• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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


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.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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

ksu_aviator said:
I never said the boycott was illegal. I just implied it was hypocritical.
Click to expand...
Only in your own opinion, which isn't accurate in this case.
 

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
 

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.
 
ksu_aviator said:
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.
Click to expand...

they filed suit because they were discriminated against
 
joG said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
ksu_aviator said:
You mean like boycotting and threatening a business owner and his family for their religious beliefs?
Click to expand...

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
 

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.
 
Peter King said:
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.
Click to expand...

picket lines are fine, threats are not
legal/ not legal
 
davidtaylorjr said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Nynaeve Meara said:
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.


.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Nynaeve Meara said:
Only in your own opinion, which isn't accurate in this case.
Click to expand...

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.
 

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

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.
 

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.


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
 
Last edited:

well you just proved you dont know what a fact is
 

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.
 
ksu_aviator said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
AGENT J said:
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.
Click to expand...

Luckily it isn't the law here in SC.
 
AGENT J said:
.
How do you even say all that stuff then have the balls to say "fellow christians" LMAO
Click to expand...

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.
 

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?
 

Do you rreally think Jesus would have shunned the lesbian couple?
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…