat on you. Did you knock him out?
Yeah, yeah, he is dead. You are alive.
But he spat on you. Maybe that turned you on, pole sniffer?
Hey guess what?
FAGS ARE NOT A RACE
-
Remember - leftists and communists believe "you didn't build that" so according to them and their collectivist mentality - the baker does not own the business since he didn't build it. Society own the business according to these worthless parasites and vultures.
This sums it up perfectly. This radical leftist point of view is completely incompatible with the ideals our country was founded on.
-
Uh why not? You own the biz, and customers are free to go to any competing biz.....
I don't get the fascist attitude....and its veyr dangerous because it can justify government telling anyone to do anything, because few politicians think its 'right'.
Very anti freedom.
Yes, sickening disregard for freedom. Out of ignorance, or spite?
-
DA spat on you. Did you knock him out?
Yeah, yeah, he is dead. You are alive.
But he spat on you. Maybe that turned you on, pole sniffer?
Hey guess what?
FAGS ARE NOT A RACE
hahahaha the law that protects them has nothing to do with race you stupid jesus freak :D :D :D :D :D stick to talking snakes and 800 yr. old boat builders more your speed
-
This sums it up perfectly. This radical leftist point of view is completely incompatible with the ideals our country was founded on.
I see this more and more and I just dont understand it. The concept of personal property and ownership seems less and less respected.... people dont respect each others property, their ideas... their beliefs...
Everyone thinks everything should be available/cater to them, that
everyone has to agree with their opinions/ideals, and that no one has the right to decide what to do with their personal property, their lives, or their families.
at least, until its someone else telling THEM what to do or how to run their shit. Lol.
-
I see this more and more and I just dont understand it. The concept of personal property and ownership seems less and less respected.... people dont respect each others property, their ideas... their beliefs...
Everyone thinks everything should be available/cater to them, that
everyone has to agree with their opinions/ideals, and that no one has the right to decide what to do with their personal property, their lives, or their families.
at least, until its someone else telling THEM what to do or how to run their shit. Lol.
laws like this have been around since 1964,so you felt this way since 64 and your just letting it out now :o
-
Why? Because of the constant pro-gay propaganda that's why.
The Homosexual political lobbying has become as powerful as the Zionist lobby. Homosexuals wield heavy political power in this day and age in the west.
-
hahahaha the law that protects them has nothing to do with race you stupid jesus freak :D :D :D :D :D stick to talking snakes and 800 yr. old boat builders more your speed
Hey, you stupid atheist RETARD.
The black homo brought up the Civil Rights movement.
I know it's hard for you, but try to keep up, douchebag.
-
jesus freak= someone that pretends to be christian by spewing out, jesus this jesus that,and picking out parts of the bible that fit his agenda,but in the end is usually nothing more than a bigot ;D
-
I'm asking if he could... I too think it would be bad business, but again, I don't understand why a Gay couple would even WANT this guy to make their cake.
It is completely foolish. Basically, the gay couple is saying that they want to force this guy to make their cakes, but then they wouldn't REALLY go to him in the first place, because he's homophobic... What's the point of wasting tax payer money with a law suit just to prove this point?
There is no actual outcome.
He doesn't want to make one, they aren't going to ask him to do it... It was just a dick swinging contest really.
*Pun somewhat intentional*
Another question is, would the gay couple want the right to refuse service if the roles were reversed?
-
Serious question for Christians.. if the same couple came to Jesus for a coffee table, would he refuse to build it for them because they are homosexual?
-
Serious question for Christians.. if the same couple came to Jesus for a coffee table, would he refuse to build it for them because they are homosexual?
No. Not a christian, but the issue is god from teh old testament is nuts and jesus was just a person/philosopher gandhi type hewbrewish
-
Serious question for Christians.. if the same couple came to Jesus for a coffee table, would he refuse to build it for them because they are homosexual?
I don't think they had open homosexuals back then?
-
I don't think they had open homosexuals back then?
There were NONE!!
Unless they wanted to become a couple of roman candles.
-
Prove your point for these morons Dago... starting tomorrow, choose to be attracted to the same sex.. show these people how its done! ::)
:)
-
I don't think they had open homosexuals back then?
Wouldnt Jesus/God know if they were gays?
He created them right?
-
No. Not a christian, but the issue is god from teh old testament is nuts and jesus was just a person/philosopher gandhi type hewbrewish
Maybe he calmed down with age.
It happens with humans and if he created us in his image...
-
Isn't it sad that people this day and age are discriminating so openly against a group of people due to something they can't control like skin color?
Fucking stupidity and bigotry is amazing, how the human race ever got this far I will never know. You have morons quoting scripture as if a grade 6 student couldn't have written it. Do onto others as you would have them do unto you, jesus brilliant stuff god, I have been beating people recently and wondering why they don't seem to like me, they show me no affection.
Try agnostics advice, try and be attracted to the same sex, shit even try and animal
-
Isn't it sad that people this day and age are discriminating so openly against a group of people due to something they can't control like skin color?
Fucking stupidity and bigotry is amazing, how the human race ever got this far I will never know. You have morons quoting scripture as if a grade 6 student couldn't have written it. Do onto others as you would have them do unto you, jesus brilliant stuff god, I have been beating people recently and wondering why they don't seem to like me, they show me no affection.
Try agnostics advice, try and be attracted to the same sex, shit even try and animal
So you are equating gay sex w liking an animal? ;D
-
Isn't it sad that people this day and age are discriminating so openly against a group of people due to something they can't control like skin color?
Fucking stupidity and bigotry is amazing, how the human race ever got this far I will never know. You have morons quoting scripture as if a grade 6 student couldn't have written it. Do onto others as you would have them do unto you, jesus brilliant stuff god, I have been beating people recently and wondering why they don't seem to like me, they show me no affection.
Try agnostics advice, try and be attracted to the same sex, shit even try and animal
You can't control your penis going in an asshole? Oh wow ::) No one is 'born gay' dumbass.
Race and gender are something people are born with. Being a homosexual is someone failing at life to realize their gender at birth and going against what they are.
It's like Michael Jackson wanting to be white. What a dumb ass.
Even the nutso atheists pro-darwinism/evolution would realize it don't make sense to stick a penis in an asshole. Two guys don't produce children. Humanity = fail.
-
I don't think they had open homosexuals back then?
It was pretty normal, especially in the greek days. It was accepted. Then during the Roman era I believe it was frowned upon but they still did it. The whole "homosexuals are a new thing" is complete revisionist history.
-
It was pretty normal, especially in the greek days. It was accepted. Then during the Roman era I believe it was frowned upon but they still did it. The whole "homosexuals are a new thing" is complete revisionist history.
This.
Prostitution, nakedness, homosexuality, aaaalll of this is old news.
It's not progress of society. It's regress of society.
-
You can't control your penis going in an asshole? Oh wow ::) No one is 'born gay' dumbass.
Race and gender are something people are born with. Being a homosexual is someone failing at life to realize their gender at birth and going against what they are.
It's like Michael Jackson wanting to be white. What a dumb ass.
Even the nutso atheists pro-darwinism/evolution would realize it don't make sense to stick a penis in an asshole. Two guys don't produce children. Humanity = fail.
X2
This whole situation is simple to understand. Queers found a way to profit, get special treatment, and wield as a weapon their deviant disgusting practices. They know what they do is morally, ethically, spiritually, and most importantly BIOLOGICALLY WRONG!!!
Pee pee in booty = no baby
Pee pee in the va-hee-na = fun for all and babies.
Is that a simple enough explanation for you depraved sodomites?
-
And prostitution is going to get legalized in Canada check my thread.
For a while now I've been seeing these three hoes petitioning for legalization of prostitution in Canada.
People may be appalled at comparing homosexuality to beastiality (I see no different it's filth) but people were appalled at homos just a decade ago, mark my words if western society keeps derailing downwards at the pace it's regressing at, beastiality will be argued for soon enough.
It won't be just a jerry springer event.
How all these things are made acceptable is through entertainment and humor.
-
Wouldnt Jesus/God know if they were gays?
He created them right?
No, he created people who chose to be homosexual.
-
It was pretty normal, especially in the greek days. It was accepted. Then during the Roman era I believe it was frowned upon but they still did it. The whole "homosexuals are a new thing" is complete revisionist history.
It has been around forever. Just hasn't been open in most communities.
But yeah the Greeks had some flamers.
-
No, he created people who chose to be homosexual.
Amazing....simply amazing...
-
I cant possibly imagine anyone CHOOSING to be gay.
Who the fuck looks at another dudes ass and thinks "I want to put my cock in that"?
Proof enough to me that homosexuality is more than just a choice.
My personal opinion is that it is both a choice AND genetics. Some individuals may be from situational issues growing up, some is probably genetic, as is most everything else in nature.
-
And prostitution is going to get legalized in Canada check my thread.
For a while now I've been seeing these three hoes petitioning for legalization of prostitution in Canada.
People may be appalled at comparing homosexuality to beastiality (I see no different it's filth) but people were appalled at homos just a decade ago, mark my words if western society keeps derailing downwards at the pace it's regressing at, beastiality will be argued for soon enough.
It won't be just a jerry springer event.
How all these things are made acceptable is through entertainment and humor.
No, it is worse. A poor animal being "raped" for lack of better term, by a depraved degenerate is WORSE. Homo's can choose not to penetrate each others mouths and anus. They can CHOOSE to not be depraved, degenerate, disgusting sodomites. An animal has no choice.
-
No, it is worse. A poor animal being "raped" for lack of better term, by a depraved degenerate is WORSE. Homo's can choose not to penetrate each others mouths and anus. They can CHOOSE to not be depraved, degenerate, disgusting sodomites. An animal has no choice.
Try and fuck a rhino, see if he makes a choice.
-
Try and fuck a rhino, see if he makes a choice.
That was my fucking point! A HUMAN FUCKING BEING HAS A CHOICE WHERE HE STICKS HIS FUCKING DICK!!! PERIOD. Prove to me how my statement is wrong, please. Are fagget's mindless sex zombies that are driven by an uncontrollable lust for the hairy anus of a man? How is it not a choice?
-
That was my fucking point! A HUMAN FUCKING BEING HAS A CHOICE WHERE HE STICKS HIS FUCKING DICK!!! PERIOD. Prove to me how my statement is wrong, please. Are fagget's mindless sex zombies that are driven by an uncontrollable lust for the hairy anus of a man? How is it not a choice?
Alright fair enough... so what you are saying is that if my cat didn't want to be raped he wouldn't be wearing what he is wearing. teasing me and my throbbing member. Sorry I suffer from affluenza and didn't know I couldn't fuck the cat, no matter if he was asking for it or not.
-
X2
This whole situation is simple to understand. Queers found a way to profit, get special treatment, and wield as a weapon their deviant disgusting practices. They know what they do is morally, ethically, spiritually, and most importantly BIOLOGICALLY WRONG!!!
You do know homosexuality is rampant in the animal world right?
Pee pee in booty = no baby
Pee pee in the va-hee-na = fun for all and babies.
Is that a simple enough explanation for you depraved sodomites?
-
No, he created people who chose to be homosexual.
Then god is bisexual right?
If man is created in his image like the bible says?
-
Then god is bisexual right?
If man is created in his image like the bible says?
lol
-
That was my fucking point! A HUMAN FUCKING BEING HAS A CHOICE WHERE HE STICKS HIS FUCKING DICK!!! PERIOD. Prove to me how my statement is wrong, please. Are fagget's mindless sex zombies that are driven by an uncontrollable lust for the hairy anus of a man? How is it not a choice?
NO HE DOESNT; GO STICK YOUR DICK IN A RHINO, IT'S YOUR CHOICE, SEE IF YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WITH A SAY IN WHAT HAPPENS. do you mean overpowering smaller animals like i don;t know rape?
if you get to fucking a rhino, she wants the d, trust me.
-
lol
I agree, everyone knows he had a son= like the greasy chute.
-
After seeing what came out of my ass this morning from a binge at Buffalo Wild Wings last night - the idea another guy would want to stick is pecker up there? WTF? Just sayin
-
NO HE DOESNT; GO STICK YOUR DICK IN A RHINO, IT'S YOUR CHOICE, SEE IF YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WITH A SAY IN WHAT HAPPENS. do you mean overpowering smaller animals like i don;t know rape?
if you get to fucking a rhino, she wants the d, trust me.
What part do you not get? I DO NOT CHOOSE NOR WANT TO STICK MY DICK IN A RHINO OR YOUR HAIRY ANUS! Why is this so hard to grasp?
-
No, he created people who chose to be homosexual.
Hey asshole, when specifically did you choose to be heterosexual? Tell us the EXACT date and time and the place you were at when you made that monumental decision.
-
What part do you not get? I DO NOT CHOOSE NOR WANT TO STICK MY DICK IN A RHINO OR YOUR HAIRY ANUS! Why is this so hard to grasp?
You said the animal has no choice, but a rhino has a choice if he wants , to engage in pre marital coitus with an inter species raper, if he does you are in for a treat if not, nothing worse then a rhino charging your ass while you have a half mast chub.
-
Hey asshole, when specifically did you choose to be heterosexual? Tell us the EXACT date and time and the place you were at when you made that monumental decision.
Only if you ask me nicely. :)
-
Only if you ask me nicely. :)
I'd ask you, but the question was rhetorical to begin with: you never decided such a thing; you were born the way you were born. You didn't choose to be straight anymore than someone who's gay chooses to be gay, and even if you had, it's unclear why you would think that others would be like you.
-
I'd ask you, but the question was rhetorical to begin with: you never decided such a thing; you were born the way you were born. You didn't choose to be straight anymore than someone who's gay chooses to be gay, and even if you had, it's unclear why you would think that others would be like you.
Whatever you say hoss.
-
Whatever you say hoss.
If you disagree, why not tell us exactly when you chose to be straight, and how you know that it's a choice you made consciously instead of just who you are?
-
If you disagree, why not tell us exactly when you chose to be straight, and how you know that it's a choice you made consciously instead of just who you are?
Is this no longer a rhetorical question?
-
Is this no longer a rhetorical question?
I have no problem humoring you and exposing you for the hypocrite you are. So no, it no longer is a rhetorical question. Please tell us exactly when you chose to be straight, and how you know that it's a choice you made consciously instead of just who you are?
-
I have no problem humoring you and exposing you for the hypocrite you are. So no, it no longer is a rhetorical question. Please tell us exactly when you chose to be straight, and how you know that it's a choice you made consciously instead of just who you are?
My answer is as follows: kiss where the sun doesn't shine.
If you want to have a dialogue, act like an adult and stop with the name-calling. Otherwise, see first sentence. And Happy Aloha Friday. :)
-
My answer is as follows: kiss where the sun doesn't shine.
Sorry, I'm not gay... perhaps you can visit Craiglist?
If you want to have a dialogue, act like an adult and stop with the name-calling. Otherwise, see first sentence. And Happy Aloha Friday. :)
In other words, "I can't answer this question and avxo put me in a difficult spot. DAMMIT... DAMMIT IT ALL TO HELL! WAIT! I KNOW! I'm going to pretend to be offended that he called me an asshole, take my ball and go home. That'll show him! MUAHAHA!"
If you could answer my question you would. But you can't.
The facts are simple: You didn't choose to be a heterosexual anymore than a homosexual chooses to be a homosexual. The only thing you may have chosen is to not act upon sexual urges that you may have, but that's not the same as choosing your sexual orientation.
So, hide behind your finger if you must, but don't ask us to pretend that we can't see you.
-
Sorry, I'm not gay... perhaps you can visit Craiglist?
In other words, "I can't answer this question and avxo put me in a difficult spot. DAMMIT... DAMMIT IT ALL TO HELL! WAIT! I KNOW! I'm going to pretend to be offended that he called me an asshole, take my ball and go home. That'll show him! MUAHAHA!"
If you could answer my question you would. But you can't.
The facts are simple: You didn't choose to be a heterosexual anymore than a homosexual chooses to be a homosexual. The only thing you may have chosen is to not act upon sexual urges that you may have, but that's not the same as choosing your sexual orientation.
So, hide behind your finger if you must, but don't ask us to pretend that we can't see you.
lol Aw is the boy upset because I won't answer his question? :'( I told you, act like an adult and I'll play. Act like a little idiot and . . . well . . . you know. :)
-
lol Aw is the boy upset because I won't answer his question? :'( I told you, act like an adult and I'll play. Act like a little idiot and . . . well . . . you know. :)
I'm not at all upset. I told you, at the outset, that I have no problem humoring you and exposing you for the hypocrite you are.
I have.
You make broad, grandiose claims - claims about the nature of people whom you have never met and you could not possibly know about and for which no evidence exists, except your personal religious beliefs which are worth exactly zero to anyone but you. And when you're called out on it you pretend to be offended because you're called out.
Keep replying - you're only making a bigger fool of yourself.
-
I'm not at all upset. I told you, at the outset, that I have no problem humoring you and exposing you for the hypocrite you are.
I have.
You make broad, grandiose claims - claims about the nature of people whom you have never met and you could not possibly know about and for which no evidence exists, except your personal religious beliefs which are worth exactly zero to anyone but you. And when you're called out on it you pretend to be offended because you're called out.
Keep replying - you're only making a bigger fool of yourself.
Yawn. And that's only after reading the first line.
-
Only if you ask me nicely. :)
lol.Hey asshole.
You are are a gnawing type of personality like a peptic ulcer. not bad all the time, but not fun, but quite the fucking bitch at times, pretty much daily on a predictable pattern. Your personality is also corrosive and sore like and ulcer, possibly infectious but in a hitleresque manner. As well, you appear rub the intellectuals here, ::), the wrong way like euphemisms or ulcers. Note that you also can annoy people immediately without warning or reason, like a gastric ulcer. You are the putrid mess of food, hydrochrolric acid, mucus, intrinsic factor, gastrin, bile,lipase, trypsin, flavored dildo amalgam.
-
lol.Hey asshole.
You are are a gnawing type of personality like a peptic ulcer. not bad all the time, but not fun, but quite the fucking bitch at times, pretty much daily on a predictable pattern. Your personality is also corrosive and sore like and ulcer, possibly infectious but in a hitleresque manner. As well, you appear rub the intellectuals here, ::), the wrong way like euphemisms or ulcers. Note that you also can annoy people immediately without warning or reason, like a gastric ulcer. You are the putrid mess of food, hydrochrolric acid, mucus, intrinsic factor, gastrin, bile,lipase, trypsin, flavored dildo amalgam.
LOL! ;D
So who are the "intellectuals here"? lol . . .
Nevermind. ;D lol
-
lol
Why the LOL?
If the almighty god didnt want gays on planet earth why did he put them there?
And doesnt the bible say god created man in his image?
-
Why the LOL?
If the almighty god didnt want gays on planet earth why did he put them there?
And doesnt the bible say god created man in his image?
So... basically God is a Bear, a tranny and a German scheiße-porn enthusiast? Damn.
-
So... basically God is a Bear, a tranny and a German scheiße-porn enthusiast? Damn.
I would think god would be transgender actually. That would make the most sense.
But its hard to get a reply from Beach Bum looks like he believes in something but havent thought it through in any way shape or form.
-
Why the LOL?
If the almighty god didnt want gays on planet earth why did he put them there?
And doesnt the bible say god created man in his image?
It's called free will, dipshit. The choice between morality and immorality. Because sin exists, doesn't mean it's God approved.
-
LOL! ;D
So who are the "intellectuals here"? lol . . .
Nevermind. ;D lol
soulcrasher/333386
after Hillary wins shall we bet on what his next name will be?
-
It's called free will, dipshit. The choice between morality and immorality. Because sin exists, doesn't mean it's God approved.
some god is not the creator of all then? something exist with which doesnt have his approval. Well dipshit, that means he can't stop it from existing (pussy) or does not wish too, ie he is a dick head.
god is the creator of all and sees into the future, what you are about to do is already done in eternity, sin exists,and he planned it
-
It's called free will, dipshit. The choice between morality and immorality. Because sin exists, doesn't mean it's God approved.
Ah now i get it.
God created you, your mother/sister and the trailorpark.
But it was YOUR choice to fuck your mother/sister.
-
It's called free will, dipshit. The choice between morality and immorality. Because sin exists, doesn't mean it's God approved.
If God is all knowing, he knows whether you will choose moral or immoral. And, if he already knows the choice before you make it, there is no free will. It's already been decided.
-
If God is all knowing, he knows whether you will choose moral or immoral. And, if he already knows the choice before you make it, there is no free will. It's already been decided.
knowing what will happen doesnt negate the choices you make...Im not arguing one way or the other just point out the flaw in your point.
Next you will probably say that well "if God is all good and all knowing, he would not let you make a bad decision that he knew was going to happen"
and I will say first how do you know that what we see as evil is evil in the end. Meaning what if what we do that is deemed evil has a greater purpose that serves good in the end?
Also how arrogant of you to presume you know what Gods thoughts and plans are...
then we will spiral into post after post of "well if this, then that" etc eventually realizing that neither will change each others mind.
There I saved you guys 3 pages and 2 days worth of posting.
-
knowing what will happen doesnt negate the choices you make...Im not arguing one way or the other just point out the flaw in your point.
Next you will probably say that well "if God is all good and all knowing, he would not let you make a bad decision that he knew was going to happen"
and I will say first how do you know that what we see as evil is evil in the end. Meaning what if what we do that is deemed evil has a greater purpose that serves good in the end?
Also how arrogant of you to presume you know what Gods thoughts and plans are...
then we will spiral into post after post of "well if this, then that" etc eventually realizing that neither will change each others mind.
There I saved you guys 3 pages and 2 days worth of posting.
There is no flaw. If it's known, it's not a choice. It's a predetermined action. There can be no free will with an all knowing God.
The rest of your post is not what I would say and not relevant to anything I've said.
-
knowing what will happen doesnt negate the choices you make...Im not arguing one way or the other just point out the flaw in your point.
Let's be up front: If someone is to choose freely then his selection can't be known with absolute and unmistakable certainty. An omniscient god isn't possible with free will and free will isn't possible with an omniscient god. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Now, you are, of course, free to argue that yes, you can have your cake and eat it too. Just be forewarned: people much smarter than you have tried and failed to support the position you claim to support.
Next you will probably say that well "if God is all good and all knowing, he would not let you make a bad decision that he knew was going to happen"
I don't know about Skip, but that's not what I would say... I'd say "if God is all good and all knowing, why would he make his creation, which he supposedly loves, have to jump through hoops in order to be saved for his very own wrath?"
and I will say first how do you know that what we see as evil is evil in the end. Meaning what if what we do that is deemed evil has a greater purpose that serves good in the end?
If you were to say that my answer would be "what a fucking low-life scum piece-of-shit you are..." Tell me what possible end justifies a little girl being burned to death by her parents (http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/grim-details-emerge-about-death-starved-burned-10-/nbm46/)? What possible end justifies a newlywed man dying trying to help a stranded motorist (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/groom-killed-car-crash-hours-wedding-article-1.1350101)? What possible end justifies babies born addicted to drugs (http://fox6now.com/2013/11/27/the-tiniest-addicts-more-babies-born-addicted-to-drugs/)? What possible end justifies a 9 year old being brutally raped by his Father (http://www.inquisitr.com/1069377/carl-herold-popular-reddit-user-carlh-accused-of-raping-torturing-9-year-old-son/)? What possible end justifies a woman getting sprayed with acid (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/slideshow?id=9477095)?
I don't see people as pawns or means to an end. If your God does, then your God is a piece of shit. And if your God treats creates people to use them as nothing more than pawns, and punishes them on top of it, is an immoral piece of shit. And you who believe in that immoral, piece of shit God, offend me.
Also how arrogant of you to presume you know what Gods thoughts and plans are...
I don't presume to know his thoughts or plans - I'm just judging, based on my moral standards, his (supposed) actions (or, as the case may be, inaction).
then we will spiral into post after post of "well if this, then that" etc eventually realizing that neither will change each others mind.
We don't have to if you agree to use logic in our conversation.
-
There is no flaw. If it's known, it's not a choice. It's a predetermined action. There can be no free will with an all knowing God.
The rest of your post is not what I would say and not relevant to anything I've said.
damn it my point was to avoid a drawn out debate, but it is certainly possible for God to know what choice you will make and it still be free will.
feel free avxo and skip to explain why you feel that way but please cliff notes. AVXO I didnt read a quarter of your post...summarize!!!!
-
damn it my point was to avoid a drawn out debate, but it is certainly possible for God to know what choice you will make and it still be free will.
feel free avxo and skip to explain why you feel that way but please cliff notes. AVXO I didnt read a quarter of your post...summarize!!!!
I already have.
Again, If it's known, you cannot freely make a choice. It's a predetermined action.
-
damn it my point was to avoid a drawn out debate, but it is certainly possible for God to know what choice you will make and it still be free will.
Did you wave your hand around like some kind of Jedi while saying "it is certainly possible for God to know what choice you will make and it still be free will"? If so, it didn't work. You must support your position rationally.
feel free avxo and skip to explain why you feel that way but please cliff notes. AVXO I didnt read a quarter of your post...summarize!!!!
Let's repeat: If, for every choice I get to make, you know, with unerring accuracy, what I will choose and you know it not only before I make my choice, but before I even know that I have a choice to make, then I do not have free will, since the choice I will make is already known. I may have the illusion of free will, but that's not the same thing as free will.
It's quite convenient that you didn't read my (rather short) post, as it contained a paragraph challenging the things you said, and we wouldn't want to get into a drawn-out debate, would we? As for summarizing, not everything can be boiled down to the length of a twitter message. If you want pearls of wisdom in 140 characters of less, I would imagine that you can check out @KimKardashian (https://twitter.com/KimKardashian).
-
Did you wave your hand around like some kind of Jedi while saying "it is certainly possible for God to know what choice you will make and it still be free will"? If so, it didn't work. You must support your position rationally.
Let's repeat: If, for every choice I get to make, you know, with unerring accuracy, what I will choose and you know it not only before I make my choice, but before I even know that I have a choice to make, then I do not have free will, since the choice I will make is already known. I may have the illusion of free will, but that's not the same thing as free will.
It's quite convenient that you didn't read my (rather short) post, as it contained a paragraph challenging the things you said, and we wouldn't want to get into a drawn-out debate, would we? As for summarizing, not everything can be boiled down to the length of a twitter message. If you want pearls of wisdom in 140 characters of less, I would imagine that you can check out @KimKardashian (https://twitter.com/KimKardashian).
A lot of words and such little knowledge shown.
Let me keep it simple for you.
God knowing what you are going to do, when, how and why DOESN'T NEGATE free will.
WHY?
Because God is not FORCING you to choose a certain way . YOU and ONLY YOU gets to make those decisions.
FREE WILL would only cease if at the critical time of making a decision GOD FORCED YOU TO DO HIS WILL. That never happens. HIM knowing YOUR CHOICE doesn't MEAN THE CHOICE HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE FOR YOU. THIS IS WHAT YOU DON'T or you REFUSE TO UNDERSTAND.
By your logic, GOD can't condemn rapists, murderers and thieves. There is no sin. Convenient for non-believers and atheists.
-
A lot of words and such little knowledge shown.
I'll strive to improve my word to knowledge ratio. Perhaps I can tell you two facts about ducks? They don't fly and, when provoked, they release ink from an opening near their cloaca.
Let me keep it simple for you.
Yes, please do. I like simple things.
God knowing what you are going to do, when, how and why DOESN'T NEGATE free will.
Wait, I think you're confused. Repeating a statement doesn't prove it. On the other hand, it is quite simple.
WHY?
Yes, that is the question...
Because God is not FORCING you to choose a certain way . YOU and ONLY YOU gets to make those decisions.
The issue isn't whether I'm being forced to decide one way or another - although that's a legitimate topic of conversation too. The issue whether the decisions I do make are decisions at all. If God knows that I am going to choose to eat a cheeseburger instead of spaghetti and meatballs for dinner and God's knowledge is infalliable then I have no choice to make.
Oh, AND forgive me FOR not RANDOMLY capitalizing the various WORDS in my REPLY.
FREE WILL would only cease if at the critical time of making a decision GOD FORCED YOU TO DO HIS WILL.
If God knows that in half an hour I'm going to choose to go get a burger from In'N'Out instead of eating leftover spaghetti, then at this "critical time" you speak of, can I choose to actually eat spaghetti? And if I can't, because God knows I'm going to choose the burger, then I'm not free to choose the spaghetti after all, am I?
That never happens.
Prove it. Please start by providing a definition of the term "God".
HIM knowing YOUR CHOICE doesn't MEAN THE CHOICE HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE FOR YOU.
I'm sorry to break this to you, but this isn't how debating works. Saying the same thing, in a slightly different way, doesn't qualify as debating and is unlikely to convince anyone.
THIS IS WHAT YOU DON'T or you REFUSE TO UNDERSTAND.
Perhaps you didn't explain it simply enough? Can you try to simplify it some more? I know, it's a pain; please bear with me.
By your logic, GOD can't condemn rapists, murderers and thieves.
By my logic, God is a figment of your imagination. But if he were real, then by my logic, he could condemn rapists, murderers and thieves all day long, but his condemnation would be, at best, hypocritical, since he knew those people would become rapists, murderers and thieves, and still created them.
There is no sin.
Please provide a definition for the word sin. Please be accurate enough so as to allow everyone who decides to use your definition to unambigiously and deterministically identify whether an action is a sin or not. Please hurry, as I am about to eat shellfish and shave my facial hair. I wouldn't want to sin.
Convenient for non-believers and atheists.
You'd think so, but even though us heathens have whitewashed sin away we still have a lot of dense, irrational religious people to deal with and that's very incovenient. Perhaps you know the type? they are the kind of people who believe that morality boils down to following a book written by sheep-herders and then doing - without thinking - whatever that book says because it is the word of some ethereal entity that has never been seen or heard; they are the kind of people who not only choose to live this way, but seek to impose their ridiculous views on everyone else too.
-
God knowing what you are going to do, when, how and why DOESN'T NEGATE free will.
Of course it does. There is no freedom in following a path that has already been decided.
Because God is not FORCING you to choose a certain way .
If the path is known, it's already been decided, regardless of what or who is the cause. And, if it's already known, it's a predetermined action, not a free choice.
-
I am so impulsive god can't keep up. He has no idea what I AM going to DO(I see you dario).
Think of free will like birth, did you choose to be born? nope, but it was pre-ordained, same with every other decision if god exists, not to mention the banality of it all, is novel or new or important in eternity, eternity negates purpose.
However, the universe is a hologram according to string theory combined with the simulated universe theory by bostroms simulation argument and some ibogaine and you have the answer to god.
-
LOL.
These libtard philosophers are so dumb.
Of course there is a reward for obeying God and a different reward for disobeying him.
YOU make the choice. GOD doesn't PUSH you to either end, nor does he STOP you from choosing either one. THUS, YOU HAVE FREE WILL.
I kept it simple for you idiots.
-
Just look at this thread.
The atheists can't stop talking about GOD.
I can't stop but I have a reason. I am a believer.
But why do non-believers or atheists dedicate so much of their time and energy into a GOD that doesn't exist, who according to them, is a fairy tale?
Only one word: DOUBT
-
Just look at this thread.
The atheists can't stop talking about GOD.
I can't stop but I have a reason. I am a believer.
But why do non-believers or atheists dedicate so much of their time and energy into a GOD that doesn't exist, who according to them, is a fairy tale?
Only one word: DOUBT
::)
-
Just look at this thread.
The atheists can't stop talking about GOD.
You mean, that some of us will challenge the stupid, irrational, unsubstantiated statements by you and your ilk?
I can't stop but I have a reason. I am a believer.
See, that's the problem. You talk and then I'm compelled to answer the bullshit you spew because I'm allergic to bullshit. If you stand up and proclaim that you can have your cake and eat it too, don't be surprised when I stand back and call an you irrational idiot.
But why do non-believers or atheists dedicate so much of their time and energy into a GOD that doesn't exist, who according to them, is a fairy tale?
It's all part of God's plan. Who are you to question God's plan?
Only one word: DOUBT
I get that you are trying to pull the wool over people's eyes to hide the fact that you cannot rationally defend your position - and just about everybody else here does too. It's OK thought, don't be upset... we understand. It's not your fault that you have the intellectual capacity of a cooked bivalve.
Don't fret or worry. Continue to exist in that mental fog in which you exist, secure in the knowledge that you are stupid for a reason because God is great and he has a plan! :)
-
LOL.
These libtard philosophers are so dumb.
Of course there is a reward for obeying God and a different reward for disobeying him.
YOU make the choice. GOD doesn't PUSH you to either end, nor does he STOP you from choosing either one. THUS, YOU HAVE FREE WILL.
I kept it simple for you idiots.
This is not really about belief. It's about logic.
If the choice you are going to make is already known, then you are doing nothing more than following a predetermined action.
Think of it this way. If God knows before even your parents or grandparents (or anybody else in your family) is born, that someday you will eat a bowl of Cheerios and go rob a bank...then someday you will eat a bowl of Cheerios and go rob a bank.
It's either that...or we accept that God is not all knowing.
-
Just look at this thread.
The atheists can't stop talking about GOD.
I can't stop but I have a reason. I am a believer.
But why do non-believers or atheists dedicate so much of their time and energy into a GOD that doesn't exist, who according to them, is a fairy tale?
Only one word: DOUBT
Yeah, my 5 or 6 posts in this thread, coupled with my 2 or 3 on the religious board means that I can't stop talking about it. You've nailed me on my true obsession, lol.
-
You mean, that some of us will challenge the stupid, irrational, unsubstantiated statements by you and your ilk?
See, that's the problem. You talk and then I'm compelled to answer the bullshit you spew because I'm allergic to bullshit. If you stand up and proclaim that you can have your cake and eat it too, don't be surprised when I stand back and call an you irrational idiot.
It's all part of God's plan. Who are you to question God's plan?
I get that you are trying to pull the wool over people's eyes to hide the fact that you cannot rationally defend your position - and just about everybody else here does too. It's OK thought, don't be upset... we understand. It's not your fault that you have the intellectual capacity of a cooked bivalve.
Don't fret or worry. Continue to exist in that mental fog in which you exist, secure in the knowledge that you are stupid for a reason because God is great and he has a plan! :)
Brilliant.
-
Did you wave your hand around like some kind of Jedi while saying "it is certainly possible for God to know what choice you will make and it still be free will"? If so, it didn't work. You must support your position rationally.
Let's repeat: If, for every choice I get to make, you know, with unerring accuracy, what I will choose and you know it not only before I make my choice, but before I even know that I have a choice to make, then I do not have free will, since the choice I will make is already known. I may have the illusion of free will, but that's not the same thing as free will.
It's quite convenient that you didn't read my (rather short) post, as it contained a paragraph challenging the things you said, and we wouldn't want to get into a drawn-out debate, would we? As for summarizing, not everything can be boiled down to the length of a twitter message. If you want pearls of wisdom in 140 characters of less, I would imagine that you can check out @KimKardashian (https://twitter.com/KimKardashian).
absolutely not...knowing is not controlling...
how does knowing something is going to happen negate the will of the person doing it?
you repeating yourself is not explaining by the way.
How is me knowing what you will do, negate your ability to make that choice?
the two are mutually exclusive, they have nothing to do with one another...
-
This is not really about belief. It's about logic.
If the choice you are going to make is already known, then you are doing nothing more than following a predetermined action.
Think of it this way. If God knows before even your parents or grandparents (or anybody else in your family) is born, that someday you will eat a bowl of Cheerios and go rob a bank...then someday you will eat a bowl of Cheerios and go rob a bank.
It's either that...or we accept that God is not all knowing.
slightly different than your original argument, in the first argument it was simply that God knew what was going to happen not that it was predetermined.
Simply knowing somthing is going to happen does not mean God has predetermined that action to take place only that God knows the choice YOU WILL MAKE...
there is a difference...knowing how things will play out does not negate personal choice.
-
absolutely not...knowing is not controlling...
how does knowing something is going to happen negate the will of the person doing it?
you repeating yourself is not explaining by the way.
How is me knowing what you will do, negate your ability to make that choice?
the two are mutually exclusive, they have nothing to do with one another...
If you know every choice I will ever make without the possibility of error then I am not free to choose, if my choice must be the choice you knew I would make, long before I knew I would even have to make it.
You are arguing out of both sides of your mouth. Either God is omniscient or you have free will. You can't have both. If you want to maintain that God is omniscient then you can argue that you have the illusion of free will.
You accuse me of repeating the same thing - you are doing that. I've given you specific reasons as to why what you claim is not congruent with the concept of free will, to say nothing about the rational possibility that your God actually exists.
All you do is come back with the equivalent of "neener neener neener, I can't hear you. What I said before counts. Lalalalala." What are you? 5?
Debate the matter like an adult. If you can't just say "I can't debate this topic. Nevertheless, it's what I believe." Act like a serious person instead of like a child that's high on sugar.
Please note that I don't need to prove what you say is nonsense. All I have to do is point logical inconsistencies and your argument collapses. It's up to you to build it back up.
You claim that there is a magical sky creature. Prove it.
You claim this magical sky creature is omniscient. Prove it.
You claim that free will is congruent with an omniscient being. Prove it.
-
slightly different than your original argument, in the first argument it was simply that God knew what was going to happen not that it was predetermined.
Simply knowing somthing is going to happen does not mean God has predetermined that action to take place only that God knows the choice YOU WILL MAKE...
there is a difference...knowing how things will play out does not negate personal choice.
Exactly.
-
Exactly.
No... not "exactly." If "God" knows, infallibly, every choice you are going to make, then what you have isn't free will - at best it's the illusion of free will.
-
No... not "exactly." If "God" knows, infallibly, every choice you are going to make, then what you have isn't free will - at best it's the illusion of free will.
I disagree, for the reasons tony stated. I have the choice to move to Alaska, or become a farmer, or take up paddling. I'm seriously considering one of those. :) The fact God knows which one, if any, I will choose, doesn't take away my choice at all. It's still my option.
Choice is actually one of the beauties of Christianity. You can choose to believe or not, to live a certain lifestyle or not. That's a great thing.
-
I disagree, for the reasons tony stated. I have the choice to move to Alaska, or become a farmer, or take up paddling. I'm seriously considering one of those. :) The fact God knows which one, if any, I will choose, doesn't take away my choice at all. It's still my option.
Choice is actually one of the beauties of Christianity. You can choose to believe or not, to live a certain lifestyle or not. That's a great thing.
Choice is one of the beauties of Christianity? That's rich. Christianity is the religion of original sin – a sin which you didn't commit but are liable for. Choice... What a joke.
Can you define, exactly, what "choice" means to you, and what it means to choose freely?
-
Choice is one of the beauties of Christianity? That's rich. Christianity is the religion of original sin – a sin which you didn't commit but are liable for. Choice... What a joke.
Can you define, exactly, what "choice" means to you, and what it means to choose freely?
Yes, one of the beauties. It's awesome.
I just gave you an example of what choice means to mean, which is also an example of choosing freely. (That's redundant by the way.)
I disagree, for the reasons tony stated. I have the choice to move to Alaska, or become a farmer, or take up paddling. I'm seriously considering one of those. :) The fact God knows which one, if any, I will choose, doesn't take away my choice at all. It's still my option.
What does choice mean to you?
-
Yes, one of the beauties. It's awesome.
I just gave you an example of what choice means to mean, which is also an example of choosing freely. (That's redundant by the way.)
An example isn't a definition. Your example also doesn't explain how you can freely choose to move to Alaska if God knows (without any possibility for error) that you will not only move there, but everything else you will do.
If God knows exactly how your life will play out, you are not free to live it; you are just going through the motions. You may think you are making your choices freely, but that doesn't mean they are free.
What does choice mean to you?
Unlike you, I won't answer with a silly example. For me, choice is a side-effect of the fact that we are beings of volitional consciousness. It means that I can choose between alternatives, freely out of my own volition and by my own standards, without constraints by a predetermined fate.
-
An example isn't a definition. Your example also doesn't explain how you can freely choose to move to Alaska if God knows (without any possibility for error) that you will not only move there, but everything else you will do.
If God knows exactly how your life will play out, you are not free to live it; you are just going through the motions. You may think you are making your choices freely, but that doesn't mean they are free.
Unlike you, I won't answer with a silly example. For me, choice is a side-effect of the fact that we are beings of volitional consciousness. It means that I can choose between alternatives, freely out of my own volition and by my own standards, without constraints by a predetermined fate.
Give it up.
You read dumber with every post you make.
-
An example isn't a definition. Your example also doesn't explain how you can freely choose to move to Alaska if God knows (without any possibility for error) that you will not only move there, but everything else you will do.
If God knows exactly how your life will play out, you are not free to live it; you are just going through the motions. You may think you are making your choices freely, but that doesn't mean they are free.
Unlike you, I won't answer with a silly example. For me, choice is a side-effect of the fact that we are beings of volitional consciousness. It means that I can choose between alternatives, freely out of my own volition and by my own standards, without constraints by a predetermined fate.
The example I gave you is a definition. I can choose to move to Alaska, become a farmer, and/or take up paddling. Nobody can make me do any of them. Nobody can prevent me from doing any of them. That, by definition, is the power of choice.
The fact God knows what I will choose to do doesn't change the power I have to choose any of those (or any other options). I can also choose not to be a Christian or follow any number of Christian teachings. That's another example of choice.
Your definition isn't any different than mine. Deciding to move to Alaska would be something I do out of "volitional consciousness." Although I would never use that phrase when talking to anyone.
And deciding on whether or not to follow any Christian teaching, where I work, live, play, etc. are all alternatives that I pick and choose. Nothing in my life is predetermined. I decide. I love that.
-
The example I gave you is a definition. I can choose to move to Alaska, become a farmer, and/or take up paddling. Nobody can make me do any of them. Nobody can prevent me from doing any of them. That, by definition, is the power of choice.
The fact God knows what I will choose to do doesn't change the power I have to choose any of those (or any other options). I can also choose not to be a Christian or follow any number of Christian teachings. That's another example of choice.
Your definition isn't any different than mine. Deciding to move to Alaska would be something I do out of "volitional consciousness." Although I would never use that phrase when talking to anyone.
And deciding on whether or not to following any Christian teaching, where I work, live, play, etc. are all alternatives that I pick and choose. Nothing in my life is predetermined. I decide. I love that.
If God knew that you'd move to Alaska before you were even born, how is nothing in your life predetermined?
-
If God knew that you'd move to Alaska before you were even born, how is nothing in your life predetermined?
Because I'm the one who will make the choice. I'm a believer in prayer, so I do pray about my life decisions. I ask for guidance. But I also do my homework and do a cost/benefit analysis. I look at the affect on my family and others. And at the end of the day, I do what I think is best, and makes the most sense. Sometimes I take the more risky approach. Regardless, it's me going through a thought process and, with the help of my faith, life experience, and the counsel of people I trust, who ultimately makes the decision. My choice.
-
Because I'm the one who will make the choice. I'm a believer in prayer, so I do pray about my life decisions. I ask for guidance. But I also do my homework and do a cost/benefit analysis. I look at the affect on my family and others. And at the end of the day, I do what I think is best, and makes the most sense. Sometimes I take the more risky approach. Regardless, it's me going through a thought process and, with the help of my faith, life experience, and the counsel of people I trust, who ultimately makes the decision. My choice.
So, if God, without any possibility of error, knew you'd choose to move to Alaska before you were even born, your decision wasn't predetermined and was freely made. Got it!
-
So, if God, without any possibility of error, knew you'd choose to move to Alaska before you were even born, your decision wasn't predetermined and was freely made. Got it!
Correct. My work here is done. :D
-
how about the cock lovers get thier cake from someone who willingly wiltake thier cash for caske?
leave this non gay lover to sell his cakes to rest of us
in peace
stop telling non gays what to do
-
Correct. My work here is done. :D
Obviously.
-
I disagree, for the reasons tony stated. I have the choice to move to Alaska, or become a farmer, or take up paddling. I'm seriously considering one of those. :)
I'm hoping you choose to move to Alaska.
The very idea that I'm up here freezing my bodacious tatas as this city is encased in ice & snow,
While you're languishing in paradise does NOT sit well with me. It's about time your fleshy bits froze too. :P
-
how about the cock lovers get thier cake from someone who willingly wiltake thier cash for caske?
leave this non gay lover to sell his cakes to rest of us
in peace
stop telling non gays what to do
I don't think it's a matter of telling a bigot what to, ...but rather telling a bigot what they cannot legally do.
-
I don't think it's a matter of telling a bigot what to, ...but rather telling a bigot what they cannot legally do.
I don't think the Government should be in the business of telling bigots they can't be bigoted and I don't think the Government should be in the business of telling merchants that they cannot choose who to sell their wares to. The second bit, of course, is legally possible to achieve anyways through business licenses which, as a prerequisite, require the merchant to agree to not discriminate. But even that is a bad idea.
If a baker won't bake a cake for a gay couple, that's his prerogative and I support his right not to. I don't think he should be forced to bake that cake anymore than I think a lawyer should be required to accept a murderer as a client. But I also want to know about it, because I will want to choose a different bakery (or, as the case may be, a different lawyer).
-
I don't think the Government should be in the business of telling bigots they can't be bigoted and I don't think the Government should be in the business of telling merchants that they cannot choose who to sell their wares to. The second bit, of course, is legally possible to achieve anyways through business licenses which, as a prerequisite, require the merchant to agree to not discriminate. But even that is a bad idea.
If a baker won't bake a cake for a gay couple, that's his prerogative and I support his right not to. I don't think he should be forced to bake that cake anymore than I think a lawyer should be required to accept a murderer as a client. But I also want to know about it, because I will want to choose a different bakery (or, as the case may be, a different lawyer).
I think a bigot should be free to be a bigot as well, however, the law is not there to legislate opinion, but behaviour.
I have a bit of a problem with the it should be the baker's choice. It's not so clear cut with me,
...especially when you've previously made a cake for a doggy wedding. I mean C'mon!
You'll bake a cake for a canine wedding, but not a human one?! How horrid a statement is that?!
The slings & arrows that people unconsciously shoot at their fellow man just sometimes boggles the mind.
And it is sometimes these subtle and unconscious and in many cases unintended attacks that leave the most lasting damage.
-
So, if God, without any possibility of error, knew you'd choose to move to Alaska before you were even born, your decision wasn't predetermined and was freely made. Got it!
Yeah, this is why I'm an atheist. Reason and logic break down for the strongly religious and they start arguing nonsense.
It's predetermined, but they still have a choice. ::) oh boy.
-
Yeah, this is why I'm an atheist. Reason and logic break down for the strongly religious and they start arguing nonsense.
It's predetermined, but they still have a choice. ::) oh boy.
It has been my experience that the vast majority of the most vocal opponents of civil rights for gays, who insist that homosexuality is a "choice", are themselves self hating closeted bi-sexuals or bi-curious types who themselves DID infact make a choice that was possible for them, ...but cannot possibly comprehend how sexual orientation is not necessarily a choice. Only a gay, or straight person can understand that IMO. just sayin'
-
I'm hoping you choose to move to Alaska.
The very idea that I'm up here freezing my bodacious tatas as this city is encased in ice & snow,
While you're languishing in paradise does NOT sit well with me. It's about time your fleshy bits froze too. :P
Nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there. My hammock would not like the snow very much.
-
It has been my experience that the vast majority of the most vocal opponents of civil rights for gays, who insist that homosexuality is a "choice", are themselves self hating closeted bi-sexuals or bi-curious types who themselves DID infact make a choice that was possible for them, ...but cannot possibly comprehend how sexual orientation is not necessarily a choice. Only a gay, or straight person can understand that IMO. just sayin'
I don't know if it's nature or nurture and don't much care. They should have equal rights, but I'm not big on special treatment.
I'm also not too big on letting the market self-correct. History suggests it won't, so if a sufficient number of merchants discriminated against gay people, they would have no other recourse than to seek help via the government.
-
I don't know if it's nature or nurture and don't much care. They should have equal rights, but I'm not big on special treatment.
I'm also not too big on letting the market self-correct. History suggests it won't, so if a sufficient number of merchants discriminated against gay people, they would have no other recourse than to seek help via the government.
While I'm inclined to believe it is more nature than nurture, you're right, it is irrelevant whatever it is.
I am in 100% total agreement with every single thing you just said!
Having said that, ...I'm off to go make peace with my maker because the end is surely nigh!
I can't believe I've actually agreed with you, Archer, and Avxo all in the same week. What are the odd?
I think I'm gonna grab me a lotto ticket while I'm at it too. :P
-
If that baker cannot see common sense, and right from wrong, ...maybe we ought to appeal to her sense of self-preservation?
Here's a very compelling reason why she should support same-sex marriage...
...if she doesn't, they might come for her man! :o
-
Oregon ruling really takes the cake -- Christian bakery guilty of violating civil rights of lesbian couple
By Todd Starnes
Published January 21, 2014
FoxNews.com
FILE - In this undated photograph Aaron Klein stands behind the counter of his Oregon bakery, Sweet Cakes by Melissa. Since this photo was taken the store has closed. The Kleins now operate their bakery business out of their home. (SWEET CAKES BY MELISSA)
The owners of a Christian bakery who refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple are facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines after they were found guilty of violating the couple’s civil rights.
The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said they found “substantial evidence” that Sweet Cakes by Melissa discriminated against the lesbian couple and violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, a law that protects the rights of the LGBT community.
Last year, the bakery’s owners refused to make a wedding cake for Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman, of Portland, citing their Christian beliefs. The couple then filed a complaint with the state.
Aaron Klein told me there will be no reconciliation and there will be no rehabilitation.
“The investigation concludes that the bakery is not a religious institution under the law and that the business’ policy of refusing to make same-sex wedding cakes represents unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation,” said Charlie Burr, a spokesman for the Bureau of Labor and Industries.
The backlash against Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of the bakery, was severe. Gay rights groups launched protests and pickets outside the family’s store. They threatened wedding vendors who did business with the bakery. And, Klein told me, the family’s children were the targets of death threats.
The family eventually had to close their retail shop and now operate the bakery out of their home. They posted a message vowing to stand firm in their faith. It read, in part:
“To all of you that have been praying for Aaron and I, I want to say thank you. I know that your prayers are being heard. I feel such a peace with all of this that is going on. Even though there are days that are hard and times of struggle we still feel that the Lord is in this. It is His fight and our situation is in His hands….Please continue to pray for our family. God is great, amazing and all powerful. I know He has a plan.”
Under state law, the complaint against the bakery now moves into a period of reconciliation. If they can’t reach an agreement, formal civil charges could be filed and the Kleins could face hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.
Last August, Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian told The Oregonian, their desire is to rehabilitate businesses like the one owned by the Christian couple.
“Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to discriminate,” he told the newspaper. “The goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate.”
Aaron Klein told me there will be no reconciliation and there will be no rehabilitation. He and his wife will not back down from their Christian beliefs.
“There’s nothing wrong with what we believe,” he said. “It’s a biblical point of view. It’s my faith. It’s my religion.”
Klein said he’s not surprised by the ruling and called it “absolutely absurd.”
“I’ve never seen a government entity use a law to come after somebody because they have a religious view,” he said. “I truly believe Brad Avakian is trying to send a message. I don’t think the constitution of the state of Oregon means anything to these people.”
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told me the plight of the Klein family is another example of the consequences of redefining marriage.
“We’re seeing a steady drumbeat of the loss of religious liberty, the ability to live your life, conduct your business according to the principles and teachings of your faith,” Perkins said.
He said he was especially disturbed by the level of attacks against the Klein family.
“It shows that tolerance is one way,” he said, referring to the militant gay protests. “Those who trumpet the message of tolerance have no tolerance for people who disagree with them.”
The Kleins warned that what happened to them could happen to other Christian business owners. And it already has.
In December a Colorado baker was ordered by a judge to either serve gay weddings or face fines. Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, was told to “cease and desist from discriminating” against gay couples. Phillips is a Christian.
New Mexico’s Surpeme Court ruled in August that two Christian photographers who declined to photograph a same-sex union violated the state’s Human Rights Act. One justice said photographers Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin were “compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.”
And the Washington attorney general filed a lawsuit against a florist who refused to provide flowers for a same-sex couple’s wedding. Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene’s Flowers & Gifts filed a countersuit, telling the Christian Broadcasting Network she “had to take a stand” in defense of her faith in Christ.
Perkins told me that in many cases gay couples are targeting businesses owned by Christians.
“Individuals are being persecuted and prosecuted using the leverage of the government through these homosexual activists,” he said. “Government has become a weapon that homosexual activists are using against Christian business owners.”
And if you have any doubts about the validity of his claims, just ask the Klein family. They know what it’s like to incur the wrath of militant homosexual bullies. And they learned that in today’s America – gay rights trump religious rights.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/01/21/christian-bakery-guilty-violating-civil-rights-lesbian-couple/
-
I think it's pretty stupid from a business perspective to not bake a cake for someone who has money to give you if you're in the cake baking business. But stupid isn't illegal and people ought to be allowed to be stupid if they so choose.
But I think it's outrageous that we are at the point where the government can force businesses to not discriminate or to "rehabilitate" businesses that choose who heir customers should be.
I hope this goes to Court, and I don't mean in front of some elected hick. I mean in front of a Federal Judge that knows the law and takes no bullshit. There's plenty of those on the Federal bench; Alex Kozinski comes to mind (sidebar: what pity he won't get ever be nominated for the Supreme Court). And I hope that when this happens the State gets a good lesson.
Alas that probably won't happen...
-
I think it's pretty stupid from a business perspective to not bake a cake for someone who has money to give you if you're in the cake baking business.
It is not stupid if the bulk of their clients are not homos.
Homos make up 3%, maybe 4%, of the USA population. What? All of the sudden businesses are starving for their patronage?
These business don't need their money.
If they are suffering financially now is because of the legal expenses and the threat of additional fines by the courts.
-
It is not stupid if the bulk of their clients are not homos.
Homos make up 3%, maybe 4%, of the USA population. What? All of the sudden businesses are starving for their patronage?
These business don't need their money.
If they are suffering financially now is because of the legal expenses and the threat of additional fines by the courts.
Except... there are a good many others who are not gay, but support their rights who would also take their business elsewhere..
-
moral of the story, next time bake the cake :D :D
-
Except... there are a good many others who are not gay, but support their rights who would also take their business elsewhere..
And there are good many people who before all of this did not even know about the bakery, let alone do business with them. But now will support the bakery because they agree with their belief and support their fight with the courts. It goes both ways.
BUT, lets assume what you say IS THE ONLY RESULT. IF the homo supporters take their business elsewhere, SO BE IT. The owners, according to the articles posted, are willing to take that risk.
Just like I have stated all along. The homos and their supporters can take their business elsewhere. They have that right. And the owners should have the right to sell to whom they want.
But, no. They have to drag them through the courts, threaten them with fines and they want to "rehabilitate" them. ::)
-
It is not stupid if the bulk of their clients are not homos.
Homos make up 3%, maybe 4%, of the USA population. What? All of the sudden businesses are starving for their patronage?
These business don't need their money.
If they are suffering financially now is because of the legal expenses and the threat of additional fines by the courts.
You are missing the salient point of my post (which was further down and which, ironically enough, was supportive of the bakery owners) because your hate of "homos" is so rabid that it completely overrides your rational faculty.
Not unexpected really; I stopped expecting rationality from you and your ilk long ago.
-
he's your typ. fake christain bigot :o
-
And there are good many people who before all of this did not even know about the bakery, let alone do business with them. But now will support the bakery because they agree with their belief and support their fight with the courts. It goes both ways.
True. Happened with Chick Fil A.
-
It is not stupid if the bulk of their clients are not homos.
Homos make up 3%, maybe 4%, of the USA population. What? All of the sudden businesses are starving for their patronage?
These business don't need their money.
If they are suffering financially now is because of the legal expenses and the threat of additional fines by the courts.
so then substitute blacks and hispanics for the gays. a black couple walks in the store, dont bake 'em a cake. why be in business if your not going to do business? or do what restaurants do; post a sign that says we reserve the right to refuse service.
-
The bakers mistake was admitting that he/she didn't want to bake it due to the sexual orientation of the couple. The baker could have just flat out refused and said he/she was too busy with other orders and it couldn't be done. When you come out and admit it's because of their gayness, that's when it becomes a legal issue.
-
The bakers mistake was admitting that he/she didn't want to bake it due to the sexual orientation of the couple. The baker could have just flat out refused and said he/she was too busy with other orders and it couldn't be done. When you come out and admit it's because of their gayness, that's when it becomes a legal issue.
This does happen, although it's not without risk too. Agencies send out "testers" to various places to see if a business is discriminating. Arguably, it might be better to just be explicit about it than be caught in some kind of sting operation.
-
Just look at this thread.
The atheists can't stop talking about GOD.
I can't stop but I have a reason. I am a believer.
But why do non-believers or atheists dedicate so much of their time and energy into a GOD that doesn't exist, who according to them, is a fairy tale?
Only one word: DOUBT
Flawless deductive reasoning here, lol.
Dario (and I mean this in a nice way because you're being brutalized here) do you realize how freakin' dumb you seem on this thread? -- I respect your political beliefs but trying to explain your faith seems to reveal that you are not exactly a deep thinker.
Here's some free advice: Just say "my beliefs are my beliefs" and leave it at that. Or, if you're in the mood to argue, do a little googling and see what your much smarter religious brethren have had to say (about the analyzed-to-death subject of free will) and then post some of what you've learned (and agree with). Why try to re-invent the wheel, ya know?
BTW, you think like shit. I hope this helps.
-
The bakers mistake was admitting that he/she didn't want to bake it due to the sexual orientation of the couple. The baker could have just flat out refused and said he/she was too busy with other orders and it couldn't be done. When you come out and admit it's because of their gayness, that's when it becomes a legal issue.
No - I don't think being honest is ever a mistake and I respect the bakery owners for being up front about why they won't bake the cake. Sadly, in the crazy society we live in honesty can be ill-advised.
And, I think, it's (almost always) a mistake from a business perspective to turn away customers that you can accommodate because of how they put their genitals together (or how they look or talk or what they believe in, etc), but to each their own.
-
Bakery Will Stop Making Wedding Cakes After Losing Discrimination Case
May 30, 2014
DENVER (CBS4) - The owner of a bakery in Lakewood said he will no longer sell wedding cakes after the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled he did discriminate against a gay couple when he refused to sell them a cake.
Jack Phillips owns Masterpiece Cakeshop. In 2012, David Mullins and Charlie Craig went to the shop to order a cake for their upcoming wedding reception. They planned to marry in Massachusetts and have a reception in Colorado.
Phillips said he doesn’t believe in gay marriage and he refused to sell them a cake.
“We would close down the bakery before we would complicate our beliefs,” Phillips said after the hearing. Phillips also admitted he had refused service to other same-sex couples.
A judge previously ruled a business owner cannot refuse service to a customer on the basis of sexual orientation. Phillips appealed to the commission, but it upheld the decision.
That prompted Phillips to decide he would no longer make any wedding cakes. He said he would be fine selling cupcakes for a birthday party for someone who is gay but added, “I don’t want to participate in a same-sex wedding.”
The commission also ordered the baker to submit quarterly reports about the customers he refuses to serve and retrain employees to serve everyone.
For the couple, they said they always believed they were in the right and it was important to pursue the case for future customers.
“We’ve already been discriminated there,” Mullins said. “We’ve already been treated badly.
“The next time a gay couple wanders in there asking for a wedding cake, they won’t have the experience we had.
“They will have a responsible experience and leave feeling respected.”
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2014/05/30/bakery-will-stop-making-wedding-cakes-after-losing-discrimination-case/
-
The owner of this bakery is an idiot and is taking himself way too seriously
It's not like he's performing the wedding ceremony.
Business is business. Sell them a damn cake and forget about it.
-
Can someone please delete all of my posts in this thread? I think only the 1st one is there. (and this one asking for the deletion)
I'm so tired of this stupid fucking board I don't know what to do.
have you considered not posting
-
Can someone please delete all of my posts in this thread? I think only the 1st one is there. (and this one asking for the deletion)
I'm so tired of this stupid fucking board I don't know what to do.
It would be nice to able to to unsubscribe for thread notifications and not have it show up in "new replies to your posts".
-
I can't delete the first post since I made the thread, which means I can't delete all of my posts and it will always show up, genius.
yes, I'm well aware of this
I've actually spent a lot of time thinking how this particular form of expression is unique
I look at it like a big wall where everyone can just write what they want but you don't get to erase it
-
Everyone can write whatever they want... I just want to be able to get off the train.
I have gone through MANY threads and deleted my posts if I can find them... some easily 100 pages deep... Fine... Whatever.
Just can't get off the ones I started... Which sucks.
It sucks that you can't hide your past statements ?
-
WWJB, what would jesus bake
-
WWJB, what would jesus bake
A cake with big letters saying "GO AND SIN NO MORE!"
-
A cake with big letters saying "GO AND SIN NO MORE!"
Would the cake be in the shape of a dong?
-
I kind of hope he spits in this cake he's being forced to bake.
-
It's God Will that he went out of business.
-
No... I don't care about the statements... I just want to stop getting the goddam notifications.
I don't care that you've all quoted me or whatever... That doesn't mean shit. I just don't want to read any of the board's drivel anymore.
I'm tired of the politics boards because I consider most of you all buffoons and I just get tired of reading all of your bullshit.
Other than notifications of PM's I have never received a notification from this site so whatever you're getting there must be some way to turn it off or you should be able to block the emails
As to being tired of reading all of our bullshit I think the solution to that is more than obvious
-
Would the cake be in the shape of a dong?
I think you meant dung. Yes. In the shape of a big piece of feces to symbolize the current pathetic spiritual and moral state of all homos.
-
I think you meant dung. Yes. In the shape of a big piece of feces to symbolize the current pathetic spiritual and moral state of all homos.
I'm trying to connect the dots here with you, Dario.
Now, you've admitted that you are an immigrant to the USA so it makes a certain kind of warped sense that you're very outspoken about your objections to other immigrants (especially illegal ones).
What I'm wondering now, though, is why you seem to have such a big problem with homosexuals.
Hmmmm. So far it's eluding me but I just know there's a pattern here somewhere...lol
-
He immigrated from La La Land. People that worry so much about queers obviously have something to hide.
Self loathing is such a bitch.
-
FKS SAKES.....bake the fuckin cake and spit in the batter....problem solved, everyone happy. End thread.
-
When I hit the link "Show new replies to your posts", all of the bullshit you guys say in threads I started shows up.
Including this one.
How do you not know this?
this is the honest truth
I barely even pay attention to this site
I've seen that link but I've never clicked on it
I just go to the threads that I recall posting and see if there are any interesting comments
-
I imagine this was the talk in the 60"s when blacks were getting their rights
And back when blacks were slaves by law, you would have said:
it's the law you don't like it to bad
BTW, it's too bad, not to bad.
-
And back when blacks were slaves by law, you would have said:
BTW, it's too bad, not to bad.
Ouch!
-
Retards all of ye, the point is that he won't make the cake BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY, thus discriminating against them, your scenario is not remotely the same. Swastikas are offensive symbolism, it's reasonable to deny making it. They aren't asking for a cake in the shape of a cock going in a mans ass.
Necrosis, that is incorrect. The baker won't bake a gay couple a "wedding cake" because he strongly believes that marriage is between one man and one woman and he doesn't want to be a "participant" in such wedding. I'm sure the baker would be more than happy to bake them anything else for any other occasion.
Right or wrong, the government shouldn't force him to participate in a same sex wedding by baking the wedding cake.
-
Necrosis, that is incorrect. The baker won't bake a gay couple a "wedding cake" because he strongly believes that marriage is between one man and one woman and he doesn't want to be a "participant" in such wedding. I'm sure the baker would be more than happy to bake them anything else for any other occasion.
Right or wrong, the government shouldn't force him to participate in a same sex wedding by baking the wedding cake.
Is it not discrimination? I didn't think you could actively discriminate openly like that in a business setting. I do see your point, people are far too serious about this shit though.
-
this is the honest truth
I barely even pay attention to this site
I've seen that link but I've never clicked on it
I just go to the threads that I recall posting and see if there are any interesting comments
That is the first link I click when I log in.
For a site you barely pay attention to, you sure have racked up a pretty decent amount of posts... That's your story and you're sticking to it.
Name: Straw Man
Posts: 24454 (8.918 per day)
Position: Getbig V
Date Registered: November 30, 2006, 12:32:11 PM
Last Active: Today at 09:44:05 AM
Name: tu_holmes
Posts: 15778 (5.144 per day)
Position: Getbig V
Date Registered: January 09, 2006, 12:51:49 PM
Last Active: Today at 10:13:57 AM
-
That is the first link I click when I log in.
For a site you barely pay attention to, you sure have racked up a pretty decent amount of posts... That's your story and you're sticking to it.
Name: Straw Man
Posts: 24454 (8.918 per day)
Position: Getbig V
Date Registered: November 30, 2006, 12:32:11 PM
Last Active: Today at 09:44:05 AM
Name: tu_holmes
Posts: 15778 (5.144 per day)
Position: Getbig V
Date Registered: January 09, 2006, 12:51:49 PM
Last Active: Today at 10:13:57 AM
I think I found a solution to your quandary
don't click on that link
problem solved
you're welcome
-
Is it not discrimination? I didn't think you could actively discriminate openly like that in a business setting. I do see your point, people are far too serious about this shit though.
It is discrimination. The issue is whether it is (or should be) unlawful discrimination. We allow private entities and religious organizations to discriminate. This arguably isn't much different.
-
I think I have a solution to you being a dick.
Stop typing / speaking
You're welcome.
why so cranky?
did you get your period?
-
why so cranky?
did you get your period?
Whether I'm ragging or not doesn't change the fact you're a douchebag.
-
Whether I'm ragging or not doesn't change the fact you're a douchebag.
you're the one chose to start and thread and then piss and moan when people post
the solution to your ridiculous problem is simple
-
It is discrimination. The issue is whether it is (or should be) unlawful discrimination. We allow private entities and religious organizations to discriminate. This arguably isn't much different.
I agree - I don't see much difference. There's a rock-solid argument for not allowing governments and government entities to discriminate (which I don't think is controversial) and there are good arguments for not permitting discrimination in some situations (e.g. by public utilities, common carriers and medical providers).
In this instance, I think it's ridiculous to essentially threaten a private business into selling a cake to anyone. Some argue that the government can require entities licensed by them (e.g. businesses) to not discriminate since such a requirement advances a compelling government interest. I could maybe buy that, but it would be a hard sell especially since I believe that the government shouldn't be in the licensing business.
Again, I think the baker's position is stupid and irrational. But that's not a crime, nor should it be.
-
I agree - I don't see much difference. There's a rock-solid argument for not allowing governments and government entities to discriminate (which I don't think is controversial) and there are good arguments for not permitting discrimination in some situations (e.g. by public utilities, common carriers and medical providers).
In this instance, I think it's ridiculous to essentially threaten a private business into selling a cake to anyone. Some argue that the government can require entities licensed by them (e.g. businesses) to not discriminate since such a requirement advances a compelling government interest. I could maybe buy that, but it would be a hard sell especially since I believe that the government shouldn't be in the licensing business.
Again, I think the baker's position is stupid and irrational. But that's not a crime, nor should it be.
I agree with most of this. I'm actually on the fence about whether he should be forced to sell in this instance in violation of his religious beliefs.
-
I agree with most of this. I'm actually on the fence about whether he should be forced to sell in this instance in violation of his religious beliefs.
He is not being forced to violate his religious beliefs
no one is forcing him to be gay or get gay married
He just can't discriminate in his business based on sexual orientation just like he can't discriminate based on race, religion, sex, etc..
but there is no violation of his religious beliefs
-
I started it before I decided that all of you guys are just a bunch of jackholes who argue just to argue... I'm tired of paying attention to you.
The fact you don't get that shows just how dense you are.
TU - I've got no beef with you
This started because I didn't understand that notification you were complaining about (I truly have never looked at that link)
This is a stupid message board. Why are you taking it so seriously?
-
TU - I've got no beef with you
This started because I didn't understand that notification you were complaining about (I truly have never looked at that link)
This is a stupid message board. Why are you taking it so seriously?
I am trying to not take it at all... that's the point.
I have gone through tens if not 100 threads and deleted posts (all on the politics board) because I'm tired of seeing everyone bitch and complain about whoever and it's pointless... I'm quite tired of seeing everyone whine and bitch and be completely void of reason.
It's one thing on the G&O, but the politics board? I thought better of it when I started posting and now, I realize it's just silly.
As other threads pop up, I delete my posts from them too.
I'm only continuing to post in this one because I can't get rid of my first post.
-
I think you meant dung. Yes. In the shape of a big piece of feces to symbolize the current pathetic spiritual and moral state of all homos.
what if it were lesbians? couldn't he make a cake in the shape of a pussy? that would be fine, wouldn't it? no feces there.
-
FKS SAKES.....bake the fuckin cake and spit in the batter....problem solved, everyone happy. End thread.
or charge $ 10,000.00 for it. or $ 50,000.00
-
Colorado baker who won't make gay wedding cakes ordered to sensitivity training
Published by: Dan Calabrese on Thursday June 5th, 2014
"They are turning people of faith into religious refugees."
Colorado bakery owner Jack Phillips never sought out a gay person to discrminate against, nor to harm in any way. He has no desire to do so.
But because he serves Jesus Christ above all else, Phillips was not about to be forced into participation in celebrating the "marriage" of two gay men. So when they entered his store to place an order for a wedding cake, he simply told them they would have to find a different bakery.
We've told you this story before, and it's now reached exactly the point many people feared it would all along. Phillips is being ordered by the State of Colorado not only to undergo sensitivity training, but to enact new policies for him and his staff, and to file quarterly reports with the state that prove he has not turned away any business from homosexuals.
The fascism plays out as follows, with reporting from Todd Starnes writing for Charisma Magazine:
Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, in Lakewood, Colorado was directed to change his store policies immediately and force his staff to attend the training sessions. For the next two years, Phillips will also be required to submit quarterly reports to the commission to confirm that he has not turned away customers based on their sexual orientation.
Think of it as reverse conversion therapy (or straight man's rehab) so that the state can mandate diversity through conformity.
The plight of Jack Phillips and his family is something I write about in my new book, "God Less America." His story of religious persecution is one of many that I document.
Nicolle Martin, an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom, called the ruling Orwellian and said they are considering an appeal.
"They are turning people of faith into religious refugees," Martin told me. "Is this the society that we want to live in—where people of faith are driven out of business?"
Martin said it was "truly frightening" that Phillips will be forced to submit quarterly reports to the government disclosing whether he turned away any wedding cake business.
"There will be some reporting requirements so that Jack can demonstrate that he doesn't exercise his belief system anymore—that he has divested himself of his beliefs," she said.
He will also be required to create new policies and procedures for his staff.
"We consider this reporting to be aimed at rehabilitating Jack so that he has the right thoughts," Martin said. "That's offensive to everything America stands for."
Let's not lose sight of how this evolved. At first the Civil Rights Commission said you can have your beliefs but you can't hurt people. That sounds well and good, but it only applies to the extent that you use a reasonable definition of "hurting people." If a business contract between two parties is freely entered into, then either party must have the freedom to choose whether to enter into it. If you ask me to provide a service to you and I choose not to, I'm not hurting you. I'm just choosing not to be the service provider. Aside from the arguable inconvenience of having to contact other potential providers, I have not done you any harm.
What the State of Colorado is asserting here is that Jack Phillips does not have the freedom to make that choice - that he must enter into that business contract regardless of his comfort level with the service being provided or with the client he is asked to serve. That is fascism, plain and simple. In my business career, I have turned down clients many times just because I didn't get a good feeling from them. Do I not have the right to do that? Is the State of Michigan going to investigate me and tell me I not only must provide service to anyone who asks, but that I further must undergo sensitivity training and write new policies that I must submit to them for approval?
Understand what this is really all about. The secular left wants to remake the order of society in the image of its utopian vision, and people of faith are an obstacle to that dream. The embrace of gay marriage is not so much about the rights of gay people as it is a blunt instrument being deployed to marginalize the Christian faith. If you adhere to the Bible's teachings about homosexuality, you are at odds with mainstream culture in America, and there is no such thing as live and let live.
Someone will enter your establishment and demand that you perform an act that celebrates their lifestyle. If you refuse, the power of the state will be brought to bear against you.
Sorry. Scratch that. The past tense is not appropriate. It has already happened.
http://www.caintv.com/colorado-baker-who-wont-make-g
-
I assume this baker also refuses to make cakes for anyone who has committed adultery or for that matter anyone who works on the sabbath or wears clothes "mingled of linen and woolen" or anyone with a tattoo
-
I assume this baker also refuses to make cakes for anyone who has committed adultery or for that matter anyone who works on the sabbath or wears clothes "mingled of linen and woolen" or anyone with a tattoo
He might have if presented with those situations.
-
He might have if presented with those situations.
I doubt it
just take adultery
what are the odds that all of his customers abstained from sex prior to marriage
do you think he ever bothers to asks his customers if they are virgins when taking an order for a wedding cake
-
I doubt it
just take adultery
what are the odds that all of his customers abstained from sex prior to marriage
do you think he ever bothers to asks his customers if they are virgins when taking an order for a wedding cake
This example is relevent only if the potential customer specifically requested a cake celebrating adultery
-
This example is relevent only if the potential customer specifically requested a cake celebrating adultery
wrong
if they ask for a wedding cake then they should both be virgins and I assume given his deep religious beliefs that he would need to confirm this prior to consenting to bake them a wedding cake
Also, even if they are virgins he would still need to confirm that neither one has a tattoo or has ever "mingled of linen and woolen" and shit, a long list of other ridiculous shit...... I mean if he really is as religious as he claims to be and not just a bigot.
-
wrong
if they ask for a wedding cake then they should both be virgins and I assume given his deep religious beliefs that he would need to confirm this prior to consenting to bake them a wedding cake
Also, even if they are virgins he would still need to confirm that neither one has a tattoo or has ever "mingled of linen and woolen" and shit, a long list of other ridiculous shit...... I mean if he really is as religious as he claims to be and not just a bigot.
Wrong. If the bride and groom approach the baker asking him directly to bake a cake celebrating adultery or premarital sex the comparison would be a fair one. The way you're framing it, the situations are very different and the comparison falls flat.
-
Wrong. If the bride and groom approach the baker asking him directly to bake a cake celebrating adultery or premarital sex the comparison would be a fair one. The way you're framing it, the situations are very different and the comparison falls flat.
no difference
he should be giving every customer a questionaire to make sure they are not sinners before selling them even a muffin or chocolate chip cookie
-
no difference
he should be giving every customer a questionaire to make sure they are not sinners before selling them even a muffin or chocolate chip cookie
There is a huge difference. The difference is fairly obvious. Take a typical male/female couple who walk into the bakery and request a wedding cake. It doesnt matter whether they've had premarital sex. The baker isnt baking a cake celebrating premartial sex. The baker is baking that cake for an institution he supports on ethical and religious grounds, the marriage of a man to a woman.
-
There is a huge difference. The difference is fairly obvious. Take a typical male/female couple who walk into the bakery and request a wedding cake. It doesnt matter whether they've had premarital sex. The baker isnt baking a cake celebrating premartial sex. The baker is baking that cake for an institution he supports on ethical and religious grounds, the marriage of a man to a woman.
so why is it only that one sin that he has a problem with and yet has no problem ignoring all other sins
it's not like he's performing the wedding ceremony
all he is doing is baking a cake
I wonder if he asks people getting re-married after having been divorced if their divorces were for reasons condoned in the bible.
If not, then isn't he condoning their wedding by baking them a cake. He should really require copies of the divorce decree from every couple to make sure their divorce was acceptable reasons in the eyes of his god
-
so why is it only that one sin that he has a problem with and yet has no problem ignoring all other sins
it's not like he's performing the wedding ceremony
all he is doing is baking a cake
I wonder if he asks people getting re-married after having been divorced if their divorces were for reasons condoned in the bible.
If not, then isn't he condoning their wedding by baking them a cake. He should really require copies of the divorce decree from every couple to make sure their divorce was acceptable reasons in the eyes of his god
Hes not ignoring or condoning the other sins. The difference is he is not being specifically requested to commemorate them as he is with the gay wedding.
He is not being requested to bake a cake in reference to the divorce.
-
Hes not ignoring or condoning the other sins. The difference is he is not being specifically requested to commemorate them as he is with the gay wedding.
He is not being requested to bake a cake in reference to the divorce.
yes, but if they didn't divorce for biblically approved reasons they he is condoning their new marriage (based on the assumption that merely baking a cake = tacit approval of the event for which the cake is being used)
how about an unmarried couple that wants a cake celebrating their anniversary. By providing a cake for that occasion he is condoning adultery.
BTW - you started out agreeing with my premise.....remember?
I assume this baker also refuses to make cakes for anyone who has committed adultery or for that matter anyone who works on the sabbath or wears clothes "mingled of linen and woolen" or anyone with a tattoo
He might have if presented with those situations.
-
yes, but if they didn't divorce for biblically approved reasons they he is condoning their new marriage (based on the assumption that merely baking a cake = tacit approval of the event for which the cake is being used)
how about an unmarried couple that wants a cake celebrating their anniversary. By providing a cake for that occasion he is condoning adultery.
BTW - you started out agreeing with my premise.....remember?
There would be no tacit approval. When he is baking a cake for your example couple, the cake isn't being made to celebrate anything other than the new marriage. Its not a happy adultery cake. Hes free to ask them about whether they were divorced from their previous spouses in a way that was sanctioned according to the bible and make a choice from their whether he wants to bake their cake.
As I mentioned before, if the gay couple had requested a cake for one of their birthdays the baker would not have grounds to refuse service because the cake is neither condoning or celebrating a life style he finds morally objectionable.
If the baker is requested to SPECIFICALLY bake a cake celebrating an unmarried couples anniversary he should have the right to refuse if he chooses.
-
There would be no tacit approval. When he is baking a cake for your example couple, the cake isn't being made to celebrate anything other than the new marriage. Its not a happy adultery cake. Hes free to ask them about whether they were divorced from their previous spouses in a way that was sanctioned according to the bible and make a choice from their whether he wants to bake their cake.
As I mentioned before, if the gay couple had requested a cake for one of their birthdays the baker would not have grounds to refuse service because the cake is neither condoning or celebrating a life style he finds morally objectionable.
If the baker is requested to SPECIFICALLY bake a cake celebrating an unmarried couples anniversary he should have the right to refuse if he chooses.
I said an unmarried couple celebrating an anniversary so yes they would be celebrating the anniversary of an adulterous relationship
-
I said an unmarried couple celebrating an anniversary so yes they would be celebrating the anniversary of an adulterous relationship
And he has the right to refuse if he possesses the knowledge to make that decision.
-
And he has the right to refuse if he possesses the knowledge to make that decision.
actually he doesn't have that right for the same reason that he doesn't have the right to refuse to sell a cake to the gay couple
-
actually he doesn't have that right for the same reason that he doesn't have the right to refuse to sell a cake to the gay couple
He should have the right which is the entire point of this thread, to debate over that very fact. Are you Vince?
-
He should have the right which is the entire point of this thread, to debate over that very fact. Are you Vince?
the point of this thread is that he doesn't have the right to discriminate
-
the point of this thread is that he doesn't have the right to discriminate
Obviously you missed the point of this thread completely. The discussion was about whether forcing the baker to make the cake is right.
-
Obviously you missed the point of this thread completely. The discussion was about whether forcing the baker to make the cake is right.
yeah, it's a real bummer that the courts have said he can't discriminate against gay people
shit, next thing you know black people will expect to be served in white restaurant and then they'll want to live in white neighborhoods
-
yeah, it's a real bummer that the courts have said he can't discriminate against gay people
shit, next thing you know black people will expect to be served in white restaurant and then they'll want to live in white neighborhoods
who is gay?
-
yeah, it's a real bummer that the courts have said he can't discriminate against gay people
shit, next thing you know black people will expect to be served in white restaurant and then they'll want to live in white neighborhoods
Strawman just made a strawman argument. You are totally incapable of engaging in debate. How old are you?
-
Strawman just made a strawman argument. You are totally incapable of engaging in debate. How old are you?
You don't actually know what a Straw Man argument is..do you?
The courts determined that this man discriminated against this gay couple
Do you agree that is what the decision of the court was?
-
actually he doesn't have that right for the same reason that he doesn't have the right to refuse to sell a cake to the gay couple
Fucks sake this thread is still going?!! HE HAS THE RIGHT TO REFUSE TO BAKE A CAKE TO ANYONE HE DAMN FUCKING WELL PLEASES FOR WHATEVER DAMN FUCKING REASON HE WANTS!!
-
Fucks sake this thread is still going?!! HE HAS THE RIGHT TO REFUSE TO BAKE A CAKE TO ANYONE HE DAMN FUCKING WELL PLEASES FOR WHATEVER DAMN FUCKING REASON HE WANTS!!
Oh, for real? Whatever damn fucking reason he wants? In the USA?
I thinks not, Tyrell, I thinks not.
-
Oh, for real? Whatever damn fucking reason he wants? In the USA?
I thinks not, Tyrell, I thinks not.
He should be. For any reason, even for no reason at all. I don't believe people should be forced to act against their will.
-
He should be. For any reason, even for no reason at all. I don't believe people should be forced to act against their will.
There's a case to be made for that, sure.
But that's not the same thing as saying, "HE HAS THE RIGHT TO REFUSE TO BAKE A CAKE TO ANYONE HE DAMN FUCKING WELL PLEASES FOR WHATEVER DAMN FUCKING REASON HE WANTS!!"
Inject "should have" (or "SHOULD HAVE", lol) in place of the 2nd word in the sentence and I gots no problem with ol' Dago Joe's all-caps pronouncement.
-
He should be. For any reason, even for no reason at all. I don't believe people should be forced to act against their will.
x3
-
Christian bakers face government wrath for refusing to make cake for gay wedding
By Todd Starnes
Published February 03, 2015
FoxNews.com
FILE - In this undated photograph Aaron Klein stands behind the counter of his Oregon bakery, Sweet Cakes by Melissa. Since this photo was taken the store has closed. The Kleins now operate their bakery business out of their home. (Sweet Cakes by Melissa)
Aaron and Melissa Klein refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, and now they must pay for their crime.
An Oregon administrative law judge ruled on Jan. 29 that the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa did, in fact, discriminate in 2013 when they declined to provide a wedding cake for a lesbian couple because it would have violated their Christian beliefs against same-sex marriage.
The judge’s ruling paves the way for a March 10 hearing at which the Christian business owners could be ordered to pay $200,000 in fines and damages.
“You cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation,” Paul Thompson, the attorney representing the lesbian couple, told The Oregonian. “The entire time, I felt the law was very much on our side because the law is black and white.”
You can read the judge’s 52-page order here.
Last year, investigators concluded the bakers had violated the couple’s rights to equal treatment in places that serve the public. State law bans discrimination against LGBT people in places that serve the public — and that includes bakeries.
I spoke with Aaron Klein by telephone Monday night. He told me the judge’s ruling is a miscarriage of justice and an erosion of religious liberty.
“They’re trying to push us into the closet for being Christians,” he said.
Klein said it’s time for Americans to take a stand for religious liberty.
“The Founding Fathers said we have the inalienable rights given by God — not man,” he said. “Let’s exercise those rights.”
The Kleins’ troubles started in January 2013 when they turned away that lesbian couple. The bakers were relentlessly pummeled in the media. LGBT activists launched protests and boycotts. They tell me their small children even received death threats — simply because they chose to follow the teachings of their faith.
At some point the activists threatened to launch boycotts against any wedding vendor that did business with the Kleins. That turned out to be the death blow to their retail shop. Today, Melissa bakes cakes out of the family’s home.
The question now is how much — if anything — the Kleins will be forced to pay. Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian will decide, and history proves he’s no friend of the Christian bakers.
In 2013, Avakian told The Oregonian that it is the government’s desire was to rehabilitate businesses like the one owned by the Kleins.
“Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to discriminate,” he told the newspaper. “The goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate.”
Rehabilitate? He wants to ship the Christians off to a government-sanctioned re-education camp?
Aaron Klein told me there will be no reconciliation and there will be no rehabilitation. He and his wife will not back down from their Christian beliefs.
“There’s nothing wrong with what we believe,” he said. “It’s a biblical point of view. It’s my faith. It’s my religion.”
Klein said the ruling, which he called “absolutely absurd,” does not surprise him.
“I’ve never seen a government entity use a law to come after somebody because they have a religious view,” he said. “I truly believe Brad Avakian is trying to send a message. I don’t think the constitution of the state of Oregon means anything to these people.”
And I’m afraid there are more narrow-minded government officials just like Avakian.
Kelvin Cochran was fired from his job as the fire chief of Atlanta after he wrote a book that affirmed biblical morality. The book included references to homosexuality that angered the city’s LGBT community. The city’s mayor denied Cochran was let go because of his religious beliefs, but I believe the evidence seems to prove otherwise.
A Colorado baker was ordered by a judge either to serve gay couples or face fines. Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, was told to “cease and desist from discriminating” against gay couples. Phillips is a Christian.
New Mexico’s Supreme Court ruled unanimously that two Christian photographers who declined to photograph a same-sex union violated the state’s Human Rights Act. One justice said photographers Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin were “compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives.”
And the Washington attorney general filed a lawsuit against a florist who refused to provide flowers for a same-sex couple’s wedding. She told the Christian Broadcasting Network she “had to take a stand” in defense of her faith in Christ.
The evidence seems to indicate that Christian business owners are being intentionally singled out for persecution. And it appears the courts are consistently ruling that gay rights trump everyone else’s rights.
The Constitution guarantees every American a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Melissa Klein makes wedding cakes. That’s her pursuit of happiness. Should she be denied that right simply because of her Christian faith?
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/02/03/christian-bakers-face-government-wrath-for-refusing-to-make-cake-for-gay/?intcmp=latestnews
-
Stupid Fundies should have just baked the cake and made some money
I'm sure Jeebus wouldn't have held it against them when judging their immortal souls
-
Who was the GOP idiot that claimed gays shouldn't buy cakes from straights because they might be poisoned? Real life smarts right there? As if the majority of the country thinks like that?
-
Oh... it was dumb ass Ben Carson. Had to actually look it up as there are so many dumbasses in the GOP that this could be credited to.
-
just bake a cake.
leave any statues/figures off and let the couple add it later.
if the baker doesn't want to add any wording, he doesn't have to. his job is to bake a cake.
-
Agree with most of that but....the baker has to add the words or its a train wreck. Adding the figures is a good idea but the baker has the right to refuse service based on personnel beliefs. Why shove somebodies values/lifestyle down somebody else's throat. The baker was not proactively seeking to bar service to homosexuals. they came to him/them and the baker wasn't comfortable with providing the service. The homosexuals should have gone elsewhere...lit them up on social media review sites and been done with it.
-
The writer makes a good point about "rehabilitation":
The question now is how much — if anything — the Kleins will be forced to pay. Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian will decide, and history proves he’s no friend of the Christian bakers.
In 2013, Avakian told The Oregonian that it is the government’s desire was to rehabilitate businesses like the one owned by the Kleins.
“Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to discriminate,” he told the newspaper. “The goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate.”
Rehabilitate? He wants to ship the Christians off to a government-sanctioned re-education camp?
-
Christians must follow the laws just like everyone else
Rehabilitation class over
-
Christians must follow the laws just like everyone else
Rehabilitation class over
You know those are the same dumb asses that want the country and Constitution were founded on Christianity and the Bible.
-
Bakers face $135,000 fine for refusing to make cake for gay wedding
By Todd Starnes
Published April 26, 2015
FoxNews.com
(https://o.twimg.com/2/proxy.jpg?t=HBhYaHR0cDovL3MzLmFtYXpvbmF3cy5jb20vc3B3ZWItdXBsb2Fkcy8yMDE1LzA0L3N3ZWV0X2Nha2VzX3RvcF9pbWdfYnlfZy1mXzAxNy03NjR4NDYwLmpwZxTABxTCBAAWABIA&s=3ppx0YRBAY_aczNGewmj-zhUmkKoFHknUCrsxPL_WrQ)
The owners of an Oregon bakery learned Friday that there is a severe price to pay for following their Christian faith.
A judge for the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) recommended a lesbian couple should receive $135,000 in damages for their emotional suffering after Sweet Cakes by Melissa refused to make them a wedding cake.
As a result - Aaron and Melissa Klein could lose everything they own — including their home.
The Oregonian reports the recommended penalty is not final and could be raised or lowered by State Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian.
The controversy started in 2013 when Aaron Klein declined to provide a cake for a lesbian wedding. Later that year, the women filed a complaint against Klein and his wife, Melissa.
"The facts of this case clearly demonstrate that the Kleins unlawfully discriminated against the Complainants,” read a statement by the BOLI to the Oregonian. “Under Oregon law, businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot turn customers away because of race, sex, disability, age or religion. Our agency is committed to fair and thorough enforcement of Oregon civil rights laws, including the Equality Act of 2007."
Within hours of the ruling, the Family Research Council facilitated the establishment of a GoFundMe account to help the Kleins raise the money the need. In less than eight hours, more than $100,000 was raised.
However, late Friday GoFundMe pulled the plug — sending this message to would-be donors:
“After careful review by our team, we have found the ‘Support Sweet Cakes By Melissa’ campaign to be in violation of our Terms and Conditions,” the message read. “The money raised thus far will still be made available for withdrawal.”
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins blasted the harsh penalty levied against the Kleins.
“The state of Oregon has given a new meaning to shotgun weddings,” Perkins said. “You will be forced to participate in same-sex weddings and violate your beliefs.”
Perkins wondered what impact the Oregon ruling would have on religious freedom across the country.
“If Americans are not free to decline to be involved in a specific activity that violates their beliefs, then we are not free,” he said.
It’s not exactly clear what led GoFundMe to drop the fundraising drive - but Perkins blamed it on gay activists.
“This reveals two very important aspects of the redefinition of marriage, Americans are not going along with it and two - the intolerance of those trying to redefine marriage is historically unprecedented,” Perkins said.
Samaritan's Purse a Christian ministry run by Franklin Graham, has stepped up and offered to raise funds for the embattled Christian couple. The website can be found here.
Aaron Klein told me they will appeal the judge’s recommended fine.
“All Americans should be free to live and work by their faith without the fear of the government punishing them,” he told me.
Klein told me the gay rights activists won’t be satisfied until her family is living in a homeless shelter.
“This is not coming out of our business assets - the business has already been shuttered,” he said. “This is coming out of personal property. They want to take our house. They want to put us out on the street.”
Melissa told me the state of Oregon is trying to send a message to Christian business owners.
“They are trying to say — look what will happen to you if you decide to live by your faith,” she said. “They won’t be satisfied until we lose everything.”
The Kleins said they were incredibly moved by the generosity of their supporters.
And while they were disappointed that GoFundMe removed the campaign - they are not upset.
“If GoFundMe does not believe in our cause or what we are doing — that’s their right,” Aaron told me. “And that’s what we are fighting for. We should have that right, too. If it goes against our faith or beliefs we should be able to say we won’t do that.”
The Kleins also had kind words for Franklin Graham. They talked by telephone on Friday.
“A while ago Franklin told me that if I needed anything to give him a call,” Aaron said. “So I called him after the verdict. He said to not get discouraged — that God is good.”
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/04/26/bakers-must-pay-135000-for-refusing-to-make-cake-for-gay-wedding/
-
So a Jewish baker should be made to bake a cake for a neo-nazi?
yes
-
yes
So a black owned bakery should have to bake a cake for the Grand Wizard of the KKK with little black people hanging from trees on the cake top? Sounds reasonable ::)
-
Is a Neo-Nazi or the KKK the same as gender, race, religion, sexual orientation and protected against discrimination under the law
I'm not aware that it is
-
fire up the oven and start baking a lot of cupcakes.
they'll make a ton o' money.
-
Is a Neo-Nazi or the KKK the same as gender, race, religion, sexual orientation and protected against discrimination under the law
I'm not aware that it is
exactly.....ideology that is not a religion is not protected....
-
Thats cool...all the fags who have threatned these people should be made to wear pink triangles and marched to the showers. Fuck them.....its never enough for you libs is it. It will be I guess when you get to burn the Constitution huh.....
-
Thats cool...all the fags who have threatned these people should be made to wear pink triangles and marched to the showers. Fuck them.....its never enough for you libs is it. It will be I guess when you get to burn the Constitution huh.....
the story on this page didn't mention anything about threats
-
They threatened the crowd fund people.....a whole bunch of pansy ass fags get together and demand demand demand......keep demanding...they assume incorrectly people like them.
-
They threatened the crowd fund people.....a whole bunch of pansy ass fags get together and demand demand demand......keep demanding...they assume incorrectly people like them.
the story posted above doesn't mention any threats
all it says it that super fundie Tony Perkins "blamed it on gay activists"
It’s not exactly clear what led GoFundMe to drop the fundraising drive - but Perkins blamed it on gay activists
.
are there other actual threats against "these people" (from your first statement I assumed "these people" were the couple who own the bakery) or GoFundMe?
-
.
-
Time to order a Mohamed head cake from a Muslim baker....
-
Christian bakers fined $135,000 for refusing to make wedding cake for lesbians
By Todd Starnes
Published July 03, 2015
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/opinion/2015/07/03/christian-bakers-fined-135000-for-refusing-to-make-wedding-cake-for-lesbians/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-0.img.jpg/876/493/1435875220362.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
The owners of a mom and pop bakery have just learned there is a significant price to pay for following their religious beliefs.
Aaron and Melissa Klein, the owners of Sweet Cakes By Melissa, have been ordered to pay $135,000 in damages to a lesbian couple after they refused to bake them a wedding cake in 2013.
Click here to follow Todd on Facebook for Conservative Conversation!
The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industry (BOLI) awarded $60,000 to Laurel Bowman-Cryer and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer for “emotional suffering.”
“This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage,” the final order read. “It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.”
According to the BOLI, the lesbian couple suffered great angst. One of the women “felt depressed and questioned whether there was something inherently wrong with the sexual orientation she was born with.” They said she had “difficulty controlling her emotions and cried a lot.”
The other woman “experienced extreme anger, outrage, embarrassment, exhaustion, frustration, intense sorrow and shame” simply because the Kleins refused to provide them with a wedding cake.
Jeez. That must have been one heck of a cake.
It sounds as if the state of Oregon is sending a stern warning to Christian business owners like the Kleins.
“Within Oregon’s public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society,” the ruling states. “The ability to enter public places, to shop and dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry.”
Does The Bureau of Labor and Industry truly believe that Christians who want to follow the teachings of their faith are bigots?
It certainly seems to me the only entity guilty of unfettered bigotry is the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industry.
Since the day they turned away the lesbian couple’s business, the Kleins have suffered greatly. Their business was subjected to boycotts and pickets. LGBT activists and their supporters threatened any wedding vendor that did business with Sweet Cakes By Melissa.
Mrs. Klein told me her five children were subjected to death threats -- death threats for simply refusing to participate in a same-sex wedding. That doesn’t sound very tolerant to me.
Eventually, the bullying became so severe the family had to shut down their retail store and Mr. Klein had to take a job picking up garbage. Today, Mrs. Klein continues to make cakes in her home.
“We were just running our business the best we could – following the Lord’s example,” she said. “I’m just blown away by the ruling. They are punishing us for not participating in the wedding.”
Mr. Klein said he plans on appealing the ruling and had harsh words for BOLI Commissioner Brad Avakian.
“This man has no power over me,” Klein said. “He seems to think he can tell me to be quiet. That doesn’t sit well with me and I refuse to comply.”
Mr. Klein accused the BOLI of ordering him to not speak publicly about the case – an order he said is unconstitutional.
“When my constitutional freedoms have been violated by the state I’m going to speak out,” he said. “That’s the way it is.”
Regardless, the Klein case has demonstrated once again that gay rights trump religious liberty. Other Christian business owners should pay close attention.
The Kleins had a choice. They could obey the government or they could obey God. They chose God – and now they must pay the price.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/07/03/christian-bakers-fined-135000-for-refusing-to-make-wedding-cake-for-lesbians.html?intcmp=trending
-
Just make the cake and shut up...or better yet, farm it out to another bakery and skim some profit off the top
-
or find a job that allows you to practice your own beliefs and not have to deal with the public.
-
"Eventually, the bullying became so severe the family had to shut down their retail store and Mr. Klein had to take a job picking up garbage. "
I dunno about that. Anti-bullying protocols in schools are at an insane high. You mention the word "bullying" and there is paperwork, committees and downtown involved instantly now. If it was so bad they had to start picking up trash, I dunno, sounds a little dramatized there.
There is heavy, heavy opinion in the piece.. it's not a news piece, it's an editorial, so they may be a little looser with the facts/exaggeration. I agree a bakery should be able to bake what they want and pass on jobs they want, like any business. The bakery down the street can make the cake and gain market share, win. But "bullied to bad we had to pick up trash" sounds like bullshit.
-
or find a job that allows you to practice your own beliefs and not have to deal with the public.
They're just being a pain in the ass
-
or find a job that allows you to practice your own beliefs and not have to deal with the public.
exactly
there is a reason why we don't have Amish bus drivers
-
State of Oregon now targeting the home of bakers who refused to make lesbian wedding cake
11 Jul, 2015
by Rachel Alexander
Aaron and Melissa Klein, the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, were ordered by the State of Oregon to pay $135,000 in damages to a lesbian couple for refusing to bake a cake for their wedding. If they don’t come up with the money by July 13, the state is threatening to place a lien on their home. They’ve also bizarrely been placed under a gag order that prohibits them from publicly speaking about their refusal to make cakes for same-sex weddings. The state’s Bureau of Labor and Industry (BOLI) Commissioner Brad Avakian is a vocal LGBT supporter and appears to be doing everything he can to ruin the couple.
Fox News’ Todd Starnes reports,
Avakian’s strong arm tactics against the Christian bakers have outraged Christians across the nation.
“This guy would make Mussolini proud,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research council. “This is a wannabe dictator.”
It certainly appears that Avakian and the state of Oregon have declared war on the Klein family.
Brad Avakian“Not only do they want to drive them out of business, but they want to make them homeless,” Perkins told me.
The Kleins say they are filing a stay and do plan on appealing the state’s decision.
“Brad and his cohorts at BOLI have overstepped their constitutional rights in requiring me to cease and desist from my constitutional freedom,” Mr. Klein said. “I will fight them with every last breath I have.”
GoFundMe caved in to pressure and disabled a page that had been set up to raise money for the Kleins. The couple has already stated they are going to be forced to file for bankruptcy. While many of us are saying “lucky it didn’t happen to me,” who’s next? Florists? Bed and Breakfasts?
http://rightwingnews.com/top-news/state-of-oregon-now-targeting-the-home-of-bakers-who-refused-to-make-lesbian-wedding-cake/
-
State of Oregon now targeting the home of bakers who refused to make lesbian wedding cake
11 Jul, 2015
by Rachel Alexander
Aaron and Melissa Klein, the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, were ordered by the State of Oregon to pay $135,000 in damages to a lesbian couple for refusing to bake a cake for their wedding. If they don’t come up with the money by July 13, the state is threatening to place a lien on their home. They’ve also bizarrely been placed under a gag order that prohibits them from publicly speaking about their refusal to make cakes for same-sex weddings. The state’s Bureau of Labor and Industry (BOLI) Commissioner Brad Avakian is a vocal LGBT supporter and appears to be doing everything he can to ruin the couple.
Fox News’ Todd Starnes reports,
Avakian’s strong arm tactics against the Christian bakers have outraged Christians across the nation.
“This guy would make Mussolini proud,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research council. “This is a wannabe dictator.”
It certainly appears that Avakian and the state of Oregon have declared war on the Klein family.
Brad Avakian“Not only do they want to drive them out of business, but they want to make them homeless,” Perkins told me.
The Kleins say they are filing a stay and do plan on appealing the state’s decision.
“Brad and his cohorts at BOLI have overstepped their constitutional rights in requiring me to cease and desist from my constitutional freedom,” Mr. Klein said. “I will fight them with every last breath I have.”
GoFundMe caved in to pressure and disabled a page that had been set up to raise money for the Kleins. The couple has already stated they are going to be forced to file for bankruptcy. While many of us are saying “lucky it didn’t happen to me,” who’s next? Florists? Bed and Breakfasts?
http://rightwingnews.com/top-news/state-of-oregon-now-targeting-the-home-of-bakers-who-refused-to-make-lesbian-wedding-cake/
I see a gofundme in their future.. again
-
The fine was not just for refusing to bake a cake. ::)
-----------
When Aaron Klein received the complaint, he immediately published it on his Facebook page in full, with Laurel’s name and address included.
State officials told the Bowman-Cryers that if they couldn’t protect the foster children in their home from the harassment that resulted from the Klein’s public posting of their home address, etc., they would lose the children—the children they were trying to adopt. Can you say stressful?!
The Bowman-Cryers weren’t awarded $135,000 only for the pain and suffering they experienced as a result of being refused service based on their sexual orientation but also as a result of the Kleins’ decision to dox them and then go on national media across the country. The media firestorm brought with it death threats, harassment, and the possibility of losing their children. The court found that the Bowman-Cryers suffered intensely, and that their suffering was a direct reaction of the Kleins’ actions both in refusing the cake and in keeping their refusal in the media.
-
The fine was not just for refusing to bake a cake. ::)
-----------
When Aaron Klein received the complaint, he immediately published it on his Facebook page in full, with Laurel’s name and address included.
State officials told the Bowman-Cryers that if they couldn’t protect the foster children in their home from the harassment that resulted from the Klein’s public posting of their home address, etc., they would lose the children—the children they were trying to adopt. Can you say stressful?!
The Bowman-Cryers weren’t awarded $135,000 only for the pain and suffering they experienced as a result of being refused service based on their sexual orientation but also as a result of the Kleins’ decision to dox them and then go on national media across the country. The media firestorm brought with it death threats, harassment, and the possibility of losing their children. The court found that the Bowman-Cryers suffered intensely, and that their suffering was a direct reaction of the Kleins’ actions both in refusing the cake and in keeping their refusal in the media.
so christians who believe that the Kleins were being persecuted for their religious beliefs decided to respond by persecuting this gay couple, including death threats
nice job fundies
-
Did anyone really think they were getting fined 135K just because they didn't bake a damn cake?
Well... ok... we are talking about religious retards here.... so yeah, they probably did think that. Obviously, the courts didn't
http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet%20Cakes%20FO.pdf
And that gag order? The violation of their First Amendment and religious persecution for not allowing them to talk about their beliefs? Another bunch of bullshit that religious retards kept repeating without a clue. The judge did not in fact bar the Kleins from talking about their beliefs, he only barred them from advertising that their bakery will not serve gay couples. Because, as we know, refusing service based on sexual orientation is against Oregon law. So they can talk about their beliefs all they want. They can post what their religious limitations allows them to do or not to do on their FB page. They can go on tv and talk about their "faith" and condemn gay people all they want.
But what they can't do is violate the state of Oregon discrimination law.
-----------------
NOW, THEREFORE, as authorized by ORS 659A.403(4), and to further eliminate the effect of the violation of ORS 659A.403 by Respondent Aaron Klein, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders Respondents Aaron Klein and Melissa Klein to cease and desist from denying the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of Sweetcakes by Melissa to any person based on that person’s sexual orientation.
NOW, THEREFORE, as authorized by ORS 659A.850(4), and to further eliminate the effect of the violations of ORS 659.A409 by Respondents Aaron Klein and Melissa Klein, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders Respondents Aaron Klein and Melissa Klein to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published, circulated, issued or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services or privileges of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination will be made against, any person on account of sexual orientation.
-
Did anyone really think they were getting fined 135K just because they didn't bake a damn cake?
Well... ok... we are talking about religious retards here.... so yeah, they probably did think that. Obviously, the courts didn't
http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet%20Cakes%20FO.pdf
And that gag order? The violation of their First Amendment and religious persecution for not allowing them to talk about their beliefs? Another bunch of bullshit that religious retards kept repeating without a clue. The judge did not in fact bar the Kleins from talking about their beliefs, he only barred them from advertising that their bakery will not serve gay couples. Because, as we know, refusing service based on sexual orientation is against Oregon law. So they can talk about their beliefs all they want. They can post what their religious limitations allows them to do or not to phone on their FB page. They can go on tv and talk about their "faith" and condemn gay people all they want.
But what they can't do is violate the state of Oregon discrimination law.
-----------------
NOW, THEREFORE, as authorized by ORS 659A.403(4), and to further eliminate the effect of the violation of ORS 659A.403 by Respondent Aaron Klein, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders Respondents Aaron Klein and Melissa Klein to cease and desist from denying the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of Sweetcakes by Melissa to any person based on that person’s sexual orientation.
NOW, THEREFORE, as authorized by ORS 659A.850(4), and to further eliminate the effect of the violations of ORS 659.A409 by Respondents Aaron Klein and Melissa Klein, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders Respondents Aaron Klein and Melissa Klein to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published, circulated, issued or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services or privileges of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination will be made against, any person on account of sexual orientation.
Indeed, I find it interesting that the supposedly 'religious' guy claimed in court that he did not realize the couple's personal information was on the document he posted, even though it was right above his info, lol. The judge stated he wasn't credible and I think most would agree. It was a nasty, vindictive attempt to get at them.
I also read the claim could've been higher, but the claimant was exaggerating the impact that was made on them, so the judge found her lacking credibility also.
What a fucking mess if you're a judge.
-
Oregon bakery owners refuse to pay damages in gay wedding cake case
Published October 01, 2015
FoxNews.com
The owners of an Oregon bakery are refusing to pay $135,000 in state-ordered damages to a same-sex couple who were denied service.
Melissa and Aaron Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, cited religious beliefs when they refused to bake a wedding cake for Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer more than two years ago.
The couple were awarded the damages in July by Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian for emotional suffering, saying the owners had violated the women’s civil rights by discriminating on the basis of their sexual orientation. They were also slapped with a gag order that prohibited them from speaking publicly about their refusal to participate in or bake wedding cakes for same-sex marriages.
The Kleins have filed an appeal of the ruling and are defying the order to pay. They’re claiming financial hardship although crowdfunding efforts have raised more than $500,000 on their behalf, according to The Oregonian.
"It's difficult to understand the Kleins' unwillingness to pay the debt when they have, very publicly, raised nearly a half million dollars," labor bureau spokesman Charlie Burr told The Oregonian in an email Wednesday. "They are entitled to a full and fair review of the case, but do not have the right to disregard a legally binding order."
A lawyer for the Kleins, Anna Harmon, told The Oregonian she couldn't comment about her clients' actions, citing the ongoing litigation.
The dispute goes back to January 2013 when Bowman-Cryer came into the shop with her mother for a cake-tasting appointment. However, Aaron Klein told the women that the bakery didn’t do cakes for same-sex weddings.
The Oregonian reports the couple complained to the labor bureau, which prompted a state investigation, four days of hearings and Avakian’s July ruling.
The Willamette Week reported that the Kleins’ lawyers asked Avakian to delay enforcement of his order while the Oregon Court of Appeals reviews the case. They reportedly said the payment would lead to “financial ruin.”
However, Avakian repeatedly rejected the requests, citing the amounts raised for the Kleins from crowdfunding websites. He issued his final rejection notice on July 27.
A 2007 Oregon law protects the rights of gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender people in employment, housing and public accommodations. It provides an exemption for religious organizations, but the agency ruled that exemption does not allow private businesses to discriminate against potential customers.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Click for more from The Oregonian.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/01/oregon-bakery-owners-refuse-to-pay-damages-in-gay-wedding-cake-case/?intcmp=hpbt4
-
good for them.
let 'em bake a ton of cupcakes for Freedom Works.
-
good for them. We need more white inmates to even things up a bit.. ;D
-
good for them. We need more white inmates to even things up a bit.. ;D
This is hilarious.....good job Vince !!! ;D ;D
-
Costly beliefs: State squeezes last penny from bakers who defied lesbian-wedding cake order
By Todd Starnes
Published December 29, 2015
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/opinion/2015/12/29/bakers-forced-to-pay-more-than-135g-in-lesbian-cake-battle/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-0.img.jpg/876/493/1451401803275.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Sweet Cakes by Melissa couple
Melissa Klein was checking her bank accounts just a few weeks before Christmas when her face turned ashen. The money was gone – every single penny.
Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries had confiscated all the cash in Mrs. Klein’s checking account and savings account as well as a special account set aside for their church tithe.
Click here to receive Todd’s American Dispatch – a must-read for Conservatives!
Yes, friends – the state of Oregon stole money meant for our Lord.
Mrs. Klein and her husband, Aaron, are devout evangelical Christians who own a mom-and-pop bakery – Sweet Cakes By Melissa.
In July, they were ordered to pay more than $135,000 in damages to a lesbian couple after they refused to bake their wedding cake. The Kleins objected because of their religious beliefs.
The judgment was awarded to the lesbians for “emotional suffering.”
Just a few weeks before Christmas, Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian wiped out the Klein family’s bank accounts – taking nearly $7,000.
Faced with a state-mandated 9 percent interest penalty, the Kleins opted to pay the disputed amount in full – turning over a $136,927.07 check to the government. That money, which was not in their bank account, was acquired through donations the family.
It was the price the Kleins had to pay for following the teachings of Jesus Christ.
“It was like my breath was taken away,” Mrs. Klein told me in a telephone conversation. “I panicked. Everything was gone.”
And, as I said before, Commissioner Avakian even seized money set aside for You Know Who.
“We had three accounts,” she told me. “I have one account that’s labeled, ‘God’s money’ – our tithing. They just took it.”
Attorney Tyler Smith, who represents the Kleins, tells me his clients still plan on fighting the state’s decision – even if it means going to the Supreme Court.
“The least expensive option to stay in compliance with the law was to pay the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries funds that will be kept in a separate account until they prevail in their court appeal,” Smith told me in a prepared statement.
He said the couple had asked the state to hold off on collection attempts – but that request was denied.
“Aaron and Melissa will continue to work to ensure that every American has the First Amendment right to express their faith-based beliefs, and to conduct their daily affairs according to their conscience,” Smith said.
Their trouble started in 2013 when Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer asked the Christian bakers to prepare their wedding cake.
When Mr. Klein explained that they would not be able to prepare the cake, the women filed an anti-discrimination complaint with the state of Oregon.
The state later determined that gay rights trump religious liberty – ruling that the Kleins had violated the lesbians’ civil rights by discriminating based on sexual orientation.
Oregon has a law on the books that protects the rights of gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender people in employment, housing and public accommodations. It also prohibits private businesses from discriminating against potential customers, the newspaper noted.
The Kleins were also slapped with a gag order – banning them from speaking publicly about their refusal to participate in or bake wedding cakes for same-sex marriages, The Oregonian reported.
They were ordered to “cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published, circulated, issued or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services or privileges of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination will be made against, any person on account of sexual orientation.”
“Within Oregon’s public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society,” the ruling states. “The ability to enter public places, to shop and dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry.”
On a side note here – I predicted that once gay marriage was legalized, LGBTQIA supporters would attempt to silence all dissent.
After the controversy, the Kleins had no choice but to shut down their retail store and move their business to their home.
Avakian has publicly stated his intentions to target Christian business owners who do not comply with the state’s way of thinking. Here’s what he told The Oregonian about Sweet Cakes By Melissa in 2013:
“The goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate.”
I’ve never met Brad Avakian but he sounds like a pretty ruthless individual – a person who is using his office to bully and intimidate Christians.
Be warned, friends. In Oregon, gay rights trump religious liberty.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/12/29/bakers-forced-to-pay-more-than-135g-in-lesbian-cake-battle.html?intcmp=hpbt3
-
It would have been so much easier for them to bake the dam cake and let God deal with the lesbian couple.
But no.
-
It would have been so much easier for them to bake the dam cake and let God deal with the lesbian couple.
But no.
True. Just as it would have been so much easier for the couple to go to a baker that actually wanted their business.
-
True. Just as it would have been so much easier for the couple to go to a baker that actually wanted their business.
Right. Because why should someone being open for business mean they actually wanted people's business ???
-
True. Just as it would have been so much easier for the couple to go to a baker that actually wanted their business.
Who got hurt worse in the end?
-
Right. Because why should someone being open for business mean they actually wanted people's business ???
Right. Businesses never reserve the right to refuse service to people. (How is that for sarcasm?) :)
-
Who got hurt worse in the end?
Obviously the couple who had all of their money garnished from their bank account.
The lesbian couple got a nice windfall because someone refused to bake them a cake. Better than the lottery.
-
"Yes, friends – the state of Oregon stole money meant for our Lord."
"It was the price the Kleins had to pay for following the teachings of Jesus Christ."
Todd Starnes is such a drama queen.
-
Obviously the couple who had all of their money garnished from their bank account.
The lesbian couple got a nice windfall because someone refused to bake them a cake. Better than the lottery.
Kind of stupid on their part
-
Kind of stupid on their part
agreed....just give them the damn cake and curse them after they walk out the door like whats done to black people :D
-
Kind of stupid on their part
I would ordinarily agree that it was stupid to make such a big brouhaha over someone refusing to bake you a cake, but they got six figures for the likely five minutes or so of their time they spent in the store, so it was worth it.
If you're saying the bakers were stupid (yes, I know you were), then that is debatable. I don't have a problem with people maintaining their convictions, even if there are adverse consequences.
-
I don't have a problem with people maintaining their convictions, even if there are adverse consequences.
that is some times called conscience and it ceases to exist when others have to pay the price of your conscience
In this case the bakers showed more integrity than the conscience pleading judge else where a few months ago
-
Right. Businesses never reserve the right to refuse service to people. (How is that for sarcasm?) :)
I think business have the right to choose their customers - as much as the customers have a right to choose which business to patronize.
But I still see little reason for a business - a for-profit entity that exists only to make money for its owners - to turn away paying customers. It just seems silly.
-
that is some times called conscience and it ceases to exist when others have to pay the price of your conscience
In this case the bakers showed more integrity than the conscience pleading judge else where a few months ago
Yeah. I agree.
-
I think business have the right to choose their customers - as much as the customers have a right to choose which business to patronize.
But I still see little reason for a business - a for-profit entity that exists only to make money for its owners - to turn away paying customers. It just seems silly.
Depends on the business. I can see a variety of reasons why a business owner might turn away paying customers. Maybe they want to serve a certain clientele. You've seen the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" signs at some stores? They are turning away paying customers. Same with restaurants that have a dress code.
-
you seem to be (deliberately?) missing the point that the discrimination in this case is illegal (as in prohibited by law)
Anybody who seeks the protection of the law is in turn obliged to obey the law
Of course they may have wanted a certain clientele but they exhibited poor business acumen in the manner they conveyed that desire.
Years ago Ryanair was found to have broken the Equal Status Act 2000 as they actively recruited younger people. Had they advertised (as they did after the case) for fit active candidates for demanding tasks they would have reached their target audience while remaining within the law
I'm not missing that point at all. The law is the law. You either obey it, work to change it, or disobey it and deal with the consequences.
-
I would ordinarily agree that it was stupid to make such a big brouhaha over someone refusing to bake you a cake, but they got six figures for the likely five minutes or so of their time they spent in the store, so it was worth it.
If you're saying the bakers were stupid (yes, I know you were), then that is debatable. I don't have a problem with people maintaining their convictions, even if there are adverse consequences.
If its worth the 135K to them, good for them. I can respect them for standing up for their beliefs, However, I doubt they apply all the "sins" in the Bible to who they do business with. 135K can put kids through college.
At the same time, i think its reprehensible and appalling that the lesbian couple sued and collected the money from those people.
-
If its worth the 135K to them, good for them. I can respect them for standing up for their beliefs, However, I doubt they apply all the "sins" in the Bible to who they do business with. 135K can put kids through college.
At the same time, i think its reprehensible and appalling that the lesbian couple sued and collected the money from those people.
I have no idea how they deal with other "sins." Maybe they are consistent, maybe not. I think donors paid the $135k so I doubt they sacrificed college tuition, etc., but I think they effectively lost their business. Still a steep price to pay.
We are turning into a nation of sissies and victims. Not everyone who gets their feelings hurt, or is even the victim of discrimination, is entitled to a big payday.
-
I have no idea how they deal with other "sins." Maybe they are consistent, maybe not. I think donors paid the $135k so I doubt they sacrificed college tuition, etc., but I think they effectively lost their business. Still a steep price to pay.
We are turning into a nation of sissies and victims. Not everyone who gets their feelings hurt, or is even the victim of discrimination, is entitled to a big payday.
I know donors paid it. But its still 135K that goes to someone else who didn't deserve it all because they refused to bake a cake and not let God deal with it. Did they also break the law?
-
Why is it ok to force someone to sell something?
Why do view fo a few get forced on the many? SO wrong morally.
Let each go thier own way..
Buy a coke from local lesbian or goto walmart. You don't have a right to anything but persuing your own interest.
-
I know donors paid it. But its still 135K that goes to someone else who didn't deserve it all because they refused to bake a cake and not let God deal with it. Did they also break the law?
How were they supposed to "let God deal with it"?
Yes they broke the law.
-
How were they supposed to "let God deal with it"?
Yes they broke the law.
By letting God deal with it and not doing anything.
-
Why is it ok to force someone to sell something?
Why do view fo a few get forced on the many? SO wrong morally.
Let each go thier own way..
Buy a coke from local lesbian or goto walmart. You don't have a right to anything but persuing your own interest.
Because we have people who hate other people based on race, religion and a host of other factors not having anything to do with that particular person, based on stereotypes. When left unchecked it leads to segregation and discrimination. So rules were enacted to force narrow minded bigots to play nice.
-
By letting God deal with it and not doing anything.
That's not how it works.
-
That's not how it works.
Not how what works?
-
baking is pretty gay, seems ironic to me.
-
Not how what works?
Doing nothing and expecting God to handle things. You have to do everything in your power to make things happen.
-
Doing nothing and expecting God to handle things. You have to do everything in your power to make things happen.
So God doesn't really give a shit.
Makes praying kind of useless.
-
So God doesn't really give a shit.
Makes praying kind of useless.
What? That's not what I said.
-
What? That's not what I said.
Okay God gives a shit, but not enough to get of his couch.
-
given all that goes on in the world to keep her busy why would God be bothered by biblical bakers and butch buggers?
She wouldnt.
Thats one of the reasons being a religious man doesnt make sense.
Even if there was a god she could give a fuck about you.
-
Doing nothing and expecting God to handle things. You have to do everything in your power to make things happen.
Not expecting God to Handle anything while they are living. Why should they? They broke the law. They paid. They believed the lesbian couple was breaking God's law. They should have let God deal with it.
Frankly, the bakery couple are idiots and the lesbian couple are scum bags.
-
Not expecting God to Handle anything while they are living. Why should they? They broke the law. They paid. They believed the lesbian couple was breaking God's law. They should have let God deal with it.
Frankly, the bakery couple are idiots and the lesbian couple are scum bags.
They didn't want to violate their conscience. I don't see that as letting God handle anything.
-
They didn't want to violate their conscience. I don't see that as letting God handle anything.
Neither do I, never did, never said, never meant to indicate they let God handle anything.
Still, they are idiots.
-
Neither do I, never did, never said, never meant to indicate they let God handle anything.
Still, they are idiots.
Meh. I wouldn't call them idiots. Not something I would do, but I don't fault most people who stand on convictions.
-
Meh. I wouldn't call them idiots. Not something I would do, but I don't fault most people who stand on convictions.
Which people who stand on convictions do you fault?
-
Which people who stand on convictions do you fault?
People whose convictions are morally repugnant, like members of NAMBLA.
-
People whose convictions are morally repugnant, like members of NAMBLA.
this isn't a thread to attack congressional republicans. take that noise elsewhere.
-
People whose convictions are morally repugnant, like members of NAMBLA.
OK. So now we know you don't fault bakers that refuse, based on their convictions, to bake wedding cakes for homosexuals. We also know that you fault members of NAMBLA who advocate, based on their convictions, for "man-boy" love.
But I am curious, do you fault people who are fighting for their conviction that homosexuals should be treated equally under the law and be allowed to marry?
-
Bake the cake and then ask jesus and his dad to forgive you
why do all fundies forget their imaginary "get out of jail free" card? (hint..this is the entire premise of your religion).
I'm pretty sure for most fundies baking a cake for a gay wedding is going
to be low down on the list of their most horrible "sins"
-
Bake the cake and then ask jesus and his dad to forgive you
why do all fundies forget their imaginary "get out of jail free" card?
I'm pretty sure for most fundies baking a cake for a gay wedding is going
to be low down on the list of their most horrible "sins"
but it's a great way to get on Fox News!
-
OK. So now we know you don't fault bakers that refuse, based on their convictions, to bake wedding cakes for homosexuals. We also know that you fault members of NAMBLA who advocate, based on their convictions, for "man-boy" love.
But I am curious, do you fault people who are fighting for their conviction that homosexuals should be treated equally under the law and be allowed to marry?
No. Why do you ask?
-
No. Why do you ask?
Well, you said fault people whose convictions are morally repugnant - you cited members of NAMBLA as an example. I'm just trying to figure out what other convictions qualify as "morally repugnant" to you.
-
Well, you said fault people whose convictions are morally repugnant - you cited members of NAMBLA as an example. I'm just trying to figure out what other convictions qualify as "morally repugnant" to you.
I don't have a list. Haven't really thought about it.
-
Not expecting God to Handle anything while they are living. Why should they? They broke the law. They paid. They believed the lesbian couple was breaking God's law. They should have let God deal with it.
Frankly, the bakery couple are idiots and the lesbian couple are scum bags.
God will deal with it.
By sending a tornado to the Bible Belt areas as punishment.
-
I don't have a list. Haven't really thought about it.
Avxo - Bum is giving you an honest answer here
just wanted to make sure you have considered this
-
Avxo - Bum is giving you an honest answer here
just wanted to make sure you have considered this
He is - and it's certainly fair and I appreciate it. One doesn't need to think about every conviction one finds immoral ahead of time.
-
God will deal with it.
By sending a tornado to the Bible Belt areas as punishment.
Lol
-
He is - and it's certainly fair and I appreciate it. One doesn't need to think about every conviction one finds immoral ahead of time.
I assume you're joking though it would be consistent for Bum to decide first and think about it later (or more likely not at all)
-
I assume you're joking though it would be consistent for Bum to decide first and think about it later (or more likely not at all)
You are free to assume anything you want.
-
You are free to assume anything you want.
no shit
-
no shit
no shit!
-
Texas bakers face threats after declining to bake gay wedding cake
By Todd Starnes
Published February 25, 2016
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/opinion/2016/02/25/texas-bakers-face-threats-after-declining-to-bake-gay-wedding-cake/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-0.img.jpg/876/493/1456421425745.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
A small town bakery owned by a Christian family is under siege after they declined to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.
Edie and David Delorme own the Kern’s Bake Shop in Longview, Texas — known around town for their petit fours and sugar cookies — and also their custom-made wedding cakes.
Click here to join Todd’s American Dispatch: a Must-Read for Conservatives!
The Delormes are also devout Christians -- faithful members of a nearby Baptist church - and they run their bakery according to the tenets of their religious beliefs.
That became a problem on Feb. 17th when Ben Valencia and Luis Marmolejo requested the bakers make a cake for their upcoming wedding.
“I was up front with them,” Edie told me. “I said, ‘I’m sorry but we don’t provide wedding cakes for homosexual marriages.”
“We don’t do cakes that might conflict with our spiritual convictions,” she said. “It was not something personal against the two young men. We just need to be able to run our business in a way that honors God.”
She offered to provide the gay couple with a list of bakeries that would meet their needs, but she said the men simply walked out of the store.
A few days later she received a telephone call from the local newspaper. The gay couple had gone public — and had accused the Delorme family of discrimination.
"It just kind of makes you feel dehumanized," Valencia told the News-Journal. "People shouldn't have to worry about going into a business, especially a public business that serves the public, and have to worry about being turned away for something, for who you are.”
Marmolejo told the newspaper he couldn’t understand why the couple just didn’t violate their religious beliefs.
"I don't see how making a cake for somebody is going to compromise your beliefs,” he said.
Soon after the story was published, the Delormes were overwhelmed with a number of threats against the business and their family. Angry activists posted derogatory reviews on Yelp and other social networking platforms.
“See you in Hell, lady,” read one angry message. “Racist criminals.
“This business is run by a homophobic piece of s***,” another message read.
David and Edie said they have a long-standing policy to turn away any business that mighty conflict with their religious beliefs. They won’t make any tobacco-related cake. They won’t make any alcohol-related cakes either. And no risqué cakes — of any kind.
“We feel like if we are going to be putting our name on something, we want it to encourage Godly values,” Edie said.
David has especially been troubled at the violent threats directed at his family — simply because they want to follow the teachings of Christ.
“There’s something wrong with that,” he said. “Homosexuals have a right to live their lives ... But we want to live and practice our faith and run our bakery in a way that honors God.”
The Delormes know that many Christian-owned businesses have been targeted by LGBT activists — so they decided to obtain legal counsel.
“We are representing them,” said Michael Berry, an attorney for First Liberty, one of the nation’s top religious liberty law firms. “When they start to receive threats towards their family and their business simply because of their religious convictions — there’s something wrong with that picture.”
Berry said the Delorme family is on firm legal footing — they have a right to run their business in accordance with their faith.
So far, no formal charges or complaints have been filed against the Christian couple - but should that happen, First Liberty said they are prepared to defend the bakery.
“We just want equal rights,” David told me. “We want to be treated equally.”
Mr. Delmore raises a pretty good point. Shouldn’t Christian Americans have the same rights and privileges as LGBT Americans?
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/02/25/texas-bakers-face-threats-after-declining-to-bake-gay-wedding-cake.html?intcmp=hplnws
-
boo hoo
bake the fucking cake and then ask Jeebus to forgive you (and of course Jeebus will be laughing his ass off at you while he does it )
-
boo hoo
bake the fucking cake and then ask Jeebus to forgive you (and of course Jeebus will be laughing his ass off at you while he does it )
Or.......boo hoo, take your gay ass to a bakery who wants your business and supports your way of life. Idiot ::)
-
Or.......boo hoo, take your gay ass to a bakery who wants your business and supports your way of life. Idiot ::)
I'd be fine with that as long a christians were fine being denied service due to people being offended by their lifestyle choice
sound fair to you?
-
I'd be fine with that as long a christians were fine being denied service due to people being offended by their lifestyle choice
Yes. While some gays are all too quick to wave the "hater" and "homophobic" flag, mobilize the social justice warriors and often make an issue out of nothing, similarly some christians start raving about "religious persecution" and how they should have special privileges.
-
I'd be fine with that as long a christians were fine being denied service due to people being offended by their lifestyle choice
sound fair to you?
Yes, it does sound fair. You own a business, you serve who you want. Gay, straight, black, white, smoker, non smoker etc. If people don't like it, free market will prevail and the business will close. It already is like this to a degree. I've been to restaurants where you rarely see anyone other than whites. And I've been by places where you only see black folk. Gay clubs are usually frequented by gays ya know. Now anyone is free to go into any of those places, but people generally feel comfortable around their own kind so the clientele usually never changes from the status quo. This particular story isn't about equal rights, it's about getting a lawsuit filed with a monetary award for hurt feelings.
-
I'd be fine with that as long a christians were fine being denied service due to people being offended by their lifestyle choice
sound fair to you?
That is fine with me, if someone doesn't want my business for whatever reason, I am more than happy to spend my money elsewhere.
Now this is the funniest part of the article:
"Ali told the newspaper he couldn’t understand why the couple just didn’t violate their religious beliefs.
"I don't see how making a cake for somebody is going to compromise your beliefs,” he said. "
A Muslim telling someone to "violate" their religious beliefs, now that is comedy gold.
-
Family bakery closes after left-wing bullies finally get their pound of cake
By Todd Starnes
Published September 30, 2016
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/opinion/2016/09/30/family-bakery-closes-after-left-wing-bullies-finally-get-their-pound-cake/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-0.img.jpg/876/493/1475264064612.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
(Courtesy Sweet Cakes by Melissa)
In 2013 a small family bakery in Northwestern Oregon refused to make a cake for a lesbian wedding.
The owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa had no idea that their decision to follow the teachings of their Christian faith would lead to a multi-year legal battle. It’s a battle still being waged.
Aaron and Melissa Klein were eventually punished by the state of Oregon. -- The couple was fined $135,000 for refusing to participate in the lesbian wedding event.
It was the price they had to pay for refusing to violate their conscience.
They also made the painful decision to close their beloved bakery – for good.
The left-wing bigots and bullies finally got their pound of cake.
The Kleins made the announcement on the now-shuttered shop’s Facebook page.
“The Kleins closed their business months ago and simply now updated their page to reflect that,” said Hiram Sasser, an attorney for First Liberty Institute.
First Liberty is one of the nation’s most prestigious law firms handling religious liberty cases.
“We are continuing our appeal and look forward to achieving justice for them and all people of faith who may find themselves in similar circumstances in the future,” Sasser told me.
To be clear, Aaron and Melissa Klein did not go looking to engage in a fight with the LGBT community. The fight came to them and to their business.
Since that day more than three years ago, the Kleins have faced unrelenting attacks from the LGBT community. Their business was boycotted. They were bullied. Their children received death threats.
The Kleins were literally run out of business by an anti-Christian mob.
It's hard to believe that something like this could happen in the land of the free, the home of the brave.
But we live in a nation that pledges its allegiance to the Rainbow flag – a nation where gay rights now trump everyone else’s rights.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/09/30/family-bakery-closes-after-left-wing-bullies-finally-get-their-pound-cake.html
-
Family bakery closes after left-wing bullies finally get their pound of cake
By Todd Starnes
Published September 30, 2016
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/opinion/2016/09/30/family-bakery-closes-after-left-wing-bullies-finally-get-their-pound-cake/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-0.img.jpg/876/493/1475264064612.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
(Courtesy Sweet Cakes by Melissa)
In 2013 a small family bakery in Northwestern Oregon refused to make a cake for a lesbian wedding.
The owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa had no idea that their decision to follow the teachings of their Christian faith would lead to a multi-year legal battle. It’s a battle still being waged.
Aaron and Melissa Klein were eventually punished by the state of Oregon. -- The couple was fined $135,000 for refusing to participate in the lesbian wedding event.
It was the price they had to pay for refusing to violate their conscience.
They also made the painful decision to close their beloved bakery – for good.
The left-wing bigots and bullies finally got their pound of cake.
The Kleins made the announcement on the now-shuttered shop’s Facebook page.
“The Kleins closed their business months ago and simply now updated their page to reflect that,” said Hiram Sasser, an attorney for First Liberty Institute.
First Liberty is one of the nation’s most prestigious law firms handling religious liberty cases.
“We are continuing our appeal and look forward to achieving justice for them and all people of faith who may find themselves in similar circumstances in the future,” Sasser told me.
To be clear, Aaron and Melissa Klein did not go looking to engage in a fight with the LGBT community. The fight came to them and to their business.
Since that day more than three years ago, the Kleins have faced unrelenting attacks from the LGBT community. Their business was boycotted. They were bullied. Their children received death threats.
The Kleins were literally run out of business by an anti-Christian mob.
It's hard to believe that something like this could happen in the land of the free, the home of the brave.
But we live in a nation that pledges its allegiance to the Rainbow flag – a nation where gay rights now trump everyone else’s rights.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/09/30/family-bakery-closes-after-left-wing-bullies-finally-get-their-pound-cake.html
Alright....justice has been served.
-
Alright....justice has been served.
Yeah. Justice is the State forcing businesses to bake cakes.
-
Alright....justice has been served.
I wouldn't call it justice. They were put out of business because of the settlement forced by the court. I would say though, that they sure picked the wrong state to be in to have stood their ground. Maybe they should move their business to Texas or somewhere a bit less left leaning.
-
Shame on Fox News. Can't they find something current to cover? This bakery closed months ago.
Sweet Cakes by Melissa
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sweet Cakes by Melissa was a cake shop in Gresham, Oregon, in the United States. It gained widespread press attention in January 2013 when it turned away customers who wanted cakes for a same-sex wedding, who then made a complaint to the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, claiming their civil rights under the Oregon Equality Act had been infringed.
The owners of the business stated that they had refused to cater for the wedding because of their religious beliefs, and that their right to do so was protected by the U.S. constitution. They subsequently closed the shop, and carried out their business from home.
In April 2015, an administrative court made a preliminary decision to penalize the business. The owners of the business opened a GoFundMe appeal, “Support Sweet Cakes by Melissa”, which raised over $100,000 before it was shut down by GoFundMe, who stated that the campaign was not compatible with their terms of service. In a statement, GoFundMe confirmed that the funds raised before the appeal was shut down would still be available for withdrawal.
The administrative court's decision was confirmed in a final order by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries in July 2015. The owners of the business have stated that they will contest the Bureau's decision.
After contesting for 6 months, co-owner Aaron Klein paid the final order with interest while identifying that they will continue to fight the order.
Aug. 2015 -This week, the owners of an Oregon bakery ordered to pay $135,000 for refusing to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple sent out 10 specially made cakes to LGBT groups.
Sweet Cakes By Melissa sent the cakes, which say “We really do love you!” in white writing over a red heart. The packages also included a DVD copy of “Audacity,” an anti-gay film, according to The Advocate. The film’s website says it “delivers an unexpected, eye-opening look at the controversial topic of homosexuality.”
The bakery closed because they lost their customer base.
-
Shame on Fox News. Can't they find something current to cover? This bakery closed months ago.
Sweet Cakes by Melissa
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sweet Cakes by Melissa was a cake shop in Gresham, Oregon, in the United States. It gained widespread press attention in January 2013 when it turned away customers who wanted cakes for a same-sex wedding, who then made a complaint to the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, claiming their civil rights under the Oregon Equality Act had been infringed.
The owners of the business stated that they had refused to cater for the wedding because of their religious beliefs, and that their right to do so was protected by the U.S. constitution. They subsequently closed the shop, and carried out their business from home.
In April 2015, an administrative court made a preliminary decision to penalize the business. The owners of the business opened a GoFundMe appeal, “Support Sweet Cakes by Melissa”, which raised over $100,000 before it was shut down by GoFundMe, who stated that the campaign was not compatible with their terms of service. In a statement, GoFundMe confirmed that the funds raised before the appeal was shut down would still be available for withdrawal.
The administrative court's decision was confirmed in a final order by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries in July 2015. The owners of the business have stated that they will contest the Bureau's decision.
After contesting for 6 months, co-owner Aaron Klein paid the final order with interest while identifying that they will continue to fight the order.
Aug. 2015 -This week, the owners of an Oregon bakery ordered to pay $135,000 for refusing to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple sent out 10 specially made cakes to LGBT groups.
Sweet Cakes By Melissa sent the cakes, which say “We really do love you!” in white writing over a red heart. The packages also included a DVD copy of “Audacity,” an anti-gay film, according to The Advocate. The film’s website says it “delivers an unexpected, eye-opening look at the controversial topic of homosexuality.”
The bakery closed because they lost their customer base.
Todd Starnes, the paranoid religious extremist, is the author; that should hopefully explain things. Still, the article mentions that the business was closed months ago but they recently updated their Facebook status to reflect that.
-
Supreme Court to hear case of baker's refusal to make wedding cake for gay couple
Published June 26, 2017
Fox News
United States Supreme Court (AP)
The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday it will hear the case of a suburban Denver baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple on faith-based grounds, in the latest religious freedom case to be considered before the nation's highest court.
Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, had refused to sell a customized cake for a gay couple's union, claiming a religious exemption to the state's anti-discrimination law.
State courts had ruled against the businessman.
The high court will now decide whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel the baker to create "expression"-- a wedding cake -- violates his constitutionally protected Christian beliefs about marriage.
Phillips told the Supreme Court he has free speech and religious rights under the First Amendment that should protect him. He said he should not be compelled to bake a cake specifically to honor a same-sex marriage.
Colorado's anti-discrimination law, though, protects people on the basis of their sexual orientation. Charlie Craig and David Mullins had filed a complaint against Phillips and his suburban Denver shop after Phillips said he would not create and decorate a cake in honor of their marriage.
Colorado did not permit same-sex couples to marry until 2014. Two years earlier, Craig and Mullin were planning to fly to Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage was legal, and host a reception in Denver upon their return to Colorado. They wanted a cake for the occasion.
The case will be another in a series of "religious liberty" disputes the justices have reviewed in recent years, and could be an important First Amendment test of the extent anti-discrimination laws apply to gay Americans.
Oral arguments will likely be held in court's term beginning in the fall.
The case is Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (16-111).
In a separate decision on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled for same-sex couples who complained an Arkansas birth certificate law discriminated against them.
The justices on Monday issued an unsigned opinion reversing an Arkansas high court ruling that upheld a law stating married lesbian couples had to get a court order to have both spouses listed as parents on their children's birth certificates.
Meanwhile, the court on Monday declined to review a California law restricting permits to carry handguns outside of the home for self-defense.
A San Diego man had filed suit, saying state and county policies requiring "good cause" -- a specific reason or justifiable need to legally carry a concealed weapon -- were too restrictive. A federal appeals court had ruled for the state and now those restrictions will stay in place.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/26/supreme-court-to-hear-case-bakers-refusal-to-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple.html
-
Wonder if and how this might affect a similar case in Oregon, whereby the bakery owners lost both money and their business because they refused to provide a wedding cake to a lesbian couple, supposedly because of their religious beliefs?
-
Wonder if and how this might affect a similar case in Oregon, whereby the bakery owners lost both money and their business because they refused to provide a wedding cake to a lesbian couple, supposedly because of their religious beliefs?
"Supposedly"? Was it for another reason?
-
Can't gays just order a fruit cake?
-
Arizona judge rejects wedding shop’s challenge to ordinance that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation
Fox News
An Arizona judge has rejected a wedding shop’s challenge to a Phoenix ordinance that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Judge Karen Mullins ruled last week that the city’s ordinance does not violate state laws, rejecting arguments proposed by wedding invitation designers Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski, who tried to get around the city law, the Arizona Republic reported.
The designers' lawyers argued that the city’s mandate would force Christian businesses to provide services for same-sex couples despite their religious views that marriage is between a man and a woman. Such requirements would violate the constitution.
The judge said that the ordinance does not violate the free speech and religious liberty rights of the women in the case, suggesting women still can exercise their religion as they see fit.
"The printing of same-sex persons names on wedding invitations does not hinder in any way plaintiffs' independent exercise of (their) religious belief by attending the church of their choice, engaging in religious activities or functions, and expressing their beliefs on their business website and literature or in their personal lives,” the judge wrote.
The case is expected to be subjected to an appeal, with ADF attorney Jonathan Scruggs telling the Republic: “People shouldn't be forced to promote views that they disagree with.”
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/30/arizona-judge-rejects-wedding-shop-s-challenge-to-ordinance-that-bars-discrimination-based-on-sexual-orientation.html
-
Arizona judge rejects wedding shop’s challenge to ordinance that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation
Fox News
An Arizona judge has rejected a wedding shop’s challenge to a Phoenix ordinance that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Judge Karen Mullins ruled last week that the city’s ordinance does not violate state laws, rejecting arguments proposed by wedding invitation designers Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski, who tried to get around the city law, the Arizona Republic reported.
The designers' lawyers argued that the city’s mandate would force Christian businesses to provide services for same-sex couples despite their religious views that marriage is between a man and a woman. Such requirements would violate the constitution.
The judge said that the ordinance does not violate the free speech and religious liberty rights of the women in the case, suggesting women still can exercise their religion as they see fit.
"The printing of same-sex persons names on wedding invitations does not hinder in any way plaintiffs' independent exercise of (their) religious belief by attending the church of their choice, engaging in religious activities or functions, and expressing their beliefs on their business website and literature or in their personal lives,” the judge wrote.
The case is expected to be subjected to an appeal, with ADF attorney Jonathan Scruggs telling the Republic: “People shouldn't be forced to promote views that they disagree with.”
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/30/arizona-judge-rejects-wedding-shop-s-challenge-to-ordinance-that-bars-discrimination-based-on-sexual-orientation.html
Bingo
-
(http://www.lukeford.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Cj9nquTWsAALTBS.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/da/b8/d8/dab8d8a8939fc7fe89a101243c0bfcf8--weird-food-blue-eyes.jpg)
-
(http://www.lukeford.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Cj9nquTWsAALTBS.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/da/b8/d8/dab8d8a8939fc7fe89a101243c0bfcf8--weird-food-blue-eyes.jpg)
LOL
I wonder if all those people who got shot in Vegas can relate to the pain of having to bake a cake
-
Arizona judge rejects wedding shop’s challenge to ordinance that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation
Fox News
An Arizona judge has rejected a wedding shop’s challenge to a Phoenix ordinance that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Judge Karen Mullins ruled last week that the city’s ordinance does not violate state laws, rejecting arguments proposed by wedding invitation designers Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski, who tried to get around the city law, the Arizona Republic reported.
The designers' lawyers argued that the city’s mandate would force Christian businesses to provide services for same-sex couples despite their religious views that marriage is between a man and a woman. Such requirements would violate the constitution.
The judge said that the ordinance does not violate the free speech and religious liberty rights of the women in the case, suggesting women still can exercise their religion as they see fit.
"The printing of same-sex persons names on wedding invitations does not hinder in any way plaintiffs' independent exercise of (their) religious belief by attending the church of their choice, engaging in religious activities or functions, and expressing their beliefs on their business website and literature or in their personal lives,” the judge wrote.
The case is expected to be subjected to an appeal, with ADF attorney Jonathan Scruggs telling the Republic: “People shouldn't be forced to promote views that they disagree with.”
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/30/arizona-judge-rejects-wedding-shop-s-challenge-to-ordinance-that-bars-discrimination-based-on-sexual-orientation.html
Wedding cake bakers in Oregon tested a similar law and lost. They subsequently went bankrupt and were forced to close their establishment.
-
The fact that you can't just bake them a fucking cake (what kind of fag bakes cakes?) is silly. This is how religion poisons everything, all that is wanted is a nice cake for two people to celebrate their love and this guy won't give them that because, god hates fags.
Imagine if all businesses ran like this, with discrimination out in the open. I don't like jews, I am a nazi baker. It's their perogative but what the fuck is wrong with the world. Bake them a fucking cake you moron. You have probably supplied convicts, rapists etc with cakes but not homos. they would probably make him switch the frosting to cum and the chocolate to do do.
I believe the one who hates fas his him, not God. He is using his name to avoid responsability by his actions. Just like every American does.
-
(http://www.lukeford.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Cj9nquTWsAALTBS.jpg)
exactly right
-
(http://www.lukeford.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Cj9nquTWsAALTBS.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/da/b8/d8/dab8d8a8939fc7fe89a101243c0bfcf8--weird-food-blue-eyes.jpg)
Yup - the gay mafia like Kevin Spacey, Obama, et al have that mentality.
-
I wonder if these people who were shot to death or their friends and families can appreciate the pain and suffering associated with having to bake a cake
-
Aaaand another dumb comment.
-
Aaaand another dumb comment.
I'm not the one who posted a picture of a gun to someone's head
that's about as dumb as it gets on this board
Just trying to give that retarded poster some context to consider
-
I'm not the one who posted a picture of a gun to someone's head
that's about as dumb as it gets on this board
Just trying to give that retarded poster some context to consider
Thanks for demonstrating again what a despicable human being you are.
-
Thanks for demonstrating again what a despicable human being you are.
says the idiot who posted an image of someone with a gun to their head as if a baker having to bake a cake (something he or she does every day) is akin to being threatened or shot with a gun
-
says the idiot who posted an image of someone with a gun to their head as if a baker having to bake a cake (something he or she does every day) is akin to being threatened or shot with a gun
Dude, that's just a drawing. You just posted a photo of real victims dead bodies. I wonder how their families would feel about you posting that photo just to argue on the Internet about baking homo cakes.
-
I wonder if these people who were shot to death or their friends and families can appreciate the pain and suffering associated with having to bake a cake
Your point is well taken with some here,including me. But, others will twist it to suit their agenda. :'(
-
Dude, that's just a drawing. You just posted a photo of real victims dead bodies. I wonder how their families would feel about you posting that photo just to argue on the Internet about baking homo cakes.
Like he took the photo? ::) Why not wonder about how the families felt about seeing this photo on the news instead of it being posted on Getbig where the family is very unlikely to view it.
-
I wonder if these people who were shot to death or their friends and families can appreciate the pain and suffering associated with having to bake a cake
I see your poor taste post and raise you
-
Like he took the photo? ::) Why not wonder about how the families felt about seeing this photo on the news instead of it being posted on Getbig where the family is very unlikely to view it.
(http://i43.tinypic.com/2z3szsi.gif)
-
says the idiot who posted an image of someone with a gun to their head as if a baker having to bake a cake (something he or she does every day) is akin to being threatened or shot with a gun
Yes, using a humorous drawing to make a point is exactly the same thing as using a photograph of a young woman's corpse.
-
Yes, using a humorous drawing to make a point is exactly the same thing as using a photograph of a young woman's corpse.
You find holding a gun to someone's head amusing? ::)
-
.
-
You find holding a gun to someone's head amusing? ::)
The answer must be yes because all drawings are intended to be taken literally.
-
Yes, using a humorous drawing to make a point is exactly the same thing as using a photograph of a young woman's corpse.
I find it moronic that you would try to equate baking a cake to being threatened with a gun to the head
possibly one of the dumbest things I've seen on this board in a long time
-
Wedding cake bakers in Oregon tested a similar law and lost. They subsequently went bankrupt and were forced to close their establishment.
Overall, these fights are a loser. Society has turned the corner already. Been saying that for years. But pastors and churches are one of the next targets. They have already started calling anyone who believes in traditional marriage or the Christian view regarding homosexuality as bigots.
-
I find it moronic that you would try to equate baking a cake to being threatened with a gun to the head
possibly one of the dumbest things I've seen on this board in a long time
You calling something moronic is high comedy. Spoken like a man that doesn't realize that he is the village idiot.
(http://www.funnymotivationalposters.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Retards-Getting-Stronger.jpg)
-
You calling something moronic is high comedy. Spoken like a man that doesn't realize that he is the village idiot.
stop acting like a moron and I'll stop pointing it out
deal?
-
stop acting like a moron and I'll stop pointing it out
deal?
Whatever you say. Hey, I want to let you know that I watched your movie the other day on Netflix. Very moving, I loved it.
Did you get to meet Sean Penn? Must have been exciting.
(https://i.imgflip.com/1yl188.jpg)
(https://d.wattpad.com/story_parts/167841967/images/14050461b0fcd02b.jpg)
-
meh- lame attempt at humor but at least it is "humor"
showing an image of a gun pointed at someone's head and pretending that a court rejection is akin to a gun to someone's head is just fucking pathetic and moronic
let me remind you again what the court said
maybe you can find a someone to explain it to you
"The printing of same-sex persons names on wedding invitations does not hinder in any way plaintiffs' independent exercise of (their) religious belief by attending the church of their choice, engaging in religious activities or functions, and expressing their beliefs on their business website and literature or in their personal lives,” the judge wrote.
-
meh- lame attempt at humor but at least it is "humor"
showing an image of a gun pointed at someone's head and pretending that a court rejection is akin to a gun to someone's head is just fucking pathetic and moronic
let me remind you again what the court said
maybe you can find a someone to explain it to you
"The printing of same-sex persons names on wedding invitations does not hinder in any way plaintiffs' independent exercise of (their) religious belief by attending the church of their choice, engaging in religious activities or functions, and expressing their beliefs on their business website and literature or in their personal lives,” the judge wrote.
You really are a Democrat, you think up a dumb idea and then refuse to let it go.
Don't worry, I'd have no problem with baking your wedding cake Straw Man. When you find that special guy, I'll support your decision 100%.
-
You really are a Democrat, you think up a dumb idea and then refuse to let it go.
Don't worry, I'd have no problem with baking your wedding cake Straw Man. When you find that special guy, I'll support your decision 100%.
-
I'm sure the fat man in the White House would like a slice
He's loves chocolate cake so much he forgot what country he bombed while he was eating it
-
You really are a Democrat, you think up a dumb idea and then refuse to let it go.
Don't worry, I'd have no problem with baking your wedding cake Straw Man. When you find that special guy, I'll support your decision 100%.
wow, what a surprise that a Trumptard thinks The Constitution is a dumb idea
-
I'm sure the fat man in the White House would like a slice
He's loves chocolate cake so much he forgot what country he bombed while he was eating it
So you support fat-shaming?
-
wow, what a surprise that a Trumptard thinks The Constitution is a dumb idea
Since you are obviously "special", let me help you understand. I'll hold your hand and talk to you like a small child.
showing an image of a gun pointed at someone's head and pretending that a court rejection is akin to a gun to someone's head is just fucking pathetic and moronic
This is the dumb idea that you won't let go of. Not sure why you chose to say it twice in one sentence but nevertheless.
-
Straw trying to get away from the fact that he posted a really dumb post in response to a common phrase "pointing a gun to your/my head" in picture form.
I think I saw him kneeling with the Texans this weekend. Team masseuse.
-
Straw trying to get away from the fact that he posted a really dumb post in response to a common phrase "pointing a gun to your/my head" in picture form.
Bingo. Instead of moving on he's doubling down.
-
meh- lame attempt at humor but at least it is "humor"
showing an image of a gun pointed at someone's head and pretending that a court rejection is akin to a gun to someone's head is just fucking pathetic and moronic
let me remind you again what the court said
maybe you can find a someone to explain it to you
"The printing of same-sex persons names on wedding invitations does not hinder in any way plaintiffs' independent exercise of (their) religious belief by attending the church of their choice, engaging in religious activities or functions, and expressing their beliefs on their business website and literature or in their personal lives,” the judge wrote.
Maybe the same thing will happen to a Muslim bakery
Let's see if they will be forced to bake or close.
They have such love of all things faggottrie --- Not.
-
So you support fat-shaming?
absolutely
in certain circumstances
some people need shaming
you disagree?
-
Maybe the same thing will happen to a Muslim bakery
Let's see if they will be forced to bake or close.
They have such love of all things faggottrie --- Not.
I assume it will
just need to find a gay couple (or whatever else fundie muslims don't like) and order a cake from their bakery
anything jewish will probably work (bar/bat mitzvah and you only need one person)
hint to that scrawny cracker felon
I'm giving you this idea for free
but it has to be a real couple or jewish kid and they have to follow through with a real lawsuit or it won't work
-
Straw trying to get away from the fact that he posted a really dumb post in response to a common phrase "pointing a gun to your/my head" in picture form.
I think I saw him kneeling with the Texans this weekend. Team masseuse.
you're still missing the OBVIOUS
no one is pointing a gun at the person who is in the cake making business
why not a "gay flag" tank or pitbull or bottle of acid or some other method of violence?
I'm not the one who entered the meme (subjective perspective) of violence into the scenario
-
absolutely
in certain circumstances
some people need shaming
you disagree?
I fat shame on Getbig all day. Out in the world I don't, I just avoid them.
-
you're still missing the OBVIOUS
no one is pointing a gun at the person who is in the cake making business
why not a "gay flag" tank or pitbull or bottle of acid or some other method of violence?
I'm not the one who entered the meme (subjective perspective) of violence into the scenario
Strike three.
You are fast approaching Prime when it comes to basic understanding.
-
Strike three.
You are fast approaching Prime when it comes to basic understanding.
lol this
actually he's much worse than primer
-
Gay wedding cake controversy heads to Supreme Court
By Bill Mears | Fox News
Christian baker vs. Colorado What is the case really about
The encounter between a same-sex couple and a Colorado baker lasted just a few seconds -- but the legal, political and social impact could extend for decades after the Supreme Court takes up their case on Tuesday.
The justices will hear oral arguments in perhaps the most closely watched appeal so far this term, pitting religious conviction against anti-discrimination laws.
At issue is the July 2012 encounter, when Charlie Craig and David Mullins of Denver visited Masterpiece Cakeshop to buy a custom-made wedding cake. Owner Jack Phillips refused his services when told it was for a same-sex couple. A state civil rights commission sanctioned Phillips after a formal complaint from the gay couple.
"This case has never been about cakes," Mullins told Fox News. "It's about the rights of gay people to receive equal service in business and not be afraid of being turned away because of who they are. It's about basic access to public life."
But the Trump administration backs Phillips, who is represented in court by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian nonprofit. He has lost at every step in the legal appeals process.
"I serve everybody that comes in: gay, straight, Catholic, Muslim, atheist. I welcome everybody into my shop," Phillips told Fox News recently. "I just don't create cakes for every event that's presented to me."
Phillips says he has lost business and had to let employees go because of the controversy.
Baker Jack Phillips
Baker Jack Phillips is at the center of Tuesday's Supreme Court hearing. (Alliance Defending Freedom)
The court on Tuesday will examine whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel the local baker to create commercial "expression" violates his constitutionally protected Christian beliefs about marriage.
By wading again into the culture wars, the justices will have to confront recent decisions on both gay rights and religious liberty: a 2015 landmark opinion legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide and a separate 2014 decision affirming the right of some companies to act on their owner's faith by refusing to provide contraception to its workers.
'My bakery, my family, my life, the work I get to do, is a gift from God and I want to honor Him in everything I do.'
- Jack Phillips
Chief Justice John Roberts predicted the current legal dilemma in his gay marriage dissent: "Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage."
BRIEF ENCOUNTER
Craig and Mullins met on a blind date in late 2010, and decided to get married a couple of years later. Since Colorado did not permit it at the time, they tied the knot in Massachusetts. While planning for a hometown reception with friends and family, the two decided to visit Phillips' small shop in a Denver suburb.
Along with Craig's mother and a book of ideas, they met with Phillips for just 20 seconds by the owner's account, when he said he told them, "Guys, I don't make cakes for same-sex weddings."
"What followed was a horrible pregnant pause during which what was happening really sunk in and we were mortified and embarrassed," recalled Mullins. "We teared up. It was a very painful and emotional moment for us."
"It made us feel helpless," added Craig. "To this day I feel like Dave and I are sort of on guard when we go into public accommodations, whether we can talk about our relationship openly for the fear of being discriminated against again."
In this Nov. 28, 2017, photo, Charlie Craig and David Mullins are shown in their home in Denver. The Dec. 5, Supreme Court argument about a baker who refused to make a cake for the same-sex couple makes some civil rights lawyers think of South Carolina’s Piggie Park barbecue. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski)
In this Nov. 28, 2017, photo, Charlie Craig and David Mullins are shown in their home in Denver. (AP)
Phillips was behind the counter at his shop when Fox News visited him last week. Using a palette of colored icing, he sculpted sugary designs that included red birds and the Denver Broncos football logo.
"It's not about turning away these customers, it's about doing a cake for an event -- a religious sacred event -- that conflicts with my conscience," he said earlier. "My bakery, my family, my life, the work I get to do, is a gift from God and I want to honor Him in everything I do."
The soft-spoken Phillips adds that like other artists, he has turned away cake requests for a variety of reasons: baked goods with profanity or obscene images, racial stereotypes, even those that he says would disparage homosexuals.
OPPOSING VIEWS
The Trump administration agrees with Phillips' legal claims to a large extent. Attorney General Jeff Sessions in October issued broad guidance to executive branch agencies, reiterating the government should respect religious freedom, which in the Justice Department's eyes extends to people, businesses and organizations.
"Faith is deeply embedded into the history of our country," President Trump said in May, adding his administration "will not allow people of faith to be targeted, bullied or silenced anymore."
But civil rights groups worry the conservative majority on the court may be ready to peel back protections for groups with a history of enduring discrimination.
“A ruling in this case to give businesses the right to refuse service to customers would shatter longstanding non-discrimination laws and have wide impacts on religious and racial minorities, single mothers, people with disabilities, and others," James Esseks, director of the ACLU's LGBT and HIV Project, said.
The case raises tough moral and legal questions that courts are increasingly being asked to navigate:
When certain businesses open their doors, do they in essence get to choose their customer base, by creating exceptions for whom they will serve?
Do artists and others who provide subjective, personalized content have any discretion to refuse or tailor their creations -- based on religious or moral beliefs?
Couldn't Mullins and Craig have found another bakery to accommodate them, a practical solution in the eyes of many that would avoid further conflict between customer and owner?
Does the LGBT community deserve a higher level of protection from civil rights discrimination -- in the same class as race, sex, and disability -- when it comes to states passing and enforcing statutes involving sexual orientation?
NEXT STEPS
Sitting in their comfortable home, the couple at the center of the case said they are anxious to put their half-decade legal odyssey behind them.
“Five years is a long time to continue talk about a situation that has happened," Mullins said. "But it has forced us to really come together as couple and support each other. I think we have been stronger for it."
Mullins, an office manager and part-time musician and photographer, and Craig, who is an interior designer, express hope their case sends a clear social message.
"We were doing this initially for ourselves. But, along the way we have heard thousands of people that have been discriminated against," Craig said. "So, now I feel like we are also standing for them too."
The case is Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (16-111).
A ruling is expected by June 2018.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/04/gay-wedding-cake-controversy-heads-to-supreme-court.html
-
Strike three.
You are fast approaching Prime when it comes to basic understanding.
I wonder if these people who were shot to death or their friends and families can appreciate the pain and suffering associated with having to bake a cake
What a fucking tragedy to have to bake a cake. Something those fundie dipshit bakers do all day long...every day
Yeah, totally appropriate and apt to make an image of a rainbow gun at the poor bakers head
Its very hard for me to empathize with the pain and suffering they must be enduring to have to bake a cake
There family must also be in great pain as well
-
I wonder if these people who were shot to death or their friends and families can appreciate the pain and suffering associated with having to bake a cake
What a fucking tragedy to have to bake a cake. Something those fundie dipshit bakers do all day long...every day
Yeah, totally appropriate and apt to make an image of a rainbow gun at the poor bakers head
Its very hard for me to empathize with the pain and suffering they must be enduring to have to bake a cake
There family must also be in great pain as well
Are you mad again about something? Brain fried? You responded to a post from nov 1 only to reply with the exact same picture you used on the previous page that was the original display of your lack of basic understanding. Very pointless.
-
Justice Kennedy Grills Baker In Colorado Same-Sex Rights Case
Kennedy is a long-time champion of gay rights, but the court appeared closely divided after an intense oral argument.
Lawrence Hurley
12/05/2017
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared closely divided with likely pivotal vote Justice Anthony Kennedy posing tough questions about a Christian baker’s refusal to make a wedding cake for a gay couple but also questioning whether a Colorado civil rights commission that ruled on the issue was biased against religion.
The nine justices heard an intense, extended 80-minute oral argument in the major case on whether certain businesses can refuse service to gay couples if they oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds.
The case concerns an appeal by Jack Phillips, a baker who runs Masterpiece Cakeshop in the Denver suburb of Lakewood, of a state court ruling that his refusal to make a cake for gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012 on the basis of his religious beliefs violated a Colorado anti-discrimination law.
Kennedy, a conservative who sometimes sides with the court’s four liberals in major cases, raised concerns about issuing a ruling siding with the baker that would give a green light to discrimination against gay people.
The court’s four liberals would likely side with him on that point, with several justices citing a wide range of other creative professionals, including makeup artists and florists, who could deny service to gay customers if the baker wins.
In one of the biggest cases of the conservative-majority court’s nine-month term, the justices must decide whether the baker’s action was constitutionally protected.
Phillips, represented by the conservative Christian advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom, contends that the Colorado law violated his rights to freedom of speech and free exercise of religion under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. The Supreme Court arguments focused on his free speech claim, based on the idea that creating a custom cake is a form of free expression.
Mullins and Craig call the baker’s refusal a simple case of unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation. Colorado law bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.
Kennedy, a long-term champion of gay rights, mentioned the possibility of a baker putting a sign in his window saying he would not make cakes for gay weddings, wondering if that would be “an affront to the gay community.”
But citing comments made by a commissioner on the state civil rights panel that ruled against the baker, Kennedy said there was evidence of “hostility to religion” and questioned whether that panel’s decision should be allowed to stand.
“Tolerance is essential in a free society. Tolerance is most meaningful when it’s mutual,” Kennedy said. But the commission was not “tolerant or respectful” of Phillips, he added.
The commissioner, unnamed in court papers, said at a 2014 hearing that “freedom of religion, and religion, has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history.” The commissioner added that freedom of religion “is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use ... to use their religion to hurt others.”
It was unclear to what extent Kennedy’s criticism of the commissioner would dictate how he votes in the case.
The Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in a landmark 2015 ruling written by the 81-year-old Kennedy, one of the court’s five conservatives. He has joined the court’s four liberals in major decisions on issues such as abortion and gay rights, but also is a strong proponent of free speech rights.
Mullins and Craig are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, which has argued that Phillips’ legal team is advocating for a “license to discriminate” that could have broad repercussions beyond gay rights.
Several of the justices asked questions that suggested they are concerned about how far a ruling in favor of the baker might extend. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan wondered about whether a hairstylist, chef or a makeup artist could refuse service, claiming their services are also speech protected by the Constitution. “Why is there no speech in creating a wonderful hairdo?” Kagan asked.
Kennedy asked U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, the Trump administration lawyer supporting the baker, what would happen if the court rules for the baker and then bakers nationwide then started receiving requests to not bake cakes for gay weddings. “Would the government feel vindicated?” Kennedy asked.
Conservative members of the court, including Chief Justice John Roberts, appeared more sympathetic to the baker.
AARON BERNSTEIN / REUTERS
‘LOVE WINS’
Hundreds of demonstrators on both sides of the dispute rallied outside the white marble courthouse. Supporters of Phillips waved signs that read, “We got your back Jack.” As Mullins and Craig made their way into the courthouse, the two men led their supporters in chants of “Love Wins.”
After the arguments, Phillips told reporters that the backlash against his business after his refusal has included death threats and harassment, adding, “We are struggling just to make ends meet and keep the shop afloat.”
“It’s hard to believe that the government is forcing me choose between providing for my family and my employees, and violating my relationship with God,” Phillips said.
Mullins told reporters the couple’s snub by Phillips made them feel mortified and humiliated, like “second-class citizens in our society.”
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission found that Phillips had violated anti-discrimination law and ordered him to take remedial measures including staff training and the filing of quarterly compliance reports. The baker lost appeals in state courts before asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/justice-kennedy-grills-baker-in-colorado-same-sex-rights-case_us_5a26f85be4b08220bd787575?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009
-
Are you mad again about something? Brain fried? You responded to a post from nov 1 only to reply with the exact same picture you used on the previous page that was the original display of your lack of basic understanding. Very pointless.
LOL - why would you think I'm mad
I'll keep posting the same comments as long as morons like you keep trying to conflate being paid to bake a cake (something those idiot bakers do every day) with having a gun put to your head.
I can't imagine the pain those bakers must be going through. They'll never have another birthday or christmas with that cake. They'll never get to see that cake grow up and have cakes of it's own. They'll probably never really recover from the loss and the pain of being Paid to Bake a Cake.
I wonder what's next
If fundies own a restaurant and a gay couple comes in to celebrate an anniversary will they insist they can't serve them.
How about if you own a hotel and a gay couple shows up to rent a room. What if you own rental property a gay couple wants to live there. If we still have a Constitution in this country these people will lose.
-
LOL - why would you think I'm mad
I'll keep posting the same comments as long as morons like you keep trying to conflate being paid to bake a cake (something those idiot bakers do every day) with having a gun put to your head.
I can't imagine the pain those bakers must be going through. They'll never have another birthday or christmas with that cake. They'll never get to see that cake grow up and have cakes of it's own. They'll probably never really recover from the loss and the pain of being Paid to Bake a Cake.
I wonder what's next
If fundies own a restaurant and a gay couple comes in to celebrate an anniversary will they insist they can't serve them.
How about if you own a hotel and a gay couple shows up to rent a room. What if you own rental property a gay couple wants to live there. If we still have a Constitution in this country these people will lose.
-
Straw man, you keep posting that photo of bloodied, dead bodies of girls. Does it turn you on? You sick SOB.
-
Court Rules Bakery Owners Who Refused to Make Cake for Gay Couple Must Pay $135,000 in Emotional Damages
WILLIAM VAILLANCOURT | DEC 29, 2017
The Oregon Court of Appeals on Thursday upheld a $135,000 fine given to bakery owners who declined to make a cake for a lesbian couple, according to KATU.
In February 2013, Melissa and Aaron Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes bakery, refused to make a cake for Rachel Bowman-Cryer and her wife, Laurel.
A 2015 ruling by the state's Bureau of Labor and Industries found the Kleins liable for $135,000 for “emotional damages suffered” as a result of the denial of service.
KATU News
✔
@KATUNews
JUST IN: Court upholds $135,000 fine for bakery owners who refused to make cake for gay couple: http://katu.com/news/local/court-upholds-135000-fine-for-bakery-owners-who-refused-to-make-cake-for-gay-couple … #LiveOnK2
7:32 AM - Dec 28, 2017
Court upholds $135,000 fine for bakery owners who refused to make cake for gay couple
The Court of Appeals announced its decision Thursday to uphold a $135,000 fine issued to bakery owners who refused to make a cake for a lesbian couple.Melissa and Aaron Klein had refused to bake a...
katu.com
33 33 Replies 24 24 Retweets 77 77 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
“This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage,” the bureau's order states. “It is about a business's refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.”
The Oregon Equality Act of 2007 prohibits discrimination due to sexual orientation by businesses.
“This is a shocking result which shows the state's relentless campaign to punish Oregonians who live and work according to their faith,” Anna Harmon, a lawyer for the Kleins, said following the bureau's ruling, according to KATU.
The Kleins appealed the ruling, but Thursday's decision was not in their favor.
“We believe that freedom of expression for ourselves means freedom of expression for others,” said Mike Berry, an attorney for the First Liberty Institute, which argued on behalf of the Kleins in March.
“And what's unfortunate here is that a family and their business has been punished because of their religious beliefs. And that's not America. That's just flat out wrong.”
The Kleins had to close their shop shortly after the 2013 incident, and Melissa Klein also ended her online business.
“We lost everything we loved and worked so hard to build,” she said. “I loved my shop. It meant everything to me and losing it has been so hard for me and my family.”
The Kleins have not yet decided whether they want to appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court.
https://ijr.com/the-declaration/2017/12/1041525-court-rules-bakery-owners-refused-make-cake-gay-couple-must-pay-135000-emotional-damages/
-
LOL - why would you think I'm mad
I'll keep posting the same comments as long as morons like you keep trying to conflate being paid to bake a cake (something those idiot bakers do every day) with having a gun put to your head.
I can't imagine the pain those bakers must be going through. They'll never have another birthday or christmas with that cake. They'll never get to see that cake grow up and have cakes of it's own. They'll probably never really recover from the loss and the pain of being Paid to Bake a Cake.
I wonder what's next
If fundies own a restaurant and a gay couple comes in to celebrate an anniversary will they insist they can't serve them.
How about if you own a hotel and a gay couple shows up to rent a room. What if you own rental property a gay couple wants to live there. If we still have a Constitution in this country these people will lose.
Why can't they as business owners, refuse to do it without the government stepping in? If you don't like it, just carry your business elsewhere and if enough people agree, the problem just fixes itself.
-
Why can't they as business owners, refuse to do it without the government stepping in? If you don't like it, just carry your business elsewhere and if enough people agree, the problem just fixes itself.
Same reason you can't refuse to rent an apartment to someone based on their race, sexual orientation, disability etc..
-
Just another case of the government normalizing deviant behavior and forcing people accept it. ::)
-
Same reason you can't refuse to rent an apartment to someone based on their race, sexual orientation, disability etc..
could you do that if it were "for sale by owner"?
-
Why can't they as business owners, refuse to do it without the government stepping in? If you don't like it, just carry your business elsewhere and if enough people agree, the problem just fixes itself.
I am inclined to agree with you. Why support a business that discriminates against you. Like you wrote, the simple answer is to take your money where customer service is for everyone.
-
Same reason you can't refuse to rent an apartment to someone based on their race, sexual orientation, disability etc..
There is a huge housing shortage in the Portland metro area. What is available is so expensive that and average wage earner cannot afford the rent even if they did find a place. Not renting an apartment to certain people is a far cry from baking those people a cake.
-
Just another case of the government normalizing deviant behavior and forcing people accept it. ::)
What you say is quite a leap.
-
could you do that if it were "for sale by owner"?
Nope. I live where there are bidding wars on houses for sale. Owners can pretty much set the rules as to who prevails without making it appear it is illegal discrimination.
-
Judge Rules Bakeshop Owner Doesn’t Have To Bake Wedding Cake For Gay Couple
GRACE CARR
Reporter
02/06/2018
A California judge ruled Monday the state couldn’t force a cake shop owner to bake a cake for a gay couple’s wedding, ruling that doing so would constitute a violation of free speech.
Superior Court Judge David Lampe denied the State of California’s request for a preliminary injunction that sought to force bakeshop owner Cathy Miller to design a wedding cake for a gay couple.
“For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment,” Lampe ruled, according to a press release sent to The Daily Caller News Foundation. The injunction also posited that if Miller refused to design the cake, the state would force her to close her Tastries Bakery shop altogether.
“We are pleased that the judge recognized that the First Amendment protects Cathy’s freedom of speech,” chief counsel and Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund (FCDF) president, Charles LiMandri, said after the ruling, the press release reports. LiMandri argued in Friday’s court hearing that Miller doesn’t discriminate against same-sex couples, but refuses to use her artistic talents to express a message that conflicts with her religious beliefs about marriage.
The ruling comes after two women asked Miller to design their wedding cake and filed a complaint with the state, alleging that Miller discriminated against them on the basis of sexual orientation. They also posted about the event on social media. Following their complaint, the state launched an investigation and sought a court order to force Miller to bake their wedding cake.
“This is a significant victory for faith and freedom because the judge indicated in his ruling that the State cannot succeed in this case as a matter of law,” LiMandri said. “No doubt the California officials will continue their persecution of Cathy, but it is clear that she has the Constitution on her side.”
The cake baking incident comes after the Supreme Court announced in June that it would hear a similar case that occurred in 2012, when a baker in Denver refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. Lower courts had previously ruled that Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop had violated the state’s accommodation laws by refusing to serve a customer based on sexual orientation, according to The Washington Post.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/06/cake-shop-owner-wedding-cake-gay-couple/
-
There is a huge housing shortage in the Portland metro area. What is available is so expensive that and average wage earner cannot afford the rent even if they did find a place. Not renting an apartment to certain people is a far cry from baking those people a cake.
totally missing the point
It's got NOTHING to do with supply and demand
Not sure how you could miss that point
-
Judge Rules Bakeshop Owner Doesn’t Have To Bake Wedding Cake For Gay Couple
GRACE CARR
Reporter
02/06/2018
A California judge ruled Monday the state couldn’t force a cake shop owner to bake a cake for a gay couple’s wedding, ruling that doing so would constitute a violation of free speech.
Superior Court Judge David Lampe denied the State of California’s request for a preliminary injunction that sought to force bakeshop owner Cathy Miller to design a wedding cake for a gay couple.
“For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment,” Lampe ruled, according to a press release sent to The Daily Caller News Foundation. The injunction also posited that if Miller refused to design the cake, the state would force her to close her Tastries Bakery shop altogether.
“We are pleased that the judge recognized that the First Amendment protects Cathy’s freedom of speech,” chief counsel and Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund (FCDF) president, Charles LiMandri, said after the ruling, the press release reports. LiMandri argued in Friday’s court hearing that Miller doesn’t discriminate against same-sex couples, but refuses to use her artistic talents to express a message that conflicts with her religious beliefs about marriage.
The ruling comes after two women asked Miller to design their wedding cake and filed a complaint with the state, alleging that Miller discriminated against them on the basis of sexual orientation. They also posted about the event on social media. Following their complaint, the state launched an investigation and sought a court order to force Miller to bake their wedding cake.
“This is a significant victory for faith and freedom because the judge indicated in his ruling that the State cannot succeed in this case as a matter of law,” LiMandri said. “No doubt the California officials will continue their persecution of Cathy, but it is clear that she has the Constitution on her side.”
The cake baking incident comes after the Supreme Court announced in June that it would hear a similar case that occurred in 2012, when a baker in Denver refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. Lower courts had previously ruled that Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop had violated the state’s accommodation laws by refusing to serve a customer based on sexual orientation, according to The Washington Post.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/06/cake-shop-owner-wedding-cake-gay-couple/
Interesting decision and from California as well.
-
totally missing the point
It's got NOTHING to do with supply and demand
Not sure how you could miss that point
I guess what I replied could have missed the point. I meant only to example that if a business doesn't choose to bake someone a cake they can go elsewhere where their business is welcomed. If a landlord doesn't choose to rent apartment to someone, they cannot always go somewhere else. In both examples it is discrimination.
-
Supreme Court Reverses Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
Scotusblog ^ | 6/4/2018 | Scotusblog
Posted on 6/4/2018, 10:17:18 AM by CFW
"Whatever the confluence of speech and free exercise principles might be in some cases, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's consideration of this case was inconsistent with the State's obligation of religious neutrality. The reason and motive for the baker's refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions."
link to decision
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf
-
Supreme Court Reverses Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
Scotusblog ^ | 6/4/2018 | Scotusblog
Posted on 6/4/2018, 10:17:18 AM by CFW
"Whatever the confluence of speech and free exercise principles might be in some cases, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's consideration of this case was inconsistent with the State's obligation of religious neutrality. The reason and motive for the baker's refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions."
link to decision
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf
The main reason I voted for Trump was his pick vs Hillary's pick to replace to Scalia
And this is why I never understood the never-trumpers...
MAGA !!!!!
Even Beck has come around:
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Vf9dZqWAIJI/WwA9uZxKQiI/AAAAAAABC0A/PQc_OoQ097cwPqIDtsdyDE71WrGA9vFAgCLcBGAs/s1600/blenn%2Bbeck.jpg)
-
The main reason I voted for Trump was his pick vs Hillary's pick to replace to Scalia
And this is why I never understood the never-trumpers...
MAGA !!!!!
Even Beck has come around:
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Vf9dZqWAIJI/WwA9uZxKQiI/AAAAAAABC0A/PQc_OoQ097cwPqIDtsdyDE71WrGA9vFAgCLcBGAs/s1600/blenn%2Bbeck.jpg)
7-2 and libs in my feed are melting down
-
7-2 and libs in my feed are melting down
but 240 told us all that trump was no different than Hillary ::)
-
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/10/anti-lgbt-baker-tells-fox-news-that-jesus-wants-me-to-deny-cakes-to-gay-couples/
Anti-LGBT baker tells Fox News that Jesus ‘wants me’ to deny cakes to gay couples
By David Edwards
Tuesday, December 10, 2013 9:23 EST
Fox News host Elisabeth Hasselbeck
A Colorado baker on Tuesday told Fox & Friends host Elisabeth Hasselbeck that he would be willing to go to jail after a judge ordered him to serve gay couples, saying that opposing same sex marriage is “who I am.”
Last week, administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer ruled that Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips must “cease and desist from discriminating” against LGBT couples because he refused to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple last year.
On Tuesday, Hasselbeck welcomed the baker in a Fox & Friends “Death of Free Enterprise” segment, including friendly screen titles like “Bake Shop Shakedown” and “So Much For Freedom.”
“Does becoming a business owner mean you have to check your convictions at the door?” Hasselbeck asked. “Why is it important for you to have a business and not have to abandon personal religious beliefs just to make a buck?”
“I believe that’s what God’s designed for me to do,” Phillips explained.
Attorney Nicolle Martin, who is representing Phillips, added that “if the government can force you to violate your beliefs under the threat of a jail sentence, there’s really no freedom they can’t take away, Elisabeth.”
For his part, Phillips pledged that he would go to jail before selling a wedding cake to gay or lesbian couple.
“You know, if that’s what it takes,” he said. “It’s not like I have chosen this team or that team. This is who I am, it’s what I believe.”
“Do you feel as though you are forfeiting your own rights and being forced, in other words, to participate in their wedding by making a cake for them?” Hasselbeck wondered.
“They would be taking away my rights to do what I do as a business owner, as an American citizen,” Phillips insisted. “And as a follower of Jesus Christ, I don’t believe that’s what he wants me to do. And so my priorities would be towards my faith rather than towards my safety or security.”
“We wish you well,” Hasselbeck said in conclusion.
=========================================================
Personally, I think it's sad that anyone is anti-LGBT, but it is their right to dislike it... Why a gay couple would even WANT to give their business to a baker that doesn't like them is beyond me.
The fact that a judge can FORCE you to do something you don't want to do with YOUR OWN BUSINESS is absolutely disgusting.
It's as bad as telling people who you can and can't marry in the first place.
Almost five years later and Tu turned out to be right, for now.
-
COLORADO IS GOING AFTER JACK PHILLIPS OF MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP AGAIN
The DC ^ | 8-15-2018 | Kevin Daley
Posted on 8/15/2018, 12:34:05 PM by servo1969
- Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop fame is suing the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
- The Commission commenced new proceedings against Phillips on behalf of a transgender complainant just weeks after he prevailed at the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Phillips' attorneys say the Commission is engaged in a concerted campaign to destroy him, which is unlawful.
Jack Phillips, the Christian baker who prevailed at the U.S. Supreme Court after declining to create a custom wedding cake for a gay couple, filed a lawsuit in federal court late Tuesday suing the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
Phillips and his attorneys at the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) say the Commission has revived its campaign against him following June's high court decision, singling Masterpiece Cakeshop out for disparate treatment on the basis of their religious beliefs.
"The state of Colorado is ignoring the message of the U.S. Supreme Court by continuing to single out Jack for punishment and to exhibit hostility toward his religious beliefs," said Kristen Waggoner, an Alliance Defending Freedom attorney who represents Phillips. "Even though Jack serves all customers and simply declines to create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events in violation of his deeply held beliefs, the government is intent on destroying him -- something the Supreme Court has already told it not to do."
On the same day the high court agreed to review the Masterpiece case, an attorney named Autumn Scardina called Phillips' shop and asked him to create a cake celebrating a sex transition. The caller asked that the cake include a blue exterior and a pink interior, a reflection of Scardina's transgender identity. Phillips declined to create the cake, given his religious conviction that sex is immutable, while offering to sell the caller other pre-made baked goods.
In the months that followed, the bakery received requests for cakes featuring marijuana use, sexually explicit messages, and Satanic symbols. One solicitation submitted by email asked the cake shop to create a three-tiered white cake depicting Satan licking a functional 9 inch dildo. Phillips believes Scardina made all these requests.
Scardina filed a complaint with the civil rights commission, alleging discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The matter was held in abeyance while the Supreme Court adjudicated the Masterpiece case.
Three weeks after Phillips won at the high court, the commission issued a probable cause determination, finding there was sufficient evidence to support Scardina's claim of discrimination. In a somewhat strange development, the probable cause finding reads that Phillips violated state law, even though the proceedings are still in a preliminary stage.
In turn, the ADF filed a lawsuit against the Commission on Phillips' behalf, accusing the panel of violating his constitutional free exercise, free speech, due process, and equal protection rights.
"Colorado has renewed its war against him by embarking on another attempt to prosecute him, in direct conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling in his favor," Phillips' lawsuit reads. "This lawsuit is necessary to stop Colorado's continuing persecution of Phillips."
The suit requests an injunction barring further prosecutions of Phillips for violations of Colorado's anti-discrimination law, a declaration that the Commission violated his constitutional rights, and damages from the director of the commission. The complaint names the director, Aubrey Elenis, in her professional and personal capacity, meaning she is personally liable for any financial judgment the court might award.
Phillips is seeking damages from Elenis for lost work time, lost profits, emotional distress, and reputational harm. He is also requesting an additional $100,000 punitive judgment against her.
The complaint also challenges the criteria by which commissioners are selected to serve on the civil rights panel. According to the filing, the seven-member Commission must always include four "members of groups of people who have been or who might be discriminated against because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, marital status, religion, or age." Two seats must be filled by representatives of the business community, while another two seats are reserved for government entities.
ADF argues these criteria are not neutral, and embed hostility to Phillips' religious beliefs into "the very structure that Colorado uses to enforce its public-accommodation law."
Finally, the suit challenges a provision of Colorado law that prohibits Phillips from conveying his religious objections to prospective customers. A state statute makes it illegal for companies to indicate that protected persons will not be served at their place of business.
ADF lawyers say these restrictions prevent Phillips from communicating his refusal to create custom goods conveying messages. They also alleged a particular clause of the law is unconstitutionally vague. The clause at issue forbids advertisements indicating "that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of ... sexual orientation."
The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. A legal rule called Younger abstention generally forbids federal courts from handling civil rights claims while they are being heard in state courts. Phillips' lawyers plan to argue that Colorado is acting in bad faith, warranting the case's removal to federal court.
-
COLORADO IS GOING AFTER JACK PHILLIPS OF MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP AGAIN
The DC ^ | 8-15-2018 | Kevin Daley
Posted on 8/15/2018, 12:34:05 PM by servo1969
- Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop fame is suing the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
- The Commission commenced new proceedings against Phillips on behalf of a transgender complainant just weeks after he prevailed at the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Phillips' attorneys say the Commission is engaged in a concerted campaign to destroy him, which is unlawful.
Jack Phillips, the Christian baker who prevailed at the U.S. Supreme Court after declining to create a custom wedding cake for a gay couple, filed a lawsuit in federal court late Tuesday suing the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
Phillips and his attorneys at the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) say the Commission has revived its campaign against him following June's high court decision, singling Masterpiece Cakeshop out for disparate treatment on the basis of their religious beliefs.
"The state of Colorado is ignoring the message of the U.S. Supreme Court by continuing to single out Jack for punishment and to exhibit hostility toward his religious beliefs," said Kristen Waggoner, an Alliance Defending Freedom attorney who represents Phillips. "Even though Jack serves all customers and simply declines to create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events in violation of his deeply held beliefs, the government is intent on destroying him -- something the Supreme Court has already told it not to do."
On the same day the high court agreed to review the Masterpiece case, an attorney named Autumn Scardina called Phillips' shop and asked him to create a cake celebrating a sex transition. The caller asked that the cake include a blue exterior and a pink interior, a reflection of Scardina's transgender identity. Phillips declined to create the cake, given his religious conviction that sex is immutable, while offering to sell the caller other pre-made baked goods.
In the months that followed, the bakery received requests for cakes featuring marijuana use, sexually explicit messages, and Satanic symbols. One solicitation submitted by email asked the cake shop to create a three-tiered white cake depicting Satan licking a functional 9 inch dildo. Phillips believes Scardina made all these requests.
Scardina filed a complaint with the civil rights commission, alleging discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The matter was held in abeyance while the Supreme Court adjudicated the Masterpiece case.
Three weeks after Phillips won at the high court, the commission issued a probable cause determination, finding there was sufficient evidence to support Scardina's claim of discrimination. In a somewhat strange development, the probable cause finding reads that Phillips violated state law, even though the proceedings are still in a preliminary stage.
In turn, the ADF filed a lawsuit against the Commission on Phillips' behalf, accusing the panel of violating his constitutional free exercise, free speech, due process, and equal protection rights.
"Colorado has renewed its war against him by embarking on another attempt to prosecute him, in direct conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling in his favor," Phillips' lawsuit reads. "This lawsuit is necessary to stop Colorado's continuing persecution of Phillips."
The suit requests an injunction barring further prosecutions of Phillips for violations of Colorado's anti-discrimination law, a declaration that the Commission violated his constitutional rights, and damages from the director of the commission. The complaint names the director, Aubrey Elenis, in her professional and personal capacity, meaning she is personally liable for any financial judgment the court might award.
Phillips is seeking damages from Elenis for lost work time, lost profits, emotional distress, and reputational harm. He is also requesting an additional $100,000 punitive judgment against her.
The complaint also challenges the criteria by which commissioners are selected to serve on the civil rights panel. According to the filing, the seven-member Commission must always include four "members of groups of people who have been or who might be discriminated against because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, marital status, religion, or age." Two seats must be filled by representatives of the business community, while another two seats are reserved for government entities.
ADF argues these criteria are not neutral, and embed hostility to Phillips' religious beliefs into "the very structure that Colorado uses to enforce its public-accommodation law."
Finally, the suit challenges a provision of Colorado law that prohibits Phillips from conveying his religious objections to prospective customers. A state statute makes it illegal for companies to indicate that protected persons will not be served at their place of business.
ADF lawyers say these restrictions prevent Phillips from communicating his refusal to create custom goods conveying messages. They also alleged a particular clause of the law is unconstitutionally vague. The clause at issue forbids advertisements indicating "that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of ... sexual orientation."
The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. A legal rule called Younger abstention generally forbids federal courts from handling civil rights claims while they are being heard in state courts. Phillips' lawyers plan to argue that Colorado is acting in bad faith, warranting the case's removal to federal court.
This is wrong on so many levels. Just leave the guy alone already. These people are zealots. Some of these activists don't care about equality. It's about indoctrination.
-
He'll win again. Home run case for some lucky bloodsucking lawyer.
-
It's about indoctrination.
This. The sooner people realize this, the sooner we can move to eliminate the threat to normal people.
-
A similar case from the UK but an interesting (and 5-0 unanimous) decision nonetheless.
Top U.K. court rules for bakers in same-sex marriage "gay cake" case
Britain's Supreme Court says a bakery owned by a Christian family didn't discriminate against a gay customer when it refused to make a cake supporting same-sex marriage. Ashers Baking Co. in Northern Ireland refused in 2014 to make a cake iced with the Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie bearing the slogan "Support Gay Marriage." The owners argued they couldn't put messages on their products at odds with their Christian beliefs.
Judge Brenda Hale said Wednesday that their objection was to the message on the cake, not to the personal characteristics of the customer. She said in her ruling in what has been dubbed the "gay cake" case that while it is "deeply humiliating, and an affront to human dignity" to deny service because of sexual orientation, "that is not what happened in this case."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gay-cake-was-humiliating-but-not-discrimination-rules-britain-supreme-court/
-
A similar case from the UK but an interesting (and 5-0 unanimous) decision nonetheless.
Top U.K. court rules for bakers in same-sex marriage "gay cake" case
Britain's Supreme Court says a bakery owned by a Christian family didn't discriminate against a gay customer when it refused to make a cake supporting same-sex marriage. Ashers Baking Co. in Northern Ireland refused in 2014 to make a cake iced with the Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie bearing the slogan "Support Gay Marriage." The owners argued they couldn't put messages on their products at odds with their Christian beliefs.
Judge Brenda Hale said Wednesday that their objection was to the message on the cake, not to the personal characteristics of the customer. She said in her ruling in what has been dubbed the "gay cake" case that while it is "deeply humiliating, and an affront to human dignity" to deny service because of sexual orientation, "that is not what happened in this case."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gay-cake-was-humiliating-but-not-discrimination-rules-britain-supreme-court/
Judge Should of told the queers to just go find some queer bakers
And stop trying to harangue Decent Folk Who Don’t want to deal
With Perverts like them.
Simple - End of.
-
Washington Supreme Court rules against florist who refused service for gay couple's wedding
By Ronn Blitzer, Bill Mears | Fox News
Florist Barronelle Stutzman 'elated' after the Supreme Court punts the case on her refusal to serve a same-sex couple back down to Washington state courts.
In a hotly anticipated decision, the Washington Supreme Court ruled against a florist who was fined for not providing services for a gay couple's wedding.
The court had previously heard the case, State of Washington v. Arlene's Flowers, ruling that Barronelle Stutzman and her store, Arlene's Flowers, violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) for refusing to make floral arrangements for a gay couple in 2013. Stutzman claimed that she was only acting in accordance with her religious beliefs. The U.S. Supreme Court asked the state high court to take another look at whether it violated her religious rights by not being neutral to her religion when making its decision.
HUNDREDS SUPPORT CHRISTIAN FLORIST FINED FOR REFUSING TO WORK GAY WEDDING
That court said no.
"We now hold that the answer to the Supreme Court's question is no; the adjudicatory bodies that considered this case did not act with religious animus when they ruled that the florist and her corporation violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination ... by declining to sell wedding flowers to a gay couple," the Washington Supreme Court's ruling said, "and they did not act with religious animus when they ruled that such discrimination is not privileged or excused by the United States Constitution or the Washington Constitution."
The U.S. Supreme Court held off on reviewing the case so that the state court could take another look in light of the 2018 SCOTUS decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. That case drew national attention, as it pitted the First Amendment against LGBT rights.
The high court declined to get involved in that battle, however, ruling in favor of the baker by stating that the Colorado commission was improperly hostile to his religious beliefs when they found him in violation of a state law. The U.S. Supreme Court asked the Washington Supreme Court to make sure they did not make the same mistake.
In the new decision, the Washington Supreme Court defended its initial ruling, stating that the state's public accommodation law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and that Stutzman discriminated against Robert Ingersoll because he was marrying a man.
The new ruling says that the court "painstakingly reviewed the record for any sign of intolerance on behalf of this court or the Benton County Superior Court, the two adjudicatory bodies to consider this case," and that "we are confident that the two courts gave full and fair consideration to this dispute and avoided animus toward religion."
Stutzman's case involves similar facts to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, which involved baker Jack Phillips. Phillips claimed that he had no problem selling to gay customers in general, he just would not bake a cake for a gay wedding. Stutzman's case involved a gay couple, Ingersoll and Curt Freed, who had already been customers of hers. According to court documents, Ingersoll had gone to her for nine years, and Stutzman knew he was gay and in a relationship with Freed.
COLORADO'S SECOND CASE AGAINST MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP AND JACK PHILLIPS CRUMBLES
Another issue in the case is whether the creation of a floral arrangement is artistic expression protected by the First Amendment's free speech clause. Stutzman claimed that she would have sold Ingersoll and Freed "raw materials" and bulk flowers for their wedding, but she would not create a custom arrangement. Similarly, Phillips had claimed that while he would not create a cake for a gay wedding, he would sell a premade one.
With the U.S. Supreme Court declining to settle the free speech and religious freedom issues in Phillips' case, they have the opportunity to do so again, should they decide to review Stutzman's.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/washington-supreme-court-rules-against-florist-who-refused-service-for-gay-couples-wedding
-
Washington Supreme Court rules against florist who refused service for gay couple's wedding
By Ronn Blitzer, Bill Mears | Fox News
Florist Barronelle Stutzman 'elated' after the Supreme Court punts the case on her refusal to serve a same-sex couple back down to Washington state courts.
In a hotly anticipated decision, the Washington Supreme Court ruled against a florist who was fined for not providing services for a gay couple's wedding.
The court had previously heard the case, State of Washington v. Arlene's Flowers, ruling that Barronelle Stutzman and her store, Arlene's Flowers, violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) for refusing to make floral arrangements for a gay couple in 2013. Stutzman claimed that she was only acting in accordance with her religious beliefs. The U.S. Supreme Court asked the state high court to take another look at whether it violated her religious rights by not being neutral to her religion when making its decision.
HUNDREDS SUPPORT CHRISTIAN FLORIST FINED FOR REFUSING TO WORK GAY WEDDING
That court said no.
"We now hold that the answer to the Supreme Court's question is no; the adjudicatory bodies that considered this case did not act with religious animus when they ruled that the florist and her corporation violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination ... by declining to sell wedding flowers to a gay couple," the Washington Supreme Court's ruling said, "and they did not act with religious animus when they ruled that such discrimination is not privileged or excused by the United States Constitution or the Washington Constitution."
The U.S. Supreme Court held off on reviewing the case so that the state court could take another look in light of the 2018 SCOTUS decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. That case drew national attention, as it pitted the First Amendment against LGBT rights.
The high court declined to get involved in that battle, however, ruling in favor of the baker by stating that the Colorado commission was improperly hostile to his religious beliefs when they found him in violation of a state law. The U.S. Supreme Court asked the Washington Supreme Court to make sure they did not make the same mistake.
In the new decision, the Washington Supreme Court defended its initial ruling, stating that the state's public accommodation law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and that Stutzman discriminated against Robert Ingersoll because he was marrying a man.
The new ruling says that the court "painstakingly reviewed the record for any sign of intolerance on behalf of this court or the Benton County Superior Court, the two adjudicatory bodies to consider this case," and that "we are confident that the two courts gave full and fair consideration to this dispute and avoided animus toward religion."
Stutzman's case involves similar facts to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, which involved baker Jack Phillips. Phillips claimed that he had no problem selling to gay customers in general, he just would not bake a cake for a gay wedding. Stutzman's case involved a gay couple, Ingersoll and Curt Freed, who had already been customers of hers. According to court documents, Ingersoll had gone to her for nine years, and Stutzman knew he was gay and in a relationship with Freed.
COLORADO'S SECOND CASE AGAINST MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP AND JACK PHILLIPS CRUMBLES
Another issue in the case is whether the creation of a floral arrangement is artistic expression protected by the First Amendment's free speech clause. Stutzman claimed that she would have sold Ingersoll and Freed "raw materials" and bulk flowers for their wedding, but she would not create a custom arrangement. Similarly, Phillips had claimed that while he would not create a cake for a gay wedding, he would sell a premade one.
With the U.S. Supreme Court declining to settle the free speech and religious freedom issues in Phillips' case, they have the opportunity to do so again, should they decide to review Stutzman's.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/washington-supreme-court-rules-against-florist-who-refused-service-for-gay-couples-wedding
Fucking pathetic nonsense on all sides
The queers should’ve just fucked off to a shop that would deal with them
And the florist should’ve know better to use religion to refuse the queers
In this Butt hurt day & age - either charge the queers 10x the price or
Say she was fully booked up with prior commitments.
I’m waiting for the day queers try taking Muslime bakers / florists to court.
-
I'll wager there will be something extra in that cake that was made unwillingly.
-
I'll wager there will be something extra in that cake that was made unwillingly.
lol. I dated this girl once who was always very demanding with servers, complained about food, etc. I was like, can you not do that when you're with me? They're going to spit in our food. lol
-
lol. I dated this girl once who was always very demanding with servers, complained about food, etc. I was like, can you not do that when you're with me? They're going to spit in our food. lol
This happens. It doesn't encourage eating out. >:(
-
This happens. It doesn't encourage eating out. >:(
Be polite and you probably won't have to worry about it. ;)
-
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/10/anti-lgbt-baker-tells-fox-news-that-jesus-wants-me-to-deny-cakes-to-gay-couples/
Anti-LGBT baker tells Fox News that Jesus ‘wants me’ to deny cakes to gay couples
By David Edwards
Tuesday, December 10, 2013 9:23 EST
Fox News host Elisabeth Hasselbeck
A Colorado baker on Tuesday told Fox & Friends host Elisabeth Hasselbeck that he would be willing to go to jail after a judge ordered him to serve gay couples, saying that opposing same sex marriage is “who I am.”
Last week, administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer ruled that Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips must “cease and desist from discriminating” against LGBT couples because he refused to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple last year.
On Tuesday, Hasselbeck welcomed the baker in a Fox & Friends “Death of Free Enterprise” segment, including friendly screen titles like “Bake Shop Shakedown” and “So Much For Freedom.”
“Does becoming a business owner mean you have to check your convictions at the door?” Hasselbeck asked. “Why is it important for you to have a business and not have to abandon personal religious beliefs just to make a buck?”
“I believe that’s what God’s designed for me to do,” Phillips explained.
Attorney Nicolle Martin, who is representing Phillips, added that “if the government can force you to violate your beliefs under the threat of a jail sentence, there’s really no freedom they can’t take away, Elisabeth.”
For his part, Phillips pledged that he would go to jail before selling a wedding cake to gay or lesbian couple.
“You know, if that’s what it takes,” he said. “It’s not like I have chosen this team or that team. This is who I am, it’s what I believe.”
“Do you feel as though you are forfeiting your own rights and being forced, in other words, to participate in their wedding by making a cake for them?” Hasselbeck wondered.
“They would be taking away my rights to do what I do as a business owner, as an American citizen,” Phillips insisted. “And as a follower of Jesus Christ, I don’t believe that’s what he wants me to do. And so my priorities would be towards my faith rather than towards my safety or security.”
“We wish you well,” Hasselbeck said in conclusion.
=========================================================
Personally, I think it's sad that anyone is anti-LGBT, but it is their right to dislike it... Why a gay couple would even WANT to give their business to a baker that doesn't like them is beyond me.
The fact that a judge can FORCE you to do something you don't want to do with YOUR OWN BUSINESS is absolutely disgusting.
It's as bad as telling people who you can and can't marry in the first place.
And here we go again.
Third Discrimination Suit Filed Against Masterpiece Cakeshop
June 6, 2019
DENVER (CBS4) – Attorneys for a Denver woman greased the pan for yet another legal battle against a Lakewood bakery already burned around the edges from a series of heated civil rights fights. Jack Phillips, owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop, refused in 2012 to bake a wedding cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins, a same-sex couple from Denver, on the basis of his religious beliefs.
That case rose through the court system, culminating in a year ago in a 7-2 decision from the United States Supreme Court partially in favor of Phillips. The justices did not rule on the larger issue of whether businesses can invoke religious objections to refuse service to gays or lesbians, but did decide the bakery owner had been subjected to anti-religious bias by a state civil rights agency.
The latest lawsuit was filed Wednesday in Denver District Court on behalf of Autumn Scardina by attorneys Paula Greisen and John McHugh.
Scardina had filed a previous lawsuit against Phillips following her request for a cake – an order she placed the day of the SCOTUS ruling. Previous reports say Scardina’s order was for a cake celebrating her gender transition.
Thursday, Greisen called it an order for a birthday cake.
Regardless, Scardina’s initial lawsuit was not successful.
“The second round was dismissed, frankly, without our input,” Greisen told CBS4. “They disregarded Ms. Scardina and the merits of her claim.”
The newest lawsuit claims Phillips discriminated against Scardina and used deceptive and unfair trade practices.
“The dignity of all citizens in our state needs to be honored. Masterpiece Cakeshop said before the Supreme Court they would serve any baked good to members of the LGBTQ community. It was just the religious significance of it being a wedding cake,” Griesen said. “We don’t believe they’ve been honest with the public.”
In the complaint’s text, Scardina’s attorneys cite testimony in previous court proceedings: “Mr. Phillips, for himself and on behalf of Masterpiece Cakeshop, confirmed that they would happily make the exact same cake requested by Ms. Scardina for other customers.”
Phillips, contacted at the bakery Thursday, said he suspected further legal activity was cooking.
A formal statement was later distributed on his behalf by Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Jim Campbell, whose firm represented Phillips in the Supreme Court case:
“A new lawsuit has been filed against Masterpiece Cakeshop that appears to largely rehash old claims. The State of Colorado abandoned similar ones just a few months ago. So this latest attack by Scardina looks like yet another desperate attempt to harass cake artist Jack Phillips. And it stumbles over the one detail that matters most: Jack serves everyone; he just cannot express all messages through his custom cakes.”
People rally for Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cake in Colorado, outside the US Supreme Court before Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is heard on December 5, 2017 in Washington, DC.
(credit: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images)
When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed anti-religious bias when it sanctioned Phillips, Phillips filed a federal lawsuit against the state and its Commission.
Subsequently, both sides agreed to drop all litigation and pay their own attorney fees.
This latest lawsuit demands payment of unspecified damages through a jury trial.
https://denver.cbslocal.com/2019/06/06/discrimination-lawsuit-lakewood-jack-phillips-masterpiece-cakeshop/
-
And here we go again.
Third Discrimination Suit Filed Against Masterpiece Cakeshop
June 6, 2019
DENVER (CBS4) – Attorneys for a Denver woman greased the pan for yet another legal battle against a Lakewood bakery already burned around the edges from a series of heated civil rights fights. Jack Phillips, owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop, refused in 2012 to bake a wedding cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins, a same-sex couple from Denver, on the basis of his religious beliefs.
That case rose through the court system, culminating in a year ago in a 7-2 decision from the United States Supreme Court partially in favor of Phillips. The justices did not rule on the larger issue of whether businesses can invoke religious objections to refuse service to gays or lesbians, but did decide the bakery owner had been subjected to anti-religious bias by a state civil rights agency.
The latest lawsuit was filed Wednesday in Denver District Court on behalf of Autumn Scardina by attorneys Paula Greisen and John McHugh.
Scardina had filed a previous lawsuit against Phillips following her request for a cake – an order she placed the day of the SCOTUS ruling. Previous reports say Scardina’s order was for a cake celebrating her gender transition.
Thursday, Greisen called it an order for a birthday cake.
Regardless, Scardina’s initial lawsuit was not successful.
“The second round was dismissed, frankly, without our input,” Greisen told CBS4. “They disregarded Ms. Scardina and the merits of her claim.”
The newest lawsuit claims Phillips discriminated against Scardina and used deceptive and unfair trade practices.
“The dignity of all citizens in our state needs to be honored. Masterpiece Cakeshop said before the Supreme Court they would serve any baked good to members of the LGBTQ community. It was just the religious significance of it being a wedding cake,” Griesen said. “We don’t believe they’ve been honest with the public.”
In the complaint’s text, Scardina’s attorneys cite testimony in previous court proceedings: “Mr. Phillips, for himself and on behalf of Masterpiece Cakeshop, confirmed that they would happily make the exact same cake requested by Ms. Scardina for other customers.”
Phillips, contacted at the bakery Thursday, said he suspected further legal activity was cooking.
A formal statement was later distributed on his behalf by Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Jim Campbell, whose firm represented Phillips in the Supreme Court case:
“A new lawsuit has been filed against Masterpiece Cakeshop that appears to largely rehash old claims. The State of Colorado abandoned similar ones just a few months ago. So this latest attack by Scardina looks like yet another desperate attempt to harass cake artist Jack Phillips. And it stumbles over the one detail that matters most: Jack serves everyone; he just cannot express all messages through his custom cakes.”
People rally for Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cake in Colorado, outside the US Supreme Court before Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is heard on December 5, 2017 in Washington, DC.
(credit: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images)
When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed anti-religious bias when it sanctioned Phillips, Phillips filed a federal lawsuit against the state and its Commission.
Subsequently, both sides agreed to drop all litigation and pay their own attorney fees.
This latest lawsuit demands payment of unspecified damages through a jury trial.
https://denver.cbslocal.com/2019/06/06/discrimination-lawsuit-lakewood-jack-phillips-masterpiece-cakeshop/
After the Deepwater Horizon disaster, Obama ordered all deep water rigs shut down.
One energy company sued at great cost and time to overturn the order and won.
Obama then issued another order to close the rigs, requiring the energy company to
sue again at great cost and time to prevail.
The Left don’t care about the rule of law; they are the “by any means necessary” mob.
If they think you’re evil, you’re continually fair game.
-
After the Deepwater Horizon disaster, Obama ordered all deep water rigs shut down.
One energy company sued at great cost and time to overturn the order and won.
Obama then issued another order to close the rigs, requiring the energy company to
sue again at great cost and time to prevail.
The Left don’t care about the rule of law; they are the “by any means necessary” mob.
If they think you’re evil, you’re continually fair game.
It’s The Left & Their Agenda that are Evil.
-
After the Deepwater Horizon disaster, Obama ordered all deep water rigs shut down.
One energy company sued at great cost and time to overturn the order and won.
Obama then issued another order to close the rigs, requiring the energy company to
sue again at great cost and time to prevail.
The Left don’t care about the rule of law; they are the “by any means necessary” mob.
If they think you’re evil, you’re continually fair game.
With "evil" being anyone who has a different viewpoint.
-
Be polite and you probably won't have to worry about it. ;)
I am always polite, particularly to restaurant staff. People who act like they are the shit, make me want to puke. Also, I tip 20% or better.
-
I am always polite, particularly to restaurant staff. People who act like they are the shit, make me want to puke. Also, I tip 20% or better.
Same here.
-
While I believe the free market should be the one that evaluates this baker's behavior, it's complete hypocrisy from the left to be outraged by this, but ingore the censorship and demonitization that youtube/twitter are doing to conservative pundits, and letting Hamas, and other local leftist who are openly calling for acts of violence, exist on the platform.
-
While I believe the free market should be the one that evaluates this baker's behavior, it's complete hypocrisy from the left to be outraged by this, but ingore the censorship and demonitization that youtube/twitter are doing to conservative pundits, and letting Hamas, and other local leftist who are openly calling for acts of violence, exist on the platform.
That’s the Hypocrisy & Madness of Leftist Brain Disorder.
-
I am always polite, particularly to restaurant staff. People who act like they are the shit, make me want to puke. Also, I tip 20% or better.
I do too, if the service warrants it. I just tipped about 60 percent this past weekend because we occupied a table for over two hours without ordering a ton of food and our waitress was outstanding.
-
I remember about 10 years ago I was at IHOP all by myself. I had a really good waitress and she got dined & dashed by a couple who happened to be of colour. She was very upset, crying and distraught but still trying to provide me and her other table great service. Her manager was a guy(not literally) and was probably going to make her pay for it and feel like shit. I cannot remember how much I left only that I know it covered their meals, mine plus a hefty tip. I might have given her 2 $50's. The look on her face and the other waitresses really made me feel good/proud. Not sure what triggered this memory, but I need to do more good deeds. I miss that feeling.
-
but I need to do more good deeds. I miss that feeling.
You can start by voting Trump 2020 8)
-
Good for you! Class move Dos!
I recently left a 10 tip on a 10 meal at Waffle House.
The waitress was great and told me she had just graduated high school .
I congratulated her and left the tip without saying anything else.
I tried to get a job at Waffle House, but they told me that I have too many teeth.
-
The correct term is " TEEF" ;D
My enunciation probably over qualified me too.
-
Round and round they go.
Supreme Court tosses ruling against bakers who refused cake for gay couple
By Ronn Blitzer | Fox News
The U.S. Supreme Court threw out a ruling against two Oregon bakers who refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple.
The Supreme Court on Monday threw out a ruling against two Oregon bakers who refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple.
The couple, Melissa and Aaron Klein, cited religious beliefs as their reason for not providing services for a gay wedding. This touched off the latest in a series of such cases making headlines in recent years. During the court's last term, justices ruled in favor of a Colorado baker in a similar situation, stating that a state body demonstrated improper hostility toward the baker's religion in finding that he violated a state anti-discrimination law.
WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT RULES AGAINST FLORIST WHO REFUSED SERVICE FOR GAY COUPLE'S WEDDING
On Monday, the Supreme Court sent the Klein case back down to a lower court "for further consideration in light of" their Colorado decision.
The central disputes in the case -- which pits LGBT rights against religious freedom considerations -- have yet to be addressed by the Supreme Court.
A similar case involving Washington state florist Baronelle Stutzman previously was sent back so the state court could review its decision against Stutzman in light of the Colorado case. The Washington court upheld its decision, and the case is expected to go back before the Supreme Court once more.
CHRISTIAN BAKER SUED FOR DISCRIMINATION FOR A THIRD TIME
The Kleins' case arose when Rachel Bowman-Cryer went to them in January 2013 to see about a wedding cake. When Aaron Klein asked for information, including the name of the groom, she told him there was none. Klein then said the bakery does not make cakes for gay weddings, court documents said.
Bowman-Cryer's mother, who was with her, said Klein quoted the Bible when explaining his decision.
The Kleins had to pay a $135,000 judgment to the couple for discriminating against them in violation of a state public accommodations statute. They ended up closing down their bakery.
The couple is represented by First Liberty, who celebrated the Supreme Court's decision as a win.
"This is a victory for Aaron and Melissa Klein and for religious liberty for all Americans," First Liberty president Kelly Shackelford said in a statement. "The Constitution protects speech, popular or not, from condemnation by the government. The message from the Court is clear, government hostility toward religious Americans will not be tolerated."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-tosses-ruling-against-bakers-who-refused-cake-for-gay-couple
-
To me this isn't a big issue and I'll tell you why.
If the bakery doesn't want to make the cake for a queer wedding they can do a few things to deal with it:
1. Ask when the date is and claim you can't because you have too many orders due for that time.
2. If #1 fails to work, then simply make a shitty tasting cake. You don't have to put anything bad in the cake, just don't make it very good.
They can hire a guy like me to do that because I know little of baking. OK, so you had to make the cake, but you get to make a shitty one. Problem solved LOL.
3. Lastly, I don't really understand WHY any couple ( gay or straight) would demand a cake from a place that didn't want to do it.
Give your business to a supportive baker and walk away from the one who refused to serve you.
4. It's a f'n cake, NOT gas for your car or electricity for the building.
This is an optional item with lots of variation.
Good points and valid
The problem is The Queers / Weirdo’s / Leftist Nuttiers Want To Make it an issue
And Take it To Court.
Why would they want to force someone to bake a cake for them that they don’t want to bake,
They could do & put all sorts of Disgusting stuff in there.
Just walk away and take their £ elsewhere who will bake & take your £ - Simple & End of Problem.
-
Bingo. I was thinking the exact same thing.
They gay or lezbo couples want to FORCE their views on someone different ( in this case "straight bakers")
In that light I once had a candid conversation with a lesbian couple .
I told them I defended their right to marry or even adopt children.
I went on to explain that I didn't want to see any same sex couple in a public passionate embrace.
They felt this was because I didn't really understand them and needed more exposure to gay/lesbian couples.
I looked back at them and calmly but sternly said ;
" I don't think either of you believe in that straight conversion therapy the Christian conservatives try, right.( they agree)
Ok, then you should be able to accept that straight people will never personally relate to your sexuality and vice/versa.
Knowing that should bring us all to one basic conclusion:
We can't help who we love and why we love them. BUT we need to keep our sex lives private and out of the public domain."
They seemed to agree with that but I felt a bit more was needed to make my point.
" None of us think it's right to force anyone to have sex with us or watch us have sex, right?" They nodded in agreement.
Then why would you think it possible for everyone to LIKE how you have sex ? "
Again well said
I can’t add much more to what you’ve said.
Only I don’t agree with them adopting children - that’s probably just me as I’m a bit of a dinosaur.
Why the Queers & Weirdo’s Can’t Just get on with there lives as everyone else does,
Like it or not People will always find reasons or ways to discriminate against those they Don’t Like.
It’s Human Nature & Part of Life, Deal With it & move along as best we can.
-
Despite what some naysayers calim , children are much better off raised in same sex couples then in foster care or institutions.
In fact, a lot more incidents of violence and sexual molestation occur in male/female couples fostering or adopting.
Absolutely. My kids would have been raised by a gay family member of mine before my fundamentalist in-laws had anything happened to the wife and I.
-
Despite what some naysayers calim , children are much better off raised in same sex couples then in foster care or institutions.
In fact, a lot more incidents of violence and sexual molestation occur in male/female couples fostering or adopting.
Hmmm my Mrs is a children’s care home manager she may just disagree with you on a couple
Of those points you made.
Very sadly there are far to many Horrible disgusting peoples of both Sexes that need
To be gotten rid of. Child abuse is way out of control.
-
Good discussion.
A Federal Court Strikes a Powerful Blow for Free Speech and Religious Freedom
By DAVID FRENCH
August 23, 2019
(https://i2.wp.com/www.nationalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/angel-carl-larsen.jpg?w=2000&ssl=1)
Angel and Carl Larsen, owners of Telescope Media Group in St. Cloud, Minn. (Alliance Defending Freedom)
Christian videographers will not be forced to produce videos of same-sex weddings.
Earlier today, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the constitutional order, limited the reach of expansive nondiscrimination laws, and protected a Christian couple from having to choose between their business and their conscience.
The facts of the case are simple. The plaintiffs, Carl and Angel Larsen, are videographers who create “commercials, short films, and live-event productions.” While they work with anyone of any race, sex, sexual orientation, or religion, they will not produce videos that advance viewpoints that violate their Christian beliefs. That includes videos that “contradict biblical truth; promote sexual immorality; support the destruction of unborn children; promote racism or racial division; incite violence; degrade women; or promote any conception of marriage other than as a lifelong institution between one man and one woman.”
The Larsens hoped to begin producing wedding videos, but Minnesota interpreted its human-rights act to require them to “produce both opposite-sex- and same-sex-wedding videos, or none at all.” Minnesota would also require them to produce videos that depicted “same- and opposite-sex weddings in an equally ‘positive’ light.” This raised the possibility that a gay couple who didn’t like the subjective quality of a video the Larsens produced for them could seek state sanctions based on alleged sexual-orientation discrimination.
With the assistance of my friends and former colleagues at the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Larsens filed suit, claiming that Minnesota’s rule would compel them to speak in support of messages they oppose. The trial court ruled in favor of the state, and the Larsens appealed.
One of the key constitutional questions of our time is whether the First Amendment will retain its supremacy and potency even as nondiscrimination rules and regulations expand in scope and reach. In this case, the Eight Circuit answered answered with an emphatic “Yes,” and it did so through a majority opinion that provided a clear roadmap for future courts and future controversies.
Judge David Stras’s majority opinion begins with a simple, obvious, but crucial conclusion. The Larsens’s wedding videos are a “form of speech that is entitled to First Amendment protection.” Though they don’t make feature films, their wedding videos would still clearly communicate a message in the same way that films do. As the court explained, their wedding videos would be designed to tell “healthy stories of sacrificial love and commitment between a man and a woman” and celebrate the “divinely ordained” marriage covenant.
Moreover, the fact that the Larsens were producing videos for profit did not diminish their constitutional protection. Documentaries make money. Feature films make money. Are they not clearly protected speech? To put it plainly, Minnesota was attempting to engage in one of the most intrusive state actions on the First Amendment. It was attempting to compel the Larsens to deliver a message they opposed.
Yet that finding did not end the inquiry. State agencies have long argued that the governmental interests supporting public-accommodation laws and other nondiscrimination statutes are so compelling that they can and should override the speech protections of the First Amendment. In constitutional legalese, they claim that nondiscrimination laws are so vital they should be able to survive “strict scrutiny.”
If the court did find that nondiscrimination laws can even compel speech, it would invert the constitutional order. It would relegate the First Amendment to second-class status — less potent than a mere state regulation. Indeed, this is the argument that much of the legal Left has been making for years. They view First Amendment–based arguments against public-accommodation laws or other nondiscrimination statutes as a form of special pleading by religious Americans, a request to be exempt from the fair and just rules that govern the rest of us.
But this is exactly backwards. The First Amendment is part of our nation’s governing document, and it recognizes the unalienable rights possessed by all Americans — not just people of faith. State and local regulators are engaged in special pleading. They’re seeking carve-outs from the supreme law of the land.
Judge Stras understands this reality quite clearly. “Even antidiscrimination laws, as critically important as they are,” he writes “must yield to the Constitution. And as compelling as the interest in preventing discriminatory conduct may be, speech is treated differently under the First Amendment.”
Yes. Exactly. He continues:
Regulating speech because it is discriminatory or offensive is not a compelling state interest, however hurtful the speech may be. It is a “bedrock principle . . . that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”
There are those who will claim that this decision will clear the way for wholesale discrimination in the name of “free speech.” It will do no such thing. Instead it will protect a small minority of creative professionals who do not discriminate against any member of any protected class from being conscripted into saying things they do not believe.
We can expect that Minnesota will appeal to the Supreme Court, and if the Court accepts review it will be difficult to see SCOTUS reversing the court of appeals. The case that wedding videos represent protected speech is very strong, and once it’s deemed to be protected speech, the Court would have to contradict key prior precedents to overcome the Larsons’ rights of conscience and compel their speech as a condition of doing business.
One should always be cautious when projecting case outcomes, but the Eighth Circuit has laid the judicial foundation for a ruling that should, ultimately, reaffirm the primacy of the Constitution in American law.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/federal-appeals-court-strikes-powerful-blow-for-free-speech-religious-freedom/
-
A business owner should be able to reserve the right to refuse service to customers on whatever grounds they want. When there are no customers left to serve, they get what they asked for.
-
A business owner should be able to reserve the right to refuse service to customers on whatever grounds they want. When there are no customers left to serve, they get what they asked for.
Yep - Exactly Right
When I had my gym I got Pissed of with Paki’s
Always owing £ for membership if I wasn’t there
So
1, I banned
2, I charged them more for monthly Membership
3, No Queers / Trans / Or other Types of Bgtlqfzxyegkmafwt Etc allowed.
Worked wonders for the Gym.
-
Yep - Exactly Right
When I had my gym I got Pissed of with Paki’s
Always owing £ for membership if I wasn’t there
So
1, I banned
2, I charged them more for monthly Membership
3, No Queers / Trans / Or other Types of Bgtlqfzxyegkmafwt Etc allowed.
Worked wonders for the Gym.
Best gym on the other side of the pond.
-
Yep - Exactly Right
When I had my gym I got Pissed of with Paki’s
Always owing £ for membership if I wasn’t there
So
1, I banned
2, I charged them more for monthly Membership
3, No Queers / Trans / Or other Types of Bgtlqfzxyegkmafwt Etc allowed.
Worked wonders for the Gym.
Apparently discrimination laws are different there than here, or were at the time. Doing any of the things you did at your gym, today in the U.S. is grounds for lawsuits. In Oregon, the Bureau of Labor and Industry fines business owners for discrimination when there is a complaint. So, even if customers down pursue a lawsuit, you might still be out several thousand dollars.
-
A business owner should be able to reserve the right to refuse service to customers on whatever grounds they want. When there are no customers left to serve, they get what they asked for.
I’ll agree with this in the private sector, BUT, if you are working for the government or municipality, I do not believe you should have this right to pick and choose who you work with based on race. Say I’m building a road for a city with tax money, I shouldn’t be able to in a instance like this. Other than that, people should reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. Like you said, the free market will make the correction. Fuck government involvement in some bakers business affairs.
-
I’ll agree with this in the private sector, BUT, if you are working for the government or municipality, I do not believe you should have this right to pick and choose who you work with based on race. Say I’m building a road for a city with tax money, I shouldn’t be able to in a instance like this. Other than that, people should reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. Like you said, the free market will make the correction. Fuck government involvement in some bakers business affairs.
If there was nondiscrimination clauses in the contract then the company that wins the bid (road building, etc.) must comply. As a previous public employee and employee representative, I know that discrimination is not permissible. This doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.
Portland settles discrimination lawsuit with water bureau employee for $20,000
Updated Jul 3, 2019; Posted Jun 20, 2019
Multnomah County Pays $100,000 to Settle Racial Discrimination Lawsuit
by Blair Stenvick • Apr 18, 2019 at 2:19 pm
-
Apparently discrimination laws are different there than here, or were at the time. Doing any of the things you did at your gym, today in the U.S. is grounds for lawsuits. In Oregon, the Bureau of Labor and Industry fines business owners for discrimination when there is a complaint. So, even if customers down pursue a lawsuit, you might still be out several thousand dollars.
That just goes to show Just how fucked up things are now.
My business my terms - I don’t want / need you Fuck Off
Is How it was & Should Be.
Soft Bellied Snowflake PC Crap has ruined everything.
-
If there was nondiscrimination clauses in the contract then the company that wins the bid (road building, etc.) must comply. As a previous public employee and employee representative, I know that discrimination is not permissible. This doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.
Portland settles discrimination lawsuit with water bureau employee for $20,000
Updated Jul 3, 2019; Posted Jun 20, 2019
Multnomah County Pays $100,000 to Settle Racial Discrimination Lawsuit
by Blair Stenvick • Apr 18, 2019 at 2:19 pm
Any city, state or federal contract I’ve ever signed has a page specifically for “non discrimination” so when it comes to that, you can’t do it. But, if you own a restaurant and don’t want to serve someone, fuck it. Roll the dice and see where it gets you.
-
Any city, state or federal contract I’ve ever signed has a page specifically for “non discrimination” so when it comes to that, you can’t do it. But, if you own a restaurant and don’t want to serve someone, fuck it. Roll the dice and see where it gets you.
This is bad advice. Restaurant and bar owners are subject to fines which can be high enough to put them out of business.
Oregon Court of Appeals upholds civil rights decision, $400,000 judgment against Portland bar that banned transgender customers
Updated Sep 23, 2015; Posted Sep 23, 2015
In a ruling based on a landmark civil rights law, the Oregon Court of Appeals on Wednesday upheld a $400,000 damages award against a North Portland bar that turned away a group of transgender patrons.
Bar owner Chris Penner had challenged a Bureau of Labor and Industries finding that he had illegally discriminated against Rose City T-Club members when he asked them to not come back to his establishment because he didn't want it known as a "tranny bar" or "gay bar."
Chris Penner, whose bar was shuttered by BOLI fines concerning transgender patrons, waging write-in campaign for labor commissioner
Updated May 6, 2014; Posted May 6, 2014
https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2015/09/oregon_court_of_appeals_uphold.html
https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2014/05/chris_penner_whose_bar_was_shu.html
-
This is bad advice. Restaurant and bar owners are subject to fines which can be high enough to put them out of business.
Oregon Court of Appeals upholds civil rights decision, $400,000 judgment against Portland bar that banned transgender customers
Updated Sep 23, 2015; Posted Sep 23, 2015
In a ruling based on a landmark civil rights law, the Oregon Court of Appeals on Wednesday upheld a $400,000 damages award against a North Portland bar that turned away a group of transgender patrons.
Bar owner Chris Penner had challenged a Bureau of Labor and Industries finding that he had illegally discriminated against Rose City T-Club members when he asked them to not come back to his establishment because he didn't want it known as a "tranny bar" or "gay bar."
Chris Penner, whose bar was shuttered by BOLI fines concerning transgender patrons, waging write-in campaign for labor commissioner
Updated May 6, 2014; Posted May 6, 2014
https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2015/09/oregon_court_of_appeals_uphold.html
https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2014/05/chris_penner_whose_bar_was_shu.html
That just goes to show Just how Fucked up the Laws have become.
Sure they have managed to close that establishment, It won’t change
How he thinks of a bunch of Queers - People cannot be forced to like
Those they don’t like - That’s Human Nature.
It was his bar/ business if he didn’t want queer folk/ white people / fat people
Or whomever that should be his choice.
-
This is bad advice. Restaurant and bar owners are subject to fines which can be high enough to put them out of business.
Oregon Court of Appeals upholds civil rights decision, $400,000 judgment against Portland bar that banned transgender customers
Updated Sep 23, 2015; Posted Sep 23, 2015
In a ruling based on a landmark civil rights law, the Oregon Court of Appeals on Wednesday upheld a $400,000 damages award against a North Portland bar that turned away a group of transgender patrons.
Bar owner Chris Penner had challenged a Bureau of Labor and Industries finding that he had illegally discriminated against Rose City T-Club members when he asked them to not come back to his establishment because he didn't want it known as a "tranny bar" or "gay bar."
Chris Penner, whose bar was shuttered by BOLI fines concerning transgender patrons, waging write-in campaign for labor commissioner
Updated May 6, 2014; Posted May 6, 2014
https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2015/09/oregon_court_of_appeals_uphold.html
https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2014/05/chris_penner_whose_bar_was_shu.html
That's terrible. No man should lose his livelihood because he didn't want some weirdos drinking in his bar.