Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Christians (as the linked article from "Red State" pointed out) believe their work should give honor and glory to God. I can understand fully why the baker refused. He did not want to bring dishonor to God.
Oh please. This is the same baker who accepted an order of a wedding cake for a DOG wedding.
Hey? Answer this question, ok? What if a homosexual "couple" own a bakery? Should or should not they have the simple right to refuse to make a wedding cake for a heterosexual couple???
In States where sexual orientation is a protected class under anti-discrimination law, a gay baker who makes wedding cakes cannot legally refuse to make a wedding cake for a heterosexual couple purely on the basis of them being heterosexual. It works both ways.
And finally, the attempt to link this all with the old "Jim Crow" laws is simply silly and ludicrous. This business did not at all exclude anyone based on color or gender or religion or sexual orientation; the owners simply refused -- on religious grounds -- to make a cake topped with a homosexual "model" atop. Same as the opposite would/should apply, by the very same rationale, from the mirrored direction...
That is a lie about the baker simply refusing to make a cake topped with 'homosexual model' atop.
The baker refused even before the couple told him what they wanted.
Seriously, if so-called "Christians" have to lie to make their case, what's the point?
This has nothing to do with Christianity other then a premise in the system to "promote" well being. A contribution to society and example in, society,
You want to study CDC, all stats, habits, drugs use. Then check mortality rates where this disease orientated issue of HIV started in Africa, ok ? Have a look at statistical projections for Africa. Science knows the gay-gay act fuels the hiv disease. A scientific FACT.
If a decent baker does not want to contribute to a celebration of ill to the human race don't you even think of going the moral path, get it ? IOw...get educated before coming on line with your nonsense.
Hey, the cake is an ornament, no one should be forced to produce an ornament to something which we know degrades health. This has zip to do with Christianity, get your ducks in a row member, sheesh. Is there no morality anywhere. You never heard of the term well being or what ? Do you know what science is ? go from there and maybe u can learn something for a change instead of this uneducated hogwash. What kind of a world do yuh want anyway.
Oh, please, two gay guys might as well get married should that work to settle them down, be true to each other, while spreading NO disease. Getting married is supposed to be about being true to each other, not spreading disease.
No doubt about it. The baker is targeting gays for discrimination, simply because he finds the sex acts gays do to be far, far more offensive to his senses than sex acts by heterosexuals.
Untrue. Maybe this baker, or others who won't serve ssm marriage, do find the thought of sssex offensive, but there's no evidence they discriminated against gay people as individuals. The target was ssm, not sex.
This issue is as much about 1st Amendment rights as it is anti-gay discrimination, but there is absolutely no compromise from the gay rights side. You can't discriminate against homosexuals, but they can discriminate against religious beliefs. Anything other than 100% compliance isn't acceptable and they refuse to acknowledge they're steamrolling someone else's rights to assure their own.
I have a question: when it comes to civil rights and a minority being denied equal access to goods and services made available by a business serving the public, what kind of compromise can be instituted?
If a baker didn't want to sell cakes to Hispanics, would a comprise be willingness to sell to Cubans, Dominicans, and Puerto Ricans ... but not Mexicans? How about Jews? Only to the ones who don't look too Jewish?
Here's a real compromise - let the baker not carry any kind of bride or groom toppers, so the cake can't be obviously identified as a "gay wedding cake" and it is just a regular wedding cake.
There is no need -- nor to waste time -- on counter-replying -- to your own original replies. Mainly for the simple fact we will be talking past each other and proceed from totally different premises/visions.
From my angle, it is quite obvious you have no comprehension nor respect for the concept that one's right to control their own business property is one of the fundamental foundations of classical freedom. In fact, it ranks right up there -- not quite, but not far from it -- with a person's right to own and control their own house and property...and have the final say as to who and when guests are permitted within, and what rules must be followed, and etc...
Your counter-arguments are nothing more than the usual "gay rights" and/or far leftist position that either advances the position that private property rights and control of the same must give way to some newly-discovered notion of just what "rights" are....or that some special interest group's hurt-feelings "rights" and/or agenda, supercede that of the business owner to exercise their own Bill of Rights, rights!
Hey? Answer this question, ok? What if a homosexual "couple" own a bakery? Should or should not they have the simple right to refuse to make a wedding cake for a heterosexual couple???
PLEASE answer that...in simple terms. Hell, personally? I say they have every right in the world to say no. Would you say different? LOL So what if they didn't? Hell, I would just go elsewhere! As someone mentioned earlier? This situation might be a good business opportunity for some "gay" couple/enterprise to make a lot of money!
OR....? Is the real purpose not so much what ought to be obvious in the realm of private enterprise...but to advance a certain platform...?
And finally, the attempt to link this all with the old "Jim Crow" laws is simply silly and ludicrous. This business did not at all exclude anyone based on color or gender or religion or sexual orientation; the owners simply refused -- on religious grounds -- to make a cake topped with a homosexual "model" atop. Same as the opposite would/should apply, by the very same rationale, from the mirrored direction...
Talk about avoidance tactics. Your reason for dismissing my points is a weak one.
Your statement about " hurt feelings " truly shows that you have no empathy. A terrible thing for a person not to have.
If a gay couple owns a bakery of course they would have to serve everyone. In fact there are many, many businesses that are gay owned and I have never heard of them refusing service to anyone. You really thought that " you had me " at that question? Odd, very odd.
I live in Canada, where it is illegal for a business to discriminate, as it is in many places in the U.S.
A business just doesn't have that " right ". Business must comply with all sorts of rules and regulations. Do you see business licenses as an affront to your freedom? How about food and health standards for restaurants etc? Businesses already can't discriminate agains race etc in AZ. Once gay rights becomes federal in the U.S. gay people will join that list.
Going elsewhere is simply not an option in a society where everyone is equal.
If peoples religion is going to get in the way of serving the public when offering services, then they really shouldn't be in business.
However as you say, you are unable to even consider my points. It really doesn't matter in the end. I have said this before on this and other threads, but your kind is diminishing. Your kind is losing and has lost the battle on several fronts. Your kind is looked upon somewhat pathetically as small minded, dark hearted.
I don't know how old you are but if you are around in 20 years, you might even look back at this time and wonder what all the fuss was about.
Yes, of course, homosexual bakers should be forced to bake a cake for a heterosexual couple, especially when anti discriminatory laws dictate they do.
Translation: You support laws which force privately owned businesses to do something the owners of the business itself (the ones to opened it, take the risks, etc) may have an objection to on freedom of religion grounds.
LMAO. And who should do the "enforcing"? The government?
Ahhhh, ST... unfortunately, you seem to be one of those who are lost to a modern-day generation which has grown up having no respect nor appreciation....nor even comprehension...of the connection between private property rights and true freedom as intended by the Founding fathers.
In essence, it really boils down to that if "you" don't, personally, like something? Then? The "government" (because that is all it can be), has an obligation to enforce your own wishes/ agenda, on others, at the expense of their own rights.
I truly feel sorry for you when you (and those of your belief system) find out first-hand, that this can work both ways....
I guess put in another parlance? Are you such a whiner that you can't understand the simple concept that folks -- gay or straight -- are ALWAYS free to go elsewhere to get served?
And yeah, I know all about "anti-discrimination" laws. It brings to mind the old Dickens "Oliver Twist" novel quote from Mr. Bumble: If the law says that, then the law is an ass.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
