They Lost Their Bakery, Now Face Bankruptcy: Government’s ‘Discrimination’ [W:1874]

[roguenuke]

Re: They Lost Their Bakery, Now Face Bankruptcy: Government’s ‘Discrimination’ Fine B

not to the bible on sin it is not.

Those things are subject to subjective interpretation, whether the "Bible" approves or not, whether people who believe in the Bible approve or not. It is a simple fact of life.

 

[Ikari]

Re: They Lost Their Bakery, Now Face Bankruptcy: Government’s ‘Discrimination’ Fine B

Your theories of property and rights have no salience to me. As far as I'm concerned, owning a business is a privilege that community allows you to have. If you cannot abide by community standards, you can GTFO.

Your theories of property rights have no salience to me. As far as I'm concerned, owning a business is a right to property that the community prospers from. If you cannot abide by the rights and liberties of the individual, you can GTFO.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Re: They Lost Their Bakery, Now Face Bankruptcy: Government’s ‘Discrimination’ Fine B

The government choose to discriminate prior to the Fed judge's actions. The people of Oregon overwhelmingly voted for the defense of marriage and it was overturned by a single person.

The vote you're talking about was in 10 years ago and the margin was 57% to 43% in favor of a ban on SSM. That's not "overwhelming". It doesn't matter anyway. The ban was unconstitutional and it doesn't exist anymore so these guys were breaking the law.

Don't give me society's appropriate standards...that's nothing but a load. Society isn't one person.

I don't think anybody who has ever used the word "society" has meant it to mean one person so thanks for pointing out the obvious?

 

[Master PO]

Re: They Lost Their Bakery, Now Face Bankruptcy: Government’s ‘Discrimination’ Fine B

Those things are subject to subjective interpretation, whether the "Bible" approves or not, whether people who believe in the Bible approve or not. It is a simple fact of life.

they are subjective to you, but not the bible.... its clear.

if you wish to believe that homosexuality is not a sin ....you are free to do so.

however intimating that the bible it is unclear about homosexuality, is an attempt to "tickle your own fancy".

 

[grip]

Re: They Lost Their Bakery, Now Face Bankruptcy: Government’s ‘Discrimination’ Fine B

Jesus was a teacher, and he did not stop people from sinning, however he did speak out against it often, since he spoke about sin to his disciples, he spoke to sinners about it also.

Yea, but he condemned the sins, not the people, which is an important distinction.

 

[Ikari]

Re: They Lost Their Bakery, Now Face Bankruptcy: Government’s ‘Discrimination’ Fine B

The vote you're talking about was in 10 years ago and the margin was 57% to 43% in favor of a ban on SSM. That's not "overwhelming". It doesn't matter anyway. The ban was unconstitutional and it doesn't exist anymore so these guys were breaking the law.


I don't think anybody who has ever used the word "society" has meant it to mean one person so thanks for pointing out the obvious?

Of course not. Many times, those using "society" as an excuse are individuals who cannot argue by right and liberty, but feel that they should still be able to impose their will upon the citizenry. So they make up some commie BS to justify gross government force against the individual.

 

[roguenuke]

Re: They Lost Their Bakery, Now Face Bankruptcy: Government’s ‘Discrimination’ Fine B

they are subjective to you, but not the bible.... its clear.

if you wish to believe that homosexuality is not a sin ....you are free to do so.

however intimating that the bible it is unclear about homosexuality, is an attempt to "tickle your own fancy".

They are subjective, period. That is a fact. The Bible is not a person. The Bible is nothing but a book written based on the words, the beliefs of people from the past. The vast majority of the Bible cannot be proven.

 

[Master PO]

Re: They Lost Their Bakery, Now Face Bankruptcy: Government’s ‘Discrimination’ Fine B

Yea, but he condemned the sins, not the people, which is an important distinction.

well i agree with you.

 

[vesper]

Re: They Lost Their Bakery, Now Face Bankruptcy: Government’s ‘Discrimination’ Fine B

You didnt' answer these questions which would allow us to determine whether your position is truley based on "rights of conscience" or whether it was "only as applied to the gays".

Care for another crack?




Can a for profit business claim "moral conscience" and refuse to serve interracial couples?

Can a for profit business claim "moral conscience" and refuse to serve Mexicans?

Can a for profit business claim "moral conscience" and refuse to service a disable veteran? (Yes some states protect veterans.)

Can a for profit business claim "moral conscience" and refuse to service a single parent? (Yes some states list parental status.)

Can a for profit business claim "moral conscience" and refuse to service a divorced person? (Yes some states list marital status.)



>>>>

Okay, I'll play your little game.....
If a Mexican, a disabled veteran, a single parent or a divorced person entered my business requesting a service from me that would force me to be in conflict with my moral conscience, I would have to decline their business. Not because they were Mexican, disabled, a single parent or a divorced person but because of what they ask of me. If I were a printer and someone brought to me an order to print flyers that promoted violence toward another group of citizens, my moral conscience would not allow me to print them. But if that same person would like business cards, calendars, memo pads etc. printed, I would be more than glad to fill his order. And further more the Klein's did not deny services to the lesbian couple. Only when the service they requested violated their moral conscience.

Now if you can't make the distinction between the two than that is your problem.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Re: They Lost Their Bakery, Now Face Bankruptcy: Government’s ‘Discrimination’ Fine B

Your theories of property rights have no salience to me. As far as I'm concerned, owning a business is a right to property that the community prospers from. If you cannot abide by the rights and liberties of the individual, you can GTFO.

That's fine. Still, no salience for me.

 

[Ikari]

Re: They Lost Their Bakery, Now Face Bankruptcy: Government’s ‘Discrimination’ Fine B

That's fine. Still, no salience for me.

That's fine. Still no salience for me.

 

[Master PO]

Re: They Lost Their Bakery, Now Face Bankruptcy: Government’s ‘Discrimination’ Fine B

They are subjective, period. That is a fact. The Bible is not a person. The Bible is nothing but a book written based on the words, the beliefs of people from the past. The vast majority of the Bible cannot be proven.

the bible maybe subjective to you, however it is clear in its teaching.

from its teaching homosexuality is wrong......you are intimating the bible it not really clear on the subject, ..yet it is.

 

[roguenuke]

Re: They Lost Their Bakery, Now Face Bankruptcy: Government’s ‘Discrimination’ Fine B

the bible maybe subjective to you, however it is clear in its teaching.

from its teaching homosexuality is wrong......you are intimating the bible it not really clear on the subject, ..yet it is.

It is subjective for everyone. You have an interpretation of it that appears to be "clear in its teaching" to you. That does not make it true. It obviously is not clear since there are lots of others who have a different interpretation of those verses pertaining to homosexuality and/or same sex relations.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Re: They Lost Their Bakery, Now Face Bankruptcy: Government’s ‘Discrimination’ Fine B

Of course not. Many times, those using "society" as an excuse are individuals who cannot argue by right and liberty, but feel that they should still be able to impose their will upon the citizenry. So they make up some commie BS to justify gross government force against the individual.

I understand why you see it that way, but at the same time, I know that many people, including myself, have different views of "right and liberty" you do that take into account the consequences of prejudice, particularly on marginalized populations. I am, for now, content with those views and I don't see anything from your responses to me would compel me to think that I have made the wrong decision.

 

[Master PO]

Re: They Lost Their Bakery, Now Face Bankruptcy: Government’s ‘Discrimination’ Fine B

It is subjective for everyone. You have an interpretation of it that appears to be "clear in its teaching" to you. That does not make it true. It obviously is not clear since there are lots of others who have a different interpretation of those verses pertaining to homosexuality and/or same sex relations.

lets do a little test here:

when the bible says that a man should not lay with another man......i interpret it to mean man is not supposed to have sex with another man.

now what is your interpretation since its subjective to you.......because ......."i really want to see how you explain that line"

 

[CanadaJohn]

Re: They Lost Their Bakery, Now Face Bankruptcy: Government’s ‘Discrimination’ Fine B

Well then, we disagree. No religious texts claim being black as a sin, however, most all of them claim homosexuality is.

Good afternoon CB

You're leaving out a whole passel of other "sins" religious texts speak to. As I've asked before, if baking a cake for a homosexual's party isn't against one's religion, why is baking a wedding cake for a homosexual's wedding a sin? And don't give me this cockamamie line about baking a wedding cake is celebrating the wedding because if they bake birthday cakes and any number of other cakes served at celebrations, the baker is not sanctioning or celebrating those events. To suggest otherwise is suggesting bakers celebrate your morning toast if they baked the bread, celebrate your lunch if they baked the bun your sandwich involves, etc.

Edit: I just noted this post is comment #666 - I'm sure many will consider that fitting!

 

[Ikari]

Re: They Lost Their Bakery, Now Face Bankruptcy: Government’s ‘Discrimination’ Fine B

I understand why you see it that way, but at the same time, I know that many people, including myself, have different views of "right and liberty" you do that take into account the consequences of prejudice, particularly on marginalized populations. I am, for now, content with those views and I don't see anything from your responses to me would compel me to think that I have made the wrong decision.

Those who resort to appeal to authority and deflections such as "if you don't like it GTFO" will rarely find insight in any other's observations that the decision they have made is wrong. It is, in fact, the line of thought that fascism and tyranny is based upon.

 

[jet57]

Re: They Lost Their Bakery, Now Face Bankruptcy: Government’s ‘Discrimination’ Fine B

Yeah, cooking, (yes, my lap top is in my kitchen jerry) that's why you brought up a high-school student, someone who cannot carry a gun in public (or get married, for that matter) for any of the rest of this to apply. And cooking is why you didn't realize a school is not a business and this thread is about businesses. You were cooking, that's your excuse for a total failure to make like comparisons, sure. Whatever.

Those logical errors with the sloppy grammar, yeah, come back when you're sober.

You're being obtuse again jerry (jerry), and besides, it was a middle school kid and it was a religious issue, ya'know - like your gun issue.

Carrying a gun into a public buinsess is nowhere near racial or gender discrimination jerry; you know that, but you HAD to something that was counter to my point. So, you being obtuse jerry. Don't be obtuse. I'd like to think that you're smarter than that: please don't disappoint me

 

[year2late]

Re: They Lost Their Bakery, Now Face Bankruptcy: Government’s ‘Discrimination’ Fine B

Okay, I'll play your little game.....
If a Mexican, a disabled veteran, a single parent or a divorced person entered my business requesting a service from me that would force me to be in conflict with my moral conscience, I would have to decline their business. Not because they were Mexican, disabled, a single parent or a divorced person but because of what they ask of me. If I were a printer and someone brought to me an order to print flyers that promoted violence toward another group of citizens, my moral conscience would not allow me to print them. But if that same person would like business cards, calendars, memo pads etc. printed, I would be more than glad to fill his order. And further more the Klein's did not deny services to the lesbian couple. Only when the service they requested violated their moral conscience.

Now if you can't make the distinction between the two than that is your problem.

They were asked to bake a cake. Something that is on their menu. Do they routinely ask what every baked good is for? Does the fact that the bakers know what the specific occasion is matter?

I can understand if they were asked to provide services and items they do not normally provide or carry. A Muslim catering company would not have to cater pork - as it is not on their menu.

Again, I would have been ok with the refusal, and letting them accept the consequences of their refusal. In their area, seems the sentiment did not go their way. If they were in a different area of the country, the bakery likely would have gotten kudos and improved business for their refusal to make the wedding cake.

 

[roguenuke]

Re: They Lost Their Bakery, Now Face Bankruptcy: Government’s ‘Discrimination’ Fine B

lets do a little test here:

when the bible says that a man should not lay with another man......i interpret it to mean man is not supposed to have sex with another man.

now what is your interpretation since its subjective to you.......because ......."i really want to see how you explain that line"

First, you don't know if that is what originally was written. Second, I could easily interpret that as "don't go to sleep with another man, but having sex is fine, being in a relationship is fine". Or, since it actually says, man shouldn't sleep with a man as he does with a woman, then it can easily be interpreted as "if you like women, sleep with women, not other men, but if you like men, you should sleep with them not women". Or it could also mean that you shouldn't deny your attractions. Plus, how long does that apply? Who gets to decide which men it applies to? What about hermaphrodites? Are they considered men or women in the eyes of the Bible? And what about eunichs? Should they lay with men or women? Also sounds like it is just fine for women to "lay" with other women, so lesbianism is not violating that passage at all, no matter how you personally interpret it.

Oh there are so many more things here. The point is absolutely that it is subjective. Why do most Christians no longer abide by many things said in the Bible such as burning witches or those who profess to be such or that women should keep their heads covered in church or not hold power over men or not teach men, especially on religious matters? Why are those passages not being brought up here as part of the interpretation argument?

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Re: They Lost Their Bakery, Now Face Bankruptcy: Government’s ‘Discrimination’ Fine B

As far as I'm concerned, owning a business is a right to property that the community prospers from.

I missed this on my first read.

You are correct that the community prospers from many businesses. However, even if a business benefits the community, that business can also harm members of the community. By discriminating against group X, a business harms group X. It is true that group X may be able to go to other businesses, but that ability neither guarantees that economic harm will not still come to the group nor does it undo the social and psychological damage done by the discrimination - damage that often contributes to tension, crime and other problems in society.

When I look that those consequences of discrimination, I conclude that the harm brought to a community by a discriminating business outweighs the prosperity brought to a community by a discriminating business. You, I suspect, see it the opposite way. Which again, is fine. I just wanted to share my position on the comment because it was worth a comment.

 

[year2late]

Re: They Lost Their Bakery, Now Face Bankruptcy: Government’s ‘Discrimination’ Fine B

Good afternoon CB

You're leaving out a whole passel of other "sins" religious texts speak to. As I've asked before, if baking a cake for a homosexual's party isn't against one's religion, why is baking a wedding cake for a homosexual's wedding a sin? And don't give me this cockamamie line about baking a wedding cake is celebrating the wedding because if they bake birthday cakes and any number of other cakes served at celebrations, the baker is not sanctioning or celebrating those events. To suggest otherwise is suggesting bakers celebrate your morning toast if they baked the bread, celebrate your lunch if they baked the bun your sandwich involves, etc.

Edit: I just noted this post is comment #666 - I'm sure many will consider that fitting!

The Devil made you do it.

 

[Ikari]

Re: They Lost Their Bakery, Now Face Bankruptcy: Government’s ‘Discrimination’ Fine B

I can understand if they were asked to provide services and items they do not normally provide or carry.

They didn't provide nor labor for cakes for same sex ceremonies. It's their labor, yes?

 

[Ikari]

Re: They Lost Their Bakery, Now Face Bankruptcy: Government’s ‘Discrimination’ Fine B

I missed this on my first read.

You are correct that the community prospers from many businesses. However, even if a business benefits the community, that business can also harm members of the community. By discriminating against group X, a business harms group X. It is true that group X may be able to go to other businesses, but that ability neither guarantees that economic harm will not still come to the group nor does it undo the social and psychological damage done by the discrimination - damage that often contributes to tension, crime and other problems in society.

A business could indeed be negative. And by not shopping there, you make it go away. Government force against private property and the individual is not needed.

 

[Master PO]

Re: They Lost Their Bakery, Now Face Bankruptcy: Government’s ‘Discrimination’ Fine B

First, you don't know if that is what originally was written. Second, I could easily interpret that as "don't go to sleep with another man, but having sex is fine, being in a relationship is fine". Or, since it actually says, man shouldn't sleep with a man as he does with a woman, then it can easily be interpreted as "if you like women, sleep with women, not other men, but if you like men, you should sleep with them not women". Or it could also mean that you shouldn't deny your attractions. Plus, how long does that apply? Who gets to decide which men it applies to? What about hermaphrodites? Are they considered men or women in the eyes of the Bible? And what about eunichs? Should they lay with men or women? Also sounds like it is just fine for women to "lay" with other women, so lesbianism is not violating that passage at all, no matter how you personally interpret it.

Oh there are so many more things here. The point is absolutely that it is subjective. Why do most Christians no longer abide by many things said in the Bible such as burning witches or those who profess to be such or that women should keep their heads covered in church or not hold power over men or not teach men, especially on religious matters? Why are those passages not being brought up here as part of the interpretation argument?

go to sleep...oh please...that sad!