TODD'S AMERICAN DISPATCH: Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests[W:699]

[Peter King]

A family-owned Christian bakery, under investigation for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple, has been forced to close its doors after a vicious boycott by militant homosexual activists.

Sweet Cakes By Melissa posted a message on its Facebook page alerting customers that their Gresham, Ore. retail store would be shut down after months of harassment from pro-gay marriage forces.

“Better is a poor man who walks in integrity than a rich man who is crooked in his ways,” read a posting from Proverbs on the bakery’s Facebook page.

“It’s a sad day for Christian business owners and it’s a sad day for the First Amendment,” owner Aaron Klein told me. “The LGBT attacks are the reason we are shutting down the shop. They have killed our business through mob tactics.”

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/03/todd-american-dispatch-christian-bakery-closes-after-lgbt-threats-protests/

The question is, can a bakery refuse to make a wedding cake because they do not like the fact that 2 men or 2 women get married to one another. Religious freedom is all nice and dandy, but they are in the business of baking cakes and if someone comes to a baker to order a cake for a wedding cake the baker should not be allowed to discriminate. Just imagine that a black baker would refuse to bake a cake for a mixed couple, or a white baker refusing to bake for a black couple. What if a muslim baker refused to bake a cake for a jewish couple.

All those kinds of things would be discriminatory and this case is discrimination too. Nobody should be refused business because of their sexual preferences.

 

[Peter King]

But I will say I do not approve of the boycotts and the threats against the bakery and I think it is not nice that they were forced out of business but if you discriminate you can expect negative repercussions to your "good name".

Protesting is fine, boycotting is legal but IMHO not a nice thing to do but threats are a crime and should be prosecuted.

The protesters and boycott people should have let the law handle it.

 

[Nynaeve Meara]

People shouldn't discriminate.

Good riddance to a trash company.

 

[ksu_aviator]

This just proved what I said in some other threads. The only reason they filed suit was to persecute the owner for religious beliefs. So now we've had a flower company, photographer and bakery. That's unacceptable.

 

[Deuce]

But I will say I do not approve of the boycotts and the threats against the bakery and I think it is not nice that they were forced out of business but if you discriminate you can expect negative repercussions to your "good name".
Protesting is fine, boycotting is legal but IMHO not a nice thing to do but threats are a crime and should be prosecuted.

The protesters and boycott people should have let the law handle it.

Wait a minute. If nobody refuses to purchase a product from a business they disapprove of, what are the consequences? "Good name?" A business cares about its "good name" only so far as it affects their bottom line.

Boycotts aren't a "threat" in anything remotely resembling the context you're using the word. What, I'm forced to buy stuff from Chick-Fil-A now that their CEO outed himself as a bigot? Because if I don't, I'm hurting them unfairly? **** that. I do not have any obligation to tolerate intolerance, either through my purchases or my words.

 

[ksu_aviator]

People shouldn't discriminate.

Good riddance to a trash company.

You mean like boycotting and threatening a business owner and his family for their religious beliefs?

 

[spud_meister]

The boycott is simply the free market at work.

 

[Deuce]

This just proved what I said in some other threads. The only reason they filed suit was to persecute the owner for religious beliefs. So now we've had a flower company, photographer and bakery. That's unacceptable.

They filed suit because the law was broken. Which is apparently acceptable to you.

You have it backwards. The woman was trying to persecute gay people by her refusal of service. It wasn't any religious stance, she later agreed to make cakes for a dog wedding, a divorce party, and a pagan solstice party. Seems her "religious freedom" out for refusal of service is incredibly selective.

You and I? We don't get to kick people off our airplanes for being Christian. Or black. Or gay. Even if our deeply-held religious beliefs might tell us to do so. Religion is not blanket authorization to avoid any law or regulation you disagree with. If it were, I'd be making a lot of religious arguments about minimum altitude regs and noise abatement procedures

 

[Nynaeve Meara]

You mean like boycotting and threatening a business owner and his family for their religious beliefs?

The boycott is legal and when you discriminate you open yourself to that type of business decision by your customers.

They should have thought up that before they took a bid to prepare a wedding cake for a celebration they disagreed with.

I'd love to see something credible about the threats however, as I have a hard time believing there were any death threats against the family that is usually exaggeration in these articles.

 

[Peter King]

Wait a minute. If nobody refuses to purchase a product from a business they disapprove of, what are the consequences? "Good name?" A business cares about its "good name" only so far as it affects their bottom line.

Boycotts aren't a "threat" in anything remotely resembling the context you're using the word. What, I'm forced to buy stuff from Chick-Fil-A now that their CEO outed himself as a bigot? Because if I don't, I'm hurting them unfairly? **** that. I do not have any obligation to tolerate intolerance, either through my purchases or my words.

You can have a personal boycott but I do not agree with threats of boycotts to force a company of doing legal things (like Chick-a-fil and the money given to the anti-gay wedding campaign by it's owner).

With boycotts against lawbreakers I have some sympathy but even then an organized boycott to force them out of business all together is also not desirable.

 

[joG]

The question is, can a bakery refuse to make a wedding cake because they do not like the fact that 2 men or 2 women get married to one another. Religious freedom is all nice and dandy, but they are in the business of baking cakes and if someone comes to a baker to order a cake for a wedding cake the baker should not be allowed to discriminate. Just imagine that a black baker would refuse to bake a cake for a mixed couple, or a white baker refusing to bake for a black couple. What if a muslim baker refused to bake a cake for a jewish couple.

All those kinds of things would be discriminatory and this case is discrimination too. Nobody should be refused business because of their sexual preferences.

Boy would I be mad, if I drove clear across the city to get my cake and I couldn't because some jerks wouldn't let me through the door. Take it to court. Don't take it out on your fellow citizen.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

TODD'S AMERICAN DISPATCH: Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests | Fox News

The question is, can a bakery refuse to make a wedding cake because they do not like the fact that 2 men or 2 women get married to one another. Religious freedom is all nice and dandy, but they are in the business of baking cakes and if someone comes to a baker to order a cake for a wedding cake the baker should not be allowed to discriminate. Just imagine that a black baker would refuse to bake a cake for a mixed couple, or a white baker refusing to bake for a black couple. What if a muslim baker refused to bake a cake for a jewish couple.

All those kinds of things would be discriminatory and this case is discrimination too. Nobody should be refused business because of their sexual preferences.

Sure they should.

 

[Peter King]

Boy would I be mad, if I drove clear across the city to get my cake and I couldn't because some jerks wouldn't let me through the door. Take it to court. Don't take it out on your fellow citizen.

I agree with you, picket lines and threats are not OK. Take them to court, let the law deal with them. The USA is a society protected by laws and regulations and in cases like this the law should be followed.

 

[Peter King]

Sure they should.

I am sorry, but religious freedom should not be an excuse for discrimination.

 

[joG]

The boycott is legal and when you discriminate you open yourself to that type of business decision by your customers.

They should have thought up that before they took a bid to prepare a wedding cake for a celebration they disagreed with.

I'd love to see something credible about the threats however, as I have a hard time believing there were any death threats against the family that is usually exaggeration in these articles.

Sure, it is odd to discriminate against segments of your customer base. And sure, the customers can shop where they like and inform every person that enters the bakery of the baker' silly behavior. To prevent others by force from shopping there is not okay.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

I am sorry, but religious freedom should not be an excuse for discrimination.

Sexual Preference is nothing more than that, a PREFERENCE. That is not discrimination. It is sin and I won't promote, advance, or advocate it.

 

[joG]

I am sorry, but religious freedom should not be an excuse for discrimination.

In think free association is elementary to free society. If a person wants to discriminate by religion among the people he meets, I see no reason to force him to stop doing so. I think the guy would be silly to do so. But the world is full of weirdos.

 

[Deuce]

Sexual Preference is nothing more than that, a PREFERENCE. That is not discrimination. It is sin and I won't promote, advance, or advocate it.

Your religion is just a preference, so it's not discrimination when I kick Christians off my plane?

 

[Gardener]

. It is sin and I won't promote, advance, or advocate it.

Wasn't that you I saw at Red Lobster the other day?

 

[Deuce]

In think free association is elementary to free society. If a person wants to discriminate by religion among the people he meets, I see no reason to force him to stop doing so. I think the guy would be silly to do so. But the world is full of weirdos.

It's different when you run a business that advertises its services to the general public.

 

[Nynaeve Meara]

Sure, it is odd to discriminate against segments of your customer base. And sure, the customers can shop where they like and inform every person that enters the bakery of the baker' silly behavior. To prevent others by force from shopping there is not okay.

Its quite legal to boycott a business and to tell other people about the businesses bad business practices. On top of them going against Oregon state law (which is a law) they are now feeling the affects of having a poor business mindset.

They have no one to blame but themselves. On their facebook page they took down any and all messages between August 2012 and Feb 2013.

 

[ksu_aviator]

They filed suit because the law was broken. Which is apparently acceptable to you.

When an individual's first amendment rights are violated, yes, I am ok with that.

You have it backwards. The woman was trying to persecute gay people by her refusal of service. It wasn't any religious stance, she later agreed to make cakes for a dog wedding, a divorce party, and a pagan solstice party. Seems her "religious freedom" out for refusal of service is incredibly selective.

She didn't persecute anyone. There was no court decision. There was no freedom lost. She just chose not to serve them. They were perfectly capable of having their ceremony without her. The cake/flowers/photographs were not essential.

But let's say it was a priest. Would you be ok with forcing a priest to perform a wedding outside his/her beliefs?

You and I? We don't get to kick people off our airplanes for being Christian. Or black. Or gay. Even if our deeply-held religious beliefs might tell us to do so. Religion is not blanket authorization to avoid any law or regulation you disagree with. If it were, I'd be making a lot of religious arguments about minimum altitude regs and noise abatement procedures

Well, I did kick off a rap artist for smoking marijuana, so most liberals would say I kicked him off for being black. But your attempt at reductio ad absurdum is not unnoticed. You can't show that flying an aircraft with someone in the back is going to violate the pilot's rights. Unless there is a same sex marriage to be performed in the back, at which point I would say that yes, a pilot could refuse to participate.

There is a big difference between an individual choosing to not participate and the government forcing individuals to participate. In the former, no rights are violated. In the later someone's rights are violated through threat of force.

 

[Gardener]

On their facebook page they took down any and all messages between August 2012 and Feb 2013.

But their own profanity laced, racist rant has been captured for all to see.

Those who defend these homophobic racists do so BECAUSE they are homophobic racists, make no mistake. All of the rest of the crap they offer about religious "freedom" and all that is just a smokescreen.

 

[Peter King]

Sexual Preference is nothing more than that, a PREFERENCE. That is not discrimination. It is sin and I won't promote, advance, or advocate it.

Sexual preference is something that should never be grounds for discrimination.

Baking a cake is not promoting, advancing or advocating it. People can think a lot of things are a sin but that does not mean people can start discriminating.

 

[joG]

It's different when you run a business that advertises its services to the general public.

It might be different. But I do not see why anybody should have to perform for anyone who comes. If the businessman thinks selling to someone is bad for his business it seems undue to force him. It is a private affair and the government has no business interfering.

It is not okay to prevent other people from buying, what they want by force.