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

[Deuce]

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



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?



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.

Now you're picking and choosing what counts as a violation of someone's rights regarding business practices. It's not a violation of my rights to have a person on board my aircraft - the sole function of my business - against my religious beliefs. But it is a violation of my rights to be required to bake a cake for someone against my religious beliefs? Apparently, only same-sex marriage issues count as violating religious practices. You are basically saying only your religious beliefs count in this context, and not mine.

You can't show me that baking a cake for someone violates the baker's rights any more than you can show me that carrying a passenger violates mine.

 

[winston53660]

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.

I bet more people change their religious preference every day than change their sexual orientation.

 

[ksu_aviator]

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.

I never said the boycott was illegal. I just implied it was hypocritical.

 

[Nynaeve Meara]

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.

Do you have a link for it? I should be more up to date on this but work has been keeping me busy.

The messages on their facebook page are awesome to read, so much ignorance.

I never said the boycott was illegal. I just implied it was hypocritical.

Only in your own opinion, which isn't accurate in this case.

 

[AGENT J]

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.

ill say the same thing in this thread i said in the other 2


in the PUBLIC realm we all have to play by the same rules/laws of a public access business

if a person is to bigoted and or uncivil to play by these rules the solutions are very easy and common sense based

1.) you dont go into public access business
2.) you dont do anything that may offend you so easily or its counterparts. IE if you are christian you can say you wont do gay weddings but then do bar mitzvahs, you option is to do NOTHING religious
3.) open up a private practice like out of your home or online like the bakery did

they were smart and learned from their short sighted mistake, it was stupid to be a bakery and do wedding cakes and think you wouldnt get a wedding you disagreed with. So now they run there company on line so they arent public access and or dont know their customers. Liberty in tact.

there are laws and freedoms

if people are making death threats or bodily harm threats thats agaisnt the law and they should be punished by the law
if people are legally harassing anybody they should be punished by the law
if people are just protesting, or boycotting or voicing their opinions publicly, on internet media or in the paper or during a rally that's fine (and warranted), as long as they arent breaking the law. Im glad they did it

if you break law there will be repercussions

 

[joG]

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.

I have no problem with that. I do not think the government should get involved. But worse things happen. To use force to prevent people from entering the store, however, is worse than the discriminatory behavior of the baker.

 

[AGENT J]

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 they were discriminated against

 

[Nynaeve Meara]

I have no problem with that. I do not think the government should get involved. But worse things happen. To use force to prevent people from entering the store, however, is worse than the discriminatory behavior of the baker.

There is no evidence force was used to keep people from entering the store. Protests are allowed on public property, the bakery should have thought of that before they decided to violate Oregon's laws.

 

[AGENT J]

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

nope they boycotted a business owner because they discriminated, many people of the same religion are appalled by the actions of the bakery

as for the threats if that REALLY happened that is against the law and i hope those people get caught and are prosecuted

 

[ksu_aviator]

Now you're picking and choosing what counts as a violation of someone's rights regarding business practices. It's not a violation of my rights to have a person on board my aircraft - the sole function of my business - against my religious beliefs. But it is a violation of my rights to be required to bake a cake for someone against my religious beliefs? Apparently, only same-sex marriage issues count as violating religious practices. You are basically saying only your religious beliefs count in this context, and not mine.

You can't show me that baking a cake for someone violates the baker's rights any more than you can show me that carrying a passenger violates mine.

No, you aren't going to do that. You are intelligent enough to recognize that your argument has nothing to do with the situation at hand. We are talking about well documented religious beliefs, not some random stuff that you made up to create an argument to defend an indefensible position. I'm not going to let you use fallacies.

 

[AGENT J]

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.

picket lines are fine, threats are not
legal/ not legal

 

[AGENT J]

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.

then since you cant be civil and play by the same public rules has the rest of us i suggest you never run a public access business or practice hiding your bigotry and discrimination because when you break the law there are repercussions.

 

[Gardener]

Do you have a link for it? I should be more up to date on this but work has been keeping me busy.

The messages on their facebook page are awesome to read, so much ignorance.


.

Sure -- here you go:

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/de...7d60f098b72d69fc61ef3a0e192.jpg?itok=Lbt-8fdE


I was on their facebook page yesterday and noticed one of their equally righteous supporters suggesting they should have gone ahead and baked the cake, but using urine.

How sweet.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Only in your own opinion, which isn't accurate in this case.

It is not an opinion. It is fact. The owner chose not to serve them because he didn't agree with them and they chose to boycott him because they didn't agree with him. It is hypocritical to expect the law to be on the side of one entity and not the other. In fact, since the law says he has to serve someone against his religion, then the law should say they have to buy against their beliefs.

 

[TheNextEra]

No, you aren't going to do that. You are intelligent enough to recognize that your argument has nothing to do with the situation at hand. We are talking about well documented religious beliefs, not some random stuff that you made up to create an argument to defend an indefensible position. I'm not going to let you use fallacies.

If baking a cake is against someone's religion, they shouldn't be in the cake baking business.

 

[TheNextEra]

It is not an opinion. It is fact. The owner chose not to serve them because he didn't agree with them and they chose to boycott him because they didn't agree with him. It is hypocritical to expect the law to be on the side of one entity and not the other. In fact, since the law says he has to serve someone against his religion, then the law should say they have to buy against their beliefs.

I should be able to disciminate against blacks, Christians, or anyone else I want by your logic then. Welcome to the 1960s. Sorry, but you are in the wrong era.

 

[AGENT J]

Sure -- here you go:

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/de...7d60f098b72d69fc61ef3a0e192.jpg?itok=Lbt-8fdE


I was on their facebook page yesterday and noticed one of their equally righteous supporters suggesting they should have gone ahead and baked the cake, but using urine.

How sweet.

wow
simply wow

IF thats true and those people wrote that, the smidge of pity i felt for their mistake of being short sighted just disappeared they are morons and i hope thier on line business fails as well, i hope if thats real people post it everywhere so that nobody buys anything from them. How despicable if its true.

**** the niggers, spics, whores, sodomites, fat bitches, ugly ****s, hypocritical hoes and overweight hippos on our feed. We try so hard to bake cakes and all you ungrateful bullies hate on me and my beautiful family after these articles were written, shame on you! If you dont like our business then dont stop by, more cake for our fellow Christians"

if this was really said by the baker its very sad that they think nobody sees the irony and real hypocrisy in their own words.
How do you even say all that stuff then have the balls to say "fellow christians" LMAO

yep again if true good riddance to garbage people and buiness

 

[AGENT J]

It is not an opinion. It is fact. The owner chose not to serve them because he didn't agree with them and they chose to boycott him because they didn't agree with him. It is hypocritical to expect the law to be on the side of one entity and not the other. In fact, since the law says he has to serve someone against his religion, then the law should say they have to buy against their beliefs.

well you just proved you dont know what a fact is

 

[ItAin'tFree]

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

In another thread, I tried to clear this up once already but the thought police types don't like the facts of what really went on at that bakery, I guess.

The owners of this bakery had nothing against serving gay customers. They had done business with gay customers in the past. The owner of the bakery made that clear in an interview she did just yesterday. The thought police though, still refuse to accept it and as usual the thought police attempt to crucify anyone that doesn't lock step with them.

The difference in this particular cake, if you will, it was a wedding cake. The bakers constitutionally protected right of freedom of religion guided her not to participate in a gay wedding. The gay couple, showing complete and total intolerance of religion, decided to persecute the baker owner and anybody else associated with them over her religious beliefs. It's the Salem Witch hunt all over again except against religious people. And to top it off, the state of Oregon has in place it's "reeducation" program in place that somebody had to get the idea from Mao or some other communist.

State law does not trump the US Constitution unless the case goes before a leftist judge. The people in Oregon need to wake up, or there will be additional "reeducation" programs popping up.

 

[Gardener]

It is not an opinion. It is fact. The owner chose not to serve them because he didn't agree with them and they chose to boycott him.

You certainly seem to have no problems concerning the bearing of false witness, do you?

Since the couple attempted to purchase a cake, Sweetcakes were not a target because of their religious beliefs. The boycott was a result of their ACTIONS, only, since it did not occur until such a time as these racist homophobes broke the law.

The dishonesty of the Pharisee side of this argument can sure be astounding at times.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

then since you cant be civil and play by the same public rules has the rest of us i suggest you never run a public access business or practice hiding your bigotry and discrimination because when you break the law there are repercussions.

Luckily it isn't the law here in SC.

 

[Gardener]

.
How do you even say all that stuff then have the balls to say "fellow christians" LMAO

I like to remind myself that they are only appealing to stupid Pharisees, not Christians. I know many Christians, have Christians as friends, and respect and admire many Christians who absolutely loathe to have their own beliefs associated with this sort of trash.

 

[Deuce]

No, you aren't going to do that. You are intelligent enough to recognize that your argument has nothing to do with the situation at hand. We are talking about well documented religious beliefs, not some random stuff that you made up to create an argument to defend an indefensible position. I'm not going to let you use fallacies.

And I'm not going to let you pick and choose which religious beliefs count. You seem to think that religion makes someone exempt from the law, but only when you say it does. Why your book and not mine?

 

[Thorgasm]

No, you aren't going to do that. You are intelligent enough to recognize that your argument has nothing to do with the situation at hand. We are talking about well documented religious beliefs, not some random stuff that you made up to create an argument to defend an indefensible position. I'm not going to let you use fallacies.

Do you rreally think Jesus would have shunned the lesbian couple?

 

[Nynaeve Meara]

It is not an opinion. It is fact. The owner chose not to serve them because he didn't agree with them and they chose to boycott him because they didn't agree with him. It is hypocritical to expect the law to be on the side of one entity and not the other. In fact, since the law says he has to serve someone against his religion, then the law should say they have to buy against their beliefs.

It is your opinion actually, and it is incorrect in this case.

I know you might not like the decision of the customers, but this is what happens when you practice poor business making decisions. Which the bakery clearly did.