Judge orders baker to serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs

[Luke E.]

 I think they are achieving their goal and it is showing right here in this thread. A lifestyle choice is NOT the same as a race, people are born into a race and no matter how hard they may try to change, they will always be of that race. Discriminating against a race is discriminating against the person but here's where the gay rights folks are winning, just because you don't agree with homosexuality does not mean that you have a problem with the human that makes that lifestyle choice. If i'm seeing folks here that are blurring the line between a race and a lifestyle choice and placing them in the same bracket then they have already won. They have repeated this over and over and over until now I guess we're willing to protect them from the consequences of their behaviors. 

 I guess the part where the bakery owner offer to make them ANY item they want except a wedding cake was conveniently skipped over? This shows that the owner did not discriminate against the human himself but rather did not want to take a part in a wedding that he feels compromises his beliefs. He didn't tell them to get out, that he "didn't want their kind" or anything of the such, he simply was not willing to take part in this "wedding". 

 The definition of marriage is one man and one woman so it is impossible for them to get "married" no matter if it is legal where they live or not. They can call it something else and define that but they cannot just change the meaning of a word that goes back to early biblical time.. unless we just allow it. Anyone that gives this a moments though about being a civil rights or discrimination case has fallen for the trick. They will not stop until they destroy the sanctity of marriage and drag everyone along with them. 

 One more thing, has it occurred to anyone that they may have known in advance that this guy would not make a cake for a homosexual "wedding"? Maybe this isn't the first couple that has been told the same thing and they just decided to take revenge? I don't know any of this to be fact but think about it, there is a good chance they knew before walking into the door that they would encounter this. It's kinda like the open carry nazis that troll around looking for a cop to piss off and it does happen. If this is the case then we've missed the point folks, they've slipped the real issue passed us and left us over here debating whether or not the guy should bake them a cake.

[Luke E.]

...and every few hundred years its necessary to man up and punch those faces in. British control needed it....and got it.
So, when do we get started? Lol

 

How's your schedule looking next Tuesday evening? I think i've got some free time then. :usa:

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm not sure that "freedom of association" applies to a business; to a person, yes...a business; probably not.

I know many, perhaps most here see no distinction between a "person" and a "business"; I do see a distinction.

I don't.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

According to the ill interpreted version of constitutional law, the Democrats(liberals or whatever) tout the commerce clause as

giving them the ability to regulate everything from firearms to coal energy and social behavior. They are wrong. If you believe

a law has to be passed to make every wrong right you must be one of them. The commerce clause says no such thing. It was

only put there to regulate trade between states by imposing tariffs to equalize trade between the states, if I remember that one

correctly. To give no undo advantage for one over another.

 

Every social experiment the federal government has gotten its mitts on has always given bad unintended consequences. But we

humans sometimes forget to think, rather to feel instead. It never works.

 

Not directed to anyone in particular.

[jacob]

 I think they are achieving their goal and it is showing right here in this thread.

 

I haven't seen anyone in this thread take up for the gay couple...The only questions that have been posed here are more in regards to business owners retaining the right to serve whom they choose and where the line of crossing over into discrimination exists....and most all have commented that govt should mind it's own business and stay out of that business' choice of to whom they provide their service.

Edited December 7, 2013 by jacob

[tnguy]

Not completely equating the two situations here but wasn't that exact same excuse used to not serve "colored folks" and why the south had "colored drinking fountains"?  Just how far should this ability to "refuse service" go? I'm not saying that a business should be forced to serve or not serve anyone but I do see some pretty obvious parallels here.

 

When you hold yourself out to the public as a business who serves "the public" I think you take on some responsibilities that might have to go beyond your personal, privately held, beliefs.

 

The south had segregation *laws*. Clearly those needed to be done away with. IMO, the rest would have taken care of itself. Perhaps not as quickly as some would have hoped but certainly in a more natural and smooth way, I would suggest)

[UncleJak]

I haven't seen anyone in this thread take up for the gay couple...The only questions that have been posed here are more in regards to business owners retaining the right to serve whom they choose and where the line of crossing over into discrimination exists....and most all have commented that govt should mind it's own business and stay out of that's business' choice of to whom they provide their service.

true, but also the rights of the couple to purchase from someone else. If the baker doesnt want their business, they shouldn't want to give him their money. If at anytime in the transaction either party doesn't like the way the deal is going: walk away. The sexual preference should have no bearing in the business world.
If a baker doesn't want to sell me a cake because of something about me he doesn't like, I will find another baker who will gladly take my money.

Sent barefoot from the hills of Tennessee

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well, I guess most businesses open to make money...making money means they need customers to which to sell their product and customers are "the public".

And it's their right to take a risk, and not yours.

[otnman]

Firearm owners are not a protected class, like sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin, religion, or sexual orientation.


- OS

This is what I don't get...if religion and sexual orientation are both protected classes, why does sexual orientation rights trump religious beliefs?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[Luke E.]

I haven't seen anyone in this thread take up for the gay couple...The only questions that have been posed here are more in regards to business owners retaining the right to serve whom they choose and where the line of crossing over into discrimination exists....and most all have commented that govt should mind it's own business and stay out of that business' choice of to whom they provide their service.

 

 I wasn't meaning that folks were taking up for them what I am talking about is the fact that folks are even putting a social/lifestyle choice on the same pedestal as race. It wasn't that many years ago that everyone understood the difference between race discrimination (a civil rights issue) and homosexuality (a social issue). Every decision or choice we make in life comes with some consequence whether it be positive or negative. If I go out and make the decision that I am going to handle myself in a manner that may be unacceptable to some folks then I am not going to be shocked or butt hurt when someone doesn't want to do business with me. You see this very regularly with sports figures when they have huge sponsors, If the player gets caught out whoring around, it impacts the sponsor in a negative way so they decide to not do business with that player any longer. It's not as if they are denying them a necessity of life and if they want to go shout from high atop a hill that JoeBobs Bakery is a rotten place to spend your money, that's their prerogative but when they go try to use the government to exact revenge on another citizen them and the government has crossed a very dangerous line. Lawsuits like this only serve to validate future frivolous lawsuits until pretty soon all private business owners are compromising on every moral standard for fear of getting sued into poverty.

 Would you also think it is okay for them to sue a church or it's pastor because he chooses not to preform the ceremony based on homosexuality? It's the same difference, one man being forced to do something contrary to his beliefs just because not doing so may hurt someones feelings. Again, the owner offered to sell them baked goods, any baked goods except a cake for a ceremony that goes against his beliefs. The government is not creating a protected class but rather they are creating a class that they willingly undermine try to destroy on a daily basis.

[TMF]

...and every few hundred years its necessary to man up and punch those faces in. British control needed it....and got it.
So, when do we get started? Lol

Sadly, the people I'm referring to are our fellow Americans; friends, family, neighbors. I think MOST people believe, deep down, that others should be forced to obey their world view.

[Superman]

The business owner is an idiot. That gay couples money spends just as good as the straight couple before them. Just like the place where I work, they have a big Appleseed poster in the front office. Its the first thing you see when you walk in the door. They also have had, in the past, handgun permit course sign and Romney campaign signs out front by the road. IMO, thats stupid. I may not agree with your politics or religion, but I sure as hell want your money.

 

But it should be his right to not make a cake for a gay wedding. This is another example of an out of control government. This is none of the governments business.

Edited December 7, 2013 by Superman

[Chucktshoes]

Sadly, the people I'm referring to are our fellow Americans; friends, family, neighbors. I think MOST people believe, deep down, that others should be forced to obey their world view.

There are plenty of threads here rife with that worldview. Everybody wants to be free to live their life how they choose, but almost nobody wants to leave others alone to do the same. It's all "Anarchy for me, tyranny for you".

[jacob]

I wasn't meaning that folks were taking up for them what I am talking about is the fact that folks are even putting a social/lifestyle choice on the same pedestal as race. It wasn't that many years ago that everyone understood the difference between race discrimination (a civil rights issue) and homosexuality (a social issue). Every decision or choice we make in life comes with some consequence whether it be positive or negative. If I go out and make the decision that I am going to handle myself in a manner that may be unacceptable to some folks then I am not going to be shocked or butt hurt when someone doesn't want to do business with me. You see this very regularly with sports figures when they have huge sponsors, If the player gets caught out whoring around, it impacts the sponsor in a negative way so they decide to not do business with that player any longer. It's not as if they are denying them a necessity of life and if they want to go shout from high atop a hill that JoeBobs Bakery is a rotten place to spend your money, that's their prerogative but when they go try to use the government to exact revenge on another citizen them and the government has crossed a very dangerous line. Lawsuits like this only serve to validate future frivolous lawsuits until pretty soon all private business owners are compromising on every moral standard for fear of getting sued into poverty.
Would you also think it is okay for them to sue a church or it's pastor because he chooses not to preform the ceremony based on homosexuality? It's the same difference, one man being forced to do something contrary to his beliefs just because not doing so may hurt someones feelings. Again, the owner offered to sell them baked goods, any baked goods except a cake for a ceremony that goes against his beliefs. The government is not creating a protected class but rather they are creating a class that they willingly undermine try to destroy on a daily basis.

might wanna go back and check my posts...I stated repeatedly that I felt the court case was a farce with only a political goal in mind, not because of a true case of discrimination....

[ironsniper1]

there is a difference between making someone an equal through legislation and making their morals, sex or ethnicity something that is protected.  i would venture to say that the civil rights movement or women's suffrage was not about a "protection" but rather elevating people to the same level as others.  where this becomes dangerous is when you make it a crime to discriminate against one party, but don't give the opposite party equal protection from discrimination.  that obliterates any form of  true equality at all, and only serves to cause degradation in society.

 

the sad truth is that equality today isn't about equality at all, it is about forcing someone else to support a belief system they do no agree with...that is not a principle our country was founded upon

this sounds like when if i shoot a black person in self defense it gets labeled a hate crime but if a black thug beats me and shouts cracker etc its not a hate crime when it really is

[jacob]

So is someone being treated differently based solely on their skin color or genitals ok with you?? Or should they be judged by the content of their character?? That is what that sounds like....and it sounds like what you also stated unless I am mistaken...

Let me REINTERATE; I am not taking the side of the homosexual couple...they were wrong IMHO for taking the case to court....simple enough?

[Hi Point Hooligan]

This is just another sign of the end times. Christians will be persecuted, the churches will be looked down upon, and men’s hearts will be hardened. It will be nation against nation, and brother against brother.

 

When I was younger I had doubts about God but the more I read in the bible and see the things going on today, there are some chilling similarities to be noted. That being said, I think the baker was being persecuted for their beliefs.

 

-HPH

[Guest Riciticky]

Bakers needs to treat them with respect and make sure they get plenty of boogers, loogeys , and snot in their pastries just to show them that you welcome and love  them and you know they  love your food and will come back for more!  JMO

Edited December 7, 2013 by Riciticky

[RobertNashville]

Many companies do business with a single client/customer. Perhaps it's semantics, but I'd say that is far from opening the doors to the public.

Well, I guess those are not the kinds of businesses we are talking about or that would have to deal with this kind of situation.

[sigmtnman]

The south had segregation *laws*. Clearly those needed to be done away with. IMO, the rest would have taken care of itself. Perhaps not as quickly as some would have hoped but certainly in a more natural and smooth way, I would suggest)

 

Some northern states had segregation laws.

[jacob]

Baker needs to treat them with respect and make sure they get plenty of boogers, loogeys , and snot in their pastries just to show them that you welcome them and you know they will love it. JMO

Ha! If those 2 go back to that baker now that the judge has ordered him to make the cake against his will they are insane...

[Glenn]

Why can't a judge be able to require Chick Fillet to be open on Sunday? Atheists and 7th day adventists are being discriminated against.

[Glenn]

Baker needs to treat them with respect and make sure they get plenty of boogers, loogeys , and snot in their pastries just to show them that you welcome them and you know they will love it. JMO

Or something else he knows they like :dirty:

[sigmtnman]

Hmm. 

 

Open business.

 

Tell gays they can't shop there.

 

Get ordered to let gays shop there.

 

Let them "show me" and get rich.

 

muwahahahaha

[RobertNashville]

And it's their right to take a risk, and not yours.

I don't think I said otherwise did I ?