Judge orders baker to serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs

[TMF]

Too bad the left doesn't understand this.

That's the problem, I think they do understand just fine.

[RobertNashville]

...These people who claim to know a gay or two and cites that as some kind of expert evidence,
don't know what that is: supposition, and is a silly way to back up an argument.

Are you kidding???

 

That kind of thing happens here (and pretty much everywhere) all the time...people take one or two anecdotal incidents (often incidents that is based on double or triple hearsay if they happened at all), and come to set-in-stone conclusions based on those one or two incidents!  LOL

Edited December 9, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Now, I see a thread like this, and I see a thread like that one you posted of the US Air Force Band at the Smithsonian Air and

Space Museum, guess which one makes my eyes water. I wish I was at the museum when they showed up and did that. The

other can go the way of the dinosaur.

[RobertNashville]

...Personally, I think religion needs to stay out of this as it tends to muddy the waters.  The crux of the matter is simply: should the government be able to force a private business to provide a service to an individual or group of whom they have discriminated?  While it may not be popular, the answer is no.  I believe that people and private businesses should have the right to discriminate anyone for anything. The only time discrimination should be disallowed is when we are dealing with a government entity. In almost all other cases we should let the free markets handle it.  I know this is not reality, but it is my view on the way things should be.

You make some excellent points. The baker does muddy the waters by using religion as the excuse for denying service.  There are many flavors of "Christianity", not to mention the plethora of other religions - when you start using your personal theology as a basis to deny service to someone it complicates the issue

Edited December 9, 2013 by RobertNashville

[mav]

You make some excellent points. The baker does muddy the waters by using religion as the excuse for denying service.  There are many flavors of "Christianity", not to mention the plethora of other religions - when you start using your personal theology as a basis to deny service to someone it complicates the issue

 

Robert, you misinterpret what I am saying.  I have no problem with the baker following his beliefs to justify his actions.   I was referring to other people bringing in their religious views to either affirm or criticize the baker's actions.  It is best to leave religion out one's argument.

 

I do not like discrimination, but I support people's right to discriminate unless it infringes upon someone else's life, liberty, etc...  I just think that free people and the free markets can do a much better job of handling discrimination than the heavy hand of government.

[BigK]

The idea of refusing to serve someone because of religious beliefs can lead to messy assumptions. In this case there was no hiding the fact that the cake purchasers were gay and the baker has religious objections to gay marriage. In most cases it's hard to know if someone is an adulterer, fornicator, child molester, thief, murderer, etc. His other potential customers don't walk in his door celebrating sins to which he has religious beliefs against and the occasion for his services isn't centered around a ceremony that he feels makes a mockery of what he likely views as a religious bond. 

 

That's the problem I see with people claiming Christians pick and choose which sins they take a stance against. Most people don't advertise and/or celebrate their sins. I'm sure there are some here that would deny that he would refuse to make a "There is no God" cake for an atheist party or even a "God Hates Fags" cake for the Westboro Baptist Church idiots. I, for one, suspect he would.

 

The reason this comes to light with the gay community so often is because they don't recognize homosexuality as a sin and are so "in your face" about their lifestyle that it's impossible not to see.

Edited December 9, 2013 by BigK

[DaveS]

How were the rights of the gay couple violated? Did they have a constitutional right to buy a wedding cake from that particular baker?

Yes and tell me why they didn't?

 

Dave

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yes and tell me why they didn't?

 

Dave

You should know better than that, DaveS. Is there something in the great document that shows this? I haven't found it. I haven't seen

a right ever being classified to the protection of a certain class of people. Non-gays, I'm assuming that includes the rest of us, don't

have that right. So why do they?

[daddyo]

Yes and tell me why they didn't?

Dave

Please direct me to that part of the Bill of Rights guaranteeing the right of a gay couple to force someone to sell them a wedding cake. Edited December 9, 2013 by daddyo

[RobertNashville]

Robert, you misinterpret what I am saying.  I have no problem with the baker following his beliefs to justify his actions.   I was referring to other people bringing in their religious views to either affirm or criticize the baker's actions.  It is best to leave religion out one's argument.

 

I do not like discrimination, but I support people's right to discriminate unless it infringes upon someone else's life, liberty, etc...  I just think that free people and the free markets can do a much better job of handling discrimination than the heavy hand of government.

Doesn't it work both ways?  People bringing their own particular religions (or lack of) world view into the mix will usually cause a problem; perhaps because "religion" and emotion are such close traveling companions. Then you throw individual interpretations of scripture into the mix and "muddy" doesn't even begin to describe what you wind up with!.

[RobertNashville]

The idea of refusing to serve someone because of religious beliefs can lead to messy assumptions. In this case there was no hiding the fact that the cake purchasers were gay and the baker has religious objections to gay marriage. In most cases it's hard to know if someone is an adulterer, fornicator, child molester, thief, murderer, etc. His other potential customers don't walk in his door celebrating sins to which he has religious beliefs against and the occasion for his services isn't centered around a ceremony that he feels makes a mockery of what he likely views as a religious bond. 

 

That's the problem I see with people claiming Christians pick and choose which sins they take a stance against. Most people don't advertise and/or celebrate their sins. I'm sure there are some here that would deny that he would refuse to make a "There is no God" cake for an atheist party or even a "God Hates Fags" cake for the Westboro Baptist Church idiots. I, for one, suspect he would.

 

The reason this comes to light with the gay community so often is because they don't recognize homosexuality as a sin and are so "in your face" about their lifestyle that it's impossible not to see.

Do we know precisely when and how this baker knew he was being asked to make a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage?  Did they tell him...did he ask...did he just assume...I don't think we do, do we?

I can't speak for this baker but from a few decades of experience I can attest to the unfortunate fact that many Christians most certainly do pick and chose which "sins" they take a stand against and which they will quietly let go on without a protest (or engage in themselves).

 

There certainly are homosexuals who are "in your face" activists but I would submit that such are no more the majority of homosexuals than are the white-supremacists and Westboro Baptist types who claim the banner of "Christian" are a representation of all Christianity.

Edited December 9, 2013 by RobertNashville

[tnguy]

Do we know precisely when and how this baker knew he was being asked to make a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage?  Did they tell him...did he ask...did he just assume...I don't think we do, do we?

I can't speak for this baker but from a few decades of experience I can attest to the unfortunate fact that many Christians most certainly do pick and chose which "sins" they take a stand against and which they will quietly let go on without a protest (or engage in themselves).  There certainly are homosexuals who are "in your face" activists but I would submit that such are no more then majority of homosexuals than are the white-supremacists and Westboro Baptist types who claim the banner of "Christian" are a representation of all Christianity.

 

So what? That's their choice. They should be able to enter business or not with whoever they choose for whatever reason they want. If they go against community standards, they'll go out of business as it should be. The government has no place sticking it's nose in.

[RobertNashville]

.

Edited December 9, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Do we know precisely when and how this baker knew he was being asked to make a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage?  Did they tell him...did he ask...did he just assume...I don't think we do, do we?

I can't speak for this baker but from a few decades of experience I can attest to the unfortunate fact that many Christians most certainly do pick and chose which "sins" they take a stand against and which they will quietly let go on without a protest (or engage in themselves).

 

There certainly are homosexuals who are "in your face" activists but I would submit that such are no more the majority of homosexuals than are the white-supremacists and Westboro Baptist types who claim the banner of "Christian" are a representation of all Christianity.

I don't recall anyone saying the activists were in any majority, but that they get most of the air time. That is obvious. I don't understand what

difference it makes, and the same applies to the other fringe activists, without bothering with the names.

 

Trouble with all this stuff is Alinsky teaches them to turn everyone into an activist or extremist, so as to diminish their importance in the bigger

scheme, if theirs isn't effective enough to turn agendas. The idea that so much energy is being used to defend the gay in this discussion means

the liberals are winning this argument hands down. I guess when you hear the same thing over and over every day, Goebbels ideas on this

get proved true. Much less P.T. Barnum's famous statement.

 

Whatever... You guys stay sidetracked with the plight of the gay. Before long there won't be a cake business to bitch about.

[DaveS]

6.8 and DaddyO...The Bill of Rights doesn't say that. Does that make discrimination right? Hell no it don't. Why does the "Bill of Rights" have to say one thing or another to "be right"? What's wrong with good old "morals" and treating our fellow man with respect? Everybody is so wrapped up in rights...2nd, 4th, 1st, 5th ect ect...they forget how to treat each other. This is sad....

 

I'm not going to keep posting on this thread, because some of y'all just don't get it...

 

Dave

Edited December 10, 2013 by DaveS

[RobertNashville]

I don't recall anyone saying the activists were in any majority, but that they get most of the air time. That is obvious. I don't understand what

difference it makes, and the same applies to the other fringe activists, without bothering with the names.

 

Trouble with all this stuff is Alinsky teaches them to turn everyone into an activist or extremist, so as to diminish their importance in the bigger

scheme, if theirs isn't effective enough to turn agendas. The idea that so much energy is being used to defend the gay in this discussion means

the liberals are winning this argument hands down. I guess when you hear the same thing over and over every day, Goebbels ideas on this

get proved true. Much less P.T. Barnum's famous statement.

 

Whatever... You guys stay sidetracked with the plight of the gay. Before long there won't be a cake business to bitch about.

No, no one had said that activists were in the majority; I commented on them in reply to BigK's post (where he had mentioned the activists end of the homosexual crowd).

 

Basically I'm just wondering how this baker knew that this cake was for a same-sex marriage? I suppose I wonder because I wonder what this baker would do if a heterosexual couple walked in and wanted a cake to celebrate their "anniversary" of the fist time they slept together (cheating on their respective spouses) - I wonder if this baker refuse to bake their cake too???

Once you start discriminating based on someone's "sin"; it can get really complicated and taken to its logical conclusion, if a "Christian" owned business refused to do business with anyone who is/was "sinning", who exactly would be left for them to do business with???

Edited December 9, 2013 by RobertNashville

[TNcitizen22]

6.8 and DaddyO...The Bill of Rights doesn't say that. Does that make discrimination right? Hell no it don't. Why does the "Bill of Rights" have to say one thing or another to "be right"? What's wrong with good old "morals" and treating our fellow man with respect? Everybody is so wrapped up in rights...2nd, 4th, 1st, 5th ect ect...they forget how to treat each other. This is sad....

I'm not going to keep posting on this thread, because some of y'all just do get it...

Dave

Agreed 100%

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

[daddyo]

I'm not going to keep posting on this thread, because some of y'all just do get it...

Dave

Thanks, Dave. I believe I get it too.

[DaveS]

I'll guarantee one thing, (if I'm lying I'm dying), If someone would have walked into his bakery carrying a handgun and he refused service to them for that reason, y'all would be ready to lynch the dude! Why not now?

 

Dave

[otnman]

I'll guarantee one thing, (if I'm lying I'm dying), If someone would have walked into his bakery carrying a handgun and he refused service to them for that reason, y'all would be ready to lynch the dude! Why not now?

Dave

Nope, I would respect his right to refuse me. Then walk down the street and go to the gun friendly baker.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[Guest 6.8 AR]

No one said discrimination is right, but where is it wrong to do what you believe? Thats one of those things that are always left out of the emotional argument. It doesn't fit in well. There will never be a law written that will fix bias to suit everyone. What makes a gay anything special.

Like my wife usually says "isn't that just SPECIAL?"

[Guest RebelCowboySnB]

I'll guarantee one thing, (if I'm lying I'm dying), If someone would have walked into his bakery carrying a handgun and he refused service to them for that reason, y'all would be ready to lynch the dude! Why not now?

 

Dave

I don't think any of us have ever sued any private business for having a no guns policy...

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'll guarantee one thing, (if I'm lying I'm dying), If someone would have walked into his bakery carrying a handgun and he refused service to them for that reason, y'all would be ready to lynch the dude! Why not now?

Dave

Hey, what are you dyin of?

[daddyo]

I'll guarantee one thing, (if I'm lying I'm dying), If someone would have walked into his bakery carrying a handgun and he refused service to them for that reason, y'all would be ready to lynch the dude! Why not now?

 

Dave

 

Who are you kidding? That might be what you would do, but I would simply tell him to have a nice day and that I would not be back.

 

Don't guarantee something if you can't deliver.

[tnguy]

Basically I'm just wondering how this baker knew that this cake was for a same-sex marriage? I suppose I wonder because I wonder what this baker would do if a heterosexual couple walked in and wanted a cake to celebrate their "anniversary" of the fist time they slept together (cheating on their respective spouses) - I wonder if this baker refuse to bake their cake too???

I'd assume if they were buying a cake, they probably went together. If not that, probably the choice of topper:



I suspect for such a brazen example as you give, there's a good chance the baker would have chosen not to bake such a cake. Who knows? FWIW, were in their place, I would have baked the cake and been glad that two people could find happiness. It's rare enough in this world. But I recognize that other people have different opinions and beliefs than me and as long as they are not harming others, I should respect that. That applies to both gay people (I hate the term "gays") and homophobic bakers.
 

Once you start discriminating based on someone's "sin"; it can get really complicated and taken to its logical conclusion, if a "Christian" owned business refused to do business with anyone who is/was "sinning", who exactly would be left for them to do business with???

No one. Then maybe a more tolerant baker would take their place. Edited December 10, 2013 by tnguy