The OR bakery that refused to make a cake for a lesbian wedding has been forced out of business. This is only the start. It's going to get a LOT worse. The last sentence of the article is sooo true. For those who say that queers can live any way they want to, well, the way they want to live is forcing their perversion on your and you children.
Family bakery closes after left-wing bullies finally get their pound of cake Todd Starnes By Todd Starnes Published September 30, 2016 FoxNews.com
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 dollars 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.
“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” ― George Orwell
It's not over when you lose. It's over when you quit.
Sad situation, but a slice of immoral reality. There are social cesspools here and there around the globe - it can be very difficult for principled business folks to thrive in those.
It's persecution of Christians by the US state. This is precisely what the First Amendment was intended to prevent, i.e., to interfere with the free exercise of religion.
It's persecution of Christians by the US state. This is precisely what the First Amendment was intended to prevent, i.e., to interfere with the free exercise of religion.
The 1A says that congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of a religion. This isn't congress. It's the state of Oregon. You might remember that several years ago, OR's governor was forced to resign for corruption. He was replaced by the Lt. Gov who's a rabid left wing liberal woman. She's just what Hillary will be if elected.
“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” ― George Orwell
It's not over when you lose. It's over when you quit.
It's persecution of Christians by the US state. This is precisely what the First Amendment was intended to prevent, i.e., to interfere with the free exercise of religion.
The 1A says that congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of a religion. This isn't congress. It's the state of Oregon.
You're forgetting Fourteenth Amendment incorporation doctrine. That said, forcing them to bake a cake for someone also violates our right of free association (not to mention our Thirteenth Amendment right against involuntary servitude), not to mention basic property rights, i.e., if I wish to sell my goods only to blue eyed, blonde haired people, that's my right, stemming from the fundamental right to property.
It's persecution of Christians by the US state. This is precisely what the First Amendment was intended to prevent, i.e., to interfere with the free exercise of religion.
The 1A says that congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of a religion. This isn't congress. It's the state of Oregon. You might remember that several years ago, OR's governor was forced to resign for corruption. He was replaced by the Lt. Gov who's a rabid left wing liberal woman. She's just what Hillary will be if elected.
Unfortunately my state has been divided by this crap! Our Democrat criminal governor was found to be corrupt, forced out of office! He was replaced with a c u nt bumping, bisexual! The state is ruled by the liberal Portland area, we don't have enough rural population to out vote them! California moved north to get out of the schit down there, then went right back to their old ways!! My observation is Montana is experiencing the same thing, as well as Washington. I sure hope Trump wins so we can get the court system back on the right track!!!
You're completely right. It was a carefully chosen test case to establish a legal precedent for future cases. They picked a small business that they knew wouldn't have the resources to fight back. Now that they have the precedent, it's going to get a lot worse.
“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” ― George Orwell
It's not over when you lose. It's over when you quit.
While we try to point out who really is to blame, it is we conservative who must look in the mirror...
The liberal Gay and Lesbian community are a small percentage of our population... they just have big mouths and supporters who hate our nation, and our society.... and are blessed with deep pockets looking for a place to spend it on to think they are 'changing the world'... just like Mommy and Daddy told them they would do...
The State of Oregon is dominated by the same liberals... ones who 'got involved' so they could make those changes to the 'world'.....their ideology follows anything that circumvents American Society and our long accepted principles....
What have we done as conservatives? We have stood down and done nothing more than complain.... we haven't risen to the occasion with the same zeal and financial commitment that these small big mouthed minorities have....
The same results will keep repeating itself over and over until conservative start stepping up to the plate, and making the same commitment and zeal that the liberal left does.
The frustration in this nation, is a major reason Donald Trump has the popularity it does. But while we complain that the liberal left always expect the government to take care of all of their needs, what do conservative do but stand down and hope ONE MAN can change it all.
Gentlemen, until we start rising to the occasion and challenges with similar zeal and commitment as our foes, then this crap will just continue to occur until the nation we were born and raised in, no longer exists.
It far beyond the "Schitt or Git off the Pot" time.
Here in conservative Western Kentucky, a queer rights group out of Florida sued a county judge-executive....who happened to be a Democrat.....because he wouldn't marry same-sex couples. The judge responded by switching parties to the GOP, and refusing to marry anyone. The same group also sued the county court clerk because she had a copy of the Ten Commandments up in her office. She took it down, something I would not have done. This crap has got to be stopped. If queers want to booger each other, I could care less, but they do not have the right to make me accept it as being normal behavior.....and I don't!
The couple was fined $135,000 dollars for refusing to participate in the lesbian wedding event.
No, they were fined for breaking the law by discriminating based on gender.
They were never asked to "participate" in anything beyond selling a cake just like they do for all other customers.
Didn't they own their own bodies? If so, they also own the labor their bodies produce. That being the case, they may dispose of the product of said labor in any way they wish. If they decide to only sell to members of the Mormon Church, for example, isn't that their right?
While we try to point out who really is to blame, it is we conservative who must look in the mirror...
The liberal Gay and Lesbian community are a small percentage of our population... they just have big mouths and supporters who hate our nation, and our society.... and are blessed with deep pockets ...
Precisely. So who is the pocketbook behind it, since, as you say, there aren't that many billionaire gays. Where's the funding coming from for all the anti-American BS that's happening?
Certainly can be a thorny issue but, whether you agree with it or not, the courts settled the question about discriminating based on sex, religion, race, etc.
The outcome is far less discriminating than the way things used to be. Nobody is forcing someone to 'recant' their beliefs or sending them away to indoctrination camps. For those who would prefer to refuse service or goods to certain classes of people based on their personal beliefs, there are less 'open' countries that celebrate such standards.
The real problem here is the hypocrisy of the 'offended' people--in this case, 'christians'. Notice how it is always gays that trigger their 'righteous right of refusal'? Why not any of the other sins denounced in scripture?
Gun owners flip out if an establishment puts up a 'no guns' sign. Imagine if all the businesses in your locale and online could refuse service to anyone whose beliefs/lifestyle 'offended' them?
I live in an area with a high population of Mormons. I don't agree with their beliefs and that's fine--I can still do business with them. That doesn't make me LDS by proxy...
Besides, I really don't want to have to fill out the long form survey detailing all my beliefs and shortcomings so some business can decide whether or not they can serve me....
It ain't what you don't know that makes you an idiot...it's what you know for certain, that just ain't so...
Most people don't want to believe the truth~they want the truth to be what they believe.
This is the same sort of crap that the KKK was organized to fight... Things that just ain't right, not to go out and harass innocent Negros as many would have us believe.
"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Thomas Jefferson
Certainly can be a thorny issue but, whether you agree with it or not, the courts settled the question about discriminating based on sex, religion, race, etc.
The outcome is far less discriminating than the way things used to be. Nobody is forcing someone to 'recant' their beliefs or sending them away to indoctrination camps. For those who would prefer to refuse service or goods to certain classes of people based on their personal beliefs, there are less 'open' countries that celebrate such standards.
The real problem here is the hypocrisy of the 'offended' people--in this case, 'christians'. Notice how it is always gays that trigger their 'righteous right of refusal'? Why not any of the other sins denounced in scripture?
Gun owners flip out if an establishment puts up a 'no guns' sign. Imagine if all the businesses in your locale and online could refuse service to anyone whose beliefs/lifestyle 'offended' them?
I live in an area with a high population of Mormons. I don't agree with their beliefs and that's fine--I can still do business with them. That doesn't make me LDS by proxy...
Besides, I really don't want to have to fill out the long form survey detailing all my beliefs and shortcomings so some business can decide whether or not they can serve me....
What do you think would happen if someone went into a Muslim meat company and asked them to get some pork for them? The Muslim would win because they, like gays are the protected groups now. Christian are the targeted group.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
Certainly can be a thorny issue but, whether you agree with it or not, the courts settled the question about discriminating based on sex, religion, race, etc.
The outcome is far less discriminating than the way things used to be. Nobody is forcing someone to 'recant' their beliefs or sending them away to indoctrination camps. For those who would prefer to refuse service or goods to certain classes of people based on their personal beliefs, there are less 'open' countries that celebrate such standards.
Complete idiocy.
The way things "used to be" was called following the Constitution.
Now, the Constitution isn't followed, and of course the result is that these innocent Americans *were* forced to recant their beliefs (bake the [bleep] cake), or be sent to an indoctrination camp (run out of their careers).
These United States were designed to permit its citizens the freedom to refuse to deal with any fn body they want.
Apparently, you don't like freedom, and "celebrate" the government assisting in the destruction of a citizen's life, because the government prefers a different citizen.
I may fail, but am trying to see the broader picture in these persecutions. I'm all about equal rights and opportunities - always have been and will be - and deplore persecution based on who/what a person is. Now - behavior can be another matter.
Whomever said it was not about the cake is correct, and it also was not about "gender". To those who ran this charade and bullied the baker folks, gender is hardly an issue at all, The LGBTQRPN Nazis have no gender identity as such - any mixture of lusts and genitals will do just fine for those folks.
What they seem to crave is some form of legitimacy - seems like any kind will do - as long as it is served up on demand. I can't sympathize or even empathize with their cravings because I'm not a sexual pervert - at least not yet. But if I were living that lifestyle and aware of the centuries of strong views regarding such perversions and taboos (who isn't?), I'd probably be wanting some legitimacy too.
There is no way for folks bound up in such perversions to secure legitimacy on moral/ethical bases. Some of them might look in the mirror and think "OK, I'm strange in that department - it'll have to be so and I'll make my way",
But, their lobby has gone for the one available shiny dime - trying to use our legal system to bully into submission those who take moral positions - bakers, ministers, justices of the peace, etc.. There still are people who think they somehow can build themselves up by tearing others down.
They will succeed here and there, put someone out of business, get a "marriage" license, get a special toilet room, etc.. Some good things may come about with regard to experiencing equal rights and opportunities no matter who you are, and maybe some deserved recognition not formerly afforded. But, it looks as though true legitimacy never can be gained in the courts - no matter how many decent people are trampled in the process.
Certainly can be a thorny issue but, whether you agree with it or not, the courts settled the question about discriminating based on sex, religion, race, etc.
The outcome is far less discriminating than the way things used to be. Nobody is forcing someone to 'recant' their beliefs or sending them away to indoctrination camps. For those who would prefer to refuse service or goods to certain classes of people based on their personal beliefs, there are less 'open' countries that celebrate such standards.
The real problem here is the hypocrisy of the 'offended' people--in this case, 'christians'. Notice how it is always gays that trigger their 'righteous right of refusal'? Why not any of the other sins denounced in scripture?
Gun owners flip out if an establishment puts up a 'no guns' sign. Imagine if all the businesses in your locale and online could refuse service to anyone whose beliefs/lifestyle 'offended' them?
I live in an area with a high population of Mormons. I don't agree with their beliefs and that's fine--I can still do business with them. That doesn't make me LDS by proxy...
Besides, I really don't want to have to fill out the long form survey detailing all my beliefs and shortcomings so some business can decide whether or not they can serve me....
What do you think would happen if someone went into a Muslim meat company and asked them to get some pork for them? The Muslim would win because they, like gays are the protected groups now. Christian are the targeted group.
Muslims don't sell pork to anyone, generally.
If they refused to sell goat meat to a Christian, because he was Christian, they would be subject to the same penalties.
“Life is life and fun is fun, but it's all so quiet when the goldfish die.”
While we try to point out who really is to blame, it is we conservative who must look in the mirror...
The liberal Gay and Lesbian community are a small percentage of our population... they just have big mouths and supporters who hate our nation, and our society.... and are blessed with deep pockets looking for a place to spend it on to think they are 'changing the world'... just like Mommy and Daddy told them they would do...
The State of Oregon is dominated by the same liberals... ones who 'got involved' so they could make those changes to the 'world'.....their ideology follows anything that circumvents American Society and our long accepted principles....
What have we done as conservatives? We have stood down and done nothing more than complain.... we haven't risen to the occasion with the same zeal and financial commitment that these small big mouthed minorities have....
The same results will keep repeating itself over and over until conservative start stepping up to the plate, and making the same commitment and zeal that the liberal left does.
The frustration in this nation, is a major reason Donald Trump has the popularity it does. But while we complain that the liberal left always expect the government to take care of all of their needs, what do conservative do but stand down and hope ONE MAN can change it all.
Gentlemen, until we start rising to the occasion and challenges with similar zeal and commitment as our foes, then this crap will just continue to occur until the nation we were born and raised in, no longer exists.
It far beyond the "Schitt or Git off the Pot" time.
. I for one have donated money and time to fight this kind of schit! What do you propose we do that's legal!!
I think the bakery should be allowed to do whatever it is that they think is right as long as they don't break any laws.
That being said, if Jesus owned a bakery, I'm pretty sure he would've baked them a cake. I bet he would've even given it to them....just a thought.
Biden's most truthful quote ever came during his first press conference, 03/25/21. Drum roll please...... "I don't know, to be clear." and THAT is one promise he's kept!!!
I run now, and have run in the past, client-based businesses in Oregon. I have worked with gays- lesbians specifically, but possibly others as well. The only time I've ever had any 2nd thoughts about working with anybody was two different bands I recorded albums for. In the first case, it was a metal band, not very good, and as I recorded and did the punch-ins and edits on the largely unintelligible lyrics I started to freak that the dude was singing about sex with KIDS. I have kids. However soon after, I had reason to trot out of the control room to the iso booth, to move a mic or something, and the guy was crying- big, gnarly, tatoo'd and pierced guy crying in the iso booth. His bandmate was there consoling. After, I asked him about it. Turns out, the guy had been abused, badly, as a kid and was expressing his own experiences via the art and poetry he was making. Boy did I feel like an [bleep].
Second time was a band from Corvallis that I had no issues with, but my wife, a hardcore outside person and gardener, overheard them talking outside the studio while on break.... talking about what amounted to date-rape very openly, as in, a thing that had happened with them, and they thought it was cool, maaaaan.
I could give two [bleep] about what consenting adults do together and frankly, the refusal to bake a cake for a wedding strikes me as bullshit. Get over yourself. There are crimes out there involving sex but two gals getting it on ain't one of them.
However, I cannot endorse a State mandate of the type described by the OP. I certainly have my limits as to who I'll work with. That's MY business, literally.
Very dumb on the Bakers part . They should've known what was going to happen and now they're paying the price. I would never do it in my business. It would be like not selling the cake to black people that came in. You know you're gonna get fried from it . Terrible battle to fight. A little common sense goes a very long way.
Very dumb on the Bakers part . They should've known what was going to happen and now they're paying the price. I would never do it in my business. It would be like not selling the cake to black people that came in. You know you're gonna get fried from it . Terrible battle to fight. A little common sense goes a very long way.
Very dumb on the Bakers part . They should've known what was going to happen and now they're paying the price. I would never do it in my business. It would be like not selling the cake to black people that came in. You know you're gonna get fried from it . Terrible battle to fight. A little common sense goes a very long way.
You're a [bleep] moron.
Post a picture of yourself to show what a tough guy you really are .
Very dumb on the Bakers part . They should've known what was going to happen and now they're paying the price. I would never do it in my business. It would be like not selling the cake to black people that came in. You know you're gonna get fried from it . Terrible battle to fight. A little common sense goes a very long way.
You're a [bleep] moron.
Post a picture of yourself to show what a tough guy you really are .
Lmao, ok. Will a picture of me prove you're not a moron? They've been posted here before..
Very dumb on the Bakers part . They should've known what was going to happen and now they're paying the price. I would never do it in my business. It would be like not selling the cake to black people that came in. You know you're gonna get fried from it . Terrible battle to fight. A little common sense goes a very long way.
You're a [bleep] moron.
Post a picture of yourself to show what a tough guy you really are .
Lmao, ok. Will a picture of me prove you're not a moron? They've been posted here before..
The battle is already lost thanks to the morons who fought it and lost. The whole wedding cake deal is just stupid . It's not a conscience issue for any Christian.
They fought and lost because they didn't have the backing that the liberal [bleep] douche bags give each other. We can't seem to stand behind each other like they do.
They fought and lost because they didn't have the backing that the liberal [bleep] douche bags give each other. We can't seem to stand behind each other like they do.
Smart money would never get behind a losing fight like this.
They fought and lost because they didn't have the backing that the liberal [bleep] douche bags give each other. We can't seem to stand behind each other like they do.
Smart money would never get behind a losing fight like this.
After, I asked him about it. Turns out, the guy had been abused, badly, as a kid and was expressing his own experiences via the art and poetry he was making. Boy did I feel like an [bleep].
Awww. Isn't that sweet.
If you take the time it takes, it takes less time. --Pat Parelli
American by birth; Alaskan by choice. --ironbender
The couple was fined $135,000 dollars for refusing to participate in the lesbian wedding event.
No, they were fined for breaking the law by discriminating based on gender.
They were never asked to "participate" in anything beyond selling a cake just like they do for all other customers.
Didn't they own their own bodies? If so, they also own the labor their bodies produce. That being the case, they may dispose of the product of said labor in any way they wish. If they decide to only sell to members of the Mormon Church, for example, isn't that their right?
If they had never advertised and sold anything to the general public, they could have operated as a "private, member only" bakery.
But the didn't, so they couldn't.
One shot, one kill........ It saves a lot of ammo!
What do you think would happen if someone went into a Muslim meat company and asked them to get some pork for them? The Muslim would win because they, like gays are the protected groups now. Christian are the targeted group.
If someone asked for pork in a Muslim meat market, they would be told they don't sell pork to anyone.
Are you really not smart enough to see why your argument is so lame, or do you just parrot the hype without thinking at all?
One shot, one kill........ It saves a lot of ammo!
Certainly can be a thorny issue but, whether you agree with it or not, the courts settled the question about discriminating based on sex, religion, race, etc.
And yet that is exactly what the courts did themselves. miles
They may have faired better had they used a passive aggressive approach. Be obnoxious, have the lesbians sign contract that the bakers were not responsible for any thing. Show up and hour or two late due to flat tire. Drop the cake on the way into the party room. Demand cash, green paper with pictures of dead men on them.
Jim
"Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." --Thomas Jefferson
Certainly can be a thorny issue but, whether you agree with it or not, the courts settled the question about discriminating based on sex, religion, race, etc.
The outcome is far less discriminating than the way things used to be. Nobody is forcing someone to 'recant' their beliefs or sending them away to indoctrination camps. For those who would prefer to refuse service or goods to certain classes of people based on their personal beliefs, there are less 'open' countries that celebrate such standards.
The real problem here is the hypocrisy of the 'offended' people--in this case, 'christians'. Notice how it is always gays that trigger their 'righteous right of refusal'? Why not any of the other sins denounced in scripture?
Gun owners flip out if an establishment puts up a 'no guns' sign. Imagine if all the businesses in your locale and online could refuse service to anyone whose beliefs/lifestyle 'offended' them?
I live in an area with a high population of Mormons. I don't agree with their beliefs and that's fine--I can still do business with them. That doesn't make me LDS by proxy...
Besides, I really don't want to have to fill out the long form survey detailing all my beliefs and shortcomings so some business can decide whether or not they can serve me....
What do you think would happen if someone went into a Muslim meat company and asked them to get some pork for them? The Muslim would win because they, like gays are the protected groups now. Christian are the targeted group.
100% correct. But, think about, Christians have been persecuted ever since they came into existence.
This is the same sort of crap that the KKK was organized to fight... Things that just ain't right, not to go out and harass innocent Negros as many would have us believe.
True. The original klan was organized to fight the "laws" and restrictions that the Reconstruction people had placed on White people in the South, more specifically those who were former Confederates. I can see a connection between what was happening then, and what is happening now to people that do not accept the homosexual lifestyle. A big connection.
Certainly can be a thorny issue but, whether you agree with it or not, the courts settled the question about discriminating based on sex, religion, race, etc.
And yet that is exactly what the courts did themselves. miles
The courts DID discriminate against the Christians. The Christians did NOT sexually discriminate. The sexual ORIENTATION of gays is not the same as the sex of the participants. The sex of the participants is female. They did not refuse the cake because of the sex of the women. They refused because their religion does not allow them to condone or encourage the act of sin the women were implying with the cake.
What do you think would happen if someone went into a Muslim meat company and asked them to get some pork for them? The Muslim would win because they, like gays are the protected groups now. Christian are the targeted group.
I think the bakery should be allowed to do whatever it is that they think is right as long as they don't break any laws.
That being said, if Jesus owned a bakery, I'm pretty sure he would've baked them a cake. I bet he would've even given it to them....just a thought.
"It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this?" 1 Corinthians 5
Didn't they own their own bodies? If so, they also own the labor their bodies produce. That being the case, they may dispose of the product of said labor in any way they wish. If they decide to only sell to members of the Mormon Church, for example, isn't that their right?
If they had never advertised and sold anything to the general public, they could have operated as a "private, member only" bakery.
You're correct. It was their protest of the law vs. GLBT PC-ism being forced upon the society.
I'm not pleased that the GLBTs rule the social justice World right now, but the law says they can be married. What does that really change for the bakers? The dykes were living together dyking around before they asked for a cake, and are still dyking together. Bake them a cake and take their money.
Religious reasons? Christ refused to stone the harlot, where did I miss the New Testament passage stating it was taboo to make wedding cakes for dykes?
Colin Kaepernick can sit out the National Anthem, it's his right. If it cuts his career short, then so be it. If some baker does't want to make a lick-a-lotta-puss cake, so be it, but live with the consequences.
This is of course incredible government over reach and forced PC, but these people were stupid about it.
I live in a CCW State, and I SHOULD be able to walk around ANY part of my city day or night. If I try that, I better know that if I'm out around Metropolitan Blvd @ 2am, there is going to trouble. If I play Charles Bronson in Death Wish and waste some Gangstas trying to do me wrong, there will be consequences, legal ones. Better I keep out of there after dark.
What's really important here, two dykes lawfully tying the knot or ones livelihood?
They should have made the cake and banked the money. They have accomplished nothing but their own financial ruin.
"The Democrat Party looks like Titanic survivors. Partying and celebrating one moment, and huddled in lifeboats freezing the next". Hatari 2017
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid." Han Solo
Certainly can be a thorny issue but, whether you agree with it or not, the courts settled the question about discriminating based on sex, religion, race, etc.
The outcome is far less discriminating than the way things used to be. Nobody is forcing someone to 'recant' their beliefs or sending them away to indoctrination camps. For those who would prefer to refuse service or goods to certain classes of people based on their personal beliefs, there are less 'open' countries that celebrate such standards.
The real problem here is the hypocrisy of the 'offended' people--in this case, 'christians'. Notice how it is always gays that trigger their 'righteous right of refusal'? Why not any of the other sins denounced in scripture?
Gun owners flip out if an establishment puts up a 'no guns' sign. Imagine if all the businesses in your locale and online could refuse service to anyone whose beliefs/lifestyle 'offended' them?
I live in an area with a high population of Mormons. I don't agree with their beliefs and that's fine--I can still do business with them. That doesn't make me LDS by proxy...
Besides, I really don't want to have to fill out the long form survey detailing all my beliefs and shortcomings so some business can decide whether or not they can serve me....
So at no point has everyone ever been really free and it was unjust but now it's ok because the group being limited is one you don't like.
Got it.
Used to be that an idea touted by both sides was "I may not agree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it."
No more, now it's all about offended classes on both sides. Power no longer is found in the Constitution but in some contrived "right to not be offended".
Fact is, if I'm in business for myself I should be able to refuse service for whatever reason I like, and as a consumer I should be free to spend or not spend as I see fit.
The gov't has no business telling citizens who they have to do business with. That's for business owners and the market to decide.
I think the bakery should be allowed to do whatever it is that they think is right as long as they don't break any laws.
That being said, if Jesus owned a bakery, I'm pretty sure he would've baked them a cake. I bet he would've even given it to them....just a thought.
"It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this?" 1 Corinthians 5
Way out of context and you know it . Shame on you.
The outcome is far less discriminating than the way things used to be. Nobody is forcing someone to 'recant' their beliefs or sending them away to indoctrination camps.
Obviously you don't work for a corporation of any size nor for a govt entity. Not only do us worker bees get subjected to "meetings", "classes" and diversity "conferences", I get left wing propaganda displayed on my work pc's screensaver. It's locked so I can't change it.
BTW, those classes etc aren't voluntary unless you can do with food & shelter.
The outcome is far less discriminating than the way things used to be. Nobody is forcing someone to 'recant' their beliefs or sending them away to indoctrination camps.
Obviously you don't work for a corporation of any size nor for a govt entity. Not only do us worker bees get subjected to "meetings", "classes" and diversity "conferences", I get left wing propaganda displayed on my work pc's screensaver. It's locked so I can't change it.
BTW, those classes etc aren't voluntary unless you can do with food & shelter.
Clearly, you and others of your ilk don't understand the difference between 'beliefs' and 'conduct'...
Btw, what happened to the $400,000+ raised for these people?
It ain't what you don't know that makes you an idiot...it's what you know for certain, that just ain't so...
Most people don't want to believe the truth~they want the truth to be what they believe.
It's a good thing that Jesus *did* choose to serve people that He didn't see eye to eye with.
You mean like the money changers he whipped? Or the scribes he called "vipers"?
I mean the ones He died for...ALL of em'.
Yes, he died for them and they still reject Him. They still attack his disciples. Where's the forgiveness on the part of the queers? Why did they not witness Christ and forgive their neighbor? Instead, they went out of their way to CRUSH the bakers over a lousy $30 cake. Oh, yeah, that real just. Just the kind of justice you'd expect from a viper!
So at no point has everyone ever been really free and it was unjust but now it's ok because the group being limited is one you don't like.
Got it.
Used to be that an idea touted by both sides was "I may not agree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it."
No more, now it's all about offended classes on both sides. Power no longer is found in the Constitution but in some contrived "right to not be offended".
Fact is, if I'm in business for myself I should be able to refuse service for whatever reason I like, and as a consumer I should be free to spend or not spend as I see fit.
The gov't has no business telling citizens who they have to do business with. That's for business owners and the market to decide.
Have no idea whose ass you pulled that from but it needs to go back...stat!
So, to be clear, you (and others on here) believe any business should be free to discriminate against anyone they choose, anytime...correct?
It ain't what you don't know that makes you an idiot...it's what you know for certain, that just ain't so...
Most people don't want to believe the truth~they want the truth to be what they believe.
Register the damn gun, refuse to carry, be allowed to live to tomorrow.
Fuggin marytrs.
I'm beginning to see your "point".
Enjoy Dachau. That's the type of place your ass will end up.
You can talk all the patriotic armed revolution chitt you want. I can tell you right now that any such talk is braggadocio bullschitt.
Russell Means, the AIM leader figured this out after his stunt at Wounded Knee 40 years ago. He summed up it more or less "How do you fight the government with guns when they have airplanes and tanks?"
Yeah, the Native Americans were going to pull a big F.U. on the government. Didn't work out so well, Good thing the slots are paying off.
So go do your Waco or Ruby Ridge thing. You will take your principles to the After Life right quick, partners. There are principles, and then there is obstinate stupidity.
In American, we do it through laws and at the ballot box. Our "successful armed revolution was 250 years ago, and really was our first Civil War. Had logistics not been such a problem, England could have crushed the Revolution had they really wanted to. Oh, and England was short on airpower in those days.
Our American Civil War shows the futility of armed revolution. The South was well organized, united, and was crushed. Between the hundreds of thousands war dead, the millions of lives destroyed, the combination of war and Reconstruction so damaged the South that it has taken 150 years for it to fully recover. 150 years for the South to again be prosperous and vibrant. 150 years is a long, long, time chief. Families suffered, and the fabric of the country was forever altered.
Yes if Hillary gets in and Executive orders our guns away, you can try that "they fell out of my fishing boat in the middle of Lake Superior" defense. You'll also end up in Nuevo Dachau for perjury, obstruction of justice, and 4o other gun laws she'll introduce. Go ahead, talk big. BTW, who's providing for your family while you're locked up?
Bake the damned cake. Obey the law, otherwise you are no different that BLM. If you want change, make it the first Tuesday in November.
"The Democrat Party looks like Titanic survivors. Partying and celebrating one moment, and huddled in lifeboats freezing the next". Hatari 2017
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid." Han Solo
Way out of context and you know it . Shame on you.
Is it your opinion that it's not a New Testament teaching that homosexuality constitutes sexual immorality? That's some mighty thin ice, if so.
Would they refuse to bake a cake for a couple who had a child out of wedlock? Or a couple who had sex outside of marriage?
Instances of sin aren't the issue with activist homosexuals. We are all guilty of instances of sin. It's a lifestyle that celebrates sin that's the problem with these folks.
So at no point has everyone ever been really free and it was unjust but now it's ok because the group being limited is one you don't like.
Got it.
Used to be that an idea touted by both sides was "I may not agree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it."
No more, now it's all about offended classes on both sides. Power no longer is found in the Constitution but in some contrived "right to not be offended".
Fact is, if I'm in business for myself I should be able to refuse service for whatever reason I like, and as a consumer I should be free to spend or not spend as I see fit.
The gov't has no business telling citizens who they have to do business with. That's for business owners and the market to decide.
Have no idea whose ass you pulled that from but it needs to go back...stat!
So, to be clear, you (and others on here) believe any business should be free to discriminate against anyone they choose, anytime...correct?
Not speaking for efw, but for me, yes. I have no desire to make someone else do something for me against his desire. And I don't care for people who would use the force of government to do so.
Certainly can be a thorny issue but, whether you agree with it or not, the courts settled the question about discriminating based on sex, religion, race, etc.
And yet that is exactly what the courts did themselves. miles
The courts DID discriminate against the Christians. The Christians did NOT sexually discriminate. The sexual ORIENTATION of gays is not the same as the sex of the participants. The sex of the participants is female. They did not refuse the cake because of the sex of the women. They refused because their religion does not allow them to condone or encourage the act of sin the women were implying with the cake.
The bakery based their decision on the gender of the customers, and nothing else. They weren't required to "condone or encourage" anything. All they had to do was bake a cake, just like all the other cakes they bake.
One shot, one kill........ It saves a lot of ammo!
Didn't they own their own bodies? If so, they also own the labor their bodies produce. That being the case, they may dispose of the product of said labor in any way they wish. If they decide to only sell to members of the Mormon Church, for example, isn't that their right?
If they had never advertised and sold anything to the general public, they could have operated as a "private, member only" bakery.
But the didn't, so they couldn't.
Where's that in the Constitution?
The part that says all are treated equally under the laws.
One shot, one kill........ It saves a lot of ammo!
It's a good thing that Jesus *did* choose to serve people that He didn't see eye to eye with.
You mean like the money changers he whipped? Or the scribes he called "vipers"?
I mean the ones He died for...ALL of em'.
Yes, he died for them and they still reject Him. They still attack his disciples. Where's the forgiveness on the part of the queers? Why did they not witness Christ and forgive their neighbor? Instead, they went out of their way to CRUSH the bakers over a lousy $30 cake. Oh, yeah, that real just. Just the kind of justice you'd expect from a viper!
You don't seem to show the behavior you demand of others. That's why many have a low opinion of "christians"
Many talk the talk, but fail to walk the walk. You seem to be mostly talk
One shot, one kill........ It saves a lot of ammo!
So at no point has everyone ever been really free and it was unjust but now it's ok because the group being limited is one you don't like.
Got it.
Used to be that an idea touted by both sides was "I may not agree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it."
No more, now it's all about offended classes on both sides. Power no longer is found in the Constitution but in some contrived "right to not be offended".
Fact is, if I'm in business for myself I should be able to refuse service for whatever reason I like, and as a consumer I should be free to spend or not spend as I see fit.
The gov't has no business telling citizens who they have to do business with. That's for business owners and the market to decide.
Have no idea whose ass you pulled that from but it needs to go back...stat! So, to be clear, you (and others on here) believe any business should be free to discriminate against anyone they choose, anytime...correct?
So you are saying that a man has no right to run his business as he sees fit and refuse service to anyone he pleases to? So the government should have the right and power to tell you how to run your own place of business?
The Mayans had it right. If you�re going to predict the future, it�s best to aim far beyond your life expectancy, lest you wind up red-faced in a bunker overstocked with Spam and ammo.
Certainly can be a thorny issue but, whether you agree with it or not, the courts settled the question about discriminating based on sex, religion, race, etc.
And yet that is exactly what the courts did themselves. miles
The courts DID discriminate against the Christians. The Christians did NOT sexually discriminate. The sexual ORIENTATION of gays is not the same as the sex of the participants. The sex of the participants is female. They did not refuse the cake because of the sex of the women. They refused because their religion does not allow them to condone or encourage the act of sin the women were implying with the cake.
The bakery based their decision on the gender of the customers, and nothing else. They weren't required to "condone or encourage" anything. All they had to do was bake a cake, just like all the other cakes they bake.
No. They had to bake a cake for a lesbian couple. That cake symbolized what their religion regarded as sin.
So at no point has everyone ever been really free and it was unjust but now it's ok because the group being limited is one you don't like.
Got it.
Used to be that an idea touted by both sides was "I may not agree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it."
No more, now it's all about offended classes on both sides. Power no longer is found in the Constitution but in some contrived "right to not be offended".
Fact is, if I'm in business for myself I should be able to refuse service for whatever reason I like, and as a consumer I should be free to spend or not spend as I see fit.
The gov't has no business telling citizens who they have to do business with. That's for business owners and the market to decide.
Have no idea whose ass you pulled that from but it needs to go back...stat! So, to be clear, you (and others on here) believe any business should be free to discriminate against anyone they choose, anytime...correct?
So you are saying that a man has no right to run his business as he sees fit and refuse service to anyone he pleases to? So the government should have the right and power to tell you how to run your own place of business?
If you operate certain types of businesses, there are certain regulations that must be followed.
They knew that going in.
You cannot pick and choose customers without a valid reason that applies to everyone.
This isn't rocket science.
One shot, one kill........ It saves a lot of ammo!
So at no point has everyone ever been really free and it was unjust but now it's ok because the group being limited is one you don't like.
Got it.
Used to be that an idea touted by both sides was "I may not agree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it."
No more, now it's all about offended classes on both sides. Power no longer is found in the Constitution but in some contrived "right to not be offended".
Fact is, if I'm in business for myself I should be able to refuse service for whatever reason I like, and as a consumer I should be free to spend or not spend as I see fit.
The gov't has no business telling citizens who they have to do business with. That's for business owners and the market to decide.
Have no idea whose ass you pulled that from but it needs to go back...stat! So, to be clear, you (and others on here) believe any business should be free to discriminate against anyone they choose, anytime...correct?
So you are saying that a man has no right to run his business as he sees fit and refuse service to anyone he pleases to? So the government should have the right and power to tell you how to run your own place of business?
If you operate certain types of businesses, there are certain regulations that must be followed.
They knew that going in.
You cannot pick and choose customers without a valid reason that applies to everyone.
This isn't rocket science.
Refusing service to a person because it violates your religious doctrine, thereby your freedom of religion IS valid. The validity of gays being a protected class, on the same plane as race and gender, is based on the scientific evidence that homosexuality is a proven genetic trait. The only problem is that there isn't any. It's a political lever. That's it. That's not rocket science either. It's either a choice, or it isnt. There is no proof that it is anything BUT a choice. That is not popular with the cool people, but that is the truth.
Certainly can be a thorny issue but, whether you agree with it or not, the courts settled the question about discriminating based on sex, religion, race, etc.
And yet that is exactly what the courts did themselves. miles
The courts DID discriminate against the Christians. The Christians did NOT sexually discriminate. The sexual ORIENTATION of gays is not the same as the sex of the participants. The sex of the participants is female. They did not refuse the cake because of the sex of the women. They refused because their religion does not allow them to condone or encourage the act of sin the women were implying with the cake.
The bakery based their decision on the gender of the customers, and nothing else. They weren't required to "condone or encourage" anything. All they had to do was bake a cake, just like all the other cakes they bake.
No. They had to bake a cake for a lesbian couple. That cake symbolized what their religion regarded as sin.
No, it's just a cake. They can't insert their myths into their business dealings. They are still free to practice their religion after business hours
One shot, one kill........ It saves a lot of ammo!
No, it's just a cake. They can't insert their myths into their business dealings. They are still free to practice their religion after business hours [/quote]Then Muslim deli's/restaurants must serve bacon. You are saying that their freedom to practice their religion is limited to a private setting. That is not true. I'm kinda curious how you feel you can just proclaim something to be true, and it must be so. A wedding cake is more than just any cake. It has a specific purpose. That purpose is to celebrate a wedding. It is a symbol of that celebration. According to the religious doctrine of the bakers, the wedding of a gay couple is NOT a valid wedding. They chose to refuse to bake a symbol that celebrates that union. Religion is not a thing that you turn on and off. Though you consider it nothing more than a myth, greater minds than yours have disagreed with your opinion.
I'm all for private business to sell to whomever they like, but that is not the current law.
How folks can't understand that these folks shot themselves in the foot, and it is in no way the same, or even similar to " muslim delis/ restaurants must serve bacon" is beyond me.
It must be willful?
“Life is life and fun is fun, but it's all so quiet when the goldfish die.”
Those folks would of been waaay ahead baking the cake and refusing payment.
That doesn't change their forced participation.
Declaring private business "places of public accommodation" was a wrongful government taking and a direct affront to private property as intended in our founding documents.
Refusing service to a person because it violates your religious doctrine, thereby your freedom of religion IS valid. The validity of gays being a protected class, on the same plane as race and gender, is based on the scientific evidence that homosexuality is a proven genetic trait. The only problem is that there isn't any. It's a political lever. That's it. That's not rocket science either. It's either a choice, or it isnt. There is no proof that it is anything BUT a choice. That is not popular with the cool people, but that is the truth.
No, forcing your religious beliefs on others is not a valid reason to discriminate, and genetics have nothing to do with anything at all.
It makes no difference why they are the way they are. You cannot use that as a reason to refuse to serve them if you operate a business open to the general public.
You still have your "freedom of religion" and they have freedom from your religion.
If you feel your religion won't allow you to treat everyone as equals, then working in retail is not for you.
One shot, one kill........ It saves a lot of ammo!
It makes no difference why they are the way they are. You cannot use that as a reason to refuse to serve them if you operate a business open to the general public.
You still have your "freedom of religion" and they have freedom from your religion.
If you feel your religion won't allow you to treat everyone as equals, then working in retail is not for you. [/quote] They do indeed have freedom from being forced to agree with any religion. They simply go someplace else. They have that freedom. There is no freedom from religion affirmed in the Constitution, beyond the premise that government cannot require any specific religion. It does matter why they are the way they are. Homosexuality has been put on par with race and gender. Biologically, that has not been proven to be so. The intent of this, and the entire lgbtq....etc movement, is derision. While the individuals do benefit, it is secondary to the people who legitimized the lifestyle. The Alinskyites are just following the plan, as set out by the man.
"No, it's just a cake. They can't insert their myths into their business dealings. They are still free to practice their religion after business hours" Then Muslim deli's/restaurants must serve bacon. You are saying that their freedom to practice their religion is limited to a private setting. That is not true. I'm kinda curious how you feel you can just proclaim something to be true, and it must be so. A wedding cake is more than just any cake. It has a specific purpose. That purpose is to celebrate a wedding. It is a symbol of that celebration. According to the religious doctrine of the bakers, the wedding of a gay couple is NOT a valid wedding. They chose to refuse to bake a symbol that celebrates that union. Religion is not a thing that you turn on and off. Though you consider it nothing more than a myth, greater minds than yours have disagreed with your opinion.
No, they don't have to serve bacon because they have never served bacon and they don't sell bacon to anyone else.
That lame argument has been shot down many times, and it should be obvious it's nothing like refusing to sell a product you do have and sell to others.
It makes no difference if they think it's "valid". They weren't being asked to provide an opinion.
They were asked to bake a cake, just like all the other cakes they sold to other people for various occasions.
Quote
Though you consider it nothing more than a myth, greater minds than yours have disagreed with your opinion
And yet they can't prove it's anything other than a myth. Anyone is free to disagree with my opinion. By the same token, I can disagree with theirs.
Quote
I'm kinda curious how you feel you can just proclaim something to be true, and it must be so.
Like people do with their religion?
Last edited by Snyper; 10/01/16.
One shot, one kill........ It saves a lot of ammo!
You still claim it is a cake like any other cake. That is incorrect. It is a wedding cake. I would not buy a wedding cake for a birthday. Now this is the difficult part for you, since you give no credibility to religion in general, and Christianity in particular. Their religion does not stop at their front door. It is a constant, in their lives. Selling a wedding cake, they expect their work to be used to celebrate a wedding as defined by their religion. It matters to them, and to be true to their religion, they cannot aid in a gay wedding celbration. THAT is the free exercise of their religion. You are suggesting, actually STATING, that they may not FREELY exercise their religion, but restrict it to the point where it is not evident to others. The lesbians are completely free to simply walk to a store that sells GAY wedding cakes. The bakery in question does not do that. To them, there is no such THING as a gay wedding. They do not sell gay wedding cakes, yet are forced to do so, or close. That is not freedom of religion. All wedding cakes are not created equal. They are to you, but that is irrelevant. They have a specific, legitimate reason to make a distinction. That reason is the free exercise of their religion. Where exactly is freedom FROM religion stated? In the mind of liberals, yes, but nowhere else. This is yet another extrapolation of the bill of rights, that is at odds with the document itself. You have the right to freely exercise your religion, but only in private. That caveat does not exist.
So, to be clear, you (and others on here) believe any business should be free to discriminate against anyone they choose, anytime...correct?
Not speaking for efw, but for me, yes. I have no desire to make someone else do something for me against his desire. And I don't care for people who would use the force of government to do so.
No, it's just a cake. They can't insert their myths into their business dealings. They are still free to practice their religion after business hours
Only applies if you favor unlimited government.
Exactly; and that really is the bottom line here.
If a business doesn't want me there because of the AR15 sticker on my car or the gold cross my daughter wears around her neck they should be free to say so. I won't be offended, but the business won't do so well either.
That's called FREE markets.
Me personally; I'd have baked the cake and had no problem with it. What two people do in their bedroom is of no concern to me if they want to give me their money. But anyone should have the right to practice their "principles" in any way they choose.
Again, the market will decide if they're right or not... NOT the govt.
Enjoy Dachau. That's the type of place your ass will end up.
You can talk all the patriotic armed revolution chitt you want. I can tell you right now that any such talk is braggadocio bullschitt.
Russell Means, the AIM leader figured this out after his stunt at Wounded Knee 40 years ago. He summed up it more or less "How do you fight the government with guns when they have airplanes and tanks?"
Yeah, the Native Americans were going to pull a big F.U. on the government. Didn't work out so well, Good thing the slots are paying off.
So go do your Waco or Ruby Ridge thing. You will take your principles to the After Life right quick, partners. There are principles, and then there is obstinate stupidity.
In American, we do it through laws and at the ballot box. Our "successful armed revolution was 250 years ago, and really was our first Civil War. Had logistics not been such a problem, England could have crushed the Revolution had they really wanted to. Oh, and England was short on airpower in those days.
Our American Civil War shows the futility of armed revolution. The South was well organized, united, and was crushed. Between the hundreds of thousands war dead, the millions of lives destroyed, the combination of war and Reconstruction so damaged the South that it has taken 150 years for it to fully recover. 150 years for the South to again be prosperous and vibrant. 150 years is a long, long, time chief. Families suffered, and the fabric of the country was forever altered.
Yes if Hillary gets in and Executive orders our guns away, you can try that "they fell out of my fishing boat in the middle of Lake Superior" defense. You'll also end up in Nuevo Dachau for perjury, obstruction of justice, and 4o other gun laws she'll introduce. Go ahead, talk big. BTW, who's providing for your family while you're locked up?
Bake the damned cake. Obey the law, otherwise you are no different that BLM. If you want change, make it the first Tuesday in November.
Sounds a little kghunty.
Travis
Originally Posted by Geno67
Trump being classless,tasteless and clueless as usual.
Originally Posted by Judman
Sorry, trump is a no tax payin pile of shiit.
Originally Posted by KSMITH
My young wife decided to play the field and had moved several dudes into my house
I'm all for private business to sell to whomever they like, but that is not the current law.
How folks can't understand that these folks shot themselves in the foot, and it is in no way the same, or even similar to " muslim delis/ restaurants must serve bacon" is beyond me.
It must be willful?
I understand exactly what you're saying here and don't disagree but I think you're missing the point people are trying to make.
As we bring governmental power to bear upon our societal desire to make room for minorities and giv them equal standing, we're stepping upon the toes of others.
I said it earlier and I'll repeat it... there is NO Constitutional right NOT to be offended. Our cultural hypersensitivity will be the end of us. EVERYONE need to quit whining!
Enjoy Dachau. That's the type of place your ass will end up.
You can talk all the patriotic armed revolution chitt you want. I can tell you right now that any such talk is braggadocio bullschitt.
Russell Means, the AIM leader figured this out after his stunt at Wounded Knee 40 years ago. He summed up it more or less "How do you fight the government with guns when they have airplanes and tanks?"
Yeah, the Native Americans were going to pull a big F.U. on the government. Didn't work out so well, Good thing the slots are paying off.
So go do your Waco or Ruby Ridge thing. You will take your principles to the After Life right quick, partners. There are principles, and then there is obstinate stupidity.
In American, we do it through laws and at the ballot box. Our "successful armed revolution was 250 years ago, and really was our first Civil War. Had logistics not been such a problem, England could have crushed the Revolution had they really wanted to. Oh, and England was short on airpower in those days.
Our American Civil War shows the futility of armed revolution. The South was well organized, united, and was crushed. Between the hundreds of thousands war dead, the millions of lives destroyed, the combination of war and Reconstruction so damaged the South that it has taken 150 years for it to fully recover. 150 years for the South to again be prosperous and vibrant. 150 years is a long, long, time chief. Families suffered, and the fabric of the country was forever altered.
Yes if Hillary gets in and Executive orders our guns away, you can try that "they fell out of my fishing boat in the middle of Lake Superior" defense. You'll also end up in Nuevo Dachau for perjury, obstruction of justice, and 4o other gun laws she'll introduce. Go ahead, talk big. BTW, who's providing for your family while you're locked up?
Bake the damned cake. Obey the law, otherwise you are no different that BLM. If you want change, make it the first Tuesday in November.
Sounds a little kghunty.
Travis
We live in a world that's gone a little kghunty.... unfortunately.
"The Democrat Party looks like Titanic survivors. Partying and celebrating one moment, and huddled in lifeboats freezing the next". Hatari 2017
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid." Han Solo
It's interesting that those on here who reject an all-powerful God, seen to have no problem submitting to an all-powerful government.
That's because they know that the government will uphold their anti-God views on things. Look, this should have been a closed and shut case from the very beginning. If the bakery didn't want to bake you a cake, then just go somewhere else....somewhere that you are wanted. Personally, I wouldn't want to do business at a place I wasn't wanted. A number of years ago, a Black friend of ours opened up a restaurant that became a very popular eatery. It happened to be right on the edge of the Black part of town. Most of their business was from Whites, and the Blacks objected to us coming into their "part of town". Eventually, the local Blacks put so much pressure on the lady, that she closed up. Now, we Whites were discriminated against, no doubt about it, but we went on about our way and found other places to eat.......just as the lezzies should have found someone else to bake their damn cake.
I'm all for private business to sell to whomever they like, but that is not the current law.
How folks can't understand that these folks shot themselves in the foot, and it is in no way the same, or even similar to " muslim delis/ restaurants must serve bacon" is beyond me.
It must be willful?
I understand exactly what you're saying here and don't disagree but I think you're missing the point people are trying to make.
As we bring governmental power to bear upon our societal desire to make room for minorities and giv them equal standing, we're stepping upon the toes of others.
I said it earlier and I'll repeat it... there is NO Constitutional right NOT to be offended. Our cultural hypersensitivity will be the end of us. EVERYONE need to quit whining!
That was the point I was getting at in the first sentence of my post.
Private business should be able to serve or refuse service to anyone they choose. I don't agree with the courts granting special status to certain members of society.
However, it should be more than obvious that that is not currently the law. I am all for breaking the law, just don't cry when you get busted.
“Life is life and fun is fun, but it's all so quiet when the goldfish die.”
You still have your "freedom of religion" and they have freedom from your religion.
If you feel your religion won't allow you to treat everyone as equals, then working in retail is not for you.
There is no freedom from religion. That's a fancy way of saying freedom from being offended. If we are going to live in a TRULY tolerant society we ALL have to COMPLETELY surrender this imagined right to avoid offense.
The irony here is that the second statement of the quote above suggests the seller is a slave to the buyer... again, lack of true tolerance & equality because of this presumed right to not be offended.
What's being proposed by many here is the formula for a brave new word.
Refusing service to a person because it violates your religious doctrine, thereby your freedom of religion IS valid. The validity of gays being a protected class, on the same plane as race and gender, is based on the scientific evidence that homosexuality is a proven genetic trait. The only problem is that there isn't any. It's a political lever. That's it. That's not rocket science either. It's either a choice, or it isnt. There is no proof that it is anything BUT a choice. That is not popular with the cool people, but that is the truth.
Wouldn't matter if there was a genetic contributor to the behavior. There's lots of evidence for a genetic contributor to criminality, i.e., congenital psychopathy. Does that mean burglars, for example, should be a protected class? A genetic propensity isn't an excuse for giving expression to antisocial behavior.
Those folks would of been waaay ahead baking the cake and refusing payment.
That doesn't change their forced participation.
Declaring private business "places of public accommodation" was a wrongful government taking and a direct affront to private property as intended in our founding documents.
You still have your "freedom of religion" and they have freedom from your religion.
If you feel your religion won't allow you to treat everyone as equals, then working in retail is not for you.
There is no freedom from religion. That's a fancy way of saying freedom from being offended. If we are going to live in a TRULY tolerant society we ALL have to COMPLETELY surrender this imagined right to avoid offense.
The irony here is that the second statement of the quote above suggests the seller is a slave to the buyer... again, lack of true tolerance & equality because of this presumed right to not be offended.
What's being proposed by many here is the formula for a brave new word.
Dolts actually believe the 1964 civil rights law on public accomodation is a divine revelation; axiomatic inviolate rule of conduct and anyone who questions it is a heretic who must be crushed or banished or burned alive.
Forcing folks to do business in the market place with another person is statist idolatry and tyranny.
I don't have do business with anyone if I don't want to, for any reason whatsoever that pops into my head.
Liberals are statists and hence tyrants and murderers.
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.
You still claim it is a cake like any other cake. That is incorrect. It is a wedding cake. I would not buy a wedding cake for a birthday. Now this is the difficult part for you, since you give no credibility to religion in general, and Christianity in particular. Their religion does not stop at their front door. It is a constant, in their lives. Selling a wedding cake, they expect their work to be used to celebrate a wedding as defined by their religion. It matters to them, and to be true to their religion, they cannot aid in a gay wedding celbration. THAT is the free exercise of their religion. You are suggesting, actually STATING, that they may not FREELY exercise their religion, but restrict it to the point where it is not evident to others. The lesbians are completely free to simply walk to a store that sells GAY wedding cakes. The bakery in question does not do that. To them, there is no such THING as a gay wedding. They do not sell gay wedding cakes, yet are forced to do so, or close. That is not freedom of religion. All wedding cakes are not created equal. They are to you, but that is irrelevant. They have a specific, legitimate reason to make a distinction. That reason is the free exercise of their religion. Where exactly is freedom FROM religion stated? In the mind of liberals, yes, but nowhere else. This is yet another extrapolation of the bill of rights, that is at odds with the document itself. You have the right to freely exercise your religion, but only in private. That caveat does not exist.
They can't insert their myths into their business dealings. They are still free to practice their religion after business hours
Where's that in the Constitution?
WOW! Snyper actually posted that? The guy is a total communist! Go back to Russia and weep at Stalin's grave!
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.
You still claim it is a cake like any other cake. That is incorrect. It is a wedding cake. I would not buy a wedding cake for a birthday. Now this is the difficult part for you, since you give no credibility to religion in general, and Christianity in particular. Their religion does not stop at their front door. It is a constant, in their lives. Selling a wedding cake, they expect their work to be used to celebrate a wedding as defined by their religion. It matters to them, and to be true to their religion, they cannot aid in a gay wedding celbration. THAT is the free exercise of their religion. You are suggesting, actually STATING, that they may not FREELY exercise their religion, but restrict it to the point where it is not evident to others. The lesbians are completely free to simply walk to a store that sells GAY wedding cakes. The bakery in question does not do that. To them, there is no such THING as a gay wedding. They do not sell gay wedding cakes, yet are forced to do so, or close. That is not freedom of religion. All wedding cakes are not created equal. They are to you, but that is irrelevant. They have a specific, legitimate reason to make a distinction. That reason is the free exercise of their religion. Where exactly is freedom FROM religion stated? In the mind of liberals, yes, but nowhere else. This is yet another extrapolation of the bill of rights, that is at odds with the document itself. You have the right to freely exercise your religion, but only in private. That caveat does not exist.
Very well said.
It simply comes down to this very basic premise...
Us against them.
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.
It's persecution of Christians by the US state. This is precisely what the First Amendment was intended to prevent, i.e., to interfere with the free exercise of religion.
The 1A says that congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of a religion. This isn't congress. It's the state of Oregon.
You're forgetting Fourteenth Amendment incorporation doctrine. That said, forcing them to bake a cake for someone also violates our right of free association (not to mention our Thirteenth Amendment right against involuntary servitude), not to mention basic property rights, i.e., if I wish to sell my goods only to blue eyed, blonde haired people, that's my right, stemming from the fundamental right to property.
100% right.
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.
It's interesting that those on here who reject an all-powerful God, seen to have no problem submitting to an all-powerful government.
Isn't it, though.
People laugh mock and scorn me but that is what Lincoln was ALL about. And the all powerful empire built him a temple in DC. You can bend your knee and worship his image...
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.
Dolts actually believe the 1964 civil rights law on public accomodation is a divine revelation; axiomatic inviolate rule of conduct and anyone who questions it is a heretic who must be crushed or banished or burned alive.
Forcing folks to do business in the market place with another person is statist idolatry and tyranny.
I don't have do business with anyone if I don't want to, for any reason whatsoever that pops into my head.
Liberals are statists and hence tyrants and murderers.
Yep, if the principle behind that decision were applied across the board, minority owned businesses would be free to hire thugs to force white patrons into their shops, extract money from their wallets, hand them their product, and direct them to the door.
The "law" is (un-Constitutionally) making people enter contracts under penalty.
Not hard to understand where any of that leads; its difficult to understand why so many accept it.
Exactly like Obama Care. If Hilary gets in you can bet there will be folks going to jail for not cooperating. My daughter has an adult foster care business. Her rates have gone up more than 100%. The coverage is less and the co-pays are almost prohibitive.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
There's a saying when thinking about taking a principled stand "Is that the hill you want to die on?" Apparently these folks said yes. They knew full and well what the possibilities were and they rolled the dice and lost.
I think they were foolish to do so but apparently they didn't.
If something on the internet makes you angry the odds are you're being manipulated
It's a good thing that Jesus *did* choose to serve people that He didn't see eye to eye with.
You mean like the money changers he whipped? Or the scribes he called "vipers"?
I mean the ones He died for...ALL of em'.
Yes, he died for them and they still reject Him. They still attack his disciples. Where's the forgiveness on the part of the queers? Why did they not witness Christ and forgive their neighbor? Instead, they went out of their way to CRUSH the bakers over a lousy $30 cake. Oh, yeah, that real just. Just the kind of justice you'd expect from a viper!
Yes indeed! Sodomite activists have admitted to using Nazi tactics. It is scorched earth politics with them, no grace whatsoever. And this bakery is by far not the only example. There are hundreds and thousands of victims all over the country. Innocent folks who have lost their jobs and income to support their families.
But hey...
Like Calvin has advocated, just burn the incense to Ceaser, it is only a small pinch anyhow.
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.
To no one in particular... There's a saying when thinking about taking a principled stand "Is that the hill you want to die on?" Apparently these folks said yes. They knew full and well what the possibilities were and they rolled the dice and lost. I think they were foolish to do so but apparently they didn't.
These bakers apparently believe their first amendment rights are just as important as we believe in our second amendment rights.
I can't find any fault with them.
If you thought a bully could kick your ass and your cause was righteous,would you fight or run?
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." **Edmund Burke**
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." **Benjamin Franklin**
To no one in particular... There's a saying when thinking about taking a principled stand "Is that the hill you want to die on?" Apparently these folks said yes. They knew full and well what the possibilities were and they rolled the dice and lost. I think they were foolish to do so but apparently they didn't.
These bakers apparently believe their first amendment rights are just as important as we believe in our second amendment rights.
I can't find any fault with them.
If you thought a bully could kick your ass and your cause was righteous,would you fight or run?
Lots of ways to fight. They choose the nuclear and least tactical option IMO. They could have easily taken a more strategic view and fought the long view fight and have built a case and perhaps even won. Instead they went in hard and lost it all. Their choice but fighting doesn't always mean dying.
If something on the internet makes you angry the odds are you're being manipulated
Lots of ways to fight. They choose the nuclear and least tactical option IMO. They could have easily taken a more strategic view and fought the long view fight and have built a case and perhaps even won. Instead they went in hard and lost it all. Their choice but fighting doesn't always mean dying.
Your post contains such nebulous terms such as "strategic view","fought the long view fight",and lastly "they went in hard".Maybe you could explain these euphemisms since they seem to have no legitimate definitions.
The homosexuals wanted the bakery to participate in an action which the bakers viewed as a violation of their first amendment right concerning the free exercise of their religion.
It seems abundantly clear that we are living in an era in which the government denies law abiding citizens their constitutional rights,while giving some specially selected groups extra judicial financial rewards and protection.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." **Edmund Burke**
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." **Benjamin Franklin**
A bakery that has refused to bake a cake with an anti-gay wedding message has found itself at the centre of controversy. But unlike mirror image cases in which Christian bakers have been taken to court for refusing to bake pro-gay marriage cakes, this time, it is the Christian to tried to place the order who may face legal action.
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.
A bakery that has refused to bake a cake with an anti-gay wedding message has found itself at the centre of controversy. But unlike mirror image cases in which Christian bakers have been taken to court for refusing to bake pro-gay marriage cakes, this time, it is the Christian to tried to place the order who may face legal action.
Lots of ways to fight. They choose the nuclear and least tactical option IMO. They could have easily taken a more strategic view and fought the long view fight and have built a case and perhaps even won. Instead they went in hard and lost it all. Their choice but fighting doesn't always mean dying.
Your post contains such nebulous terms such as "strategic view","fought the long view fight",and lastly "they went in hard".Maybe you could explain these euphemisms since they seem to have no legitimate definitions.
Well, I'm an engineer and not a lawyer but if I lived in the liberal cesspool that is Portland, and living in Maryland I know liberal cesspools, I would be very aware of the militant nature of these people and before I said no I would have been very careful in figuring out what could go wrong. As a business owner in that environment they should be aware of their licensing obligations.
Having screwed up and started this, somewhere between 17 Jan and 29 Jan he should have been aggressively finding a large organization that would champion his cause. Instead he went to Facebook. He should have been girding his loins for the coming fight that really started two years later with an army of lawyers and special interests.
So, while he made a tactical decision to deny them the cake, he should have then prepared himself for a long-term strategic war that would have stacked the deck in his favor.
He made a short term choice and didn't consider the climate we live in. Sorry, but understand that or at least understand the consequences that you will live with.
Don't get me wrong. I don't care for militant lesbians or any other sort of "look at me I'm a little unique snowflake" type of group but to be naive as a business owner about these groups these days, especially in Portand is asking to have your business destroyed.
If something on the internet makes you angry the odds are you're being manipulated
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/nhqZTmxJ/Screen-Shot-2020-11-08-at-5-01-55-PM.png)
