# No Gays Allowed



## mmoetc

I think she's got it right.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7710334


----------



## HDRider

Me too. So I wish they'd sit down and shut up.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mmoetc said:


> I think she's got it right.
> 
> http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7710334


Yes she does. From the link:

"So I say to Amyx and others of his ilk, be blunt. If your message is "No Gays Allowed," then put it out there, loud and proud. Let me know you don't want me in your store, and I'll steer clear. And please, hang similar signage if you dream of excluding Jews, African-Americans or any other minority group, because that will likewise inform my decisions as a consumer.

The real problem I have is with all those underground haters. The ones who don't have a sign out front, yet silently seethe about my "lifestyle," who happily take my money and then give it to the National Organization for Marriage or the Family Research Council or some other group that will use it to try to strip me of my civil rights.

If you don't support my freedom to marry, have the guts to come out about it. Exercise your constitutional right to free speech, and I'll support that. Then I'll exercise my capitalist right to shop from your competitor--and to proudly put my money where my allies are."


----------



## FarmerKat

I think she does have it right.


----------



## Txsteader

> The real problem I have is with all those underground haters. The ones who don't have a sign out front, yet silently seethe about my "lifestyle," who happily take my money and then give it to the National Organization for Marriage or the Family Research Council or some other group that will use it to try to strip me of my civil rights.
> 
> If you don't support my freedom to marry, have the guts to come out about it. Exercise your constitutional right to free speech, and I'll support that. Then I'll exercise my capitalist right to shop from your competitor--and to proudly put my money where my allies are."


If only it were that simple. That person doesn't seem interested in suing but there are plenty who would.

In short, people don't get sued for being homosexual but people do get sued for being Christian. What puzzles me is why they're not harassing Muslim store owners.


----------



## Oxankle

If homosexuals would be as discreet in discussing their sexual lives as are straights I'd be a lot more comfortable. It is the "in your face" attitude that repels me. 

I've lived next door to a lesbian, and she was quite the lady. She did not advertise her sexuality, lived a normal life and was a good neighbor. No reason to get excited over that.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Oxankle said:


> If homosexuals would be as discreet in discussing their sexual lives as are straights I'd be a lot more comfortable. It is the "in your face" attitude that repels me.
> 
> I've lived next door to a lesbian, and she was quite the lady. She did not advertise her sexuality, lived a normal life and was a good neighbor. No reason to get excited over that.


So if you can control the "lifestyle" you're OK with it? Just to be clear, would it be OK if gays controlled your life?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> If only it were that simple. That person doesn't seem interested in suing but there are plenty who would.
> 
> In short, people don't get sued for being homosexual but people do get sued for being Christian. What puzzles me is why they're not harassing Muslim store owners.


I have no idea why Muslim store owners aren't being sued.

Christian store owners have a choice, sell their product to the public or don't and face a lawsuit.


----------



## farmrbrown

Deja vu.......

I had this conversation with my wife's granddaughter at 16, ten years later she still doesn't get it.

No, *I* don't want to control anyone.
It's *self* control that makes everybody get along better.
Big difference, but still not obvious.


----------



## Wolf mom

Irish Pixie said:


> So if you can control the "lifestyle" you're OK with it? Just to be clear, would it be OK if gays controlled your life?


That is such a non sequitur.


----------



## farmrbrown

Same argument, same solution.
The ONLY way the gov't can mandate who you sell to is by the business license.
The gov't seems to think it can FORCE people to conduct their commerce against their beliefs.
You simply defy them and show them they're wrong.
Will it come down to a bitter and bloody fight?
You betcha.


----------



## no really

Txsteader said:


> If only it were that simple. That person doesn't seem interested in suing but there are plenty who would.
> 
> In short, people don't get sued for being homosexual but people do get sued for being Christian. What puzzles me is why they're not harassing Muslim store owners.


Friend told me that Muslim businesses, if they think someone is gay they will just ignore them till they leave. Won't interact at all. Don't know if this is a prevailing action or not.


----------



## HDRider

no really said:


> Friend told me that Muslim businesses, if they think someone is gay they will just ignore them till they leave. Won't interact at all. Don't know if this is a prevailing action or not.


Good tactic.


----------



## plowjockey

Archie Bunker made his bigotry known, loud and clear.

At least everyone knew where he stood and could react as they saw fit.

Let them put their signs up.


----------



## FarmerKat

The one thing I do not understand about all these lawsuits from people who were denied cakes, flowers, etc. is why do you want to do business with someone who does not want to do business with you? Are they the only florist in town? Would you not rather give your hard earned cash to someone you like?

Has any woman on here never been denied service in a restaurant because they did not approve of a woman dining out alone? I have and I have no desire to do business with such establishments. I will spend my money elsewhere, thank you very much. I will also be sure to tell all my friends to take their money elsewhere. 

I have also been told in a hardware store that what I was trying to get supplies for was a job for a man, not a woman ... took my business elsewhere ....

Or how about this ... has a doctor ever denied to accept you/your family member as a patient because you did not see eye to eye on something? Does the doctor not have a right to choose which patients to serve? For example, many pediatricians will not accept patients who do not vaccinate on CDC schedule. In most states it is legal to not vaccinate your children so should doctors in these states be forced to accept any child regardless of vaccination status. Another example: a woman wants to have a child via a vaginal birth after a previous c-section birth. Most OB/GYNs will not accept such patient. Should they be forced to?

In a business world ... my prior employer decided to not renew a contract with a customer because they were a pain in the you-know-where to deal with. They were the largest customer we had. They tried to hire two of our competitors for the job but neither competitor wanted the headache. They were forced to hire people and do the work in-house because no one wanted to deal with them. 

I think that in a free business environment things will work themselves out. If you deny services to people, you lose their money. IMO, a private business being forced to accept customers they don't want to do business with is not the answer.


----------



## OffGridCooker

Wolf mom said:


> That is such a non sequitur.


Wise comment!
So few people understand the basic fallacies of thinking.
I think it is the Latin names.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> So if you can control the "lifestyle" you're OK with it? Just to be clear, would it be OK if gays controlled your life?


You seem to be quite often unreasonable in your stances. 

How about reading what you are replying to as if it said:

"They respect others by keeping their private life private." 

...instead of accusing others of wanting to control this or that?

You see, the way that you respond to others can appear to be "in your face" or respectful.

Almost all of your posts seem to me to be of the former sort....

...jest sayin'


----------



## JJ Grandits

Lets see, the store owner is a minister and his religion claims that homosexuality is a sin, an affront to God, and he does not want to do business with those individuals as a response to the recent SC ruling.

Next thing you know the liberal response is "Whay don't you put up a sign refusing to do business with Jews and Blacks or Hispanics."

unfortunately the liberal mind does not understand that being a Jew or a Black or a Hispanic is not a sin. At least not to the minister store owner. What is interesting is that to the liberal it is. They know it is a sin in his religion and in their typical Freudian slip announce what is a sin to them. Interesting.

If he put up a sign saying he would not do business with the Irish or Catholics I could see their point.


----------



## gibbsgirl

With stores choosing to react to issues by removing items like Confederate flag merchandise, I wonder if people will be up in arms over stores that also do not stock items going forward that appear to be in support of things?

For instance, will chains like David's bridal be witchhunted if they don't add products to their lineup like gay wedding cake toppers?

I don't know if they do currently or not. So, that particular example may be flawed. But, I had this thought today.


----------



## wr

Txsteader said:


> If only it were that simple. That person doesn't seem interested in suing but there are plenty who would.
> 
> In short, people don't get sued for being homosexual but people do get sued for being Christian. What puzzles me is why they're not harassing Muslim store owners.



I haven't heard of any Muslim business owners who have refused to prove goods or services to gays.


----------



## MO_cows

I think she needs to get over herself. Or maybe I need to conduct a survey before I buy anything, make sure any of "my" money isn't going to PITA or some cause I don't support or approve of? I understand voting with your dollars and I do it too to some degree but you just can't segregate yourself to a circle that 100% shares your world views because we are all unique. And bless her heart, she managed to get the "haters" label in there.


----------



## poppy

Wolf mom said:


> That is such a non sequitur.



It was also stupid.


----------



## poppy

plowjockey said:


> Archie Bunker made his bigotry known, loud and clear.
> 
> At least everyone knew where he stood and could react as they saw fit.
> 
> Let them put their signs up.


I agree. If I am carrying a concealed weapon and a business has a "no guns allowed" sign, I go somewhere else. I don't pitch a hissy fit. I'll never understand why some people insist on pushing their way into places they aren't wanted.


----------



## where I want to

The article is a mix of selectivity, insult detecting missiles, and self delusion. She hates those who don't find her perfect, especially if they hide it, assuming it's because they hate her for being gay. I suppose they might hate her for being a loud mouth but that would also turn out to be because she's gay anyway. She would not patronize a business that objects to her but I guess suing the heck out a business that she doesn't want go to anyway is fine. Anyway, she right that it is a hateful sign because, as far as I know, hardware is rarely part of Christian rite.

If she were really honest she would simply say that it is hurtful and irritating to be disliked so publicly but she'd rather that than give up living according to her own desires. And she intends to make those who do this pay for it where ever it is convenient to do so. And that there is therefore no reason to temper her remarks to the reality of what these people actually do but assaults them with whatever occurs to her as outrageous beliefs they have not expressed. Just because it is a way of striking back that costs her nothing. So she drags in the implication that they should also post signs about hating other minorities, which they certainly must hate also, being haters in general. Which may or may not be true. That is not important to her.

What her point seems to be is that she also hates those who don't exclude her, even if they object to her "life style". So it comes down to a simple "if you don't love me, I will hate you in return." Which at least has virtue of clarity and actually settles the whole thing.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> I have no idea why Muslim store owners aren't being sued.
> 
> Christian store owners have a choice, sell their product to the public or don't and *face a lawsuit.*


Why not simply go to another store that is willing to accommodate? 

Because progressive liberals are the most *intolerant* group (bigots!) and have no qualms about violating others' 1st Amendment rights.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Shine said:


> You seem to be quite often unreasonable in your stances.
> 
> How about reading what you are replying to as if it said:
> 
> "They respect others by keeping their private life private."
> 
> ...instead of accusing others of wanting to control this or that?
> 
> You see, the way that you respond to others can appear to be "in your face" or respectful.
> 
> Almost all of your posts seem to me to be of the former sort....
> 
> ...jest sayin'


Post of the day award.


----------



## Tricky Grama

IMHO, a 'sign' would be overthetop rude & offensive. 

I remember inadvertently going to a restaurant in the Cedar Springs area of Dallas, that was totally gay. 
Thing of it is, DH (waaay back b/4 we married) & I had just gone to a play that my best bud in college had given us tickets to see. Larry had sewn ALL the costumes. It was a cute play, too. Incidently, there were a lot of gay guys in the audience as well as several of Larry's friends who I had not met, also gay. We all had drinks at intermisson.

Well, long story even longer, DH & I were pretty swished out by the time we were done eating at the Bell Pepper. The cook-who we could see from the dinning area-kept making out w/dishwasher & our waiter bumped up against a couple customers-I guess he knew them-and something was going on in a booth nest to ours.

We laughed all the way home. Sometimes its strange to be in the minority...


----------



## JeffreyD

wr said:


> I haven't heard of any Muslim business owners who have refused to prove goods or services to gays.


I had a halal meat market refuse to sell me bacon!!! 

So, because YOU haven't heard about Muslim businesses refusing to provide services, does that mean it never happens? Have you seen them throwing gays off buildings? Beheadings? Stonings? Just curious.


----------



## wr

JeffreyD said:


> I had a halal meat market refuse to sell me bacon!!!
> 
> 
> 
> So, because YOU haven't heard about Muslim businesses refusing to provide services, does that mean it never happens? Have you seen them throwing gays off buildings? Beheadings? Stonings? Just curious.



Do they stock bacon?


----------



## greg273

JeffreyD said:


> I had a halal meat market refuse to sell me bacon!!! .


 Somehow I doubt they had any bacon to sell you. Nice try though, way to stir the pot.


----------



## chamoisee

Txsteader said:


> In short, people don't get sued for being homosexual but people do get sued for being Christian. .


Oh please. No one is getting sued by gays for being Christian. People are getting sued for discriminating. That isn't the same thing.


----------



## chamoisee

I agree in theory with the person who wrote the article, however, there are problems: 

This only works if you live in a heavily populated area. It does not work if there is only one gas station for 200 miles around (yes, there are such towns), or only one grocery store in your area, etc. Also, what about medical providers? If you are injured or need medical care and there's only one clinic available or open, and they turn you away based on some crazy idea that they have the right to do so, serious medical harm could be done. 

Lastly, many of us are not obviously gay. Haters tend to think that they can tell, that they have gaydar. Sorry, no. You cannot always tell. We don't always fit stereotypes. 

I have no interest in patronizing obviously homophobic/transphobic businesses and I already boycott them as well as such individuals selling things/offering services. I am saddened to say this, but because of the Christian Right's support and stance on these issues, my general M.O. is that if someone is openly, obviously evangelical Christian, they do not want my business and I do not want to give it to them. When there is a choice, I use my money to buy from those who support my right to exist and to have the same rights as anyone else.


----------



## JeffreyD

wr said:


> Do they stock bacon?


Nope, but they sell "meat". At least that's what their sign said! No mention that they don't sell pork products. Just..."Halal meat market".

Have you seen muslims throw gays off buildings? Beheadings?


----------



## chamoisee

Txsteader said:


> Why not simply go to another store that is willing to accommodate?
> 
> Because progressive liberals are the most *intolerant* group (bigots!) and have no qualms about violating others' 1st Amendment rights.


When you live in a very small town, sometimes there is not another store.


----------



## JeffreyD

greg273 said:


> Somehow I doubt they had any bacon to sell you. Nice try though, way to stir the pot.


What comes around, goes around! Nope no bacon! (I knew that already) maybe I should sue them for advertising "meat" and not proving me with what I asked for! Don't care if it goes against their religion! Folks don't care about Christians beliefs, I don't care about muslims!


----------



## JeffreyD

chamoisee said:


> When you live in a very small town, sometimes there is not another store.


Interweb!


----------



## chamoisee

JJ Grandits said:


> Lets see, the store owner is a minister and his religion claims that homosexuality is a sin, an affront to God, and he does not want to do business with those individuals as a response to the recent SC ruling.
> 
> Next thing you know the liberal response is "Whay don't you put up a sign refusing to do business with Jews and Blacks or Hispanics."
> 
> unfortunately the liberal mind does not understand that being a Jew or a Black or a Hispanic is not a sin. At least not to the minister store owner. What is interesting is that to the liberal it is. They know it is a sin in his religion and in their typical Freudian slip announce what is a sin to them. Interesting.
> 
> If he put up a sign saying he would not do business with the Irish or Catholics I could see their point.


The bible never says that sexual *orientation* is a sin. It does say that divorce is a sin, as is gluttony, also fornication. Are you also in favor of excluding all divorced people, all those who are having sex outside of marriage or who haven't come to your church begging forgiveness for their sins, as well as all gluttons?


----------



## kasilofhome

chamoisee said:


> When you live in a very small town, sometimes there is not another store.


You choose were you live or is there a court order, law restriction that prevents you from moving....


----------



## chamoisee

JeffreyD said:


> Interweb!


A gallon of milk? A gallon of gas? Necessary, immediate needs? Also, why limit it to private businesses? What if the mailman decides it's against his principles to deliver my mail?


----------



## kasilofhome

chamoisee said:


> The bible never says that sexual *orientation* is a sin. It does say that divorce is a sin, as is gluttony, also fornication. Are you also in favor of excluding all divorced people, all those who are having sex outside of marriage or who haven't come to your church begging forgiveness for their sins, as well as all gluttons?


The bible fails to mention a lot of made up stuff.


----------



## chamoisee

kasilofhome said:


> You choose were you live or is there a court order, law restriction that prevents you from moving....


NO. I am NOT going to be run out of town, away from the children that I have shared custody of, because bigots don't want me here. I do realize that this is what some of you want- to be able to run us out of town- and that it's why you support this kind of thing....but it ain't gonna happen. You don't get to have all-white, all-Christian, all-heterosexual neighborhoods and counties and states and countries. America is a melting pot with room for all types of people, not just YOUR type.


----------



## chamoisee

kasilofhome said:


> The bible fails to mention a lot of made up stuff.


And you are evading the question. Are you going to refuse service to ALL sinners? Hmmm....seems like Jesus said something about "He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone".


----------



## Shine

While I am pretty sure Jeffrey stretched the envelope there - let's discuss that. Buying bacon from a Muslim who cannot sell it to you because of their religion. It is possible that they did not "stock" bacon. The devil's advocate would say that the Christian Baker did not "stock" the style of cake that the people wanted.

So, should the businessman Muslin be taken to court and sued if he refuses to sell a nun-Muslim bacon in America? Possibly be forced to stock bacon so as to not discriminate against non-Muslims?

btw... thanks Jeffery


----------



## painterswife

Shine said:


> While I am pretty sure Jeffrey stretched the envelope there - let's discuss that. Buying bacon from a Muslim who cannot sell it to you because of their religion. It is possible that they did not "stock" bacon. The devil's advocate would say that the Christian Baker did not "stock" the style of cake that the people wanted.
> 
> So, should the businessman Muslin be taken to court and sued if he refuses to sell a nun-Muslim bacon in America? Possibly be forced to stock bacon so as to not discriminate against non-Muslims?
> 
> btw... thanks Jeffery


What style is a gay cake?


----------



## chamoisee

The bakery initially agreed to make the wedding cake. They changed their mind when they realized that it was being made for a lesbian couple. I personally would not have sued. Instead, I would have spread the word to everyone I knew, that the bakery owners are bigots, and I would never shop there again.


----------



## kasilofhome

chamoisee said:


> NO. I am NOT going to be run out of town, away from the children that I have shared custody of, because bigots don't want me here. I do realize that this is what some of you want- to be able to run us out of town- and that it's why you support this kind of thing....but it ain't gonna happen. You don't get to have all-white, all-Christian, all-heterosexual neighborhoods and counties and states and countries. America is a melting pot with room for all types of people, not just YOUR type.


And that is freedom for you to make that choice. 

Melting pot is a hateful term and insulting to people


----------



## kasilofhome

chamoisee said:


> And you are evading the question. Are you going to refuse service to ALL sinners? Hmmm....seems like Jesus said something about "He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone".


So, are you just not pleased or are people in your community refusing to serve you.


----------



## chamoisee

kasilofhome said:


> Melting pot is a hateful term and insulting to people


??? To white separatists, maybe??? Are you a white separatist?!


----------



## chamoisee

kasilofhome said:


> So, are you just not pleased or are people in your community refusing to serve you.


Still not answering the question. Why do you support cherry picking sins when it comes to refusing service to people?


----------



## JeffreyD

chamoisee said:


> A gallon of milk? A gallon of gas? Necessary, immediate needs? Also, why limit it to private businesses? What if the mailman decides it's against his principles to deliver my mail?


Where you live is your choice! Ain't America great!


----------



## Shine

chamoisee said:


> And you are evading the question. Are you going to refuse service to ALL sinners? Hmmm....seems like Jesus said something about "He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone".


You apparently fail to realize that we are all sinners in the eyes of the Lord. The greatest sin is Blasphemy, all other sins are exactly on par with each other. My understanding is that the Lord cannot be within a million miles of any sin so that makes a serial killer just as bad as someone that tells a little white lie [please don't pull the racism card on me for that] 

Who was the first one to throw a stone after Jesus said that? No one. Get it? Now I understand that people who already have an agenda will have something against me before I say hello. I cannot change that. But here, try this on for size, 

I'll work side beside you all day long as long as you do your job, won't criticize unless I can see a better way for you to be more productive, and I would hope you would do the same for me. 

I play my best if I were to be on your softball team, won't criticize unless I can see a better way for you to be a better ball player, and I would hope you would do the same for me.

I would welcome you to my church, [yes, there are gay people that attend our church] and if you asked, I would share my understanding on any question that you might have. You might not like the answer but I would do my best to explain what and how I understand something that has been revealed to me. 

These things would be done in a loving fashion, I live my life that way. 

If however someone comes and tells me that I must change these ways because I am intolerant then I have an issue with that...


----------



## JeffreyD

chamoisee said:


> NO. I am NOT going to be run out of town, away from the children that I have shared custody of, because bigots don't want me here. I do realize that this is what some of you want- to be able to run us out of town- and that it's why you support this kind of thing....but it ain't gonna happen. You don't get to have all-white, all-Christian, all-heterosexual neighborhoods and counties and states and countries. America is a melting pot with room for all types of people, not just YOUR type.


Folks associate with whom their comfortable. You can't legislate that! Do blacks or Asians not live in their own communities too? Just as native Americans and Samoans, and whomever choose to do! 

Where you choose to live is just that, a choice! Not everyone make wise choices.


----------



## kasilofhome

chamoisee said:


> ??? To white separatists, maybe??? Are you a white separatist?!


Lastest word from Janet Napolitano.... Melting pot .....bad to say in the the pc world.

Racist ....me. doubt it would have made meeting my fiancee parents odd..and uncomfortable. Heck I might not accepted the proposal if I was.


----------



## chamoisee

JeffreyD said:


> Folks associate with whom their comfortable. You can't legislate that! Do blacks or Asians not live in their own communities too? Just as native Americans and Samoans, and whomever choose to do!
> 
> Where you choose to live is just that, a choice! Not everyone make wise choices.


It's *MY* choice where to live, not yours. If you try to run me out of town for being different, you are attempting to remove that choice. Moreover, this is the town I have lived in for the past 28 years. It's not as if I deliberately moved to some intolerant podunk town just to annoy straight White Christians. I've lived here for my entire adult life and I intend to stay here whether other people think I belong or not.


----------



## kasilofhome

Fyi.


Heterosexual are not clones. All humans even twins are different...Could it be hypersensitivity on your part? Could it be a reflection of how you treat them. Could you focus more on your sexuality than others are comfortable?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Irish Pixie said:


> I have no idea *why Muslim store owners aren't being sued.*
> 
> Christian store owners have a choice, sell their product to the public or don't and face a lawsuit.


I suspect it's just the odds, considering there are relatively few Muslim store owners compared to the Christians in the US


----------



## JeffreyD

Interesting. Why is the MM not covering this?

Muslim bakeries in Michigan refused to bake cakes for gay weddings. You would think that would be news like Memories Pizza refusing to cater gay weddings. Nope, Muslims are part of the liberal media protected class. If Muslims want to follow their own religious beliefs and not bake cakes for gay weddings, you donât hear any big outcry out bigotry of âhomophobia.â Instead, these Muslim bakeries in Michigan are given a pass to practice their religion as they see fit, unlike Christians. Watch the following video from Steven Crowder going into a few Dearboorn Muslim bakeries and asking them to make a gay wedding cake. Every one of them refuses.

http://washingtonweeklynews.com/mus...ke-cakes-for-gay-weddings-video-media-silent/


----------



## Txsteader

chamoisee said:


> I agree in theory with the person who wrote the article, however, there are problems:
> 
> This only works if you live in a heavily populated area. It does not work if there is only one gas station for 200 miles around (yes, there are such towns), or only one grocery store in your area, etc. Also, what about medical providers? If you are injured or need medical care and there's only one clinic available or open, and they turn you away based on some crazy idea that they have the right to do so, serious medical harm could be done.
> 
> Lastly, many of us are not obviously gay. Haters tend to think that they can tell, that they have gaydar. Sorry, no. You cannot always tell. We don't always fit stereotypes.
> 
> I have no interest in patronizing obviously homophobic/transphobic businesses and I already boycott them as well as such individuals selling things/offering services. I am saddened to say this, but because of the Christian Right's support and stance on these issues, my general M.O. is that if someone is openly, obviously evangelical Christian, they do not want my business and I do not want to give it to them. When there is a choice, I use my money to buy from those who support my right to exist and to have the same rights as anyone else.


You absolutely have a right to exist, a right to live as you choose, the right to whatever sexual preferences your choose. Nobody is denying that. 

As I've said repeatedly, the problem comes when the* federal government *meddles in such issues that involve religious beliefs. IMO, they've made a superb mess of the whole thing because while attempting to protect the rights of one group, they've essentially denied the rights of another. Why shouldn't anyone have the right to conduct private business as they choose, as long as they do no harm? IMO, refusing (non-essential) service does no harm.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> You seem to be quite often unreasonable in your stances.
> 
> How about reading what you are replying to *as if* it said:
> 
> "They respect others by keeping their private life private."
> 
> ...instead of accusing others of wanting to control this or that?
> 
> You see, the way that you respond to others can appear to be "in your face" or respectful.
> 
> Almost all of your posts seem to me to be of the former sort....
> 
> ...jest sayin'


So some people should *pretend* others said something they didn't?
That seems "unreasonable" to me


----------



## JeffreyD

chamoisee said:


> It's *MY* choice where to live, not yours. If you try to run me out of town for being different, you are attempting to remove that choice. Moreover, this is the town I have lived in for the past 28 years. It's not as if I deliberately moved to some intolerant podunk town just to annoy straight White Christians. I've lived here for my entire adult life and I intend to stay here whether other people think I belong or not.


Wow, hostile post there!

Im not doing any of the above, am i? Please point out exactly where i said any of that. I just said you have a choice, and you do, that's all.


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> So some people should *pretend* others said something they didn't?
> That seems "unreasonable" to me


Man, that happens all the time here!! Just sayin!!


----------



## painterswife

JeffreyD said:


> Interesting. Why is the MM not covering this?
> 
> Muslim bakeries in Michigan refused to bake cakes for gay weddings. You would think that would be news like Memories Pizza refusing to cater gay weddings. Nope, Muslims are part of the liberal media protected class. If Muslims want to follow their own religious beliefs and not bake cakes for gay weddings, you donât hear any big outcry out bigotry of âhomophobia.â Instead, these Muslim bakeries in Michigan are given a pass to practice their religion as they see fit, unlike Christians. Watch the following video from Steven Crowder going into a few Dearboorn Muslim bakeries and asking them to make a gay wedding cake. Every one of them refuses.
> 
> http://washingtonweeklynews.com/mus...ke-cakes-for-gay-weddings-video-media-silent/


Jeffery linked this thread in the comments on below the video. Expect the weirdos soon.


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> Jeffery linked this thread in the comments on below the video. Expect the weirdos soon.



????


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> Nope, but they sell "meat". At least that's what their sign said! *No mention that they don't sell pork products. Just..."Halal meat market".*
> 
> Have you seen muslims throw gays off buildings? Beheadings?


That just shows you don't know the meaning of Halal


----------



## JeffreyD

Txsteader said:


> ????


Hey, that's interesting as i only copied the text and copied the url from the task bar like i always do when posting links! I made no comments there, nor did i link it to this site. They must have some auto response link deal! Never seen that before. :shrug:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> While I am pretty sure Jeffrey stretched the envelope there - let's discuss that. Buying bacon from a Muslim who cannot sell it to you because of their religion. It is possible that they did not "stock" bacon. The devil's advocate would say that the Christian Baker did not "stock" the style of cake that the people wanted.
> 
> So, should the businessman Muslin be taken to court and sued if he refuses to sell a nun-Muslim bacon in America? Possibly be forced to stock bacon so as to not discriminate against non-Muslims?
> 
> btw... thanks Jeffery


If he "stretched" it , you just blew out the seams

You need some smilies at the end of that joke


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> That just shows you don't know the meaning of Halal



That's what the sign painted on the front of the store says.:shrug:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halal

The food must come from a supplier that uses halal practices. Specifically, the slaughter must be performed by a Muslim, who must precede the slaughter by invoking the name of Allah, most commonly by saying "Bismillah" ("In the name of God") and then three times "Allahu akbar" (God is the greatest). Then, the animal must be slaughtered with a sharp knife by cutting the throat, windpipe and the blood vessels in the neck, causing the animal's death without cutting the spinal cord. Lastly, the blood from the veins must be drained.

Muslims must also ensure that all foods (particularly processed foods), as well as non-food items like cosmetics and pharmaceuticals, are halal. Frequently, these products contain animal by-products or other ingredients that are not permissible for Muslims to eat or use on their bodies.

Foods that are not halal for Muslims to consume as per various Qur&#700;anic verses are:

Pork[6]
Blood[7]
Intoxicants and alcoholic beverages[8]
Animals killed incorrectly and/or without Allah's name being pronounced before slaughter[9]
Animals slaughtered in the name of anyone but "Allah". All that has been dedicated or offered in sacrifice to an idolatrous altar or saint or a person considered to be "divine"[6][7]
Carrion (carcasses of dead animals, i.e. animals who died in the wild)[6]
An animal that has been strangled, beaten (to death), killed by a fall, gored (to death), savaged by a beast of prey (unless finished off by a human) or sacrificed on a stone altar.[7]
Quranic verses regarding halal foods include: 2:173, 5:5, and 6:118-119, 121.

What is YOUR definition?


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> If he "stretched" it , you just blew out the seams
> 
> You need some smilies at the end of that joke


:hysterical:ound:


----------



## fordy

chamoisee said:


> NO. I am NOT going to be run out of town, away from the children that I have shared custody of, because bigots don't want me here. I do realize that this is what some of you want- to be able to run us out of town- and that it's why you support this kind of thing....but it ain't gonna happen. You don't get to have all-white, all-Christian, all-heterosexual neighborhoods and counties and states and countries. America is a melting pot with room for all types of people, not just YOUR type.


 ...............The recent Supreme Ct. victory for homosexual marriage was , really , a LOSS for their movement , because , it totally circumvented the rights of individual state's and their legal system to Reject same ! Because , Ultimately , acceptance or rejection of each gay member by NON gays is a one on one transaction between people as we conduct our daily routines . So , as you have observed , the SC can't force the Non's to like OR befriend gays . You and most other gays are using the SC decision like it was a club and every time someone exhibits a dislike for you and or your movement you , whip out the club and give them a whack . This response will never force the Non's to accept you or your deviated lifestyle , regardless of how many court victories you score .
..............A marriage license for a deviate lifestyle , that is predicated on a SC decision that alienates the religious values of NON's , will forever be a hollow victory for the movement . The "Proof" of this is validated by your very own fear of rejection from members of your own community ! The next time someone rejects you for your lifestyle , try whacking them with your SC club and see if you can change their minds , I doubt you will effect any change . 
..............Finally , the Gay movement just can't seem to connect the dots on what it takes to motivate the Non's to accept the gay lifestyle , well , It sure isn't Court decisions ! Overall acceptance is achieved by positive , person to person contact . There is NO other way ! And , gays must learn to accept the fact , that , there will always BE , a large portion of the population , who , will NEVER , EVER be forced into becoming comfortable with the gay movement . , fordy


----------



## Patchouli

kasilofhome said:


> The bible fails to mention a lot of made up stuff.


Are you seriously saying divorce, gluttony and fornication aren't sins mentioned in the Bible? I guess that explains why I have never understood your take on scripture, you appear to be working with a different Bible than all the rest of us have. 

*Luke 16:18* - Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from [her] husband committeth adultery.

* Malachi 2:16New American Standard Bible (NASB)*

16 For I hate divorce,â says the Lord, the God of Israel, âand him who covers his garment with wrong,â says the Lord of hosts. âSo take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.â

It would appear God ranks gluttony and fornication right up there with homosexuality so I think our Baptist preacher needs to expand his sign a little.  

* 1 Corinthians 6:9-10*

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 


http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Gluttony#sthash.6mGRvqYh.dpuf


----------



## Jolly

chamoisee said:


> The bible never says that sexual *orientation* is a sin. It does say that divorce is a sin, as is gluttony, also fornication. Are you also in favor of excluding all divorced people, all those who are having sex outside of marriage or who haven't come to your church begging forgiveness for their sins, as well as all gluttons?


All have fallen short of the Glory of God. We can't help it, we're human.

But here's what we can help...We can try to do better. When we know we have sinned, we can pray for forgiveness and try to do better. We may make it, we may not, but it is the effort that matters.

And funny, but the more we try to be perfect and not sin, the better person we become. I do believe in second working of Grace and I believe the righteous man can be filled with the Holy Spirit.

Where many gays have a problem with Christianity, is that they [gays] will not acknowledge that homosexual behavior is a sin, because their lifestyle has become their life. 

People may change (not really, people are pretty much the same as they were in Jesus' day), but the Word remains the same.


----------



## chamoisee

Fordy, that's really difficult to read.


----------



## Patchouli

Shine said:


> While I am pretty sure Jeffrey stretched the envelope there - let's discuss that. Buying bacon from a Muslim who cannot sell it to you because of their religion. It is possible that they did not "stock" bacon. The devil's advocate would say that the Christian Baker did not "stock" the style of cake that the people wanted.
> 
> So, should the businessman Muslin be taken to court and sued if he refuses to sell a nun-Muslim bacon in America? Possibly be forced to stock bacon so as to not discriminate against non-Muslims?
> 
> btw... thanks Jeffery


This has been covered legally through Kosher Delis. They are not required to stock or serve anything that is non-Kosher.


----------



## chamoisee

Jolly said:


> All have fallen short of the Glory of God. We can't help it, we're human.
> 
> But here's what we can help...We can try to do better. When we know we have sinned, we can pray for forgiveness and try to do better. We may make it, we may not, but it is the effort that matters.
> 
> And funny, but the more we try to be perfect and not sin, the better person we become. I do believe in second working of Grace and I believe the righteous man can be filled with the Holy Spirit.
> 
> Where many gays have a problem with Christianity, is that they [gays] will not acknowledge that homosexual behavior is a sin, because their lifestyle has become their life.
> 
> People may change (not really, people are pretty much the same as they were in Jesus' day), but the Word remains the same.


OK. So, are Christians going to refuse to make wedding cakes for alcoholics? And divorcees? And those who had premarital sex?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> Man, that happens all the time here!! Just sayin!!


Frequency of occurrence doesn't negate "unreasonable"
They aren't mutually exclusive


----------



## chamoisee

JeffreyD said:


> Wow, hostile post there!
> 
> Im not doing any of the above, am i? Please point out exactly where i said any of that. I just said you have a choice, and you do, that's all.


You and kasilofhome appear to think that I should simply move and abandon my children if other people decide to discriminate against me. I don't have to move from here to somewhere else, and then move again, and again, and again, until I am living either in a big city or some place that has no bigots. 

It's not like I'm having orgies on my front lawn. Most of my neighbors probably have no idea that I am queer. Those who do, have probably looked at my short hair and Carhartt's and figured it out, or suspect. It may come as a surprise to you, but most gay people do _not_ prance around in G strings every day, dry humping every unsuspecting passerby. My sexuality is flaunted _much_ less than that of your average north Idaho barfly.


----------



## Evons hubby

Jolly said:


> All have fallen short of the Glory of God. We can't help it, we're human.
> 
> But here's what we can help...We can try to do better. When we know we have sinned, we can pray for forgiveness and try to do better. We may make it, we may not, but it is the effort that matters.
> 
> And funny, but the more we try to be perfect and not sin, the better person we become. I do believe in second working of Grace and I believe the righteous man can be filled with the Holy Spirit.
> 
> Where many gays have a problem with Christianity, is that they [gays] will not acknowledge that homosexual behavior is a sin, because their lifestyle has become their life.
> 
> People may change (not really, people are pretty much the same as they were in Jesus' day), but the Word remains the same.


This explains all of those gossipy grossly overweight Christians that seem to live for those church potlucks where they all get together and stuff themselves while belittling all them heathens.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> What is YOUR definition?


My point is saying the store is "Halal" is the same as saying "no pork"


----------



## Evons hubby

Patchouli said:


> This has been covered legally through Kosher Delis. They are not required to stock or serve anything that is non-Kosher.


To the best of my knowledge no shop keeper is required to stock or sell anything... But if the shop owner does carry a product and has it for sale to the public they are to sell it to whomever walks in with cash in fist. The exceptions here would be selling some products to minors. Tobacco, booze etc.


----------



## poppy

Patchouli said:


> Are you seriously saying divorce, gluttony and fornication aren't sins mentioned in the Bible? I guess that explains why I have never understood your take on scripture, you appear to be working with a different Bible than all the rest of us have.
> 
> *Luke 16:18* - Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from [her] husband committeth adultery.
> 
> * Malachi 2:16New American Standard Bible (NASB)*
> 
> 16 For I hate divorce,â says the Lord, the God of Israel, âand him who covers his garment with wrong,â says the Lord of hosts. âSo take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.â
> 
> It would appear God ranks gluttony and fornication right up there with homosexuality so I think our Baptist preacher needs to expand his sign a little.
> 
> * 1 Corinthians 6:9-10*
> 
> 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
> 
> 
> http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Gluttony#sthash.6mGRvqYh.dpuf


Accepting Christ and changing your life erases all those sins. No one claimed homosexuals cannot be saved by accepting Christ and abstaining from sin just like everyone else. Gays generally bash Christians for even suggesting homosexuals convert. Their argument is not with men, it is with God. Should a Christian not tell a thief, drunkard, or other sinner he needs to repent? The commandment to warn them goes all the way back to the OT. In fact, if we do not warn them, part of their blood is on our hands.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

chamoisee said:


> Fordy, that's really difficult to read.


You didn't miss anything worthwhile from what parts of it I read


----------



## Evons hubby

poppy said:


> Accepting Christ and changing your life erases all those sins. No one claimed homosexuals cannot be saved by accepting Christ and abstaining from sin just like everyone else. Gays generally bash Christians for even suggesting homosexuals convert. Their argument is not with men, it is with God. Should a Christian not tell a thief, drunkard, or other sinner he needs to repent? The commandment to warn them goes all the way back to the OT. In fact, if we do not warn them, part of their blood is on our hands.


I think the warnings might be better heeded if they were not coming from an obvious sinner.


----------



## gibbsgirl

I think the melting pot goal is a poor one. I prefer the tossed salad analogy.

I'm really most interested in trying to be who I am and live by the choices I feel are right, and allow others the space to do the same. We're all here together and will cross paths and interract. I don't want them to have to approve most of my choices, and I don't want them to need my approval.

But, I don't think people can stick to what they think is right or gave the freedom to even grow and change their mind about things, if we try and force people to assimilate unwillingly.

It's much better in my opinion to let people work through that stuff without so many forced mandates. It m's just a very high mark to set to say everything should always be fair and square and even Steven under the watchful eye if authorities.

And, I don't think it helps people find a way to co-exist in a way that really could last long term.


----------



## JeffreyD

chamoisee said:


> You and kasilofhome appear to think that I should simply move and abandon my children if other people decide to discriminate against me. I don't have to move from here to somewhere else, and then move again, and again, and again, until I am living either in a big city or some place that has no bigots.
> 
> It's not like I'm having orgies on my front lawn. Most of my neighbors probably have no idea that I am queer. Those who do, have probably looked at my short hair and Carhartt's and figured it out, or suspect. It may come as a surprise to you, but most gay people do _not_ prance around in G strings every day, dry humping every unsuspecting passerby. My sexuality is flaunted _much_ less than that of your average north Idaho barfly.


I never said anything like what your talking about! You seem to be reading much more into my post than what I actually said. I'll ....go.....slowly.

It's your choice to choose where you live. That's all. Doesn't matter to me one way or the other if you like or don't like where you live, it is YOUR choice.

As for the g strings and flaunting their sexuallity, in West Hollywood this is a daily occurrence. Even having little boys almost naked..twerking. 

I highly doubt that there is any place on earth that is without bigots. Humans are just that, human, and no one loves everything about everyone.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Gays generally bash Christians for even suggesting homosexuals convert. *Their argument is not with men, it is with God.* Should a Christian not tell a thief, drunkard, or other sinner he needs to repent?


So if a Muslim tells you to convert, will you do it?
If not, then why?


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> Frequency of occurrence doesn't negate "unreasonable"
> They aren't mutually exclusive


So, what's your definition of a Halal meat market?


----------



## kasilofhome

chamoisee said:


> You and kasilofhome appear to think that I should simply move and abandon my children if other people decide to discriminate against me. I don't have to move from here to somewhere else, and then move again, and again, and again, until I am living either in a big city or some place that has no bigots.
> 
> It's not like I'm having orgies on my front lawn. Most of my neighbors probably have no idea that I am queer. Those who do, have probably looked at my short hair and Carhartt's and figured it out, or suspect. It may come as a surprise to you, but most gay people do _not_ prance around in G strings every day, dry humping every unsuspecting passerby. My sexuality is flaunted _much_ less than that of your average north Idaho barfly.




It is an option... it is your choice....with your belief that it is not due to you flaunting homosexuality.... maybe blaming it on bigots who "hate" homos is a rush to judgement on your part... you might try other ideas as to why you feel unacceptable to your community.


I don't think moving is going to solve an issue you have yet to define.

Find the true problem then work on the solution for that.


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> So if a Muslim tells you to convert, will you do it?
> If not, then why?


I have often thought of the Bible as the ultimate propaganda machine.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> So, what's your definition of a Halal meat market?


I answered that one.
I think it's a page back now


----------



## Shine

Patchouli said:


> This has been covered legally through Kosher Delis. They are not required to stock or serve anything that is non-Kosher.


So Muslims can choose to not serve this or that to avoid breaking their faith, Jews can decide to not serve this or that to avoid breaking their faith, why might Christians not have that right?

You said it was already solved. Why not for Christians?


----------



## farmrbrown

chamoisee said:


> NO. I am NOT going to be run out of town, away from the children that I have shared custody of, because bigots don't want me here. I do realize that this is what some of you want- to be able to run us out of town- and that it's why you support this kind of thing....but it ain't gonna happen. You don't get to have all-white, all-Christian, all-heterosexual neighborhoods and counties and states and countries. America is a melting pot with room for all types of people, not just YOUR type.


And no one *should* try to run you out of town.
But then again, that's a far cry from not being able to buy a wedding cake.
Maybe there are a few mean spirited people out there who have those intentions, but that's not the same as turning away a customer.
I imagine this hardware store owner was selling all along until this SCOTUS decision.
Pushing against a stone wall will get you bloody knuckles every time.




chamoisee said:


> And you are evading the question. Are you going to refuse service to ALL sinners? Hmmm....seems like Jesus said something about "He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone".



Good question.
Take the example above.
Turning away business is a personal choice, if not a smart one.
After all, if a gay couple comes in to buy some nails, what harm or sin would he accommodate by doing that?
OTOH, selling a wedding cake does give a tacit approval and it's a onetime purchase and not a necessity like daily food or water, or in the case of hardware - shelter.
This isn't the choice everyone might make, but it was theirs, and should be respected. I have no idea what their relationship with God is, and that's between them.
If you look at it in regard to other sins or sinners, should a gun dealer sell a gun to someone who comes in enraged?
Should the hardware guy sell a crowbar, gloves and a cutting torch to a guy in a ski mask with the car running?
How about duct tape and condoms to the town's sexual predator?

I know those are bizarre and extreme examples, but I answered it in the way it should be, not as a blanket refusal to all sinners. That would mean zero customers.
It isn't the sinner, it's the sin being committed and knowing it.

Hopefully, that's taken as my _explanation,_ not _condemnation._



chamoisee said:


> The bakery initially agreed to make the wedding cake. They changed their mind when they realized that it was being made for a lesbian couple. I personally would not have sued. Instead, I would have spread the word to everyone I knew, that the bakery owners are bigots, and I would never shop there again.


And that is absolutely the way it should be handled. That would probably get better results and faster.



painterswife said:


> What style is a gay cake?


In the Masterpiece bakery case, it was a rainbow filling and probably two grooms or two brides on top.


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> I answered that one.
> I think it's a page back now


Your right you did answer, but you were not entirely correct, it's not just "no pork". That was YOUR own definition, after I posted a real one. 

My point was that the market said "Halal meat market", not "Halal no pork meat market! 
I expect them to sell me meat of my choice! That's why their in business, right, to sell meat. Why should they discriminate in the products they choose to sell?


----------



## Evons hubby

Txsteader said:


> You absolutely have a right to exist, a right to live as you choose, the right to whatever sexual preferences your choose. Nobody is denying that.
> 
> As I've said repeatedly, the problem comes when the* federal government *meddles in such issues that involve religious beliefs. IMO, they've made a superb mess of the whole thing because while attempting to protect the rights of one group, they've essentially denied the rights of another. Why shouldn't anyone have the right to conduct private business as they choose, as long as they do no harm? IMO, refusing (non-essential) service does no harm.


I was really glad as I read your first line. I wish you had stopped right there. Businesses lost their right to pick and choose their customers years ago by refusing service to individuals simply because of their race or religion. That nonsense was as wrong then as it is today. And it will still be wrong tomorrow.


----------



## JeffreyD

Patchouli said:


> This has been covered legally through Kosher Delis. They are not required to stock or serve anything that is non-Kosher.


Do you have a link? Talking to my rabbi neighbor just now, said they can carry whatever they want, just that they shouldn't.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> So some people should *pretend* others said something they didn't?
> That seems "unreasonable" to me


No, I think that you totally messed up understanding what was said.

Re-read the post she was referring to, - in it you will find the statement: "I've lived next door to a lesbian, and she was quite the lady. *She did not advertise her sexuality, lived a normal life and was a good neighbor.* No reason to get excited over that. "

I suggested to her that one possible meaning might be: "They respect others by keeping their private life private." 

Which one comes closer, the assertion of him trying to control the woman or her keeping her private live private?

There is nothing suggesting that ANY PERSON should pretend, this is a figment of your imagination and quite possible deeply seated in your agenda.


----------



## Txsteader

chamoisee said:


> OK. So, are Christians going to refuse to make wedding cakes for alcoholics? And divorcees? And those who had premarital sex?


You're (intentionally?) missing the point. 

Marriage has been defined for thousands of years as the joining of one man and one woman. And just because the SC says it now means something different, some are not going to accept it, based on Scripture. 

Not to beat a dead horse, but federal government meddling into issues of religious beliefs ain't gonna work. Period.


----------



## Patchouli

poppy said:


> Accepting Christ and changing your life erases all those sins. No one claimed homosexuals cannot be saved by accepting Christ and abstaining from sin just like everyone else. Gays generally bash Christians for even suggesting homosexuals convert. Their argument is not with men, it is with God. Should a Christian not tell a thief, drunkard, or other sinner he needs to repent? The commandment to warn them goes all the way back to the OT. In fact, if we do not warn them, part of their blood is on our hands.


I guess Paul was confused then since he wrote that letter to Christians? I am thinking the best way a Christian can spend their time is looking at themselves and working through their own sins. Especially as Yvonne's Hubby so aptly pointed out there are plenty of them proudly parading their own sins all whilst looking down their noses at other people for their alleged sins. 

I seem to remember something about a plank and a splinter?


----------



## JeffreyD

Txsteader said:


> You're (intentionally?) missing the point.
> 
> Marriage has been defined for thousands of years as the joining of one man and one woman. And just because the SC says it now means something different, some are not going to accept it, based on Scripture.
> 
> Not to beat a dead horse, but federal government meddling into issues of religious beliefs ain't gonna work. Period.


^^^^^ this ^^^^^

Your right of course! :thumb:


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> You're (intentionally?) missing the point.
> 
> Marriage has been defined for thousands of years as the joining of one man and one woman. And just because the SC says it now means something different, some are not going to accept it, based on Scripture.
> 
> Not to beat a dead horse, but federal government meddling into issues of religious beliefs ain't gonna work. Period.


Actually it has not. Lots of plural marriages. Lots of men owning the wife ( more like slavery). So no not just a man and a women. There were same sex unions in Ancient history as well. Mesopotamia, China and Greece.


----------



## Patchouli

Shine said:


> So Muslims can choose to not serve this or that to avoid breaking their faith, Jews can decide to not serve this or that to avoid breaking their faith, why might Christians not have that right?
> 
> You said it was already solved. Why not for Christians?


The question of does someone have to stock and serve something their religion considers unclean has been solved. No they don't. But that is different than stocking and serving wedding cakes and saying this group of people can have it but that group can't. Does that make sense?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> So Muslims can choose to* not serve this or that* to avoid breaking their faith, Jews can decide to *not serve this or that* to avoid breaking their faith, why might Christians not have that right?
> 
> You said it was already solved. *Why not for Christians*?


Christians are free not to serve "this or that"

They are *not* free to *not* serve "him or her"

It's really not as complicated as you seem to imply


----------



## JeffreyD

Patchouli said:


> The question of does someone have to stock and serve something their religion considers unclean has been solved. No they don't. But that is different than stocking and serving wedding cakes and saying this group of people can have it but that group can't. Does that make sense?


How was it solved? The baker didn't "stock" rainbow wedding cakes, so how is it different?


----------



## Shine

Patchouli said:


> The question of does someone have to stock and serve something their religion considers unclean has been solved. No they don't. But that is different than stocking and serving wedding cakes and saying this group of people can have it but that group can't. Does that make sense?


By far - no. To the Baker, his faith requires him to do nothing that would flaunt the gifts given to him by his Maker by deforming something so important to him that would sully the Holy Writ of Matrimony, which is what is bestowed upon a Christian Marriage. His gifts from God were his Baking Skills, his Business Skills and the prosperity of said business. So, here you say that a Muslim or Jew does not have to serve pork because it is forbidden in their Holy Books, but you say that the Baker is forced to join in to something that is "an abomination" in his Holy Books. 

So, by comparison, I am showing you that the Baker is being discriminated against. In this venue, you say that his religious beliefs are trumped by a "civil right". I think that you are sorely missing the boat.

You seem to want to make this about a person and what they want to do when it is about a belief, the Baker's belief, if this goes to the Supreme Court, I would bet that it would be overruled as noted above.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> No, I think that you totally messed up understanding what was said.
> 
> Re-read the post she was referring to, - in it you will find the statement: "I've lived next door to a lesbian, and she was quite the lady. *She did not advertise her sexuality, lived a normal life and was a good neighbor.* No reason to get excited over that. "
> 
> I suggested to her that one possible meaning might be: "They respect others by keeping their private life private."
> 
> Which one comes closer, the assertion of him trying to control the woman or her keeping her private live private?


I not only understood what you said, but I highlighted it so you would see what I was talking about.

You said "look at it *AS IF* they said".



> There is *nothing suggesting that ANY PERSON should pretend*, this is a figment of your imagination and quite possible deeply seated in your agenda


Yeah, as if..........


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I not only understood what you said, but I highlighted it so you would see what I was talking about.
> 
> You said "look at it *AS IF* they said".
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, as if..........


My, my... Comprehension... is there only one way to interpret a sentence? Or might one mull the meaning of what was said. Now, whilst doing that, is this person pretending to plug in different meanings so that they can "pretend" to overlook something that they COULD HAVE misinterpreted. 

Show me in the Original paragraph anything that illustrates "Control" which was where she was going with her reply. To me, she, as you have, missed the point. So, in truth, one could read into what was ACTUALLY WRITTEN, a synonymous meaning, as I suggested, that satisfies the truism intended by the writer.

....but then again, you might not practice what is suggested above so that might be something that has escaped you.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> Christians are free not to serve "this or that"
> 
> They are *not* free to *not* serve "him or her"
> 
> It's really not as complicated as you seem to imply


With specific regard to the gay wedding cake incident. It was a this or that not a him or her I think.

I would not fault a cake maker if they wanted to turn down a custom ordered product because they didn't believe they could attach themselves to that idea.

What if they didn't want to make a cake that was to represent a political statement like prochoice orbprolife, or something affiliated with westboro bc, or something perhaps in poor taste they felt for a raunchy bachelor party, or a nazi theme, or a Confederate theme, etc?

I can respect that a business might have problems squaring providing products or services for something the business people just didn't want to be associated with.

I do not know if the store being discussed was selling it off the shelf or custom. But, these are my thoughts if it was custom.

If it was off the shelf, I have a little less understanding but not total thoughts that they would be wrong.

An, example would be party rental companies. I would not fault a party or event rental place for declining to do business with someone. I could understand how some events might be very against the beliefs of business people and they would rather not provide services. An example would be vegans not wanting to supply a hunting event. Or pro nra business people not wanting to provide services or supplies to a gun control event.

It's just not so easily cutvand dry to make things perfectly acceptable to everyone.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> My, my... Comprehension... is there only one way to interpret a sentence? Or might one mull the meaning of what was said. Now, whilst doing that, is this person pretending to plug in different meanings so that they can "pretend" to overlook something that they COULD HAVE misinterpreted.
> 
> Show me in the Original paragraph anything that illustrates "Control" which was where she was going with her reply. To me, she, as you have, missed the point. So, in truth, one could read into what was ACTUALLY WRITTEN, a synonymous meaning, as I suggested, that satisfies the truism intended by the writer.
> 
> ....but then again, you might not practice what is suggested above so that might be something that has escaped you.


Here's what you said:



> How about reading what you are replying to *as if* it said:


Twist, spin and deny all you like.:shrug:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> With specific regard to the gay wedding cake incident. *It was a this or that* not a him or her I think.


And again you'd be mistaken.



> It's just not so easily cutvand dry to make things perfectly acceptable to everyone.


Sure it is

You treat all customers the same and save your personal life for after business hours


----------



## 7thswan

Who the heck goes in to buy a cake and announces what sex they lay down with?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

7thswan said:


> Who the heck goes in to buy a cake and announces what sex they lay down with?


I would guess the baker was making small talk and it came up in conversation, or they asked for 2 figures of the same sex on the cake


----------



## where I want to

7thswan said:


> Who the heck goes in to buy a cake and announces what sex they lay down with?


The one who has the wedding cake decorated with names?


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> Actually it has not. Lots of plural marriages. Lots of men owning the wife ( more like slavery). So no not just a man and a women. There were same sex unions in Ancient history as well. Mesopotamia, China and Greece.


Okay, then hundreds of years. Certainly for the entire history of this nation, the legal definition has been that of a male/female union. The definition of marriage has been governed by civil law which was rooted in canon law, again, for hundreds of years.

I would argue, however, that the Greeks didn't call homosexual unions 'marriage' and the Romans didn't recognize homosexual unions as legal.


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> Okay, then hundreds of years. Certainly for the entire history of this nation, the legal definition has been that of a male/female union. The definition of marriage has been governed by civil law which was rooted in canon law, again, for hundreds of years.
> 
> I would argue, however, that the Greeks didn't call homosexual unions 'marriage' and the Romans didn't recognize homosexual unions as legal.


Women could not vote, blacks were slaves etc in this nation. Using history is a real bad way of justifying something that is wrong.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Here's what you said:
> 
> 
> Twist, spin and deny all you like.:shrug:


No denial, [redirect, a common tool] I spoke clearly and in written form so that you might dissect the phrasing for a clear meaning. It wasn't too deep so I left it as a simple explanation. 

It was one person suggesting that the meaning was "this", no need to put words in my thread suggesting that I said "one should pretend..."

Go figure...

Done deal.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> And again you'd be mistaken.
> 
> 
> Sure it is
> 
> You treat all customers the same and save your personal life for after business hours


So the Muslims and Jews SHOULD be forced to sell pork at the MEAT MARKET???

Jeffrey just went into the MEAT MARKET and asked for a kind of MEAT.
He wanted them to do something that offended their FAITH.

The Homosexual couple asked them to MAKE a custom cake, get it? They wanted them to DO SOMETHING that offended the Baker's FAITH.

There are none so blind as those that will not see... 

OK you believe what you want, here - I'll start something else - You're acting like a woman [lol]


----------



## Marshloft

Ya know, one may wonder why 9 supreme court justices can't agree on a simple 
constitution.
Well,,, they haven't read this thread.


----------



## Jolly

chamoisee said:


> OK. So, are Christians going to refuse to make wedding cakes for alcoholics? And divorcees? And those who had premarital sex?


I've seen drunks escorted out of the church. I've seen a man resign his deaconship over a divorce. A divorced man cannot pastor a church in my little part of the world. Active member and layperson, yes. Pastor, no.

As for premarital sex, I haven't ever seen it condoned within the Church. Some people do, some people don't, but those who do will admit they have sinned.


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> Women could not vote, blacks were slaves etc in this nation. Using history is a real bad way of justifying something that is wrong.


Is it not what you did, albeit ancient history?

And we're not talking about voting or slavery, I'm talking (to Chamoisee) about the definition of marriage, in response to her question about whether Christians were going to refuse to serve alcoholics and divorcees based on sin.......which has nothing to do with the definition of marriage.


----------



## Jolly

Yvonne's hubby said:


> This explains all of those gossipy grossly overweight Christians that seem to live for those church potlucks where they all get together and stuff themselves while belittling all them heathens.


Overweight?

Yeah, that tends to happen to people when they're happy.


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> Is it not what you did, albeit ancient history?


No I refuted his claims.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> So the Muslims and Jews SHOULD be forced to sell pork at the MEAT MARKET???
> 
> Jeffrey just went into the MEAT MARKET and asked for a kind of MEAT.
> He wanted them to do something that offended their FAITH.
> 
> The Homosexual couple asked them to MAKE a custom cake, get it? They wanted them to DO SOMETHING that offended the Baker's FAITH.
> 
> There are none so blind as those that will not see...
> 
> OK you believe what you want, here - I'll start something else - You're acting like a woman [lol]


Bakers make custom cakes
It's what they do

Halal and Kosher stores don't sell pork

Maybe the baker should act AS IF it were a man and a woman


----------



## Shine

Yvonne's hubby said:


> This explains all of those gossipy grossly overweight Christians that seem to live for those church potlucks where they all get together and stuff themselves while belittling all them heathens.


Now that right there is a viscous, petty and obnoxious post. You obviously do not go to the right church. [notice the small "c"]


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> No denial, [redirect, a common tool] I spoke clearly and in written form so that you might dissect the phrasing for a clear meaning. It wasn't too deep so I left it as a simple explanation.
> 
> It was one person suggesting that the meaning was "this", no need to put words in my thread suggesting that I said "one should pretend..."


For educational purposes:



> Dictionary
> *pretend*
> 
> Tweet verb preÂ·tend \pri-&#712;tend\
> 
> : to act *as if* something is true when it is not true
> 
> : to imagine and act out (a particular role, situation, etc.)


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Bakers make custom cakes
> It's what they do
> 
> Halal and Kosher stores don't sell pork
> 
> Maybe the baker should act AS IF it were a man and a woman


Maybe the Jew or Muslim should act AS IF it were Halal or Kosher?

You're really happy with yourself converting my words to your meaning, aren't you....


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> Bakers make custom cakes
> It's what they do
> 
> Halal and Kosher stores don't sell pork
> 
> Maybe the baker should act AS IF it were a man and a woman


But they can if they.....choose too.


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> For educational purposes:


Now you have no excuse.


----------



## Jolly

And stepping away from religion just a bit...










Now, stepping back in...How about your Jewish baker receiving an order for this tribute cake:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Maybe the Jew or Muslim should act AS IF it were Halal or Kosher?
> 
> You're really happy with yourself *converting my words* to your meaning, aren't you....


I haven't converted anything
You're the one who said it

You keep pretending (acting as if) the examples you are using are somehow the same, when it's simply not true.

It's a distraction from reality


----------



## Shine

Here, try this Maybe my use of the words "as if" denoted a maturity in asking someone to understand that there were multiple meanings to written words/phrases and the phrase that I suggested might have worked just as well.

...here again, you do what you want, I consider the issue closed. Enjoy your games.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jolly said:


> And stepping away from religion just a bit...
> 
> Now, stepping back in...How about your Jewish baker receiving an order for this tribute cake:


That's pretty childish, don't you think?


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> For educational purposes:
> Quote:
> Dictionary
> pretend
> 
> Tweet verb preÂ·tend \pri-&#712;tend\
> 
> : to act as if something is true when it is not true
> 
> : to imagine and act out (a particular role, situation, etc.)


Ya know, I don't normally defend someone who is capable of their own defense, but continuing to say or imply that Shine's statement was a false representation of the sentiment spoken of, is getting on my last nerve.
I read the referred post by Pixie and even commented on it myself.
Shine's commentary was about as close as you could get without a verbatim quote.
If you just want to pick a fight, how about going somewhere else?


----------



## kasilofhome

Shine said:


> Here, try this Maybe my use of the words "as if" denoted a maturity in asking someone to understand that there were multiple meanings to written words/phrases and the phrase that I suggested might have worked just as well.
> 
> ...here again, you do what you want, I consider the issue closed. Enjoy your games.


Maybe in person or on the phone.... it's got to be frustrating cause writing and speaking changes the message of the same words just without I reflection and body language.


----------



## Jolly

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's pretty childish, don't you think?


Same, same.

According to some, private business owners have no rights, Not if they serve the public.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I haven't converted anything
> You're the one who said it
> 
> You keep pretending (acting as if) the examples you are using are somehow the same, when it's simply not true.
> 
> It's a distraction from reality


I see to support your meaning you added the word "Acting". Notice that it is missing from the original quotes.

Original OxAnkle Quote:

I've lived next door to a lesbian, and she was quite the lady. She did not advertise her sexuality, lived a normal life and was a good neighbor.

Pixie's Reply:

So if you can control the "lifestyle" you're OK with it? Just to be clear, would it be OK if gays controlled your life?

My Observation:

*How about reading what you are replying to as if it said:

"They respect others by keeping their private life private." 
*
Please tell me where I am asking anyone to "Pretend", rather than suggesting that it simply meant something that Pixie Misunderstood. OxAnkle never implied that he wanted to control someone, he was explaining his comfort level. So, seeing that Pixie's reply was off the mark, that she injected something that WAS NOT IMPLIED, I provided an alternate reading.

OK... I am aiming at clarifying the meaning of a phrase where someone either intentionally skewed the meaning or they needed assistance. If you cannot understand that - you are outside of my ability to assist with your comprehension.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> Ya know, I don't normally defend someone who is capable of their own defense, but continuing to say or imply that Shine's statement was a false representation of the sentiment spoken of, is getting on my last nerve.
> I read the referred post by Pixie and even commented on it myself.
> Shine's commentary was about as close as you could get *without a verbatim quote.*
> If you just want to pick a fight, how about going somewhere else?


That's your opinion, to which you're entitled

I prefer the verbatim to eliminate doubt.

If that gets on "your last nerve", so be it.

You're not compelled to read anything I post


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> But they can if they.....choose too.


There is no rational comparison between stores that do not offer a service to anyone at all, and a store that offers a service but then denies individuals.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jolly said:


> Same, same.
> 
> According to some, private business owners have no rights, Not if they serve the public.


They have no "right" to refuse service based on sex


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> There is no rational comparison between stores that do not offer a service to anyone at all, and a store that offers a service but then denies individuals.


Question, and I think that this is the clincher, Would they provide a Gay Oriented wedding cake to another Gay Couple or was this a blanket statement that they could not make a Gay Wedding cake without offending their religion?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Please tell me where I am asking anyone to "Pretend"


I've shown you multiple times, including a dictionary definition.
You're on your own now


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I've shown you multiple times, including a dictionary definition.
> You're on your own now


With a complete and clear explanation you still continue. MOD? Is this behavior allowed, repeated taunting and misrepresentation?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> =Shine;7489689]Question, and *I think that this is the clincher*, Would they provide a Gay Oriented wedding cake to another Gay Couple or was this a blanket statement that they could not make a Gay Wedding cake without offending their religion?


You'll have to ask them that question, not that it matters.

They can't refuse service based on sex or religion


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> I've shown you multiple times, including a dictionary definition.
> You're on your own now


I find it Terribly ironic that you seem you want to demand that people walk in lock step harmoniously in conducting business with any interested clients, yet you seem to spend an awful lot of time trying to poke holes in some people's posts on HT, and don't (at least from what I've read) spend much time at all trying to find any common ground with even acknowledging what portions of those posts you might agree with.

It seems ironic to me in the do as I say not as I do sense. But, perhaps I'm misinterpreting.


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's your opinion, to which you're entitled
> 
> I prefer the verbatim to eliminate doubt.
> 
> If that gets on "your last nerve", so be it.
> 
> You're not compelled to read anything I post



Just so we're clear, and I've done this before with you......the quoting verbatim isn't what gets on my nerves, I deal with picky people all the time. It's when you start calling someone's statement untrue when it isn't, or making untrue statements in general about people that gets on my nerves.
It's time someone put in plain English for you.
That ain't cool.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> I find it Terribly ironic that you seem *you want to demand* that people walk in lock step harmoniously in conducting business with any interested clients, yet you seem to spend an awful lot of time trying to poke holes in some people's posts on HT, and don't (at least from what I've read) spend much time at all trying to find any common ground with even acknowledging what portions of those posts you might agree with.
> 
> *But, perhaps I'm misinterpreting*.


Perhaps you are, since I haven't made any "demands" and have only tried to stick to* exactly* what people have said, even when they keep trying to claim it means something different.



> It seems ironic to me in the *do as I say not as I do *sense.


I seem to recall you saying something to the effect that you didn't care what anyone thought of your posts, which makes that line seem ironic to me

As to "demands" on business, that's the law, not me.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> Just so we're clear, and I've done this before with you......the quoting verbatim isn't what gets on my nerves, I deal with picky people all the time. It's when you start *calling someone's statement untrue when it isn't, or making untrue statements i*n general about people that gets on my nerves.
> It's time someone put in plain English for you.
> That ain't cool.


Since I've done neither of those things, I'd suggest the problem is in your own mind, and the best solution would be for you to stop reading my posts


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> Perhaps you are, since I haven't made any "demands" and have only tried to stick to* exactly* what people have said, even when they keep trying to claim it means something different.
> 
> 
> I seem to recall you saying something to the effect that you didn't care what anyone thought of your posts, which makes that line seem ironic to me
> 
> As to "demands" on business, that's the law, not me.


I don't care in the sense that my opinion of the correctness or value of my posts is not dependent upon whether people support or criticize them.

Your posts frequently read to me as though you have a laser focus on dissecting the law and the words of others in a rather unproductive way if you're interested at all in actually contributing a list positive to the discussions.

It reminds me of the old marriage advise of do you want to be right or do you want to be happy?

Words and laws function is to assist us in living fuller lives, not constrain us.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> I don't care in the sense that my opinion of the correctness or value of my posts is not dependent upon whether people support or criticize them.
> 
> Your posts frequently read to me as though you have a laser focus on dissecting the law and the words of others in a rather unproductive way if you're interested at all in actually contributing a list positive to the discussions.
> 
> It reminds me of the old marriage advise of do you want to be right or do you want to be happy?
> 
> Words and laws function is to assist us in living fuller lives, not constrain us.


To all that I would reply:



> I don't care in the sense that my opinion of the correctness or value of my posts is not dependent upon whether people support or criticize them.


(Ironic, huh?)

If I were taking your side you'd be clicking the "like" button instead of calling my posts "unproductive", so let's be real, OK?

Now let's all get back to the original topic, or some of you can go start a thread about me somewhere else if that's what you want to talk about next


----------



## Evons hubby

Jolly said:


> Same, same.
> 
> According to some, private business owners have no rights, Not if they serve the public.


Private business owners have plenty of rights... Discrimination just is not one of them.


----------



## kasilofhome

Do business have the right to determine what services and supplies the will carry and provide.....


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> Do business have the right to determine what services and supplies the will carry and provide.....


They certainly do, but not on a customer by customer basis, so that gambit won't fly


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> Do business have the right to determine what services and supplies the will carry and provide.....


Of course, but whatever product they sell or service they provide needs to be available to whomever has the price of admission.


----------



## kasilofhome

So, if a wedding cake for a heterosexual wedding includes creating a cake for both sexes.. male and female... Those no discrimination by sex as both sexes are served.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> So, if a wedding cake for a heterosexual wedding includes creating a cake for both sexes.. male and female... Those no discrimination by sex as both sexes are served.


There's no way to argue against "logic" like that


----------



## kasilofhome

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Of course, but whatever product they sell or service they provide needs to be available to whomever has the price of admission.


When a contractor tells me they do not feel comfortable working on my homemade woodstove that is attached to my hot water system should I use or thank them and ask for a recommendation for someone else.

If a business does not have the skill,time or faith that they can do the job should it be better to move on.org. 

Hair dressers refuse to perm people's hair when they know better than the customer that it will do damage... that could be a law suit.

What if the homosexual were not satisfied with the cake... I been unsatisfied when I've ordered things would the homosexual couple claim it was spite... 

Controlling picky people with an agenda will never be happy.


----------



## wr

Shine said:


> So Muslims can choose to not serve this or that to avoid breaking their faith, Jews can decide to not serve this or that to avoid breaking their faith, why might Christians not have that right?
> 
> You said it was already solved. Why not for Christians?


Nobody can force anyone to carry something that is normally not in stock so you can't force a halal meat market to carry pork any more than you can force a regular store to sell horse meat. 

If a Muslim baker refuses to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple or a Christian couple, citing their faith, I'm sure there will be plenty of lawyers ready to challenge that one but I would think that after the cake baker incident, most folks will find a less political way to decline (busy time of year, overbooked, head decorator just quit, etc). 

Companies decline clients for many reasons without being sued, it's all in how you handle it.


----------



## chamoisee

Shine said:


> By far - no. To the Baker, his faith requires him to do nothing that would flaunt the gifts given to him by his Maker by deforming something so important to him that would sully the Holy Writ of Matrimony, which is what is bestowed upon a Christian Marriage. His gifts from God were his Baking Skills, his Business Skills and the prosperity of said business. So, here you say that a Muslim or Jew does not have to serve pork because it is forbidden in their Holy Books, but you say that the Baker is forced to join in to something that is "an abomination" in his Holy Books.
> 
> So, by comparison, I am showing you that the Baker is being discriminated against. In this venue, you say that his religious beliefs are trumped by a "civil right". I think that you are sorely missing the boat.
> 
> You seem to want to make this about a person and what they want to do when it is about a belief, the Baker's belief, if this goes to the Supreme Court, I would bet that it would be overruled as noted above.


OK, but here's the thing. This same bakery was A-OK with making divorce celebration cakes. Their cakes are _not_ specifically for Christians. The bakery is _not_ advertised as a "Christian Couples Wedding Bakery". I don't go to a Christian bookstore looking for lesbian erotica or erotic art books, or the Kama Sutra, or...anything interesting at all, actually. I know that a Christian bookstore will not even carry basic interesting non-fiction. And they aren't required to carry basic non-fiction. But how would you feel if you went into a mainstream bookstore, and The Joy of Sex was offered there, and, having shopped there before, you went to buy this book, only to be turned down because the proprietors felt you were too unattractive or old to have sex, or they felt that your partner was the wrong color, or they knew that you were Catholic but your spouse is not, etc etc.... Wouldn't you feel as if your private life had been judged, as if you'd been discriminated against, insulted, etc, when all you wanted to do was to buy a bleeping book??


----------



## chamoisee

Jolly said:


> I've seen drunks escorted out of the church. I've seen a man resign his deaconship over a divorce. A divorced man cannot pastor a church in my little part of the world. Active member and layperson, yes. Pastor, no.
> 
> As for premarital sex, I haven't ever seen it condoned within the Church. Some people do, some people don't, but those who do will admit they have sinned.


That's in the church. What about refusing to sell groceries to these people?


----------



## chamoisee

Txsteader said:


> Is it not what you did, albeit ancient history?
> 
> And we're not talking about voting or slavery, I'm talking (to Chamoisee) about the definition of marriage, in response to her question about whether Christians were going to refuse to serve alcoholics and divorcees based on sin.......which has nothing to do with the definition of marriage.


So, this actually has NOTHING to do with religious freedom. It has to do with discriminating against someone on the basis of philosophical interpretation of the bible...which is not actually the same thing. 

Mormons don't believe in drinking caffeine or in drinking beer. If you're shopping at an LDS grocery store and they find out that you drink coffee, can they refuse to sell you milk and sugar, because you might use it for your coffee? Or chips or bratwurst, because you might use it for your barbecue to have with your beer? Would you not feel annoyed if you saw them selling these same items to others, but not to you? What if they had NO problem with selling you this stuff until after they realized you weren't LDS, and then abruptly changed their mind and canceled the sale?


----------



## kasilofhome

I was told my hair was too thin and fine to perm..... I lived to have a good life.
That made me sad.

There is no way to live with out facing judgements and opinions of other if you are not a hermit. Move on. Sulking and spitting over an event for which ....no blood was shed seems to be a lack of self worth. I might not vote with my dollar but sharing how I felt about the store with peers would be it.

Life is hard why dwell on the thoughts of those you do not respect. Get over it find another place... to do business with.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> I was told my hair was too thin and fine to perm..... I lived to have a good life.
> That made me sad.
> 
> There is no way to live with out facing judgements and opinions of other if you are not a hermit. Move on. Sulking and spitting over an event for which ....no blood was shed seems to be a lack of self worth. I might not vote with my dollar but sharing how I felt about the store with peers would be it.
> 
> Life is hard why dwell on the thoughts of those you do not respect. Get over it find another place... to do business with.


Then again they don't have to think or believe as you do. If they want to fight what is wrong they get to do so. They get to believe your opinion is pure bunk.


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> There is no rational comparison between stores that do not offer a service to anyone at all, and a store that offers a service but then denies individuals.


What store in my posts, do not offer a service? You got me. :shrug:

I've only mentioned retail establishment's. So, to me, this post is not rational!


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> Since I've done neither of those things, I'd suggest the problem is in your own mind, and the best solution would be for you to stop reading my posts


Nah, I like my suggestion better.
I'm amazed that you haven't been taught to own up to your own words when you say something about someone.
You've made lots of remarks before that aren't true or in serious error, yet when called out on it, deny it every time.
What gives?


----------



## Evons hubby

JeffreyD said:


> What store in my posts, do not offer a service? You got me. :shrug:
> 
> I've only mentioned retail establishment's. So, to me, this post is not rational!


If you read it again it might make more sense.... I had trouble the first time through. If a store doesn't offer a particular item to the public such as a shoe store that doesn't sell socks, that's one thing, but if they refuse to sell the shoes that they do have for sale to a particular customer, that is quite another thing.


----------



## kasilofhome

custom work is available when both the client and the provider agree. Anything that is individual and one of a kind is not off the shelf.


----------



## Patchouli

Shine said:


> By far - no. To the Baker, his faith requires him to do nothing that would flaunt the gifts given to him by his Maker by deforming something so important to him that would sully the Holy Writ of Matrimony, which is what is bestowed upon a Christian Marriage. His gifts from God were his Baking Skills, his Business Skills and the prosperity of said business. So, here you say that a Muslim or Jew does not have to serve pork because it is forbidden in their Holy Books, but you say that the Baker is forced to join in to something that is "an abomination" in his Holy Books.
> 
> So, by comparison, I am showing you that the Baker is being discriminated against. In this venue, you say that his religious beliefs are trumped by a "civil right". I think that you are sorely missing the boat.
> 
> You seem to want to make this about a person and what they want to do when it is about a belief, the Baker's belief, if this goes to the Supreme Court, I would bet that it would be overruled as noted above.



I do not have anything to do with this at all. I am telling you what the courts have decided. I am not a judge. 

In cases where the shop is selling a product the rule is you must sell to everyone and you can not discriminate in who you sell to. 

In cases where a shop does not carry a product due to their religious beliefs they can not be forced to buy, stock and sell those items. That is not discrimination.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> *What store in my posts, do not offer a service?* You got me. :shrug:
> 
> I've only mentioned retail establishment's. So, to me, this post is not rational!


Do you really require a detailed explanation?

The Halal store doesn't sell pork to anyone
A Kosher store doesn't sell pork to anyone

There is no "discrimination"

The bakery DOES sell cakes, both custom and "stock", and cannot choose their customers based on sex or religion


----------



## Patchouli

Bearfootfarm said:


> Do you really require a detailed explanation?
> 
> The Halal store doesn't sell pork to anyone
> A Kosher store doesn't sell pork to anyone
> 
> There is no "discrimination"
> 
> The bakery DOES sell cakes, both custom and "stock", and cannot choose their customers based on sex or religion


I think between you and I and wr we have stated this every way humanly possible. I don't think they want to understand.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> Nah, I like my suggestion better.
> I'm amazed that you haven't been taught to own up to your own words when you say something about someone.
> You've made lots of remarks before that aren't true or in serious error, yet when called out on it, deny it every time.


I haven't denied anything I actually said.
It's your interpretation that is in error.



> What gives?


"What gives" is you're trying to change the topic to me.

If that's what you want to discuss, start your own thread or follow your own advice:



> If you just want to pick a fight, how about going somewhere else?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> custom work is available when both the client and the provider agree. Anything that is individual and one of a kind is not off the shelf.


"Off the shelf" makes no difference to the topic
If they offer custom cakes to anyone, they have to offer them to everyone


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> With a complete and clear explanation you still continue. MOD? Is this behavior allowed, repeated taunting and misrepresentation?


I simply answered your question 

You may not want to call too much attention to "taunting" considering some of your remarks to me as well as others.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Patchouli said:


> I think between you and I and wr we have stated this every way humanly possible. I don't think they want to understand.


You may be right, because it's really not that complex


----------



## Shine

chamoisee said:


> OK, but here's the thing. This same bakery was A-OK with making divorce celebration cakes. Their cakes are _not_ specifically for Christians. The bakery is _not_ advertised as a "Christian Couples Wedding Bakery". I don't go to a Christian bookstore looking for lesbian erotica or erotic art books, or the Kama Sutra, or...anything interesting at all, actually. I know that a Christian bookstore will not even carry basic interesting non-fiction. And they aren't required to carry basic non-fiction. But how would you feel if you went into a mainstream bookstore, and The Joy of Sex was offered there, and, having shopped there before, you went to buy this book, only to be turned down because the proprietors felt you were too unattractive or old to have sex, or they felt that your partner was the wrong color, or they knew that you were Catholic but your spouse is not, etc etc.... Wouldn't you feel as if your private life had been judged, as if you'd been discriminated against, insulted, etc, when all you wanted to do was to buy a bleeping book??


Straw Man Argument. Please keep on topic.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> You'll have to ask them that question, not that it matters.
> 
> They can't refuse service based on sex or religion


Change the question as you will, you cannot force a person to violate their beliefs.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> You'll have to ask them that question, not that it matters.
> 
> They can't refuse service based on sex or religion



You CAN refuse service if someone asks you to do something that would cause you to offend your Creator. Seems that would be simple to you as you are playing the victim quite often in your arguments....


----------



## Evons hubby

Shine said:


> Change the question as you will, you cannot force a person to violate their beliefs.


That is not quite true, it would depend on what those beleifs are. If someone believes that he has a right to take my property just because he wants it may very well get that beleif violated.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Perhaps you are, since I haven't made any "demands" and have only tried to stick to* exactly* what people have said, even when they keep trying to claim it means something different.
> 
> 
> I seem to recall you saying something to the effect that you didn't care what anyone thought of your posts, which makes that line seem ironic to me
> 
> As to "demands" on business, that's the law, not me.


I guess this includes you adding words to peoples explanations, Right?


----------



## Shine

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Private business owners have plenty of rights... Discrimination just is not one of them.


Do individuals have the right to ask someone to do something that would offend their Creator? Even if they are engaged in business - let's see your bold and clear answer.


----------



## chamoisee

Shine said:


> Straw Man Argument. Please keep on topic.


No, it's not. They offered that item to this couple and agreed to sell it to them, until they discovered that the other half of the couple was also a woman. They offered the very same item to other couples. They want to pick and choose who they sell their items to, NOT based on their religious beliefs (which apply only to them), but based on their opinions about other people and what they think other people should do/not do in their private life/relationships. 

How is that different from the book scenario?


----------



## Evons hubby

Shine said:


> You CAN refuse service if someone asks you to do something that would cause you to offend your Creator. Seems that would be simple to you as you are playing the victim quite often in your arguments....


Not according to our courts... Seems the supremes made that pretty clear not long ago.


----------



## chamoisee

Shine said:


> You CAN refuse service if someone asks you to do something that would cause you to offend your Creator. Seems that would be simple to you as you are playing the victim quite often in your arguments....


No, you cannot, if you offer that same service to other people. For example, if you think your Creator says that all redheads should be Nazarenes, you cannot offer haircuts to all people except for redheads. If YOUR hair is red, you may refrain from cutting it....but if it's that big a deal for you to cut other redhead's hair, you should do something else for a livelihood.


----------



## Shine

wr said:


> Nobody can force anyone to carry something that is normally not in stock so you can't force a halal meat market to carry pork any more than you can force a regular store to sell horse meat.
> 
> If a Muslim baker refuses to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple or a Christian couple, citing their faith, I'm sure there will be plenty of lawyers ready to challenge that one but I would think that after the cake baker incident, most folks will find a less political way to decline (busy time of year, overbooked, head decorator just quit, etc).
> 
> Companies decline clients for many reasons without being sued, it's all in how you handle it.


They are operating a Meat Market. If someone goes in there and asks for them to give then a slab of bacon, then, please explain how their response is different that the Baker.

I am sorry, to serve you any pork product offends my faith. I am unable to do so.

The Baker:
How may I serve you? 
The customer:
I would like a Rainbow Cake for me and my husband.

I am sorry, to serve you a cake that celebrates a homosexual marriage would offend my faith, I am unable to do so.

Hypocrite, explain thyself.


----------



## chamoisee

Religious freedom means that *you* have the freedom to worship and believe as you like. It does *not* mean that you have the freedom to inflict your religion on other people by forcing them to do what you think is right, by refusing to allow them to do what you think is wrong, or by engaging in petty control trips in order to get them to do what you think they should be doing.


----------



## chamoisee

Shine said:


> They are operating a Meat Market. If someone goes in there and asks for them to give then a slab of bacon, then, please explain how their response is different that the Baker.
> 
> I am sorry, to serve you any pork product offends my faith. I am unable to do so.
> 
> The Baker:
> How may I serve you?
> The customer:
> I would like a Rainbow Cake for me and my husband.
> 
> I am sorry, to serve you a cake that celebrates a homosexual marriage would offend my faith, I am unable to do so.
> 
> Hypocrite, explain thyself.


Difference: 

Scenario A: No pork is ever served here, for anyone. 

Scenario B: Rainbow cake is served for some people, not others, depending on the biases and beliefs of the owner.


----------



## Evons hubby

Shine said:


> Do individuals have the right to ask someone to do something that would offend their Creator? Even if they are engaged in business - let's see your bold and clear answer.


*Yes* clear and bold enough?


----------



## Shine

Patchouli said:


> I do not have anything to do with this at all. I am telling you what the courts have decided. I am not a judge.
> 
> In cases where the shop is selling a product the rule is you must sell to everyone and you can not discriminate in who you sell to.
> 
> In cases where a shop does not carry a product due to their religious beliefs they can not be forced to buy, stock and sell those items. That is not discrimination.


No... there is a difference. The couple are asking the Baker to join in the celebration of a same sex "wedding" by creating a cake to their choosing. How do you not see this?


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Do you really require a detailed explanation?
> 
> The Halal store doesn't sell pork to anyone
> A Kosher store doesn't sell pork to anyone
> 
> There is no "discrimination"
> 
> The bakery DOES sell cakes, both custom and "stock", and cannot choose their customers based on sex or religion


this is quite the foolish suggestion and needs no rebuttal.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Off the shelf" makes no difference to the topic
> If they offer custom cakes to anyone, they have to offer them to everyone


This is an outright lie. Someone must not understand commerce.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I simply answered your question
> 
> You may not want to call too much attention to "taunting" considering some of your remarks to me as well as others.


I will accept the Mod's rule. The facts are in play and you are operating on the sly.


----------



## Shine

farmrbrown said:


> Nah, I like my suggestion better.
> I'm amazed that you haven't been taught to own up to your own words when you say something about someone.
> You've made lots of remarks before that aren't true or in serious error, yet when called out on it, deny it every time.
> What gives?


Forget it if you're expecting this person to operate in reality. There is no speaking with this person where logic or truth is used to establish a focus point, this person operates outside of those boundaries.


----------



## Shine

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That is not quite true, it would depend on what those beleifs are. If someone believes that he has a right to take my property just because he wants it may very well get that beleif violated.


Another Straw Man Argument. Your supposition is not in play here. I ask you, can a business that produces "Cakes" be forced to *produce* a Cake that Violates the Owner's Beliefs? Please answer that question with a "Yes" or a "No"... Thank you.


----------



## kasilofhome

Wal-Mart sells cakes
Wal-Mart customised cakes
Wal-Mart has done confederate flags on cakes... and duck of hazard cakes
Wal-Mart won't do them now


The dukes of hazard was in rerun on stations ... people paid for a line up... now it is removed.

And liberals are all cool with that because the can't or won't see that it's the same business can say no.


----------



## Shine

chamoisee said:


> No, it's not. They offered that item to this couple and agreed to sell it to them, until they discovered that the other half of the couple was also a woman. They offered the very same item to other couples. They want to pick and choose who they sell their items to, NOT based on their religious beliefs (which apply only to them), but based on their opinions about other people and what they think other people should do/not do in their private life/relationships.
> 
> How is that different from the book scenario?


It would seem that you are changing the facts. Do the persons that are running the business have any Religious freedom? - Pick and choose - your words that carry no validity. Did they offer these cakes in celebration of what they understood to be a religious ceremony? Why would you inject your views upon them? Must their faith be subverted to yours? Is your "right" sacrosanct to theirs? YOU rule over their Beliefs? If that is true then this country is lost.

"NOT based on their religious beliefs" you ignore the central fact. That is why you think you should win.


----------



## Shine

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Not according to our courts... Seems the supremes made that pretty clear not long ago.


So you says... I would offer that you are wrong. The Supreme Court has long upheld Religious tenets. Please - Links or citations?


----------



## Shine

chamoisee said:


> No, you cannot, if you offer that same service to other people. For example, if you think your Creator says that all redheads should be Nazarenes, you cannot offer haircuts to all people except for redheads. If YOUR hair is red, you may refrain from cutting it....but if it's that big a deal for you to cut other redhead's hair, you should do something else for a livelihood.



Wow... strawman city... why cannot people stay on topic?


----------



## chamoisee

Shine said:


> It would seem that you are changing the facts. Do the persons that are running the business have any Religious freedom? - Pick and choose - your words that carry no validity. Did they offer these cakes in celebration of what they understood to be a religious ceremony? Why would you inject your views upon them? Must their faith be subverted to yours? Is your "right" sacrosanct to theirs? YOU rule over their Beliefs? If that is true then this country is lost.


It is exactly the opposite, Shine. They cannot force their beliefs on another person by practicing discrimination. 

If they are Christians who view all weddings as religious ceremonies that must be performed only to their standards, etc, and if they really feel that making a cake would be participating (they had no trouble agreeing to participate in a divorce celebration!), then they need to be in some other business. The making of wedding cakes is a poor business to be in if they really feel like they'd be betraying God to make cakes for weddings He doesn't like. 

Their religious freedom does not extend to imposing religious beliefs or quibbles onto other people, selectively.


----------



## Shine

chamoisee said:


> Religious freedom means that *you* have the freedom to worship and believe as you like. It does *not* mean that you have the freedom to inflict your religion on other people by forcing them to do what you think is right, by refusing to allow them to do what you think is wrong, or by engaging in petty control trips in order to get them to do what you think they should be doing.


Hmmm... explain the infliction. The people came into a bakery that someone owner. They, it would appear, told them they must make a cake that conformed to their requirements. The Bakers told then that to do so would offend their religious beliefs. They sued. 

Do you wish to be forced to do that which offends your innermost understandings?


----------



## chamoisee

Shine said:


> Wow... strawman city... why cannot people stay on topic?


How is this different? 

OK, maybe because the redheads aren't gay. Let's try again. 

A hairdresser has no problems giving short haircuts to women. I go in and I want a short haircut, just like the one I saw on the lady who's leaving. The hairdresser agrees. But then, while she's getting ready to cut it, she realizes I'm not straight, and suddenly refuses to cut my hair because she believes participating in my short haircut would be a sin, as other women might find me sexy and lust after me. 

That ain't legal.


----------



## kasilofhome

Shine said:


> It would seem that you are changing the facts. Do the persons that are running the business have any Religious freedom? - Pick and choose - your words that carry no validity. Did they offer these cakes in celebration of what they understood to be a religious ceremony? Why would you inject your views upon them? Must their faith be subverted to yours? Is your "right" sacrosanct to theirs? YOU rule over their Beliefs? If that is true then this country is lost.
> 
> "NOT based on their religious beliefs" you ignore the central fact. That is why you think you should win.


They did not want a cake that was on the shelf... They were ordering the cake for a future day. If it was not a custom cake they could have take a cake off the shelf a freeze it till the big event.


----------



## chamoisee

Shine said:


> It would seem that you are changing the facts. Do the persons that are running the business have any Religious freedom? - Pick and choose - your words that carry no validity. Did they offer these cakes in celebration of what they understood to be a religious ceremony? Why would you inject your views upon them? Must their faith be subverted to yours? Is your "right" sacrosanct to theirs? YOU rule over their Beliefs? If that is true then this country is lost.
> 
> "NOT based on their religious beliefs" you ignore the central fact. That is why you think you should win.


Religious beliefs apply only to the person who holds them. Applying those beliefs to other people is inflicting it on them.


----------



## chamoisee

Shine said:


> Another Straw Man Argument. Your supposition is not in play here. I ask you, can a business that produces "Cakes" be forced to *produce* a Cake that Violates the Owner's Beliefs? Please answer that question with a "Yes" or a "No"... Thank you.


It had nothing to do with the cake itself. They were fine with making the cake and had already agreed to do it. It had to do with the orientation of the customers. Once they found out the couple was gay, they changed their mind.


----------



## kasilofhome

chamoisee said:


> Religious beliefs apply only to the person who holds them. Applying those beliefs to other people is inflicting it on them.


Thus you clearly see that the homosexual came to the bakers and clearly tried to use any force avoidable to force the bakers to breach their faith and still to this day they honest their faith.


----------



## Shine

chamoisee said:


> It is exactly the opposite, Shine. They cannot force their beliefs on another person by practicing discrimination.
> 
> If they are Christians who view all weddings as religious ceremonies that must be performed only to their standards, etc, and if they really feel that making a cake would be participating (they had no trouble agreeing to participate in a divorce celebration!), then they need to be in some other business. The making of wedding cakes is a poor business to be in if they really feel like they'd be betraying God to make cakes for weddings He doesn't like.
> 
> Their religious freedom does not extend to imposing religious beliefs or quibbles onto other people, selectively.



"If they are Christians who view all weddings as religious ceremonies that must be performed only to their standards" 

Sorry, are you talking about government weddings or something that involves the Holy Writ of Matrimony?

Are Christians allowed to operate within the constructs of the Bible or are you able to tell them what to do?

You cite the similarity of building a "Divorce" cake to a "Homosexual" cake. This blows me away. While I call each one equally troubling - you get to be offended? I haven't said a word, but you want to inject yourself as a harmed party???

I cry in my heart. There are few that emulate what I understood to be the "American Way" - there does seem to be a huge volume of people that want to claim the "victim" status to further drag us down.

There is no more "America" as I understood it to be... It has been destroyed.


----------



## chamoisee

Actually, the lesbians had been buying from this bakery before and had no idea that the owners were homophobic/anti-gay apparently.


----------



## Evons hubby

Shine said:


> Another Straw Man Argument. Your supposition is not in play here. I ask you, can a business that produces "Cakes" be forced to *produce* a Cake that Violates the Owner's Beliefs? Please answer that question with a "Yes" or a "No"... Thank you.


Ok.... No.... It would be impossible to physically force someone to bake a cake.... But that person may very well get their hiney sued off if they refuse.

As to my scenario.... I highly recommend not taking any of my property withou my permission. Court would be prompt and punishment swift.... As prescribed by our constitution.


----------



## kasilofhome

chamoisee said:


> Actually, the lesbians had been buying from this bakery before and had no idea that the owners were homophobic/anti-gay apparently.


Yep and how many of those sweets were to celebrate a homosexual wedding...none. They loved the sinner but the the sin... They did not discriminate them because of homosexuality.... it was becuse the bakers did not want to support the sin.


----------



## Shine

chamoisee said:


> Actually, the lesbians had been buying from this bakery before and had no idea that the owners were homophobic/anti-gay apparently.


Wedding Cakes???


----------



## kasilofhome

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok.... No.... It would be impossible to physically force someone to bake a cake.... But that person may very well get their honey sued off if they refuse.
> 
> As to my scenario.... I highly recommend not taking any of my property withou my permission. Court would be prompt and punishment swift.... As prescribed by our constitution.


Did slavery end?


----------



## Shine

This is really becoming stupid. I am out of this thread. No one appears to be as sympathetic to other's freedoms as they are to their own. Is this the new America???


----------



## chamoisee

kasilofhome said:


> Yep and how many of those sweets were to celebrate a homosexual wedding...none. They loved the sinner but the the sin... They did not discriminate them because of homosexuality.... it was becuse the bakers did not want to support the sin.


They did not know that the couple was lesbian until after they agreed to make them a wedding cake. 

The bible says absolutely nothing about gay marriage being a sin. It doesn't even say that being gay is a sin. Nor does it say that being transgender is a sin. 

They make cakes for other sinners. 

I guess they felt like they were God's judges to decide which sinners get cakes and which don't.


----------



## Evons hubby

Shine said:


> There is no more "America" as I understood it to be... It has been destroyed.


I hate that for you. Which part of our constitution gave you trouble when you read it? As in what part of "equal protection" did you not understand? Lemme help... Everyone gets equal treatment even those who have different religious beliefs, skin color or speak a different language.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> Did slavery end?


Many years ago.


----------



## Evons hubby

Shine said:


> This is really becoming stupid. I am out of this thread. No one appears to be as sympathetic to other's freedoms as they are to their own. Is this the new America???


I am sorry, but which of your freedoms have come to an end?


----------



## kasilofhome

chamoisee said:


> They did not know that the couple was lesbian until after they agreed to make them a wedding cake.
> 
> The bible says absolutely nothing about gay marriage being a sin. It doesn't even say that being gay is a sin. Nor does it say that being transgender is a sin.
> 
> They make cakes for other sinners.
> 
> I guess they felt like they were God's judges to decide which sinners get cakes and which don't.



Sorry.... The refused to make the wedding cake...that is a wee bit different than the reneged on a verbal contract to provide a custom service. They knew their own personal boundary as they understand their faith. Abomination is a clue to some and an insult to others but they have not wavered.


----------



## kasilofhome

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Many years ago.


So do you agree that a person should be forced to provide labor against their will.
Sounds a bit like slavery....punish them if they refuse.


----------



## mmoetc

kasilofhome said:


> Thus you clearly see that the homosexual came to the bakers and clearly tried to use any force avoidable to force the bakers to breach their faith and still to this day they honest their faith.


I'll post this one more time. http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/12/06/3035121/colorado-bakery-broke-law/

It's a link to the details of the judge's decision and the facts of the case. The couple simply walked into a bakery advertising wedding cakes for sale and attempted to order a cake to celebrate their wedding. No discussion of what the cake was to look like ever took place. The couple didn't sue to get a cake baked or for damages. They did follow up with local authorities to attempt to get the bakery to comply with local non discrimination law. The baker was unable to prove to the judge how baking a cake was a religous practice. Since no design was discussed, no free speech issues were pertinent.


----------



## mmoetc

kasilofhome said:


> So do you agree that a person should be forced to provide labor against their will.
> Sounds a bit like slavery....punish them if they refuse.


No, a person who opens a business should comply with all the laws in the jurisdiction the business exists. If he doesn't like the laws, he should move his business to a friendlier place, just as moving and choice of place have been suggested as an option to some here.


----------



## mmoetc

where I want to said:


> The article is a mix of selectivity, insult detecting missiles, and self delusion. She hates those who don't find her perfect, especially if they hide it, assuming it's because they hate her for being gay. I suppose they might hate her for being a loud mouth but that would also turn out to be because she's gay anyway. She would not patronize a business that objects to her but I guess suing the heck out a business that she doesn't want go to anyway is fine. Anyway, she right that it is a hateful sign because, as far as I know, hardware is rarely part of Christian rite.
> 
> If she were really honest she would simply say that it is hurtful and irritating to be disliked so publicly but she'd rather that than give up living according to her own desires. And she intends to make those who do this pay for it where ever it is convenient to do so. And that there is therefore no reason to temper her remarks to the reality of what these people actually do but assaults them with whatever occurs to her as outrageous beliefs they have not expressed. Just because it is a way of striking back that costs her nothing. So she drags in the implication that they should also post signs about hating other minorities, which they certainly must hate also, being haters in general. Which may or may not be true. That is not important to her.
> 
> What her point seems to be is that she also hates those who don't exclude her, even if they object to her "life style". So it comes down to a simple "if you don't love me, I will hate you in return." Which at least has virtue of clarity and actually settles the whole thing.


Apparently you read a different article than the one I posted. I read a piece from a woman who requested openness and honesty from a business so she could make a decision on where to spend her money. Someone who would rather have a clear sign on the door telling her whether she was welcome, rather than being surprised after spending the time to enter and shop to then find her business wasn't wanted. I saw acceptance of such a policy. No hatred or a desire to sue. Just as Christians, and others, have boycotted many businesses because some belief was being stepped on, why shouldn't gays boycott businesses that don't want theirs. But how are they to identify these businesses? Isn't it simpler, clearer, and less open to mistaken interpretation if the business self identifies. I don't see hatred. I see a quest for clarity.

As for similar signs to designate discrimination against Jews, Muslims, Christians or any one else. Why wouldn't that be consistent with how religion has been used to discriminate in the past. Pogroms, the Inquisition, segregated religous ghettos, even the Holocaust all had a religous underpinning. How simpler times must have been when everyone knew their place in society and knew not to step outside it and ask for equality.

The hardware store owners first sign was clear and concise. I'd be allowed to buy plumbing fixtures there, though I'd probably choose not to. The second is much more confusing. Without knowin the owners feelings on many things how would I know whether he and I felt differently and what questions would I have to answer at each purchase to prove to him that I wasn't working against him. I vote for the first, clear and concise, sign.


----------



## Tricky Grama

chamoisee said:


> NO. I am NOT going to be run out of town, away from the children that I have shared custody of, because bigots don't want me here. I do realize that this is what some of you want- to be able to run us out of town- and that it's why you support this kind of thing....but it ain't gonna happen. You don't get to have all-white, all-Christian, all-heterosexual neighborhoods and counties and states and countries. America is a melting pot with room for all types of people, not just YOUR type.


I'm thinking there's a problem here...are you saying you are refused service at all/some stores in your area? B/c THAT is against the law for sure. UNLESS you're being obnoxious, and it does't seem like you are.

All Christians want is to be able to REFUSE to participate in your wedding ceremony/party. That is ALL. Anything else, like selling you a loaf of bread, a gallon of anything is not going to be a problem.
So, tell us again who & what has been refused you?


----------



## Tricky Grama

chamoisee said:


> The bakery initially agreed to make the wedding cake. They changed their mind when they realized that it was being made for a lesbian couple. I personally would not have sued. Instead, I would have spread the word to everyone I knew, that the bakery owners are bigots, and I would never shop there again.


So that would be ok, would it be ok for the bakery to note in their advertising that you were a rude, demanding "insert word here for lesbian"?
I'm thinking of changing my mind on that obnoxious remark...


----------



## Irish Pixie

Gah. Big sigh. If you provide a product that is sold to the public it is discrimination not to sell it to section of that public. Why is that so hard to understand? 

Was it OK to have "white only" stores, drinking fountains, and rest rooms? No. It was discriminatory. Now put "straight" instead of "white" do you understand?


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> I'm thinking there's a problem here...are you saying you are refused service at all/some stores in your area? B/c THAT is against the law for sure. UNLESS you're being obnoxious, and it does't seem like you are.
> 
> All Christians want is to be able to REFUSE to participate in your wedding ceremony/party. That is ALL. Anything else, like selling you a loaf of bread, a gallon of anything is not going to be a problem.
> So, tell us again who & what has been refused you?


What if I'm going to use the bread to make sandwiches for the reception. Or the milk to make biscuits and gravy for the post wedding brunch? How about just to feed oneself. It's ok to participate in the marriage by selling to the couple afterwards , just not the wedding? See why people are confused by Christian rules?

There are no federal laws preventing a business from discriminating based on sexual orientation. There are some state and local laws. All the woman in the pieces I linked to was to know the rules of the store before she chose to walk in. Seems pretty easy.

ETA- the best way not to participate in a wedding is not to show up. Problem solved.


----------



## Txsteader

wr said:


> Nobody can force anyone to carry something that is normally not in stock so you can't force a halal meat market to carry pork any more than you can force a regular store to sell horse meat.
> 
> If a Muslim baker refuses to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple or a Christian couple, citing their faith, I'm sure there will be plenty of lawyers ready to challenge that one but I would think that after the cake baker incident, most folks will find a less political way to decline (busy time of year, overbooked, head decorator just quit, etc).
> 
> Companies decline clients for many reasons without being sued, it's all in how you handle it.


IOW, discrimination can/will still be practiced, one just has to be clever in how it's done........which makes the law meaningless. It's simply a matter of what words are spoken.


----------



## mmoetc

kasilofhome said:


> Wal-Mart sells cakes
> Wal-Mart customised cakes
> Wal-Mart has done confederate flags on cakes... and duck of hazard cakes
> Wal-Mart won't do them now
> 
> 
> The dukes of hazard was in rerun on stations ... people paid for a line up... now it is removed.
> 
> And liberals are all cool with that because the can't or won't see that it's the same business can say no.


Because they now won't sell such cakes to anyone. Treatment is equal. If they choose to sell the cake to you, but not to me based on my skin tone , religion , sex, or in some locations sexual orientation, they may be in violation of the law. Why are some people deserving of a cake and others not deserving of the same cake?


----------



## mmoetc

Txsteader said:


> IOW, discrimination can/will still be practiced, one just has to be clever in how it's done........which makes the law meaningless. It's simply a matter of what words are spoken.


Discrimination can be openly practiced. One just has to adopt the proper business model. One cannot, however, advertise their business as open to the public and then exclude part of the public as a matter of course.


----------



## Txsteader

chamoisee said:


> So, this actually has NOTHING to do with religious freedom. It has to do with discriminating against someone on the basis of philosophical interpretation of the bible...which is not actually the same thing.
> 
> Mormons don't believe in drinking caffeine or in drinking beer. If you're shopping at an LDS grocery store and they find out that you drink coffee, can they refuse to sell you milk and sugar, because you might use it for your coffee? Or chips or bratwurst, because you might use it for your barbecue to have with your beer? Would you not feel annoyed if you saw them selling these same items to others, but not to you? What if they had NO problem with selling you this stuff until after they realized you weren't LDS, and then abruptly changed their mind and canceled the sale?


If it were based on their religious beliefs, I would consider it their right to do so & go somewhere else. :shrug:

Having said that, to my knowledge, admittedly, the bakery was not visibly associated with any particular church/religion, which IMO is the root of their troubles.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's pretty childish, don't you think?


I guess you'll have to explain why those pics were childish.
1st, I just thought the cookies were ghosts but I see they could be KKK. 
The hitler cake is awful, nothing childish about that & if I were Jewish I'd tear up the pic & give it back to whomever showed it to me to bake for them.

I'll try to find the post Greg did a while back. Pretty much says it all. And RIGHT, I might add.

"No business should be forced to provide a service they disagree with. So no 'gay themed cakes' from the Christian bakers. No bacon from the Muslims or Jewish markets.
Refuse to bake the cake but refuse to sell a loaf of bread? NO!"


----------



## Jolly

chamoisee said:


> That's in the church. What about refusing to sell groceries to these people?


You have an all-or-nothing fixation.

Just because some people will not bake a wedding cake for a gay marriage does not mean they couldn't bake the cake because they were organizing a march to burn the couple's house down.


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> I guess you'll have to explain why those pics were childish.
> 1st, I just thought the cookies were ghosts but I see they could be KKK.
> The hitler cake is awful, nothing childish about that & if I were Jewish I'd tear up the pic & give it back to whomever showed it to me to bake for them.
> 
> I'll try to find the post Greg did a while back. Pretty much says it all. And RIGHT, I might add.
> 
> "No business should be forced to provide a service they disagree with. So no 'gay themed cakes' from the Christian bakers. No bacon from the Muslims or Jewish markets.
> Refuse to bake the cake but refuse to sell a loaf of bread? NO!"


But why is bread to be used as part of the celebration different than a cake? Don't they both require ingredients and labor to be used? Don't they both imply "participation"? What exactly is the difference?


----------



## Tricky Grama

chamoisee said:


> OK, but here's the thing. This same bakery was A-OK with making divorce celebration cakes. Their cakes are _not_ specifically for Christians. The bakery is _not_ advertised as a "Christian Couples Wedding Bakery". I don't go to a Christian bookstore looking for lesbian erotica or erotic art books, or the Kama Sutra, or...anything interesting at all, actually. I know that a Christian bookstore will not even carry basic interesting non-fiction. And they aren't required to carry basic non-fiction. But how would you feel if you went into a mainstream bookstore, and The Joy of Sex was offered there, and, having shopped there before, you went to buy this book, only to be turned down because the proprietors felt you were too unattractive or old to have sex, or they felt that your partner was the wrong color, or they knew that you were Catholic but your spouse is not, etc etc.... Wouldn't you feel as if your private life had been judged, as if you'd been discriminated against, insulted, etc, when all you wanted to do was to buy a bleeping book??


And how does any of this compare? A bakery that does not & will not supply 2 brides or 2 grooms on a cake is not like anything you posted.


----------



## FarmerKat

Txsteader said:


> If only it were that simple. That person doesn't seem interested in suing but there are plenty who would.
> 
> In short, people don't get sued for being homosexual but people do get sued for being Christian. What puzzles me is why they're not harassing Muslim store owners.





no really said:


> Friend told me that Muslim businesses, if they think someone is gay they will just ignore them till they leave. Won't interact at all. Don't know if this is a prevailing action or not.





chamoisee said:


> OK. So, are Christians going to refuse to make wedding cakes for alcoholics? And divorcees? And those who had premarital sex?


I think they should be able to.

Not quite the same - just illustrating that some people hold those views - my neighbor's daughter's best friend told her they could not longer be friends when her parents divorced.


----------



## Jolly

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Not according to our courts... Seems the supremes made that pretty clear not long ago.


Some people answer to a higher court than SCOTUS.


----------



## Jolly

chamoisee said:


> Actually, the lesbians had been buying from this bakery before and had no idea that the owners were homophobic/anti-gay apparently.


Again, all-or-nothing.

If a Christian business owner does not agree with gay marriage, he's homophobic?

That's a pretty fast drag race to the wrong conclusion...


----------



## Tricky Grama

chamoisee said:


> Religious beliefs apply only to the person who holds them. Applying those beliefs to other people is inflicting it on them.


NO ONE forced the gay couple to believe as they do. NO ONE!
The gay couple was FORCING the baker to believe as they do!
Gads. none so blind as those who will not see.


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> NO ONE forced the gay couple to believe as they do. NO ONE!
> The gay couple was FORCING the baker to believe as they do!
> Gads. none so blind as those who will not see.


Exactly what belief was being forced on the baker? The couple didn't ask for his blessing or approval. They simply wanted to the baker to do what he advertised. Bake a cake. They simply wanted to engage in the same commercial transaction hundreds of other couples did. They didn't want the baker to become their new BFF or buy them a present. They didn't want him to officiate the wedding. They just wanted a cake and were willing to give him money to provide one. Sort of the basis of his business. If he didn't believe in baking cakes he shouldn't have done so before or after this couple walked in, either.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> Gah. Big sigh. If you provide a product that is sold to the public it is discrimination not to sell it to section of that public. Why is that so hard to understand?
> 
> Was it OK to have "white only" stores, drinking fountains, and rest rooms? No. It was discriminatory. Now put "straight" instead of "white" do you understand?


I do not expect those of no faith to understand. Just have to go by courts decisions, I guess. B/c most have said our 1st amendment rights will not be denied. And if our right to practice our religion includes NOT participating in a same-sex union, anyone has that right. 
A wedding photographer does NOT have to take pics at a same-sex wedding if she doesn't want to. A baker should not be sued if they do not bake a gay cake.

DO NOT force your beliefs on us.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> NO ONE forced the gay couple to believe as they do. NO ONE!
> The gay couple was FORCING the baker to believe as they do!
> Gads. none so blind as those who will not see.


How was the gay couple forcing the baker to make a cake? The baker has a clear choice- sell cakes to everyone or pay a fine/lawsuit. 

Just because you're christian does not give you the right to discriminate. If your faith is so strong don't make the cake (or whatever) but there are consequences to the action.

Right back at you- don't force your faith on me.


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> What if I'm going to use the bread to make sandwiches for the reception. Or the milk to make biscuits and gravy for the post wedding brunch? How about just to feed oneself. It's ok to participate in the marriage by selling to the couple afterwards , just not the wedding? See why people are confused by Christian rules?
> 
> There are no federal laws preventing a business from discriminating based on sexual orientation. There are some state and local laws. All the woman in the pieces I linked to was to know the rules of the store before she chose to walk in. Seems pretty easy.
> 
> ETA- the best way not to participate in a wedding is not to show up. Problem solved.


Sorry, I think you still don't understand. WHO is making the sandwiches for the celebration? Who is making the biscuits?
I mean really. 
NO ONE should be forced to provide a service they disagree with. NO gay themed cakes, no bacon form the Jewish deli.
Stop forcing others beliefs on Christains, Jews.


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> Because they now won't sell such cakes to anyone. Treatment is equal. If they choose to sell the cake to you, but not to me based on my skin tone , religion , sex, or in some locations sexual orientation, they may be in violation of the law. Why are some people deserving of a cake and others not deserving of the same cake?


There ya have it: "The SAME cake"??? I don't think so. Baker will bake the cake but it has a bride & groom on top. Satisfied?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> Sorry, I think you still don't understand. WHO is making the sandwiches for the celebration? Who is making the biscuits?
> I mean really.
> NO ONE should be forced to provide a service they disagree with. NO gay themed cakes, no bacon form the Jewish deli.
> Stop forcing others beliefs on Christains, Jews.


The bottom line is that being christian doesn't make you special to anyone but yourself. You (collective you) still have to abide by the laws of the US. They are not superseded by your faith.


----------



## 7thswan

Well. I'd say bakers can just say they are too busy. Funny how that happens. I'm getting bids to put our metal roof on the house. Sure changes fast when they find out we have our own sourse of roofing and they will not make a profit off the sale of supplies just labor.


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> I do not expect those of no faith to understand. Just have to go by courts decisions, I guess. B/c most have said our 1st amendment rights will not be denied. And if our right to practice our religion includes NOT participating in a same-sex union, anyone has that right.
> A wedding photographer does NOT have to take pics at a same-sex wedding if she doesn't want to. A baker should not be sued if they do not bake a gay cake.
> 
> DO NOT force your beliefs on us.


Here's where we can be in partial agreement. The photographer can choose not to take pictures. She can even say she won't do so because the couple is gay. She can then pay whatever penalties the &#322;aw imposes. She doesn't have to change her beliefs or act against them.

No baker should be sued for not baking a cake and none , as far as I know, have been. They should be required to follow all laws pertinent to their business and pay any fines for breaking those laws. They're free to believe what they wish.

If they don't like the laws in their area they're free to move, right?


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> There ya have it: "The SAME cake"??? I don't think so. Baker will bake the cake but it has a bride & groom on top. Satisfied?


But that isn't why the baker turned the couple away. I'll argue the facts as they are. You're free to make up your own. You might be interested to know that I agree the baker shouldn't be required to put anything on a cake he disagrees with. But he can't make the assumption he'll disagree with it until it is discussed. Most bakeries have a book of standard designs. For all this baker knew he was going to be asked to bake and decorate a cake that looked just like any other.

But that still doesn't answer the question of "involvement". Why is a cake like any other more involvement than a loaf of bread like any other?


----------



## Txsteader

chamoisee said:


> Religious freedom means that *you* have the freedom to worship and believe as you like. It does *not* mean that you have the freedom to inflict your religion on other people by forcing them to do what you think is right, by refusing to allow them to do what you think is wrong, or by engaging in petty control trips in order to get them to do what you think they should be doing.


 But how is refusing to sell a product forcing anyone to do what they think is right or follow their religious beliefs? The couple was still free to be homosexual, live in a homosexual relationship, get married. They simply would have had to go (which I presume they eventually did) to another bakery for their wedding cake.

Now if the bakers had insisted that the couple accept Christ before they sold them a cake, I would vehemently agree that they (bakers) were wrong.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> Gah. Big sigh. If you provide a product that is sold to the public it is discrimination not to sell it to section of that public. Why is that so hard to understand?
> 
> Was it OK to have "white only" stores, drinking fountains, and rest rooms? No. It was discriminatory. Now put "straight" instead of "white" do you understand?


Drinking fountains and rest rooms don't have anything to do with religious beliefs/scripture.

Well okay, admittedly some, back then.  :nono:


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Drinking fountains and rest rooms don't have anything to do with religious beliefs/scripture.
> 
> Well okay, admittedly some, back then.  :nono:


I was trying, apparently in vain, to make the conversation more simple so all could understand. 

The bottom line is that being christian doesn't give you any special protection over discrimination.


----------



## mmoetc

Txsteader said:


> But how is refusing to sell a product forcing anyone to do what they think is right or follow their religious beliefs? The couple was still free to be homosexual, live in a homosexual relationship, get married. They simply would have had to go (which I presume they eventually did) to another bakery for their wedding cake.
> 
> Now if the bakers had insisted that the couple accept Christ before they sold them a cake, I would vehemently agree that they (bakers) were wrong.


But isn't that pretty much what the bakers are doing? Insisting that in order to get their yummy, pretty cake you must comply to their beliefs? That if they don't approve of your beliefs they are free to refuse you. It does sort of seem they are holding their cakes hostage to their beliefs. At least sometimes. They apparently had no compunctions against dogs marrying. The couple in question didn't ask the baker to comply with their beliefs. They just wanted him to bake a cake.


----------



## Txsteader

mmoetc said:


> But isn't that pretty much what the bakers are doing? Insisting that in order to get their yummy, pretty cake you must comply to their beliefs?


No.

What beliefs were they (customers) asked to comply with? They were simply told that they (owners) could not make that cake as requested.


----------



## mmoetc

Txsteader said:


> No.
> 
> What beliefs were they (customers) asked to comply with? They were simply told that they (owners) could not make that cake as requested.


But that the owners could if the customers, in some way, could comply with those beliefs. The only way to get the cake is to be in agreeance with the baker's belief. The baker can bake the cake whether he agrees or not. All the power lies in the baker's hands. The baker can force compliance before baking a cake. There is no way, under our law, to force someone to bake a cake.


----------



## gibbsgirl

mmoetc said:


> No, a person who opens a business should comply with all the laws in the jurisdiction the business exists. If he doesn't like the laws, he should move his business to a friendlier place, just as moving and choice of place have been suggested as an option to some here.


That seems to be disappearing as a viabl option for each time the feds take over and trample state rights. Where will those places to go to exist when all places must be the same?


----------



## mmoetc

gibbsgirl said:


> That seems to be disappearing as a viabl option for each time the feds take over and trample state rights. Where will those places to go to exist when all places must be the same?


The question should be why the fundamental rights of all people and their right to have equal protection under the law should be place dependent. Why should discrimination exist anywhere in this country?


----------



## AmericanStand

I think some forget while most business is open to the public they don't SERVE everyone. 
Radio is about as public as anything but the Christian station doesn't serve the same people the hard rock station does. 
My artist friends gallery is open to all but he decides price and availability based on the person. 
Trucking companies seem pretty impersonal but they tend to serve businesses they have personal relationships with. 
Etc.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> The bottom line is that being christian doesn't make you special to anyone but yourself. You (collective you) still have to abide by the laws of the US. They are not superseded by your faith.


And b/4 there were gay weddings there was and IS freedom of religion. THAT IS special. The RIGHT of anyone's faith is spelled out in the 1st amendment.


----------



## painterswife

AmericanStand said:


> I think some forget while most business is open to the public they don't SERVE everyone.
> Radio is about as public as anything but the Christian station doesn't serve the same people the hard rock station does.
> My artist friends gallery is open to all but he decides price and availability based on the person.
> Trucking companies seem pretty impersonal but they tend to serve businesses they have personal relationships with.
> Etc.


All those examples still don't get to refuse their product to someone based on their sex.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> And b/4 there were gay weddings there was and IS freedom of religion. THAT IS special. The RIGHT of anyone's faith is spelled out in the 1st amendment.


Baking a cake is not a religious activity.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> And b/4 there were gay weddings there was and IS freedom of religion. THAT IS special. The RIGHT of anyone's faith is spelled out in the 1st amendment.


Nope. American citizens have the freedom _of_ religion not special dispensation because of religion. 

Christians may be special in their own eyes but they obviously aren't in the eyes of the law.


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> But that isn't why the baker turned the couple away. I'll argue the facts as they are. You're free to make up your own. You might be interested to know that I agree the baker shouldn't be required to put anything on a cake he disagrees with. But he can't make the assumption he'll disagree with it until it is discussed. Most bakeries have a book of standard designs. For all this baker knew he was going to be asked to bake and decorate a cake that looked just like any other.
> 
> But that still doesn't answer the question of "involvement". Why is a cake like any other more involvement than a loaf of bread like any other?


I'm sure you are intelligent to know the difference, as I've stating many times. 
The cake is a part of the celebration, the BREAD has to be made into something else. 
I wish I could draw pictures here but don't know how...IF the couple comes in & gets a plain ordinary cake that is made for anyone & everyone & then USE it in their celebration, don't see how this could be a problem...however if the baker is asked to make it in a certain way that goes against his/her religion, there's a problem.

Doesn't anyone remember HobbyLobby?


----------



## mmoetc

AmericanStand said:


> I think some forget while most business is open to the public they don't SERVE everyone.
> Radio is about as public as anything but the Christian station doesn't serve the same people the hard rock station does.
> My artist friends gallery is open to all but he decides price and availability based on the person.
> Trucking companies seem pretty impersonal but they tend to serve businesses they have personal relationships with.
> Etc.


Does the Christian radio station get to decide who listens? Can they come in to my home, business or car and insist I change the channel because I don't meet some standard of theirs?


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> I'm sure you are intelligent to know the difference, as I've stating many times.
> The cake is a part of the celebration, the BREAD has to be made into something else.
> I wish I could draw pictures here but don't know how...IF the couple comes in & gets a plain ordinary cake that is made for anyone & everyone & then USE it in their celebration, don't see how this could be a problem...however if the baker is asked to make it in a certain way that goes against his/her religion, there's a problem.
> 
> Doesn't anyone remember HobbyLobby?


So let's change bread to dinner rolls. No change neccessary, complete involvement, right? Or wrong?

It is good to see you finally agree with the judge's decision in Colorado. No special demands were made on the baker. He refused service soley on the basis of their sexuality. No discussion as to what the cake would look like or how that look could violate his beliefs took place. He was wrong. You can now quit bringing it up to prove your point.

I remember Hobby Lobby. I won't shop there. When I see a corporation baptized or take holy sacraments I'll believe they have and can exercise religous beliefs.


----------



## wr

Shine said:


> Straw Man Argument. Please keep on topic.



I think it speaks to precedent.


----------



## Txsteader

AmericanStand said:


> I think some forget while most business is open to the public they don't SERVE everyone.


Indeed. When I worked in retail years ago, the manager always had the right to refuse service to a customer. We had one lady who was so obnoxious/rude that she was banned from even coming into the store. 

Well, one would have to ask, doesn't that lady have the 'right' to be rude and obnoxious?

'Civil rights' can be taken to the extreme, to the point of ridiculous....or outright anarchy.


----------



## kasilofhome

mmoetc said:


> But why is bread to be used as part of the celebration different than a cake? Don't they both require ingredients and labor to be used? Don't they both imply "participation"? What exactly is the difference?


Custom bread or OFF THE SHELF.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Custom bread or OFF THE SHELF.


So if the gay couple picked a standard cake design out of the shops selection they should get their wedding cake?


----------



## kasilofhome

mmoetc said:


> Exactly what belief was being forced on the baker? The couple didn't ask for his blessing or approval. They simply wanted to the baker to do what he advertised. Bake a cake. They simply wanted to engage in the same commercial transaction hundreds of other couples did. They didn't want the baker to become their new BFF or buy them a present. They didn't want him to officiate the wedding. They just wanted a cake and were willing to give him money to provide one. Sort of the basis of his business. If he didn't believe in baking cakes he shouldn't have done so before or after this couple walked in, either.


That man's abominations were worth of celebration of the highest standards that would require special care and time... that custom work would be ordered in advance for the grand celebration of sin.


----------



## where I want to

painterswife said:


> Divorce and many other things are a sin. Therefore baking a divorce cake would be celebrating that sin if we use the logic that people are basing their reasons for not baking a wedding cake. Not dismissive just following the line of reasoning.


I don't know if that is correct. And it sounds like an agrument had here previously. 
Marriage is a sacrament. For some, divorce is a sin and I suppose those people would not offer a divorce cake in the first place. But lots of sects do not consider divorce a sin, so have no such qualm. 
But even then, offering a service to a sinner is not the same as disrespecting a sacrament.


----------



## arabian knight

And whats next now, a wedding at the WH. Oops already been one. What a disgrace.


----------



## Dutchie

mmoetc said:


> I think she's got it right.
> 
> http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7710334


I do, too. It makes it easier for me to know who the bigots are so I can take my money elsewhere.


----------



## kasilofhome

mmoetc said:


> But isn't that pretty much what the bakers are doing? Insisting that in order to get their yummy, pretty cake you must comply to their beliefs? That if they don't approve of your beliefs they are free to refuse you. It does sort of seem they are holding their cakes hostage to their beliefs. At least sometimes. They apparently had no compunctions against dogs marrying. The couple in question didn't ask the baker to comply with their beliefs. They just wanted him to bake a cake.


No, more like an eye doctor refusing to do brain surgery..
He may have talent and but they just don't feel comfortable do to their personal relationship with God.


----------



## painterswife

where I want to said:


> I don't know if that is correct. And it sounds like an agrument had here previously.
> Marriage is a sacrament. For some, divorce is a sin and I suppose those people would not offer a divorce cake in the first place. But lots of sects do not consider divorce a sin, so have no such qualm.
> But even then, offering a service to a sinner is not the same as disrespecting a sacrament.


My marriage was not a sacrament. I guess that means that the shop has to verify that every wedding cake they make is for a wedding is a sacrament wedding to be consistent with their religion.


----------



## painterswife

arabian knight said:


> And whats next now, a wedding at the WH. Oops already been one. What a disgrace.


I am sure it was a lovely celebration and no way a disgrace.


----------



## kasilofhome

mmoetc said:


> But that the owners could if the customers, in some way, could comply with those beliefs. The only way to get the cake is to be in agreeance with the baker's belief. The baker can bake the cake whether he agrees or not. All the power lies in the baker's hands. The baker can force compliance before baking a cake. There is no way, under our law, to force someone to bake a cake.


Kinda adding a little bit of embellishments.... look up transcript .


----------



## Guest

painterswife said:


> Divorce and many other things are a sin. Therefore baking a divorce cake would be celebrating that sin if we use the logic that people are basing their reasons for not baking a wedding cake. Not dismissive just following the line of reasoning.


There ya go spewing miss information, divorce is not a sin in all a Abrahamic traditions. It is allowed.


----------



## where I want to

painterswife said:


> So if the gay couple picked a standard cake design out of the shops selection they should get their wedding cake?


If I found myself considering that a moral decision because I considered my baking a wedding cake to be participating in a sacrament, then I would find that simply selling a cake made for innocent reasons but eventually used improperly would not compromise my own relationship with God. For the issue is holding myself and my own actions to the standard. I can try to help others into behavior that will preserve their own good relationship to God but no one can guarantee success at another's actions. In fact, trying to suppress their free relationship with God so it simply looks good is of no use whatsoever. They still have a bad relationship and are only being prevented from showing it.
I suppose if I came to the conclusion that all cake making lead to misuse, then it would then become a personal moral issue where saying "not my problem" is disingenuous, I would be participating in disrespecting a sacrament and just pretending otherwise. But that is not the case.
Just as you dismissing such thoughts as nonsense is simply that for you it is nonsense but can be very real for others. You are not in charge of that decision for others- just for yourself.


----------



## chamoisee

Tricky Grama said:


> I'm thinking there's a problem here...are you saying you are refused service at all/some stores in your area? B/c THAT is against the law for sure. UNLESS you're being obnoxious, and it does't seem like you are.
> 
> All Christians want is to be able to REFUSE to participate in your wedding ceremony/party. That is ALL. Anything else, like selling you a loaf of bread, a gallon of anything is not going to be a problem.
> So, tell us again who & what has been refused you?


Actually, I have only been refused service once in this area (I wanted a haircut). There have been attempts to ignore me and get me to go away (usually at saw shops and guy stores where they think that a woman doesn't belong), but generally, the people in northern Idaho are not as intolerant as you might think. The kicker? It *is* legal to discriminate in Idaho, but by and large, the business owners don't. 

It's also legal for them to fire me from a job, despite outstanding performance and being on time, simply for being gay. And because Idaho is a right-to-work state, they don't have to tell me why I'm being fired. The last time, their response was that I was "not a good fit".


----------



## painterswife

where I want to said:


> If I found myself considering that a moral decision because I considered my baking a wedding cake to be participating in a sacrament, then I would find that simply selling a cake made for innocent reasons but eventually used improperly would not compromise my own relationship with God. For the issue is holding myself and my own actions to the standard. I can try to help others into behavior that will preserve their own good relationship to God but no one can guarantee success at another's actions. In fact, trying to suppress their free relationship with God so it simply looks good is of no use whatsoever. They still have a bad relationship and are only being prevented from showing it.
> I suppose if I came to the conclusion that all cake making lead to misuse, then it would then become a personal moral issue where saying "not my problem" is disingenuous, I would be participating in disrespecting a sacrament and just pretending otherwise. But that is not the case.
> Just as you dismissing such thoughts as nonsense is simply that for you it is nonsense but can be very real for others. You are not in charge of that decision for others- just for yourself.


They have to defend themselves in court if used or fined. These are the questions I would want answered if on the jury. These are the excuses offered here. Religion does not trump our laws in all cases.


----------



## kasilofhome

And I would have no problem with them taking anything not sold to another off the shelf because that item would have not been planned for a wedding.. The cardboard cakes as a sample if work would not go as it is a part of the store's decoration.

Personal relationship is going to vary as to what person are comfortable... where is in one spot and I in another...both view as to the boundary vary yet logical... Personal relationship.


----------



## chamoisee

Tricky Grama said:


> And how does any of this compare? A bakery that does not & will not supply 2 brides or 2 grooms on a cake is not like anything you posted.


I don't think that they requested two grooms or brides. If that were the issue, they could have made the cake and just told the couple to buy the brides/grooms separately. Bakeries do that all the time....if they don't have the kit you want, they can make the cake and you go get the kit yourself and put it on.


----------



## where I want to

painterswife said:


> They have to defend themselves in court if used or fined. These are the questions I would want answered if on the jury. These are the excuses offered here. Religion does not trump our laws in all cases.


Actually, it does except where there is no other reasonable alternative. At least as far as the Constitution goes. Unless you are a current liberal Supreme Court judge apparently. Where the standard seems to be that religion can't interfere with the good work of the government - and yes, that is sarcasm.


----------



## painterswife

where I want to said:


> Actually, it does except where there is no other reasonable alternative. At least as far as the Constitution goes. Unless you are a current liberal Supreme Court judge apparently. Where the standard seems to be that religion can't interfere with the good work of the government - and yes, that is sarcasm.


That would be one opinion.


----------



## kasilofhome

Txsteader said:


> No.
> 
> What beliefs were they (customers) asked to comply with? They were simply told that they (owners) could not make that cake as requested.





chamoisee said:


> Actually, I have only been refused service once in this area (I wanted a haircut). There have been attempts to ignore me and get me to go away (usually at saw shops and guy stores where they think that a woman doesn't belong), but generally, the people in northern Idaho are not as intolerant as you might think. The kicker? It *is* legal to discriminate in Idaho, but by and large, the business owners don't.
> 
> It's also legal for them to fire me from a job, despite outstanding performance and being on time, simply for being gay. And because Idaho is a right-to-work state, they don't have to tell me why I'm being fired. The last time, their response was that I was "not a good fit".


I have also Been refused hair care.... They were uncomfortable with my weak thin hair.. get over it. 

Customer service sucks for heterosexuals too 

You seem to take daily events and view them personally.

Did you really get fired for being gay or did a chip on one's shoulder cause conflict due to drama in the work place.... not a good fit.


----------



## kasilofhome

chamoisee said:


> I don't think that they requested two grooms or brides. If that were the issue, they could have made the cake and just told the couple to buy the brides/grooms separately. Bakeries do that all the time....if they don't have the kit you want, they can make the cake and you go get the kit yourself and put it on.


Thus the cake was to be ORDERED


----------



## painterswife

Don't ask don't tell for wedding cakes. 

Order your cake. say it is the Joe Blow wedding ( insert someones last name). They make you a cake.


----------



## gibbsgirl

This whole thread has made me remember a class I took in college.

It's reminded me why it's important to remember there is no one size fits all solution to how to get society to interract in a way that will eliminate people ever getting their toes stepped on. The solution is to let the people involved in incidents just muddle their way through as best they can. None of us are ever going to find the perfect advise to fix things and we'll never have a govt that handles it oerfectly either. You just have to deal with this stuff as it comes up in your life and move forward.

I took a film class in college and the syllabus listed the films we were going to watch. It also said that students could choose from an alternate list I'd they didn't want to watch movies on the main syllabus.

I think there were two out of six movies I didn't want to watch. Well, asking the professor for the alternate list just set him off. He was completely offended and immediately accused me of being homophobic. I was young and actually cried. The first one was a movie that had some sex stuff that was hetero and homosexual.

He berated me outside while the movie played like he was having some come to Jesus moment to set me straight.

I wasn't homophobic. I was young and married and had small children. I lived in a tiny house and my husband and I, who are Christian, had decided that we wanted to avoid TV/movies/music that had what we felt was graphic content as much as possible. It helped keep our kids from inadvertently being exposed to grownup things, and we felt pretty strongly that viewing that stuff was not a good use of our time if we wanted to seriously work at building a strong marriage. Our deal was we would avoid tgat stuff whether apart or together. For example, even when driving alone listening to the radio.

So, when the professor started interrogating me, I explained that if there was graphic sex in a movie, my husband and I had made the commitment to avoid it. He called me a hypocritical and homophobic and grudgingly gave me some alternate choices.

Thank goodness that story didn't go viral at that point to be debated so intensely by the public online.

So a few weeks later another movie came up that had a lot of sex in it but in was heterosexual stuff. So, intimidated out of my mind, I again went to the professor and asked for an alternate list. He was a lot nicer that time and said he was waiting to see the iif I was honest before and would have an issue when the sex was not homosexual. He was still not a fan of my prudish lifestyle he said, but he acknowledged that my actions seemed genuine and not homophobic. 

I survived the experience and so did he. I even passed the class with a decent grade.

This whole no gays allowed sign debate and bakery debate makes me think that the internet isn't helping the people involved in these types of frustrating (for both sides) situations find any common ground to try and respectfully co-exist. It's seems like it just pushes people into finding and focusing on differences and proving why people who are different have no right to be.


----------



## farmrbrown

You brought up another point that I have to ask the mods about later.
Honesty.
I've come to realize that a lot of people aren't honest in their lives and automatically think everyone else is the same way.
When they come across someone who says what they mean and means what they say - they just can't believe it.


----------



## mmoetc

kasilofhome said:


> Custom bread or OFF THE SHELF.


Why does it matter. You are either participating in the ceremony by providing a good or service or you're not. You can't participate just a little or maybe you can. Some seem to want to draw the line in different places and that is their perrogative. It does make it tough on the rest of us to be able to figure out where that line is.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Txsteader said:


> But how is refusing to sell a product forcing anyone to do what they think is right or follow their religious beliefs? The couple was still free to be homosexual, live in a homosexual relationship, get married. They simply would have had to go (which I presume they eventually did) to another bakery for their wedding cake.
> 
> Now if the bakers had insisted that the couple accept Christ before they sold them a cake, I would vehemently agree that they (bakers) were wrong.


Post of the day award.


----------



## kasilofhome

mmoetc said:


> Why does it matter. You are either participating in the ceremony by providing a good or service or you're not. You can't participate just a little or maybe you can. Some seem to want to draw the line in different places and that is their perrogative. It does make it tough on the rest of us to be able to figure out where that line is.


Personal relationship.

When I do due custom work it is for a purpose I pray that it be for God glory. Now, taking a plain cake of the shelf no special work... not customized would not be an issue to me because do not hate homosexuals I want them as all people to have better lives.

Where as a cake I can see myself naturally praying for a long and happy marriage that would glorify God. Such a cake going to be a central aspect of the celebration I have a clue that it is an affront to God... I would like not to tick him off ok.

Christians often pray that their work in some way glorifies God.. stating this because what is common in my faith might not be common knowledge.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope. American citizens have the freedom _of_ religion not special dispensation because of religion.
> 
> Christians may be special in their own eyes but they obviously aren't in the eyes of the law.


It was my understanding in the SCOTUS ruling that NO ONE had to go against their religious beliefs, No? Did I read that interpretation wrong? Did no one get it after the Hobby Lobby ruling?


----------



## oneraddad

gibbsgirl said:


> This whole thread has made me remember a class I took in college.
> 
> It's reminded me why it's important to remember there is no one size fits all



I agree


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> Does the Christian radio station get to decide who listens? Can they come in to my home, business or car and insist I change the channel because I don't meet some standard of theirs?


And neither can you make them say or DO something that is against their religion.


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> So let's change bread to dinner rolls. No change neccessary, complete involvement, right? Or wrong?
> 
> It is good to see you finally agree with the judge's decision in Colorado. No special demands were made on the baker. He refused service soley on the basis of their sexuality. No discussion as to what the cake would look like or how that look could violate his beliefs took place. He was wrong. You can now quit bringing it up to prove your point.
> 
> I remember Hobby Lobby. I won't shop there. When I see a corporation baptized or take holy sacraments I'll believe they have and can exercise religous beliefs.


See posts #264 & # 270.

NO ONE should be required to provide a service their religion forbids. NO ONE.


----------



## kasilofhome

Tricky Grama said:


> And neither can you make them say or DO something that is against their religion.


Why do you have a radio if you know there could be something that offends you played on it...

T.v. got too racy... my son has grown up with out it... you have choice choose.


----------



## Tricky Grama

kasilofhome said:


> Personal relationship.
> 
> When I do due custom work it is for a purpose I pray that it be for God glory. Now, taking a plain cake of the shelf no special work... not customized would not be an issue to me because do not hate homosexuals I want them as all people to have better lives.
> 
> Where as a cake I can see myself naturally praying for a long and happy marriage that would glorify God. Such a cake going to be a central aspect of the celebration I have a clue that it is an affront to God... I would like not to tick him off ok.
> 
> Christians often pray that their work in some way glorifies God.. stating this because what is common in my faith might not be common knowledge.


Used to be very common I'm not so sure anymore...like getting up every am, thanking the Lord you're seeing the right side of the grass once again & giving up to Him your entire day...with maybe sometimes a need or 2 tossed in.


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> See posts #264 & # 270.
> 
> NO ONE should be required to provide a service their religion forbids. NO ONE.


Maybe before they wish to deny it to some they shouldn't offer it to all.


----------



## gibbsgirl

I think sometimes people are also just distracted by the fact that the timing is very often awkward when someone has to bring up they have an issue and need to remove themselves from a situation. It's usually not or purpose when someone brings up that. It's because they just realized they are getting involved in something that goes against their faith or acceptable standards.

Most people have no idea what a customer will use their product or service for, but if they become aware of it and it goes against their beliefs, they want to stop being involved. Many people feel a sense of guilt by association. It doesn't mean they feel they need to pry endlessly into other people's lives. Just that they feel like they have to make a moral decision once a piece of information is brought forward. I may agree or disagree with those morals, but it's not my right to stop them. It's just my right to say I can't be part of this.

I see it thesame way as if a cab driver decided they were going to limit providing services to some of the staff and patrons of a bar. The cab driver should have the right to say, I'm not going to drive the people I believe are wreckless drinkers because it makes me feel like I am enabling them to carry on with behavior that makes people morally bankrupt. So, if I drive those customers or staff who sell to them, I believe I will be morally compromised for choice to help them carry on.


----------



## kasilofhome

mmoetc said:


> Maybe before they wish to deny it to some they shouldn't offer it to all.


Not everyone Christian want to dishonor God by not using talent hidden under a welfare basket. We are to work where God hopefully guides us.


----------



## mmoetc

kasilofhome said:


> Not everyone Christian want to dishonor God by not using talent hidden under a welfare basket. We are to work where God hopefully guides us.


Then use that gift in a way that pleases you and your god. Limit it's use to those who your god approves of. Just be clear, up front, who those people are. Post a sign delineating exactly which faiths you will provide for. Be consistent. Be true. Just don't change the rules in the middle of the game and expect me to respect your piousness or veracity. Don't advertise wedding cakes and then refuse to sell a wedding cake.


----------



## mmoetc

dlmcafee said:


> No need to ask, if the service you preform or product you sell does not meet the customers need they can walk out themselves. Putting up a sign may limit your customer base and cause you to fail opening an opportunity for someone else. Life is full of surprises, never a guarantee you will get your way.


It isn't about the service or goods provided not meeting the customer's need. It's about being denied the opportunity to avail oneself of that good or service. One is my choice, one is a choice forced upon me by another who ostensibly is in business to offer such goods and services. If they wish to offer those things only to a limited clientele they should not invite everyone in. Put up a sign saying I'm not welcome and I won't darken their door.


----------



## gibbsgirl

This thread seems filled with a lot of demands along the lines of it's all or nothing. No excuses.

Makes me sad cause all or nothing goals are usually pretty unattainable in my experience.


----------



## kasilofhome

I reserve the right to refuse services .... is a sign that is ok with me.
The rest of your demands I laugh at your controlling ways. You do not define my obligations you are not God. My personal failings with my God are not your concerns. I do not seek your respect and I wonder if I had it if I were on the wrong path. I would advertise my talents and it the included wedding cakes I would have not problems advertising them.

I refuse to work as I choose I am no slave.


----------



## kasilofhome

mmoetc said:


> It isn't about the service or goods provided not meeting the customer's need. It's about being denied the opportunity to avail oneself of that good or service. One is my choice, one is a choice forced upon me by another who ostensibly is in business to offer such goods and services. If they wish to offer those things only to a limited clientele they should not invite everyone in. Put up a sign saying I'm not welcome and I won't darken their door.


Darn it I shop in baby stores 

One, they never have babies for sale


----------



## oneraddad

If the internet makes you sad, I'd go for a walk.


----------



## Guest

mmoetc said:


> It isn't about the service or goods provided not meeting the customer's need. It's about being denied the opportunity to avail oneself of that good or service. One is my choice, one is a choice forced upon me by another who ostensibly is in business to offer such goods and services. If they wish to offer those things only to a limited clientele they should not invite everyone in. Put up a sign saying I'm not welcome and I won't darken their door.


Well there in lays the rub. You support government run lives, I do not. You feel everything should be to your liking, I do not.

I feel you are correct we have become a fascist state in the business realm, you won for now. The only freedom you wish are those you dictate. Therefore no freedom at all, just privlages doled out by your government.


----------



## Shine

Hypocrisy is thy name.

I am now certain that the Bakers will come out successful upon appeal... Look to see the hypocrisy found in the ruling below:

The following quote may be attributed to *Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco* regarding the Colorado Civil Rights Commission&#8217;s decision to exonerate cake artists with Denver bakeries Azucar Bakery, Gateaux, and Le Bakery Sensual, who declined to create cakes that violated their conscience, while ruling the opposite way for cake artist Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop:

&#8220;We commend the commission for reaching the right conclusion that these cake artists should not be forced to violate their conscience, but clearly the commission should have done the same for Jack Phillips. The commission found that these three cake artists have the freedom to decline creating unique cake creations because the artists found the requests offensive, but all Americans should be alarmed that the same commission determined that Jack doesn&#8217;t have that same freedom. Like the other bakers, Jack happily serves all people but declines to use his artistic talents to create cakes that violate his conscience. The commission&#8217;s inconsistent rulings mean that the owners of these three cake shops may run them according to their beliefs, while Jack cannot. He risks losing his life-long business altogether if he continues to run it consistent with his faith. Such blatant religious discrimination has no place in our society.&#8221;


http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/8700


----------



## kasilofhome

Imagine if the cake maker instead ....if it is over turn.... They only ask to be compensated for what they lost and not out of a chance to punch the homosexuals. That would glorify God to show compassion to those who have shown none to them.


----------



## mmoetc

Shine said:


> Hypocrisy is thy name.
> 
> I am now certain that the Bakers will come out successful upon appeal... Look to see the hypocrisy found in the ruling below:
> 
> The following quote may be attributed to *Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco* regarding the Colorado Civil Rights Commissionâs decision to exonerate cake artists with Denver bakeries Azucar Bakery, Gateaux, and Le Bakery Sensual, who declined to create cakes that violated their conscience, while ruling the opposite way for cake artist Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop:
> 
> âWe commend the commission for reaching the right conclusion that these cake artists should not be forced to violate their conscience, but clearly the commission should have done the same for Jack Phillips. The commission found that these three cake artists have the freedom to decline creating unique cake creations because the artists found the requests offensive, but all Americans should be alarmed that the same commission determined that Jack doesnât have that same freedom. Like the other bakers, Jack happily serves all people but declines to use his artistic talents to create cakes that violate his conscience. The commissionâs inconsistent rulings mean that the owners of these three cake shops may run them according to their beliefs, while Jack cannot. He risks losing his life-long business altogether if he continues to run it consistent with his faith. Such blatant religious discrimination has no place in our society.â
> 
> 
> http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/8700


Had Jack given the couple time to request something specific he would have had a leg to stand on. Go back and read the judge's decision. He specifically addressed this matter and found the baker lacking.


----------



## kasilofhome

By the time he became aware as to the intent...... he knew that it violated his right to practice his faith.

Some people see danger quicker than others.

You seem to express you would need more information than Jack. People have equal right but people are not equal.


----------



## mmoetc

dlmcafee said:


> Well there in lays the rub. You support government run lives, I do not. You feel everything should be to your liking, I do not.
> 
> I feel you are correct we have become a fascist state in the business realm, you won for now. The only freedom you wish are those you dictate. Therefore no freedom at all, just privlages doled out by your government.


I'd rather discuss the issue than me, but if we must. If you think I want government run lives you're sorely misreading me. I'd like the government out of issues like this but understand the need for their intervention. I've repeatedly pointed out the ways to legally discriminate and I have no issue with them. If you wish to deny service to someone just be open, upfront and consistent in those actions. If you wish to use your religion as a bludgeon to deny others have the courage of your convictions and bludgeon all who fall short. Allow me, the customer, to decide if your views mesh with mine just as you wish to decide. Post the sign but treat all who walk the door equally. If you wish to exclude gays dont assume I'm not gay. You'd best ask or who knows what you might inadvertantly participate in.


----------



## kasilofhome

So, in my case believe I would need a sign stating.
Wedding cakes pre made on shelves are available to anyone custom work limited to what I can do.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> So, in my case believe I would need a sign stating.
> Wedding cakes pre made on shelves are available to anyone custom work limited to what I can do.


Perhaps "what I am willing to do" would be better.


----------



## Patchouli

Shine said:


> You CAN refuse service if someone asks you to do something that would cause you to offend your Creator. Seems that would be simple to you as you are playing the victim quite often in your arguments....


Okay so honest question here: how does it offend God if you make a cake for a gay wedding? 

And how can you make a cake for any wedding without asking 20 questions to determine if it is a marriage sanctioned by scripture or not? 

And how do you feel about the idea that there can be marriage that is just completely outside of religion? That in a secular marriage governed entirely by the state religion has no application. I know there are a lot of Christians who feel a marriage from a JP is nothing in the eyes of God. To truly be married you have to have it done by a Priest/Pastor and in a Church using a religious ceremony. 

These aren't trick questions and I am not looking to argue. I just want to get a real picture of what you are thinking.


----------



## Guest

mmoetc said:


> I'd rather discuss the issue than me, but if we must. If you think I want government run lives you're sorely misreading me. I'd like the government out of issues like this but understand the need for their intervention. I've repeatedly pointed out the ways to legally discriminate and I have no issue with them. If you wish to deny service to someone just be open, upfront and consistent in those actions. If you wish to use your religion as a bludgeon to deny others have the courage of your convictions and bludgeon all who fall short. Allow me, the customer, to decide if your views mesh with mine just as you wish to decide. Post the sign but treat all who walk the door equally. If you wish to exclude gays dont assume I'm not gay. You'd best ask or who knows what you might inadvertantly participate in.


That's interesting, but using the club of the government to reinforce anyone's beliefs and views indicates to me they are not interested in personal and business freedoms, only a government controlled life. Some find a peculiar jolly out of proving through a corrupt legal system that they are right and you are wrong.

I would prefer not to assume anything in the business world. In relation to the cake, I believe nothing was assumed by the owner. The customers were right up front with what they wanted and the use thereof. The customers may have assumed the outcome differently but had every right to walk away with out a contract. Which they did.

As I said before, life has its disappointments and anyone demanding they should not inadvertently step on excrement might find their shoes soiled anyway. Such is life.

I was just trying to point out a philosophical difference in our approach and my interpretation or your writtings. it was a conversation between us although viewed by others right?


----------



## kasilofhome

The word can is correct. Willing denotes an option for me. Can denotes that there may be things that I am unable to do... are reasons do not require and explanation I am capable of saying I will not be able to do a cake decorated to celebrate the death of Freddie grey. But I would have no conflict doing a cake to celebrate the death of a person who accepted death as the end goal of being born. We, celebrate deaths in my circles. 

I would have no option but to say no if asked to make something to celebrate someone 28th murder.


----------



## Patchouli

Shine said:


> No... there is a difference. The couple are asking the Baker to join in the celebration of a same sex "wedding" by creating a cake to their choosing. How do you not see this?


No they are just asking them to bake a cake.  Bakers make cakes for all sorts of celebrations and that doesn't make them a part of the celebration. Just like if you take your kid to Chuckie Cheese for their birthday it doesn't make the kid in the rat suit a part of your celebration. He's just paid to do his job and be there.


----------



## Patchouli

Tricky Grama said:


> I'm thinking there's a problem here...are you saying you are refused service at all/some stores in your area? B/c THAT is against the law for sure. UNLESS you're being obnoxious, and it does't seem like you are.
> 
> All Christians want is to be able to REFUSE to participate in your wedding ceremony/party. That is ALL. Anything else, like selling you a loaf of bread, a gallon of anything is not going to be a problem.
> So, tell us again who & what has been refused you?


What if they are buying fruit punch for the punch bowl at their gay wedding? Or party favors? Nuts and mints, paper plates, wedding dress, tuxedo, can every single store now ask what sort of wedding you are having and refuse to sell you stuff for it?


----------



## Patchouli

mmoetc said:


> Because they now won't sell such cakes to anyone. Treatment is equal. If they choose to sell the cake to you, but not to me based on my skin tone , religion , sex, or in some locations sexual orientation, they may be in violation of the law. Why are some people deserving of a cake and others not deserving of the same cake?


So if your kid's favorite TV show is Barney he can get a birthday cake at Walmart. But if my kid's favorite TV show is Dukes of Hazzard he can't. Isn't that discriminating based on your belief the TV show is somehow evil? It's my cake what does it have to do with Walmart or the baker? If you have all the supplies necessary to make the cake I want why do you get to choose not to make it based on your personal opinion?


----------



## Txsteader

mmoetc said:


> Just be clear, up front, who those people are. Post a sign delineating exactly which faiths you will provide for. *Be consistent. Be true. Just don't change the rules in the middle of the game* and expect me to respect your piousness or veracity. Don't advertise wedding cakes and then refuse to sell a wedding cake.


I agree. From this point forward, business owners will have to add this to their list of what not to do to keep from being sued.

Now, whether or not signage, indicating their restrictions, will be enough to protect business owners' civil liberties & 1st Amendment rights remains to be seen. Frankly, I ain't holding my breath.


----------



## Patchouli

dlmcafee said:


> There ya go spewing miss information, divorce is not a sin in all a Abrahamic traditions. It is allowed.



It may be allowed but surely you don't believe it should be laughingly celebrated? God hates divorce. It was only allowed due to the hardness of man's hearts and their evilness. Jesus took a very strong stance against it.


----------



## Jolly

Well, y'all can quit talking about cakes, as some have a gag order:

http://www.teaparty.org/franklin-graham-blasts-oregon-fining-bakers-135k-refusing-gay-couple-106195/


----------



## where I want to

Patchouli said:


> It may be allowed but surely you don't believe it should be laughingly celebrated? God hates divorce. It was only allowed due to the hardness of man's hearts and their evilness. Jesus took a very strong stance against it.


Since I am not well versed in religion enough to know whether that statement is true or not, I can't tell whether you are being sarcastic or literal. I suspect sarcastic.
But since that has been gone over several times as to why it is not material and just keeps being brought up as if someone actually seriously meant it, I assume you repeated for effect only.


----------



## Patchouli

where I want to said:


> Since I am not well versed in religion enough to know whether that statement is true or not, I can't tell whether you are being sarcastic or literal. I suspect sarcastic.
> But since that has been gone over several times as to why it is not material and just keeps being brought up as if someone actually seriously meant it, I assume you repeated for effect only.


Actually I am dead serious. I can give you the pertinent verses. 

This thread blew up, I was 10 pages behind this afternoon so I apologise for any repeats.


----------



## Shine

mmoetc said:


> Had Jack given the couple time to request something specific he would have had a leg to stand on. Go back and read the judge's decision. He specifically addressed this matter and found the baker lacking.



...read the decision.


----------



## Patchouli

Malachi 2:16 For I hate divorce,&#8221; says the Lord, the God of Israel, &#8220;and him who covers his garment with wrong,&#8221; says the Lord of hosts. &#8220;So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.&#8221;

Matthew 19:
3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, &#8220;Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?&#8221; 4 He answered, &#8220;Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, &#8216;Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh&#8217;? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.&#8221; 7 They said to him, &#8220;Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?&#8221; 8 He said to them, &#8220;Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.&#8221;


----------



## Jolly

Patchouli said:


> Malachi 2:16 For I hate divorce,â says the Lord, the God of Israel, âand him who covers his garment with wrong,â says the Lord of hosts. âSo take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.â
> 
> Matthew 19:
> 3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, âIs it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?â 4 He answered, âHave you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, âTherefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one fleshâ? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.â 7 They said to him, âWhy then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?â 8 He said to them, âBecause of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.â


Which is why I am in favor of Covenant Marriage.


----------



## Jolly

Back to cakes...Why was the bakery's Go FundMe account whacked?

The answer:

https://stream.org/gofundme-disables-campaign-for-christian-bakery-after-pressure


----------



## Evons hubby

Life was just so much easier before those gay people came out of their closets.... and women didnt get to vote.... and the blacks were busy on the plantations.... Unless of course you happened to be a black lesbian! 

cmon all you good people.... scoot over and share those equal rights with everyone. There really is plenty of room under that umbrella for all of us.


----------



## where I want to

Patchouli said:


> Malachi 2:16 For I hate divorce,â says the Lord, the God of Israel, âand him who covers his garment with wrong,â says the Lord of hosts. âSo take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.â
> 
> Matthew 19:
> 3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, âIs it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?â 4 He answered, âHave you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, âTherefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one fleshâ? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.â 7 They said to him, âWhy then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?â 8 He said to them, âBecause of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.â


So that's where that came from. But then again it is not relevant to this argument about participating in sin. Even making a cake celebrating divorce is not being sinful yourself, although it would seem it might be agreeing for someone else to sin if you knew the reason for the divorce, whereas if you believe a ceremony is sanctified by God, than participating in that ceremony could be seen as sinning yourself. Would get trickier for making a wedding cake for someone getting remarried after a divorce if that was part of your religion.
But that is for the religious to westle with. Must be a hard road.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> No... there is a difference. The couple are asking the Baker to join in the celebration of a same sex "wedding" by creating a cake to their choosing. *How do you not see this?*


Because it's absolutely false. They only asked them to provide the identical service they provide for anyone else.



> They are operating a Meat Market. If someone goes in there and asks for them to give then a slab of bacon, then, please explain how their response is different that the Baker.


It's difficult to have a rational discussion when you use irrational arguments


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Because it's absolutely false. They only asked them to provide the identical service they provide for anyone else.
> 
> 
> It's difficult to have a rational discussion when you use irrational arguments


yeah... too bad we all can't be as smart as you...


----------



## arabian knight

Shine said:


> yeah... too bad we all can't be as smart as you...


 Don't you think its time for some folks to take a course at this place, and learn just how the SC in its decision just stomped all over The 10th Amendment.
After all its free. And its All About The Constitution

https://online.hillsdale.edu


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> this is quite the foolish suggestion and needs no rebuttal.


Only a rebuttal would be foolish, since what I (and several others) said is fact



> yeah... too bad we all can't be as smart as you...


If you* truly* can't see the difference in the store examples you're correct

I think you're just refusing to admit you're wrong, so you continue to repeat those unrealistic examples


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> *This is really becoming stupid.*
> 
> *I am out* of this thread.
> 
> No one appears to be as sympathetic to other's freedoms as they are to their own.
> 
> Is this the new America???


It passed that threshold when people started claiming a store that doesn't sell a product to anyone is the same as one the sells a product to everyone.

And I bet you'll be back too
(Oops, I now see you're already back)



> This is an outright lie. Someone must not understand commerce.


I agree, but we keep trying to explain it, although it's starting to look hopeless


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I guess you'll have to explain why those pics were childish.
> 1st, I just thought the cookies were ghosts but I see they could be KKK.
> The hitler cake is awful, nothing childish about that & if I were Jewish I'd tear up the pic & give it back to whomever showed it to me to bake for them.


It's childish, or more accurately *immature*, to use images like that since it's just stirring the pot, and has nothing to do with reality


----------



## oneraddad

Bearfootfarm said:


> It passed that threshold when people started claiming a store that doesn't sell a product to anyone is the same as one the sells a product to everyone.
> 
> And I bet you'll be back too



I've noticed almost everybody that says they won't respond to the nonsense, usually do.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by Tricky Grama View Post
> NO ONE forced the gay couple to believe as they do. NO ONE!
> The gay couple was FORCING the baker to believe as they do!
> Gads. none so blind as those who will not see.


That's totally illogical, since if one was doing it, they both were

It's also inaccurate in that neither forced the other to do anything even remotely concerning "beliefs"


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by Txsteader View Post
> No.
> 
> What beliefs were they (customers) asked to comply with? They were simply told that they (owners) could not make that cake as requested.


What beliefs were the bakers asked to "comply" with?

They were only asked to bake a cake, just like many others they bake.

Nothing more, nothing less. 

A simple business transaction


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> Baking a cake is not a religious activity.


It might be, because if I ever baked one it would be a miracle


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> So, say you will bake the cake ...and then never deliver....it


You mean lie, to prove what a good Christian you are?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> Custom bread or OFF THE SHELF.


You keep repeating that as if it makes a difference, when it does not


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> This thread seems filled with a lot of demands along the lines of it's all or nothing. No excuses.
> 
> Makes me sad cause all or nothing goals are usually pretty unattainable in my experience.


Why should "equal treatment" to all customers in a business be unattainable?
It's a simple concept, and easily accomplished


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> I agree. From this point forward, business owners will have to add this to their list of what not to do to keep from being sued.
> 
> Now, whether or not signage, indicating their restrictions, will be enough to protect business owners' civil liberties & 1st Amendment rights remains to be seen. Frankly, I ain't holding my breath.


There are no signs that make most types of discrimination legal


----------



## Jolly

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's childish, or more accurately *immature*, to use images like that since it's just stirring the pot, and has nothing to do with reality


When is it stirring the pot, when you present a baked good that a black baker would most certainly turn down, or a cake a Jewish baker would most certainly turn down?

If a Christian views a gay marriage cake much as a Jewish baker would view a wedding cake for Hitler, why is Hitler's cake not germaine to the discussion?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jolly said:


> Well, y'all can quit talking about cakes, as some have a gag order:
> 
> http://www.teaparty.org/franklin-graham-blasts-oregon-fining-bakers-135k-refusing-gay-couple-106195/


That order only stops them from saying their business will refuse service to gays. They are still free to say pretty much anything else they want.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jolly said:


> *When is it stirring the pot*, when you present a baked good that a black baker would most certainly turn down, or a cake a Jewish baker would most certainly turn down?
> 
> If a Christian views a gay marriage cake much as a Jewish baker would view a wedding cake for Hitler,* why is Hitler's cake not germaine* to the discussion?


*They aren't real*, and were fabricated for shock value instead only
Fake pictures aren't a good substitute for honest, factual discussion


----------



## Jolly

What is real?

Until recently, a gay wedding cake was a laughable thought - even among the gays.


----------



## farmrbrown

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Life was just so much easier before those gay people came out of their closets.... and women didnt get to vote.... and the blacks were busy on the plantations.... Unless of course you happened to be a black lesbian!
> 
> cmon all you good people.... scoot over and share those equal rights with everyone. There really is plenty of room under that umbrella for all of us.


No, I wish it were true, but it really isn't.
Now that the gays have their equal rights, they won't be satisfied until the Christian businesses are forced to close or cater to their whims. It's happening more and more and they won't stop until they can hurt us permanently or make us submit.

And you call that equality.......:facepalm:


A serious question for the gays out there.
Can you just leave us alone? Or are taunts, threats and torments what we should expect from now on?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jolly said:


> What is real?
> 
> *Until recently*, a gay wedding cake was a laughable thought - even among the gays.


They have been legal for a long time in some states, so you're a over a decade behind.



> Starting in 2003, various lower court decisions, state legislation, and popular referendums had already legalized same-sex marriage to some degree in thirty-seven out of fifty U.S. states, in one U.S. territory, and in the District of Columbia.


----------



## Evons hubby

farmrbrown said:


> No, I wish it were true, but it really isn't.
> Now that the gays have their equal rights, they won't be satisfied until the Christian businesses are forced to close or cater to their whims. It's happening more and more and they won't stop until they can hurt us permanently or make us submit.
> 
> And you call that equality.......:facepalm:
> 
> 
> A serious question for the gays out there.
> Can you just leave us alone? Or are taunts, threats and torments what we should expect from now on?


By catering to their whims do you mean offering the very same goods or services offered to straights?


----------



## kasilofhome

Separate but equal bakeries.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> Separate but equal bakeries.


Ok, that gotta chuckle out of me.


----------



## kasilofhome

You took it as intended.... thanks.


----------



## farmrbrown

Yvonne's hubby said:


> By catering to their whims do you mean offering the very same goods or services offered to straights?


Yes.
Flowers, cakes, wedding invitations and the ultimate grand prize that's sought.......forcing a minister to perform the ceremony against their religious beliefs - or be shut down.
I know, "That's not what we want, we PROMISE not to do THAT", but it's happened in the 3 European countries that have legalized it and it is only a matter of time before it happens here.

I just wanted it put in black and white so that later, the accusations that it was all drama from a bunch of polly anna's will be seen for what it is.

They can't make God accept it, but if they can force His people to accept it in their homes, businesses and even their places of worship, they will be vindicated in their own eyes.
I realize that isn't what the majority of gays want, but there is a militant segment that DO want to hurt or destroy those that won't accept their lifestyle.
The banner of equality is what they hide under, but their true intent will be made known soon enough.

And before I'm accused of being a mind reader, I'll just say that it is amazing what you hear in conversations when people don't realize who you are, and are listening.


----------



## Irish Pixie

farmrbrown said:


> Yes.
> Flowers, cakes, wedding invitations and the ultimate grand prize that's sought.......forcing a minister to perform the ceremony against their religious beliefs - or be shut down.
> I know, "That's not what we want, we PROMISE not to do THAT", but it's happened in the 3 European countries that have legalized it and it is only a matter of time before it happens here.
> 
> I just wanted it put in black and white so that later, the accusations that it was all drama from a bunch of polly anna's will be seen for what it is.
> 
> They can't make God accept it, but if they can force His people to accept it in their homes, businesses and even their places of worship, they will be vindicated in their own eyes.
> I realize that isn't what the majority of gays want, but there is a militant segment that DO want to hurt or destroy those that won't accept their lifestyle.
> The banner of equality is what they hide under, but their true intent will be made known soon enough.
> 
> And before I'm accused of being a mind reader, I'll just say that it is amazing what you hear in conversations when people don't realize who you are, and are listening.


So you're getting all riled up over something that _might_ happen? 

Gays out of the closet, gay marriage, etc. was really just a ruse to destroy christians? :facepalm:


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> So you're getting all riled up over something that _might_ happen?
> 
> Gays out of the closet, gay marriage, etc. was really just a ruse to destroy christians? :facepalm:


It's not a might happen, it's more a case of when.

As for destroying Christians...Well, we expect that...


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> It isn't about the service or goods provided not meeting the customer's need. It's about being denied the opportunity to avail oneself of that good or service. One is my choice, one is a choice forced upon me by another who ostensibly is in business to offer such goods and services. If they wish to offer those things only to a limited clientele they should not invite everyone in. Put up a sign saying I'm not welcome and I won't darken their door.


Yup. That would just be so cute. Not. That is absolutely wrong.
NO ONE should have to provide a service that is against their their religion. But, hey, continue w/the 'not serving gays anything at all', if that is what you're getting out of this. 

ONE more time. The WEDDING is what the merchant is NOT going to abide. THE WEDDING. NOT the gay person.


----------



## Tricky Grama

dlmcafee said:


> That's interesting, but using the club of the government to reinforce anyone's beliefs and views indicates to me they are not interested in personal and business freedoms, only a government controlled life. Some find a peculiar jolly out of proving through a corrupt legal system that they are right and you are wrong.
> 
> I would prefer not to assume anything in the business world. In relation to the cake, I believe nothing was assumed by the owner. The customers were right up front with what they wanted and the use thereof. The customers may have assumed the outcome differently but had every right to walk away with out a contract. Which they did.
> 
> As I said before, life has its disappointments and anyone demanding they should not inadvertently step on excrement might find their shoes soiled anyway. Such is life.
> 
> I was just trying to point out a philosophical difference in our approach and my interpretation or your writtings. it was a conversation between us although viewed by others right?


Post of the day award.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Hey, good argument for definition of marriage, Patchouli...


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> Yup. That would just be so cute. Not. That is absolutely wrong.
> NO ONE should have to provide a service that is against their their religion. But, hey, continue w/the 'not serving gays anything at all', if that is what you're getting out of this.
> 
> ONE more time. The WEDDING is what the merchant is NOT going to abide. THE WEDDING. NOT the gay person.


He wasn't, as far as I know invited to or asked to approve of the wedding. No one asked him to "abide" it. He was simply asked to provide an advertised good, a cake. You still haven't answered why dinner rolls, just like 1000's of others the bakery made might be acceptable but a cake, decorated like 100's of other cakes the bakery made and sold wouldn't be. What exactly defines "participation"? I'd suggest before you yell at me some more, you go back and read the judge's decision. The couple was denied for only one reason. Their sexual orientation.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Bearfootfarm said:


> *They aren't real*, and were fabricated for shock value instead only
> Fake pictures aren't a good substitute for honest, factual discussion


Really? Aren't real? Did we all imagine the shots? Is that how you think you'll get outta this one? 
NO ONE should have to provide a service that is against their religion. NO ONE.


----------



## Tricky Grama

farmrbrown said:


> No, I wish it were true, but it really isn't.
> Now that the gays have their equal rights, they won't be satisfied until the Christian businesses are forced to close or cater to their whims. It's happening more and more and they won't stop until they can hurt us permanently or make us submit.
> 
> And you call that equality.......:facepalm:
> 
> 
> A serious question for the gays out there.
> Can you just leave us alone? Or are taunts, threats and torments what we should expect from now on?


To compare the gay agenda w/Black civil rights, w/women's suffrage, is such a slap in the face to those involved w/those previous struggles.


----------



## Txsteader

Tricky Grama said:


> Hey, good argument for definition of marriage, Patchouli...


Good catch, Tricky. 


Patchouli said:


> Malachi 2:16 For I hate divorce,&#8221; says the Lord, the God of Israel, &#8220;and him who covers his garment with wrong,&#8221; says the Lord of hosts. &#8220;So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.&#8221;
> 
> Matthew 19:
> 3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, &#8220;Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?&#8221; 4 He answered, &#8220;Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them *male and female*, 5 and said, &#8216;Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh&#8217;? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.&#8221; 7 They said to him, &#8220;Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?&#8221; 8 He said to them, &#8220;Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.&#8221;


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> He wasn't, as far as I know invited to or asked to approve of the wedding. No one asked him to "abide" it. He was simply asked to provide an advertised good, a cake. You still haven't answered why dinner rolls, just like 1000's of others the bakery made might be acceptable but a cake, decorated like 100's of other cakes the bakery made and sold wouldn't be. What exactly defines "participation"? I'd suggest before you yell at me some more, you go back and read the judge's decision. The couple was denied for only one reason. Their sexual orientation.


Really, just their 'orientation? It seems the cake would been baked for taking home & eating? just NOT for the celebration? 
I'm not a lawyer so will not comment on rolls, party favors, but I can see where these would not be made a certain way...

Let me ask everyone...if a custom party shop w/lots of party favors, some they could make, was asked to make some specifically w/2 men embracing, could the shop refuse?
How 'bout those bakeries that make 'off color' cakes'? I've seen some w/large 'boobs', etc...would they be required to bake the...unthinkable?


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> Really, just their 'orientation? It seems the cake would been baked for taking home & eating? just NOT for the celebration?
> I'm not a lawyer so will not comment on rolls, party favors, but I can see where these would not be made a certain way...
> 
> Let me ask everyone...if a custom party shop w/lots of party favors, some they could make, was asked to make some specifically w/2 men embracing, could the shop refuse?
> How 'bout those bakeries that make 'off color' cakes'? I've seen some w/large 'boobs', etc...would they be required to bake the...unthinkable?


Asked and answered numerous times. No bakery or business should be required to provide a good or service outside their normal purview. But if one, for example, bakes wedding cakes and someone walks in looking for a wedding cake there is no rational reason not to sell them one, just like you would have for the person in front of them or the person behind them. One three tiered vanilla cake with fondant and buttercream roses is indistinguishable from another. If three identical cakes are lined up on a shelf can you tell me which one is gay?


----------



## Shine

OK, OK... I've tried and tried. I shall wait patiently on the results of the appeal.


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> Asked and answered numerous times. No bakery or business should be required to provide a good or service outside their normal purview. But if one, for example, bakes wedding cakes and someone walks in looking for a wedding cake there is no rational reason not to sell them one, just like you would have for the person in front of them or the person behind them. One three tiered vanilla cake with fondant and buttercream roses is indistinguishable from another. If three identical cakes are lined up on a shelf can you tell me which one is gay?


Yes! Its the one thats going to the gay wedding.


----------



## kasilofhome

mmoetc said:


> Asked and answered numerous times. No bakery or business should be required to provide a good or service outside their normal purview. But if one, for example, bakes wedding cakes and someone walks in looking for a wedding cake there is no rational reason not to sell them one, just like you would have for the person in front of them or the person behind them. One three tiered vanilla cake with fondant and buttercream roses is indistinguishable from another. If three identical cakes are lined up on a shelf can you tell me which one is gay?


You mean an off the shelf... plain cake not specially made for the ...one the could take and freeze or chance that a freshly made cake just happened to be in the case.
Fine that's what I have been saying all along

Now you want a custom job... to order a cake for a certain day...the right to refuse work lays with the one being asked to work.....


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> Yes! Its the one thats going to the gay wedding.


Point to it. What makes it different? The batter likely was mixed together for all three. The icing applied from the same bags using the same tips. What makes one cake gay?


----------



## poppy

mmoetc said:


> Point to it. What makes it different? The batter likely was mixed together for all three. The icing applied from the same bags using the same tips. What makes one cake gay?


That's your view but why should your view prevail? Don't Christian bakers have their own right to beliefs and views? Gays are welcome in most churches but preachers are not required to marry them due to their beliefs. Is a preacher more Christian than a baker? No. Therefore the preacher has a right to follow his beliefs but a baker doesn't. That is not equal protection under the law. Anyone is free to hang a "gays welcome" sign on their bakery and I would not protest them doing it. There is a moral difference to most Christians between selling donuts to gays and baking them a wedding cake. Baking the cake is abetting them in committing a sin. It would be no different than buying alcohol for an alcoholic or a gun for a robber. It's Biblical. Of course, you will ignore the rights of Christians.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Don't Christian bakers have their own right to beliefs and views? Gays are welcome in most churches but preachers are not required to marry them due to their beliefs. Is a preacher more Christian than a baker? No. Therefore the preacher has a right to follow his beliefs but a baker doesn't. That is not equal protection under the law.


Bakers most certainly have a right to their beliefs
They just have no right to use those beliefs to pick their customers

Preachers don't "have to" marry anyone since they are not a "business" open to the general public to make money.

"Preachers" in wedding chapels that provide the venue only for weddings and PROFIT only ARE required to marry anyone who can legally do so


----------



## Patchouli

Jolly said:


> Back to cakes...Why was the bakery's Go FundMe account whacked?
> 
> The answer:
> 
> https://stream.org/gofundme-disables-campaign-for-christian-bakery-after-pressure


That applies to anyone who is fundraising for a court case or who is charged with a crime. So they are fair with it. A guy whose farm I was supporting got his taken down for the same reason. I don't really agree with it, people can be charged with things they didn't do or in this case something that they believe they didn't deserve. I think if people want to support their case by funding their defense they should be able to do so.


----------



## Patchouli

where I want to said:


> So that's where that came from. But then again it is not relevant to this argument about participating in sin. Even making a cake celebrating divorce is not being sinful yourself, although it would seem it might be agreeing for someone else to sin if you knew the reason for the divorce, whereas if you believe a ceremony is sanctified by God, than participating in that ceremony could be seen as sinning yourself. Would get trickier for making a wedding cake for someone getting remarried after a divorce if that was part of your religion.
> But that is for the religious to westle with. Must be a hard road.


That makes no sense. If making a cake for a divorce party isn't participating in the divorce then how is making a cake for a wedding party participating in a wedding? They don't ask the baker to get up and officiate do they? Half of the time the cake and the party aren't even at the place they have the wedding. In no way, shape or form is the baker participating in the marriage ceremony.


----------



## MO_cows

mmoetc said:


> Point to it. What makes it different? The batter likely was mixed together for all three. The icing applied from the same bags using the same tips. What makes one cake gay?


Hate to state the obvious, but it would be the cake with 2 brides or 2 grooms stuck on top. But I've been married a long, long time, maybe they don't put the little plastic people on top of wedding cakes any more?


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> Point to it. What makes it different? The batter likely was mixed together for all three. The icing applied from the same bags using the same tips. What makes one cake gay?


What a joke. Cakes aren't 'gay'.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Bearfootfarm said:


> Bakers most certainly have a right to their beliefs
> They just have no right to use those beliefs to pick their customers
> 
> Preachers don't "have to" marry anyone since they are not a "business" open to the general public to make money.
> 
> "Preachers" in wedding chapels that provide the venue only for weddings and PROFIT only ARE required to marry anyone who can legally do so


There it is again. They are NOT picking customers. They are refusing for their wares to be used in a gay wedding. 

NO ONE should be required to provide a service for something against their religion. NO ONE.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Tricky Grama said:


> There it is again. They are NOT picking customers. They are refusing for their wares to be used in a gay wedding.
> 
> NO ONE should be required to provide a service for something against their religion. NO ONE.


They refused to sell them the cake.

That's picking your customers for a product based on sex alone.

Once the bill is paid it's no longer "their wares" and no longer any of their concern

You don't have to like it, but trying to claim that's not what they did by using word games is pretty silly at this point


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> There it is again. They are NOT picking customers. They are refusing for their wares to be used in a gay wedding.
> 
> NO ONE should be required to provide a service for something against their religion. NO ONE.


If baking wedding cakes is against their religion they really should try harder to avoid doing so.


----------



## Patchouli

Bearfootfarm said:


> *They aren't real*, and were fabricated for shock value instead only
> Fake pictures aren't a good substitute for honest, factual discussion



This one is real and you can find plenty of real ones on the internet:


----------



## fordy

MO_cows said:


> Hate to state the obvious, but it would be the cake with 2 brides or 2 grooms stuck on top. But I've been married a long, long time, maybe they don't put the little plastic people on top of wedding cakes any more?


 ............Um , the candles on **** wedding cakes don't look like normal candles.........and they aren't straight , they kinda droop on the end ! , lol , fordy:yuck:


----------



## Jolly

mmoetc said:


> if baking gay wedding cakes is against their religion they really should try harder to avoid doing so.


fify.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

fordy said:


> ............Um , the candles on **** wedding cakes don't look like normal candles.........and they aren't straight , they kinda droop on the end ! , lol , fordy:yuck:


That's pretty funny...........on about a 6th grade level


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> So you're getting all riled up over something that _might_ happen?
> 
> Gays out of the closet, gay marriage, etc. was really just a ruse to destroy christians? :facepalm:




Sure, I guess so.
I noticed though you didn't answer or address the question.........




Patchouli said:


> That makes no sense. If making a cake for a divorce party isn't participating in the divorce then how is making a cake for a wedding party participating in a wedding? They don't ask the baker to get up and officiate do they? Half of the time the cake and the party aren't even at the place they have the wedding. In no way, shape or form is the baker participating in the marriage ceremony.



One thing you've overlooked in your comparison with divorce is, the divorce itself isn't a sin if done under the few reasons allowed, mainly adultery.
God even divorced Israel once.
It is when the divorcee *remarries* that the sin occurs. So baking a "divorce cake" might be a poor choice and poor taste, technically it wouldn't be a religious violation. At least one could argue that. Personally, *I* would consider it sinful, for having broken a vow to God, but it is allowed.
Another case of having the option, but it's up to the individual whether to choose it.


----------



## wr

farmrbrown said:


> Sure, I guess so.
> 
> I noticed though you didn't answer or address the question.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One thing you've overlooked in your comparison with divorce is, the divorce itself isn't a sin if done under the few reasons allowed, mainly adultery.
> 
> God even divorced Israel once.
> 
> It is when the divorcee *remarries* that the sin occurs. So baking a "divorce cake" might be a poor choice and poor taste, technically it wouldn't be a religious violation. At least one could argue that. Personally, *I* would consider it sinful, for having broken a vow to God, but it is allowed.
> 
> Another case of having the option, but it's up to the individual whether to choose it.



But baking a cake for a second or third wedding would be a problem.


----------



## gibbsgirl

The funny thing about individual liberty and freedom of religion is it doesn't have to meet a certain checklist.

Each person's decisions about whatever they do and don't have faith in and how those beliefs evolve during the course of their life is legitimate and their own.

As far as Christianity is, I think it's fairly obvious how diverse those beliefs can be just by a minimal examination if the beliefs if even a few denominations.

We are supposed to have the freedom of that faith recognised and protected by our govt.


----------



## farmrbrown

wr said:


> But baking a cake for a second or third wedding would be a problem.


It sure would, lol.

Honestly, all the objections mentioned would certainly cut your customer base, and it might be time to reevaluate one's profession and business model.

That said, I have known a few Christian business owners who diligently followed biblical principles and had success in their endeavors thru thick and thin.

But most people aren't going to be that strident, so for the few that are, why not just leave them be?
I'm sure there are still some who discriminate on race or gender, they just hide it well. Why not let their businesses succeed or fail naturally instead of seeking them out to sue them out of existence?


----------



## Jolly

wr said:


> But baking a cake for a second or third wedding would be a problem.


I think you miss an essential difference...Marriage is not a sinful act, in and of itself. In fact, it is encouraged. It only becomes a problem after people divorce for reasons not Biblically condoned.

And even then, sin can be atoned for...Now, as I've said, we don't allow a divorced person in leadership positions within my church (pastor, deacon), but they are welcome in the church as laity. 

Are homosexuals welcome? Of course, just like any other sinner. But then it comes down to repentance and atonement. And having a gay wedding is about as far from repentance as I can think...It's more like trying to shove a finger in God's eye.

And God cannot stand sin, for it is a stench in his nostrils, like a dead animal on the side of the road.

So, to try to equate the two acts is like comparing apples and Buicks. They aren't even both fruit...


----------



## Guest

farmrbrown said:


> It sure would, lol.
> 
> Honestly, all the objections mentioned would certainly cut your customer base, and it might be time to reevaluate one's profession and business model.
> 
> That said, I have known a few Christian business owners who diligently followed biblical principles and had success in their endeavors thru thick and thin.
> 
> But most people aren't going to be that strident, so for the few that are, why not just leave them be?
> I'm sure there are still some who discriminate on race or gender, they just hide it well. *Why not let their businesses succeed or fail naturally instead of seeking them out to sue them out of existence?*


Because they love revenge, and $135,000 of course.

On another note, you seem interested in the actual Hebrew translation in the bible, for fun look up the translations for the verse quoted for Mathew and Malachi justifying divorce.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Why not let their businesses succeed or fail naturally instead of seeking them out to sue them out of existence?


Because you don't vary the laws to suit each individual
The bakers broke the law, and are now paying the consequences


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> We are supposed to have the freedom of that faith recognised and protected by our govt.


It's protected until you use it to discriminate in business dealings


----------



## Patchouli

farmrbrown said:


> Sure, I guess so.
> I noticed though you didn't answer or address the question.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One thing you've overlooked in your comparison with divorce is, the divorce itself isn't a sin if done under the few reasons allowed, mainly adultery.
> God even divorced Israel once.
> It is when the divorcee *remarries* that the sin occurs. So baking a "divorce cake" might be a poor choice and poor taste, technically it wouldn't be a religious violation. At least one could argue that. Personally, *I* would consider it sinful, for having broken a vow to God, but it is allowed.
> Another case of having the option, but it's up to the individual whether to choose it.


Right my point was making a cake to celebrate a divorce. I think all Christians would agree at best divorce was only given for a worst case scenario and no one should be partying about it.


----------



## gibbsgirl

For now. But laws change.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> For now. But laws change.


Yes, laws change, which is why discrimination is now illegal


----------



## greg273

Jolly said:


> Are homosexuals welcome? Of course, just like any other sinner. But then it comes down to repentance and atonement..


 Maybe some folks need to repent and atone for their divisive, judgemental ways. I don't care what your religion tells you is a sin. I don't subscribe to all of your beliefs. Personally, I believe you and others are just cherry picking things from the old testament to suit your own fears and prejudices.
Now if you're so hung up on gays and their 'lifestyle choice' as you call it, would you rather they stayed 'in the closet' and suffered persecution for something they have no control over? You'd better thank your god every day that YOU weren't made that way, otherwise YOU would know the scorn heaped upon them daily. I choose not to add to their scorn. That is like calling someone with an incurable disease a 'sinner'. 
And if you still think its a 'lifestyle choice', tell us, when did you make a choice regarding whom to be attracted to?


----------



## Patchouli

dlmcafee said:


> Because they love revenge, and $135,000 of course.
> 
> On another note, you seem interested in the actual Hebrew translation in the bible, for fun look up the translations for the verse quoted for Mathew and Malachi justifying divorce.


I think you mean the Greek for Matthew. 

On the Malachi one there is some discussion as to whether it is better interpreted as God hates divorce or that the man who hates his wife and divorces her is better. Either way you slice it God is still very unhappy with it. 

So far as the 2 in Matthew divorce or putting away seems the only correct interpretation for &#7936;&#960;&#959;&#955;&#973;&#963;&#8131;. If you have a better one please share.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Just for informational purposes, I thought I'd clarify that most (if not all) Christians consider themselves sinners in need of repentance and reconciliation with God.

Also, I doubt anyone doesn't feel deeply that they have genuine struggles to be who they are. So, I personally don't subscribe to the notion that any particular group has a superior sob story over another.


----------



## Guest

Patchouli said:


> I think you mean the Greek for Matthew.
> 
> On the Malachi one there is some discussion as to whether it is better interpreted as God hates divorce or that the man who hates his wife and divorces her is better. Either way you slice it God is still very unhappy with it.
> 
> So far as the 2 in Matthew divorce or putting away seems the only correct interpretation for &#7936;&#960;&#959;&#955;&#973;&#963;&#8131;. If you have a better one please share.


There is debate over the Greek or Hebrew being the original language of the Matthew scripture, yes.

"Putting away" is not divorce in the Hebrew tradition, more akin to abandonment. Both Hebrew words, Salach, to put away and K'riythuth used in the phrase certificate (written) of divorce are used and when properly translated shed a different light on the subject.

Here is a 101 version of what I am attempting to convey.
http://www.ajewishbeliever.com/2012/03/what-is-gods-view-on-divorce.html


----------



## wr

gibbsgirl said:


> The funny thing about individual liberty and freedom of religion is it doesn't have to meet a certain checklist.
> 
> Each person's decisions about whatever they do and don't have faith in and how those beliefs evolve during the course of their life is legitimate and their own.
> 
> As far as Christianity is, I think it's fairly obvious how diverse those beliefs can be just by a minimal examination if the beliefs if even a few denominations.
> 
> We are supposed to have the freedom of that faith recognised and protected by our govt.


Actually, to be fair, I did a bit of reading about the cake issue and found that one of the largest damages awarded in Oregon went to a Christian woman who's boss was trying to force her to attend a Scientology recruitment seminar which she felt conflicted with her own faith, as well as turning down her request to attend secular training and did either threaten to fire her or left her with the impression she would be fired. 

While on my quest for information, I also went to the cake baker's website (which they now use exclusively) and I noticed they quote scripture at the bottom of each page. I would hope that it may convince people that they have a certain set of values that they aren't prepared to compromise but people are funny and I also worry that means someone will interpret it as a challenge.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Wr, that's interesting. But, I'm not sure I'm seeing the connection you were linking it to in my post you quoted.


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> Because you don't vary the laws to suit each individual
> The bakers broke the law, and are now paying the consequences


I found the ruling in this case.
http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet Cakes FO.pdf

It's very long, but a few things I didn't know I'd like to point out.

Yes, there was a law at issue, an Oregon state law against discrimination.

This was a civil case and wasn't actually tried in a courtroom, rather an administrative hearing from the state's Dept. of Labor and Industry.

It also was an appellate hearing, due to the fact that the first time it was investigated and ruled upon.........it was dismissed.:huh:
The later hearing was after a CBN interview and some statements made which indicated that they intended to discriminate in the *future* should another encounter happen.
That was apparently what overturned the previous ruling, which found no law broken and no damages.

Which means it *was* a matter of individual circumstances, as all verdicts are decided. There are always exceptions, mitigating circumstances or allowances that are taken into consideration. That's why if you feel you are right and haven't broken a particular law, it may be worth it to plead your case instead of pleading guilty when charged.


----------



## wr

Jolly said:


> I think you miss an essential difference...Marriage is not a sinful act, in and of itself. In fact, it is encouraged. It only becomes a problem after people divorce for reasons not Biblically condoned.
> 
> And even then, sin can be atoned for...Now, as I've said, we don't allow a divorced person in leadership positions within my church (pastor, deacon), but they are welcome in the church as laity.
> 
> Are homosexuals welcome? Of course, just like any other sinner. But then it comes down to repentance and atonement. And having a gay wedding is about as far from repentance as I can think...It's more like trying to shove a finger in God's eye.
> 
> And God cannot stand sin, for it is a stench in his nostrils, like a dead animal on the side of the road.
> 
> So, to try to equate the two acts is like comparing apples and Buicks. They aren't even both fruit...


I disagree. If someone has divorced and remarried multiple times, and I do have someone in mind when I asked this question, I have been told that divorce isn't a huge deal to those of faith but remarrying is. If someone has divorced for incompatibility and remarries someone else, possibly up to 4 times repenting and atonement only seems logical if someone were to correct the behavior instead of assuming that forgiveness is a given and doing it all over again when they found out the courtship period wasn't long enough to figure out the guy was a jerk. 

You assume that all homosexuals are sexually active but if they aren't, and I know several who prefer to remain celibate, can you explain to me how they are considered an abomination please and why they would have to ask forgiveness and atone for something they haven't done?


----------



## gibbsgirl

Sin is an abomination to God according to many Christians.

Sinners are not an abomination to God according to many Christians.

It is a small, but significant distinction between the two.

If it helps anyone, think of it as how a family hates the drug addiction of a relative, but do not hate the relative. It's something similar to that.


----------



## wr

gibbsgirl said:


> Sin is an abomination to God according to many Christians.
> 
> Sinners are not an abomination to God according to many Christians.
> 
> It is a small, but significant distinction between the two.
> 
> If it helps anyone, think of it as how a family hates the drug addiction of a relative, but do not hate the relative. It's something similar to that.


I understand very well what an abomination is and it's been a term repeatedly used in regards to gays. 

In my opinion, not all gays are an abomination in the biblical sense because not all gays are sexually active so in my opinion, that would make them no more of a sinner than your average person. In my opinion only, you can't hate the sin if someone hasn't committed a particular sin. 

Am I misinformed? 

I was previously informed that some feel divorce is not biblically acceptable except for certain specific reasons and yet my aunt is now on her 5th husband and her church seems pretty cool with that because she's asked for forgiveness and atoned in some way, which kinda seems to me like she may be spitting in somebody's eye and yet, she doesn't seem all that repentant when she calls her granddaughter a hooker or her celibate nephew an abomination. 

I'm simply trying to understand how this all works because my faith is nothing like this.


----------



## farmrbrown

wr said:


> I understand very well what an abomination is and it's been a term repeatedly used in regards to gays.
> 
> In my opinion, not all gays are an abomination in the biblical sense because not all gays are sexually active so in my opinion, that would make them no more of a sinner than your average person. In my opinion only, you can't hate the sin if someone hasn't committed a particular sin.
> 
> Am I misinformed?


No, I think that's spot on, and would fall into the category of fighting a temptation, like any sexual transgression.

I won't comment on your aunt, we've all got our own cross to bear.......


----------



## wr

farmrbrown said:


> I won't comment on your aunt, we've all got our own cross to bear.......


We quit buying wedding gifts after #3 but you're suggesting that Auntie should probably not sit in judgement of her granddaughter?


----------



## chamoisee

Jolly said:


> When is it stirring the pot, when you present a baked good that a black baker would most certainly turn down, or a cake a Jewish baker would most certainly turn down?
> 
> If a Christian views a gay marriage cake much as a Jewish baker would view a wedding cake for Hitler, why is Hitler's cake not germane to the discussion?


I am struck by the fact that you're seriously comparing the *love* and life commitment of two people, to the KKK coneheads and Nazi swastikas, both symbols of death, bigotry, and intolerance. I'm pretty sure that if the bakery had been asked by gays to make a cake portraying then lynching straight folk, then yeah, they'd have had issues with that, whether or not they're bigots themselves. 

So let's be clear on something: there was *nothing* inherently gay about this cake. It wasn't *a gay cake*. No interior designers were hired to make it, no glitter was required, and it didn't have a music box inside playing Elton John or the Indigo Girls. It was just a cake. Wedding cakes don't usually have writing, but if it did, they could have chosen to leave that part off. The toppers that so many people here seem obsessed with, are not usually added to a cake by the bakery (although I suppose it could be done). Have you ever tried to transport a wedding cake?? They're usually transported in layers, not assembled. The "toppers" are typically put on last. Moreover, many people buy their own custom decorations and put that on to the wedding cake they ordered. 

And kasilofhome, in big, big cities, it may be different, but most bakeries do wedding cakes only on order. I haven't seen any wedding cakes offered "off the shelf". Usually there's a book and you pick a cake and they make it. Now, I'll admit that the bakery I worked in was in a small town. But given the amount of time, money and detail that goes into a wedding cake, and how freaking picky the customers tend to be about wedding cakes, and how quickly cakes go bad.....I'd be surprised if it was routine for any small to medium sized bakery to offer wedding cakes ready to go, off the shelf.


----------



## kasilofhome

If the baker had a cake that the thrilled the couple as it is sitting on the self and they wanted it for their wedding great ...pay for it and leave. Happy happy.

If they walked in asked to look at a book of wedding cakes and ask for one...just like this but

Skip the bride and groom... thing and swap it for two brides ....
And the event happens on the 18th of Oct. 3pm at the Vikings hall.. 
What are delivery charges.

Clue......that's custom...I am not going to make it...sorry


----------



## chamoisee

farmrbrown said:


> A serious question for the gays out there.
> Can you just leave us alone? Or are taunts, threats and torments what we should expect from now on?


Wow. Even the trans people on the support groups, who ARE being raped, beaten to death, harrassed on a daily basis, and who are sometimes afraid even to leave their homes for fear of violence, don't have this big a victim mentality. 

Get real. People aren't chasing YOU down the street or accosting you at stores, telling you to repent of being Christian. Nobody is threatening to "cure" you of being straight by raping you until you see the light. And unlike a local lady here, you aren't being beaten to the point of broken bones, by complete strangers, for being a straight person who looks into the mirror every day, satisfied and happy to be the gender you are. 

You aren't being oppressed. Extending equal rights to people who should have already had them, is not oppression for you. You don't NEED to deprive other people of their rights in order to keep yours. 

My god. This reminds me of the little sister who pinches her brother, and then turns on the tears starts wailing at the top of her lungs and accuses _him _of pinching _her_!


----------



## kasilofhome

Yea.... I know all about ordering... to bad.. it is the ordering that causes the cake to be custom... to bad 

Take what's off the shelf.... bake it yourself, hire some one else to make a special cake custom for you. Custom work can be refused.. I would not be able to honestly bake and decorate such a cake knowing as I am making it that my talent was lending to celebrate something I want no part in it.


----------



## chamoisee

Tricky Grama said:


> Really, just their 'orientation? It seems the cake would been baked for taking home & eating? just NOT for the celebration?
> I'm not a lawyer so will not comment on rolls, party favors, but I can see where these would not be made a certain way...
> 
> Let me ask everyone...if a custom party shop w/lots of party favors, some they could make, was asked to make some specifically w/2 men embracing, could the shop refuse?
> How 'bout those bakeries that make 'off color' cakes'? I've seen some w/large 'boobs', etc...would they be required to bake the...unthinkable?


I had not read that the cake was requested to be pornographic. Please link to a reliable source on this, relating to THIS bakery case, and I will start retracting. Bakeries are not required to make dirty cakes- for anyone. They are required (in Oregon) to offer the same cake to whoever walks in the door, regardless of race, gender, orientation, disability, etc. If they offer a white/yellow cake to white people, for example, they have to offer that same white cake to anyone else. They can't offer only chocolate cakes to Mexicans.


----------



## kasilofhome

chamoisee said:


> i had not read that the cake was requested to be pornographic. Please link to a reliable source on this, relating to this bakery case, and i will start retracting. Bakeries are not required to make dirty cakes- for anyone. They are required (in oregon) to offer the same cake to whoever walks in the door, regardless of race, gender, orientation, disability, etc. If they offer a white/yellow cake to white people, for example, they have to offer that same white cake to anyone else. They can't offer only chocolate cakes to mexicans.


custom cakes are unique... As in not the same


----------



## kasilofhome

chamoisee said:


> I am struck by the fact that you're seriously comparing the *love* and life commitment of two people, to the KKK coneheads and Nazi swastikas, both symbols of death, bigotry, and intolerance. I'm pretty sure that if the bakery had been asked by gays to make a cake portraying then lynching straight folk, then yeah, they'd have had issues with that, whether or not they're bigots themselves.
> 
> So let's be clear on something: there was *nothing* inherently gay about this cake. It wasn't *a gay cake*. No interior designers were hired to make it, no glitter was required, and it didn't have a music box inside playing Elton John or the Indigo Girls. It was just a cake. Wedding cakes don't usually have writing, but if it did, they could have chosen to leave that part off. The toppers that so many people here seem obsessed with, are not usually added to a cake by the bakery (although I suppose it could be done). Have you ever tried to transport a wedding cake?? They're usually transported in layers, not assembled. The "toppers" are typically put on last. Moreover, many people buy their own custom decorations and put that on to the wedding cake they ordered.
> 
> And kasilofhome, in big, big cities, it may be different, but most bakeries do wedding cakes only on order. I haven't seen any wedding cakes offered "off the shelf". Usually there's a book and you pick a cake and they make it.
> 
> CLUE COMING THAT PROVES A WEDDING CAKE IS CUSTOM....AND YOU KNOW IT
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I'll admit that the bakery I worked in was in a small town. But given the amount of time, money and detail that goes into a wedding cake, and how freaking picky the customers tend to be about wedding cakes, and how quickly cakes go bad.....I'd be surprised if it was routine for any small to medium sized bakery to offer wedding cakes ready to go, off the shelf.



You seem very much aware just how detailed wedding cakes are.. that is why custom work ...such as personalized items can be refused..
Too detailed
Too picky
Too annoying parties to work with
Too many change orders
Custom work is special work.


----------



## chamoisee

Kasilofhome, exactly. Almost all wedding cakes are custom. They are never (to my knowledge) "off-the-shelf". People who do not want to do any custom work at all, don't offer wedding cakes. So for you to say that the custom or off-the-shelf status of a cake is a good reason for doing an end run around the discrimination issue, is baloney. That's kind of like saying that it's OK to deny gays eyeglasses if the eyeglasses are prescription, because then they're "custom".


----------



## kasilofhome

I can cook for a high end dinner party...personal catering and enjoy it and I can refuse to cook for another person because I don't want to deal with the set up.

Custom make each event different.... Apple's and oranges..

Take what's in the case, pay and leave or get someone else.


----------



## chamoisee

Well, the courts disagree with you. You're wrong. I'm sure that a Christian optometrist could make the same argument...say that providing "custom" eyeglasses to gays is against his religion because the gays need to have faith and be healed, or because they're blinded by lust, or some such crap.


----------



## kasilofhome

Don't use the word never..I grabbed a carrot cake on the way to get married at fred meyers.

I cheap


----------



## kasilofhome

Was prohibition right
Was separate but equal right
Is forcing a person to do custom work really right

Yes, the board and I are not in agreement .....sometime it's good not to agree.

Schindler was wrong in his time per many but history shows it in a different light.
The Quakers and the hiding of slaves...we're at risk in their days. My standing for religious freedom might be crazy to some but that's fine with me.

Fyi. Your being gay is not an issue to me what is that it is prompted as normalcy.
Sin is normal in that all of us do it. Just as I teach my son to not steal at work by being lazy and not working as he promised I teach him that homosexuality is not acceptable and sex before marriage is not acceptable and drinking to get wasted is acceptable and the no means no.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> Yea.... I know all about ordering... to bad.. it is the ordering that causes the cake to be custom... to bad
> 
> Take what's *off the shelf.*... bake it yourself, hire some one else to make a special cake custom for you. Custom work can be refused.. I would not be able to honestly bake and decorate such a cake knowing as I am making it that my talent was lending to celebrate something I want no part in it.


How is it you still don't get it makes no difference?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> Don't use the word never..I grabbed a carrot cake on the way *to get married at fred meyers.*
> 
> I cheap


You're probably the only ones ever married at Fred Meyers


----------



## mmoetc

kasilofhome said:


> I can cook for a high end dinner party...personal catering and enjoy it and I can refuse to cook for another person because I don't want to deal with the set up.
> 
> Custom make each event different.... Apple's and oranges..
> 
> Take what's in the case, pay and leave or get someone else.


There are many legitimate reasons for turning down work. In some places looking at someone and saying "you're gay- I won't do it" is a valid one. I wish it weren't. In the places the bakeries in question operated it isn't. 

I tend to feel that it would be a sad state of affairs if I, or anyone else, had to plan every day's activitivies around which stores, shops, restaurants or other "public accomodations" I would be allowed in. You can't invalidate anti discrimination laws based on sexuality unless you invalidate all of them. So, those who decry how decisive our country has become seek to divide it more. There's nothing divisive about walking into a bakery and buying baked goods. There's nothing divisive about walking into a florist where your money has been good before to try to spend more on flowers. It is divisive to say I won't sell to you- you're gay or fill in whatever blank you wish. If you don't wish to serve the public, don't go into business serving the public. The answer is simple.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Patchouli said:


> That makes no sense. If making a cake for a divorce party isn't participating in the divorce then how is making a cake for a wedding party participating in a wedding? They don't ask the baker to get up and officiate do they? Half of the time the cake and the party aren't even at the place they have the wedding. In no way, shape or form is the baker participating in the marriage ceremony.


I believe its b/c the divorce already happened...& there are reasons for divorce, like we said b/4 but I realize it will have to be said manymany times...different from the gay wedding.


----------



## Tricky Grama

gibbsgirl said:


> The funny thing about individual liberty and freedom of religion is it doesn't have to meet a certain checklist.
> 
> Each person's decisions about whatever they do and don't have faith in and how those beliefs evolve during the course of their life is legitimate and their own.
> 
> As far as Christianity is, I think it's fairly obvious how diverse those beliefs can be just by a minimal examination if the beliefs if even a few denominations.
> 
> We are supposed to have the freedom of that faith recognised and protected by our govt.


Post of the year award.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Bearfootfarm said:


> Because you don't vary the laws to suit each individual
> The bakers broke the law, and are now paying the consequences


I guess this is a good time to ask all the non-conserves...how is it y'all can justify refusing the RIGHTS in the 1st amendment? How? 
Just b/c gays now can marry? Where in the constitution is it spelled out-as CLEARLY as it is int he 1st-where FREEDOM to practice your religion is? 
How can one be given a so-called "right" that stamps out the God-given RIGHTS of the entire nation? How?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's protected until you use it to discriminate in business dealings


I'm sorry, show me in the constitution where biz dealings trump the rights of us all?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Patchouli said:


> Right my point was making a cake to celebrate a divorce. I think all Christians would agree at best divorce was only given for a worst case scenario and no one should be partying about it.


"ALL"?!? 
Ya got to be kiddin' me.
A lot of us Christians know abused women...many of us have volunteered at shelters, counselling, etc. 
I guess some cannot see the forest for the trees...

But go ahead, keep bringing up divorce. A couple have explained, but I realize sometimes not everything is read or understood. We can be patient. Its making your argument weaker & weaker...


----------



## Jolly

greg273 said:


> Maybe some folks need to repent and atone for their divisive, judgemental ways. I don't care what your religion tells you is a sin. I don't subscribe to all of your beliefs. Personally, I believe you and others are just cherry picking things from the old testament to suit your own fears and prejudices.
> Now if you're so hung up on gays and their 'lifestyle choice' as you call it, would you rather they stayed 'in the closet' and suffered persecution for something they have no control over? You'd better thank your god every day that YOU weren't made that way, otherwise YOU would know the scorn heaped upon them daily. I choose not to add to their scorn. That is like calling someone with an incurable disease a 'sinner'.
> And if you still think its a 'lifestyle choice', tell us, when did you make a choice regarding whom to be attracted to?


Maybe some folks need to read the Bible, as it would do them good. First, it could clear up some serious errors in what they think the Bible says or doesn't say...For instance, homosexuality is addressed in both OT and NT...Yes, even in a book of utmost love, some things or acts are not condoned or accepted. 

Secondly, the wordly get hung up on _Thou shalt not judge_. If you read the Bible, you know that's a mighty thin reed to hang your soul on. In many, many places in the NT, Christians are *commanded* to judge. Jesus also told us to _Rebuke sin_, so, while love of our fellow man is certainly a lynchpin of the religion, loving a person and condoning sin are two vastly different things.

As for who is attracted to who...Do your sex organs define you? Are you nothing more than an animal, where biology is destiny? Or are you made of better stuff, where your mind can control your body?


----------



## Tricky Grama

greg273 said:


> Maybe some folks need to repent and atone for their divisive, judgemental ways. I don't care what your religion tells you is a sin. I don't subscribe to all of your beliefs. Personally, I believe you and others are just cherry picking things from the old testament to suit your own fears and prejudices.
> Now if you're so hung up on gays and their 'lifestyle choice' as you call it, would you rather they stayed 'in the closet' and suffered persecution for something they have no control over? You'd better thank your god every day that YOU weren't made that way, otherwise YOU would know the scorn heaped upon them daily. I choose not to add to their scorn. That is like calling someone with an incurable disease a 'sinner'.
> And if you still think its a 'lifestyle choice', tell us, when did you make a choice regarding whom to be attracted to?


I'm thinking the poster said "sinner" b/c we ALL are. ALL of us. I know many do not believe gays are born that way, I've only seen a couple studies but I DO believe they are...and I believe God made everyone. So I'm just willing to remain naive on it all-its b/w God and anyone else. But we're ALL sinners. None of us know what others do -if its private.


----------



## Jolly

wr said:


> I disagree. If someone has divorced and remarried multiple times, and I do have someone in mind when I asked this question, I have been told that divorce isn't a huge deal to those of faith but remarrying is. If someone has divorced for incompatibility and remarries someone else, possibly up to 4 times repenting and atonement only seems logical if someone were to correct the behavior instead of assuming that forgiveness is a given and doing it all over again when they found out the courtship period wasn't long enough to figure out the guy was a jerk.
> 
> You assume that all homosexuals are sexually active but if they aren't, and I know several who prefer to remain celibate, can you explain to me how they are considered an abomination please and why they would have to ask forgiveness and atone for something they haven't done?


I'd like to think I have a smidgen of faith and divorce is a big deal to me. As I've written before, perhaps even in this thread, I'm a big fan of covenant marriages and I urge you to explore the concept.

The act of homosexuality is the sin, not the person. I agree with the long standing teaching of the Catholics, a celibate homosexual person is not sinning in that aspect of his life.


----------



## Tricky Grama

gibbsgirl said:


> Sin is an abomination to God according to many Christians.
> 
> Sinners are not an abomination to God according to many Christians.
> 
> It is a small, but significant distinction between the two.
> 
> If it helps anyone, think of it as how a family hates the drug addiction of a relative, but do not hate the relative. It's something similar to that.


Its really not a SMALL distinction. We are commanded to love everyone.


----------



## Jolly

chamoisee said:


> Well, the courts disagree with you. You're wrong. I'm sure that a Christian optometrist could make the same argument...say that providing "custom" eyeglasses to gays is against his religion because the gays need to have faith and be healed, or because they're blinded by lust, or some such crap.


The "courts" weren't what we normally think of as courts, were they?


----------



## Tricky Grama

wr said:


> We quit buying wedding gifts after #3 but you're suggesting that Auntie should probably not sit in judgement of her granddaughter?


I think its commendable of you that you bought a gift for #3! 

As you prolly know, many churches are different...there are many churches who perform gay weddings.


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> I guess this is a good time to ask all the non-conserves...how is it y'all can justify refusing the RIGHTS in the 1st amendment? How?
> Just b/c gays now can marry? Where in the constitution is it spelled out-as CLEARLY as it is int he 1st-where FREEDOM to practice your religion is?
> How can one be given a so-called "right" that stamps out the God-given RIGHTS of the entire nation? How?


So I can stone adulterers because my religion says it's what I must do? I can kill infidels that don't convert to my religion because that is what my holy book requires? I can take your beef cow and let it roam free because my religion sees it as a holy animal?

You're free to practice your religous beliefs. You're also required to follow the law of the land. The laws cannot be made to specifically target your, or any religion. If it's illegal to stone adulterers, its illegal for everyone. If it's illegal to kill non believers it's illegal for everyone. If it's illegal to steal cows, its illegal for everyone. If it's illegal to discriminate based on race, religion, national origin, sex or even sexual orientation it is illegal for everyone.

If you don't wish to have your religous practices come afoul of the law don't deliberately put yourself in that position. If you do break the law don't use your religion as an excuse. Do what everyone else must do. Pay the penalty for breaking the law. You can still be true to your beliefs and comply with the law. Sometimes the righteous must pay a price for that righteousness.


----------



## Tricky Grama

chamoisee said:


> I had not read that the cake was requested to be pornographic. Please link to a reliable source on this, relating to THIS bakery case, and I will start retracting. Bakeries are not required to make dirty cakes- for anyone. They are required (in Oregon) to offer the same cake to whoever walks in the door, regardless of race, gender, orientation, disability, etc. If they offer a white/yellow cake to white people, for example, they have to offer that same white cake to anyone else. They can't offer only chocolate cakes to Mexicans.


I did not say the cake was pornographic, did I.

NO ONE should have to provide a service to anyone that is against their religious beliefs. NO ONE.
I'm wondering how the 1st amendment God-given RIGHT of freedom to practice ones' religion is trumped by someone wanting a cake.


----------



## greg273

Jolly said:


> As for who is attracted to who...Do your sex organs define you? Are you nothing more than an animal, where biology is destiny? Or are you made of better stuff, where your mind can control your body?


 Why ignore my question to you? Do you think being gay is a choice,and if so, at what point did you decide whom to be attracted to?


----------



## Tricky Grama

chamoisee said:


> Kasilofhome, exactly. Almost all wedding cakes are custom. They are never (to my knowledge) "off-the-shelf". People who do not want to do any custom work at all, don't offer wedding cakes. So for you to say that the custom or off-the-shelf status of a cake is a good reason for doing an end run around the discrimination issue, is baloney. That's kind of like saying that it's OK to deny gays eyeglasses if the eyeglasses are prescription, because then they're "custom".


I see that you're not understanding.
It is WRONG to deny service to gays just b/c they are gay-to the point that it interferes w/the bakers RIGHTS!!! 
Swing a cat & all, ya know.

The eyeglasses thing has no bearing on anything. None.


----------



## Tricky Grama

chamoisee said:


> Well, the courts disagree with you. You're wrong. I'm sure that a Christian optometrist could make the same argument...say that providing "custom" eyeglasses to gays is against his religion because the gays need to have faith and be healed, or because they're blinded by lust, or some such crap.


Yup, no understanding of the whole thing at all.


----------



## Jolly

greg273 said:


> Why ignore my question to you? Do you think being gay is a choice,and if so, at what point did you decide whom to be attracted to?


Yeah, and I noticed you disregarded anything else I had to say, because you're validating your lifestyle, I suppose.

Okey-dokey.

For the vast majority of gay people, it's a choice. For some, maybe not - but no gay gene has yet been found.

And by you using the word, "decide", I see that you agree with me...


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> I see that you're not understanding.
> It is WRONG to deny service to gays just b/c they are gay-to the point that it interferes w/the bakers RIGHTS!!!
> Swing a cat & all, ya know.
> 
> The eyeglasses thing has no bearing on anything. None.


Sure it does. Everyone gets to define what their particular religion means to them. If not no Christian baker would ever bake a cake for a gay wedding. Or they all would. See how confusing that is when law is made based on religous beliefs. A whole lot of people swinging a whole lot of cats some of whom will inevitably collide. Who wins? The bigger swinger or the bigger cat? Or maybe we just make laws that apply to all and you try to keep your cat ftom colliding with them. If cakes, why not dinner rolls, houses, cars or even eyeglasses? Religion, and the religous, can't be wrong, right?


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> So I can stone adulterers because my religion says it's what I must do? I can kill infidels that don't convert to my religion because that is what my holy book requires? I can take your beef cow and let it roam free because my religion sees it as a holy animal?
> 
> You're free to practice your religous beliefs. You're also required to follow the law of the land. The laws cannot be made to specifically target your, or any religion. If it's illegal to stone adulterers, its illegal for everyone. If it's illegal to kill non believers it's illegal for everyone. If it's illegal to steal cows, its illegal for everyone. If it's illegal to discriminate based on race, religion, national origin, sex or even sexual orientation it is illegal for everyone.
> 
> If you don't wish to have your religous practices come afoul of the law don't deliberately put yourself in that position. If you do break the law don't use your religion as an excuse. Do what everyone else must do. Pay the penalty for breaking the law. You can still be true to your beliefs and comply with the law. Sometimes the righteous must pay a price for that righteousness.


Ok, this is the height of ridiculousness. Now Christians STONE gays?Adulterers?
We've been over this "HUNDREDS" of times, I don't know why I bother to answer. This is the USA. We were founded on Judeo-Christian values. NO WHERE do we have religious practices like you mentioned.

Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW CONCERNING freedom of religion.
FYI, its the religion of our land, NOT India, Saudi, Iraq, etc. 
You've lost all cred.


----------



## wr

Jolly said:


> I'd like to think I have a smidgen of faith and divorce is a big deal to me. As I've written before, perhaps even in this thread, I'm a big fan of covenant marriages and I urge you to explore the concept.
> 
> 
> 
> The act of homosexuality is the sin, not the person. I agree with the long standing teaching of the Catholics, a celibate homosexual person is not sinning in that aspect of his life.



I do believe that I saw you post that you believe in covenant only marriages which would work well for someone like yourself but would not work so well for someone like me. 

I certainly don't wish to force my faith on anyone but that would force me to either convert my faith or not be allowed to marry. 

Does that not run afoul of that whole freedom of religion issue?


----------



## Irish Pixie

greg273 said:


> Why ignore my question to you? Do you think being gay is a choice,and if so, at what point did you decide whom to be attracted to?


Or when was their eye color decided? Or hair color? Or hand dominance? 
:facepalm:


----------



## mmoetc

Jolly said:


> Yeah, and I noticed you disregarded anything else I had to say, because you're validating your lifestyle, I suppose.
> 
> Okey-dokey.
> 
> For the vast majority of gay people, it's a choice. For some, maybe not - but no gay gene has yet been found.
> 
> And by you using the word, "decide", I see that you agree with me...


When did you decide on your religion? Religion is, after all, a choice. It is also a protected class.


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> Ok, this is the height of ridiculousness. Now Christians STONE gays?Adulterers?
> We've been over this "HUNDREDS" of times, I don't know why I bother to answer. This is the USA. We were founded on Judeo-Christian values. NO WHERE do we have religious practices like you mentioned.
> 
> Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW CONCERNING freedom of religion.
> FYI, its the religion of our land, NOT India, Saudi, Iraq, etc.
> You've lost all cred.


Did I say Christians did. But why not? Is it because they have chosen to disregard ancient texts, or that they have chosen to comply with modern law. Why shouldn't someone be allowed to if that is what their particular brand of their religion demands. You do, after all, call for complete freedom to practice YOUR(see how annoying that is?) religion.

You might wish to read that part of the constitution a bit closer. I don't recall it specifying just your religion. I'm pretty sure Hindis, Buddhists, Muslims, Sikhs, animists, pagans and the thousands of other religions all have that same right to freely practice their religions. As long as they do it in a way that doesn't conflict with the laws that apply to all of us. Just like the myriad of different Christian denominations do.


----------



## kasilofhome

mmoetc said:


> There are many legitimate reasons for turning down work. In some places looking at someone and saying "you're gay- I won't do it" is a valid one. I wish it weren't. In the places the bakeries in question operated it isn't.
> 
> I tend to feel that it would be a sad state of affairs if I, or anyone else, had to plan every day's activitivies around which stores, shops, restaurants or other "public accomodations" I would be allowed in. You can't invalidate anti discrimination laws based on sexuality unless you invalidate all of them. So, those who decry how decisive our country has become seek to divide it more. There's nothing divisive about walking into a bakery and buying baked goods. There's nothing divisive about walking into a florist where your money has been good before to try to spend more on flowers. It is divisive to say I won't sell to you- you're gay or fill in whatever blank you wish. If you don't wish to serve the public, don't go into business serving the public. The answer is simple.





Twist it and lie but I will sell to homosexuals...And I stated so... but I will not knowing make any effort to support homosexuality.

Selling goods fine... knowingly providing something to such as say a wedding cake no...

I will work for money... but I won't sell my body or soul for money. So, since I don't hate gays buy from the case just like everyone else... want something custom...bounce your idea off me... I can and will say no to lots of thing...And for reasons that please only me.

See,homosexuals are not special... no different that anyone. I can think of lots of boundaries I have so what.


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> Sure it does. Everyone gets to define what their particular religion means to them. If not no Christian baker would ever bake a cake for a gay wedding. Or they all would. See how confusing that is when law is made based on religous beliefs. A whole lot of people swinging a whole lot of cats some of whom will inevitably collide. Who wins? The bigger swinger or the bigger cat? Or maybe we just make laws that apply to all and you try to keep your cat ftom colliding with them. If cakes, why not dinner rolls, houses, cars or even eyeglasses? Religion, and the religous, can't be wrong, right?


The issue is baking a cake for the celebration of a gay wedding. Or is it not?
Let me know. B/c NO ONE should be required to perform a task that is against their religion. NO ONE.
So, IF there is a baker who WILL NOT participate in a gay wedding celebration, they have that RIGHT! To refuse any & all other services-NO! 

Not a bit confusing. Our Constitution guarantees that. 

Does no one remember the Hobby Lobby case? How about the one pending on the Little Sisters of the Poor? Which way should/will that go?

If you are not sure about a biz providing a certain service, I suggest you ask that particular biz. Its done all the time. And the LAW of the LAND says, we have freedom of religion, not freedom of a wedding cake.


----------



## mmoetc

kasilofhome said:


> Twist it and lie but I will sell to homosexuals...And I stated so... but I will not knowing make any effort to support homosexuality.
> 
> Selling goods fine... knowingly providing something to such as say a wedding cake no...


What lie did I state? You're free to twist your faith in whatever way makes you feel good. You can draw whatever line you wish between making money from gays and "supporting homosexuality." I'm not sure how providing a cake to feed people at a party supports them more than selling them donuts for the post wedding breakfast eight hours later but that decision is yours, and yours alone. I'm not sure how selling them a plain cake baked by your hands, in your oven, with your ingredients is different than adding icing flowers from your piping bag to that cake, but you apparently do know. Only you will stand in front of your god and be required to explain your decisions. But if you break the law while doing so be prepared to face the legal consequences.


----------



## kasilofhome

mmoetc said:


> What lie did I state? You're free to twist your faith in whatever way makes you feel good. You can draw whatever line you wish between making money from gays and "supporting homosexuality." I'm not sure how providing a cake to feed people at a party supports them more than selling them donuts for the post wedding breakfast eight hours later but that decision is yours, and yours alone. I'm not sure how selling them a plain cake baked by your hands, in your oven, with your ingredients is different than adding icing flowers from your piping bag to that cake, but you apparently do know. Only you will stand in front of your god and be required to explain your decisions. But if you break the law while doing so be prepared to face the legal consequences.


You seem dense. I can be good friends with a raging drunk..but I will not do offer booze. Nor, do I said them in it.. I will protect people from it.

I have a homosexual friend who helps with my husband, I help her to.... but just as I haven't stoned her ....Nor will. I also do not do anything for her such ask her what she is doing on Aug 12.... that is their special day..we know it. 

Also since God's law is always above man's law I feel good. Now, since I am doing no harm in refusing a want and not a need ....

some adult children have not learned the word NO. Your want is not my command.


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> You seem dense. I can be good friends with a raging drunk..but I will not do offer booze. Nor, do I said them in it.. I will protect people from it.
> 
> I have a homosexual friend who helps with my husband, I help her to.... but just as I haven't stoned her ....Nor will. I also do not do anything for her such ask her what she is doing on Aug 12.... that is their special day..we know it.
> 
> Also since God's law is always above man's law I feel good. Now, since I am doing no harm in refusing a want and not a need ....
> 
> some adult children have not learned the word NO. Your want is not my command.


And that is your choice, but if you provide a business service to the public be prepared for a lawsuit.


----------



## mmoetc

kasilofhome said:


> You seem dense. I can be good friends with a raging drunk..but I will not do offer booze. Nor, do I said them in it.. I will protect people from it.
> 
> I have a homosexual friend who helps with my husband, I help her to.... but just as I haven't stoned her ....Nor will. I also do not do anything for her such ask her what she is doing on Aug 12.... that is their special day..we know it.
> 
> Also since God's law is always above man's law I feel good. Now, since I am doing no harm in refusing a want and not a need ....
> 
> some adult children have not learned the word NO. Your want is not my command.


So now I'm not only a liar( still waiting on what lie I told) but I seem dense? It's a good thing I'm not overly sensitive. 

I've repeatedly said the lines are yours to draw. You, TG, peach, the bakers can all draw your lines in different places if you wish. If you live in a jurisdiction where the law says you cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation you can choose to obey the law and serve gays or stand behind your line and refuse. But, your religion gives you no more relief from the consequences of breaking that law than the garden variety bigot or homophobe. Some adults havent learned the meaning of "play nice".


----------



## AmericanStand

mmoetc said:


> . What makes one cake gay?



I bet you have been trolling for this one so let me set the hook for ya,
It's simple 
The queers intent.


----------



## susieneddy

Tricky Grama said:


> Post of the year award.


I'm sorry but you have already used that award this year..many times :happy2:


----------



## kasilofhome

susieneddy said:


> I'm sorry but you have already used that award this year..many times :happy2:


If only we did not have so many valid posters she might not be so busy awarding them.... freedom of speech really is a problem for some...it you don't want to deal with some...walk away, shake your head, click ignore..... or just keep complaining because you can't stop others true rights. You can only control how you deal with what you hear.


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> The issue is baking a cake for the celebration of a gay wedding. Or is it not?
> Let me know. B/c NO ONE should be required to perform a task that is against their religion. NO ONE.
> So, IF there is a baker who WILL NOT participate in a gay wedding celebration, they have that RIGHT! To refuse any & all other services-NO!
> 
> Not a bit confusing. Our Constitution guarantees that.
> 
> Does no one remember the Hobby Lobby case? How about the one pending on the Little Sisters of the Poor? Which way should/will that go?
> 
> If you are not sure about a biz providing a certain service, I suggest you ask that particular biz. Its done all the time. And the LAW of the LAND says, we have freedom of religion, not freedom of a wedding cake.


No the issue is discrimination based on sexual orientation. Something that is illegal in the jurisdictions we're discussing. The tool used to discriminate is denial of service, ie a wedding cake. An illegal act. If, in your opinion, you can use your religion to break this law why can't religion be used to justify breaking any law? None of these anti discrimination statutes are aimed at any religion, which the Constitution does prohibit. They apply to everyone, the deeply religous to the deeply bigoted. Which the Constitution does allow.

I have no question about a bakery that advertises wedding cakes for sale should sell a wedding cake. At least I shouldn't have.


----------



## mmoetc

kasilofhome said:


> If only we did not have so many valid posters she might not be so busy awarding them.... freedom of speech really is a problem for some...it you don't want to deal with some...walk away, shake your head, click ignore..... or just keep complaining because you can't stop others true rights. You can only control how you deal with what you hear.


Much like participation awards or trophies for all, giving out POTY awards too often seems to diminish their worth. But maybe some people derive some good for being so special. Who am I to judge?


----------



## painterswife

mmoetc said:


> Much like participation awards or trophies for all, giving out POTY awards too often seems to diminish their worth. But maybe some people derive some good for being so special. Who am I to judge?


Tricky must be a liberal because only the liberals give out endless meaningless awards to make everyone feel good.


----------



## kasilofhome

Judge as YOU see fit. Who's blocking or stopping you... how many celebrity awards are out there...


----------



## mmoetc

kasilofhome said:


> Judge as YOU see fit. Who's blocking or stopping you... how many celebrity awards are out there...


I pay little attention to those, either.

Still waiting on what lie I told.


----------



## where I want to

painterswife said:


> Tricky must be a liberal because only the liberals give out endless meaningless awards to make everyone feel good.


That's your opinion.


----------



## painterswife

where I want to said:


> That's your opinion.


Of course it is. Have you read my tag line?


----------



## kasilofhome

Your examples and embellishment of where I and many others draw the line is total hyperbole.

I have been clear that I will not support in any knowing why the celebration of homosexuality. Yet deliberately state that


So, those who decry how decisive our country has become seek to divide it more. There's nothing divisive about walking into a bakery and buying baked goods. There's nothing divisive about walking into a florist where your money has been good before to try to spend more on flowers. It is divisive to say I won't sell to you- you're gay or fill in whatever blank you wish. If you don't wish to serve the public, don't go into business serving the public. The answer is simple.

Even when bluntly told it is impacting some with their faith. You have been told you do not care... 

Most services are fine ...just ones that cross the line. Buy all the cakes you want but CUSTOM stuff just like anyone one else can be refused... homosexuals are NOT SPECIAL.

Lots of services are denied due to behavior, or history or comfortably of the person asked. Stop making a big deal over rejection.. everyone gets rejected.. no one is special and not everyone will love you... very few will every want to harm you. Wake up call..I would and have a lot for homosexuals...I just don't celebrate sin..


----------



## where I want to

painterswife said:


> Of course it is. Have you read my tag line?


Yes but I am only exercising my right to use irritation in the place of argument. I'm just trying to keep current with the latest trends.


----------



## painterswife

where I want to said:


> Yes but I am only exercising my right to use irritation in the place of argument. I'm just trying to keep current with the latest trends.


If you have to explain it you might not be doing that well at it.


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> No the issue is discrimination based on sexual orientation. Something that is illegal in the jurisdictions we're discussing. The tool used to discriminate is denial of service, ie a wedding cake. An illegal act. If, in your opinion, you can use your religion to break this law why can't religion be used to justify breaking any law? None of these anti discrimination statutes are aimed at any religion, which the Constitution does prohibit. They apply to everyone, the deeply religous to the deeply bigoted. Which the Constitution does allow.
> 
> I have no question about a bakery that advertises wedding cakes for sale should sell a wedding cake. At least I shouldn't have.


No, if that were the issue, I'd aquiese. In all instances merchants should seel to whomever. Like swinging the cat, you can until it hits someone. Then its YOU who's wrong. 
IF the act conflicts w/your religion, you have a God-given right to refuse the service. NO ONE should have to provide a service that goes against their religion. NO ONE. The freedom of religion-a God-given RIGHT in the 1st amendment guarantees that. It does not guarantee a cake for celebrating gay nuptials.


----------



## mmoetc

kasilofhome said:


> Your examples and embellishment of where I and many others draw the line is total hyperbole.
> 
> I have been clear that I will not support in any knowing why the celebration of homosexuality. Yet deliberately state that
> 
> 
> So, those who decry how decisive our country has become seek to divide it more. There's nothing divisive about walking into a bakery and buying baked goods. There's nothing divisive about walking into a florist where your money has been good before to try to spend more on flowers. It is divisive to say I won't sell to you- you're gay or fill in whatever blank you wish. If you don't wish to serve the public, don't go into business serving the public. The answer is simple.
> 
> Even when bluntly told it is impacting some with their faith. You have been told you do not care...
> 
> Most services are fine ...just ones that cross the line. Buy all the cakes you want but CUSTOM stuff just like anyone one else can be refused... homosexuals are NOT SPECIAL.
> 
> Lots of services are denied due to behavior, or history or comfortably of the person asked. Stop making a big deal over rejection.. everyone gets rejected.. no one is special and not everyone will love you... very few will every want to harm you. Wake up call..I would and have a lot for homosexuals...I just don't celebrate sin..


So, what lie did I tell? I said I didn't understand your line or the line of others but I didn't say you couldn't make it where you wish. 

I never said homosexuals were special. I have always maintained they are the same as you and I. Subject to the same laws. Given the same rights under the Constitution. All they are asking in these cases is to be treated the same. To be able to walk into a business that says open to the public and be treated just as the rest of the public. Reject their business because you can't meet their needs, just as you could reject mine. Follow the same laws that apply to each and every one of us. Realize that whatever religous beliefs you hold may make you spiritually special but in the secular world we all live in they give you no adcantage over another. I actually find it quite a sad state of affairs that we even need laws in this country to regulate such simple, human interactions as who gets to buy, or not buy, a cake.

Rejection is a normal part of life. Most gays know that and accept it. It doesn't always make it right to reject another, though.


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> No, if that were the issue, I'd aquiese. In all instances merchants should seel to whomever. Like swinging the cat, you can until it hits someone. Then its YOU who's wrong.
> IF the act conflicts w/your religion, you have a God-given right to refuse the service. NO ONE should have to provide a service that goes against their religion. NO ONE. The freedom of religion-a God-given RIGHT in the 1st amendment guarantees that. It does not guarantee a cake for celebrating gay nuptials.


Merchants absolutely have the right to not to sell based on whatever reason they wish, including religous convictions. They also have the right to pay the fines or civil penalties the law imposes on everyone who would make that choice. Hopefully the rewards they get in whatever afterlife they believe in makes it worth it.


----------



## kasilofhome

Or we could respect the rights found in the constitution, and respect people's faith....


----------



## mmoetc

kasilofhome said:


> Or we could respect the rights found in the constitution, and respect people's faith....


I do respect your faith and the faith of others. I don't pretend to always understand it but that they do is enough for me. But that faith grants no immunity from laws equally applied to all. Abide by your faith and reap your spiritual reward. Break man's law and reap the punishment.

Now, what does your faith say about bearing false witness?


----------



## kasilofhome

mmoetc said:


> So, what lie did I tell? I said I didn't understand your line or the line of others but I didn't say you couldn't make it where you wish.
> 
> I never said homosexuals were special. I have always maintained they are the same as you and I. Subject to the same laws. Given the same rights under the Constitution. All they are asking in these cases is to be treated the same. To be able to walk into a business that says open to the public and be treated just as the rest of the public. Reject their business because you can't meet their needs, just as you could reject mine. Follow the same laws that apply to each and every one of us. Realize that whatever religous beliefs you hold may make you spiritually special but in the secular world we all live in they give you no adcantage over another. I actually find it quite a sad state of affairs that we even need laws in this country to regulate such simple, human interactions as who gets to buy, or not buy, a cake.
> 
> Rejection is a normal part of life. Most gays know that and accept it. It doesn't always make it right to reject another, though.


Are homosexuals being barred from bakeries.... no just some bakers will refuse custom work.


----------



## kasilofhome

Rejection is not automatically the wrong thing to do.... it can be very proper.


----------



## kasilofhome

mmoetc said:


> I do respect your faith and the faith of others. I don't pretend to always understand it but that they do is enough for me. But that faith grants no immunity from laws equally applied to all. Abide by your faith and reap your spiritual reward. Break man's law and reap the punishment.
> 
> Now, what does your faith say about bearing false witness?


Then you respect my right to practice my faith
.
Lying is also a sin.... are you misrepresenting refusal of a wedding cake to being barred from a store... or unable to buy from a baker with my views... Buy off the shelf.. Buy it all.. keep me making money... I won't make you wedding cake..I would be willing to sell you the supplies I have on the shelf to decorate it yourself... I want to make all the money I can.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Then you respect my right to practice my faith
> .
> Lying is also a sin.... are you misrepresenting refusal of a wedding cake to being barred from a store... or unable to buy from a baker with my views... Buy off the shelf.. Buy it all.. keep me making money... I won't make you wedding cake..I would be willing to sell you the supplies I have on the shelf to decorate it yourself... I want to make all the money I can.


So as long as you don't know what you are selling is used for, you don't care? Am I reading that right?


----------



## gibbsgirl

painterswife said:


> So as long as you don't know what you are selling is used for, you don't care? Am I reading that right?


That's not that off the mark for many people.

Businesses frequently don't know what their products are used for, whether things would be a crime legally or a sin morally.

Businesses are run by people.

I don't fault people from attempting to use their best judgment about whether they should complete a business transaction, if during the course of the transaction they determine that they may be inadvertantly enabling someone to commit a legal crime or if they feel that they will become party to enabling a sin they feel they will have to atone for.


----------



## kasilofhome

If I don't know I have not crossed my line...but I would get a clue if

I was ask to write 

The only good.....xxx
Is a dead one

Or 
Good luck on your next heist

Or

God is dead

Or
Grand opening
Bob's abortion clinic

Or

Gays are worthless

Or

Any pro homosexuality statements

I'm not doing that.... but that's me

I would do the bars and stars because I know it to be a about historic rebellion not about hate but freedom.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> If I don't know I have not crossed my line...but I would get a clue if
> 
> I was ask to write
> 
> The only good.....xxx
> Is a dead one
> 
> Or
> Good luck on your next heist
> 
> Or
> 
> God is dead
> 
> Or
> Grand opening
> Bob's abortion clinic
> 
> Or
> 
> Gays are worthless
> 
> Or
> 
> Any pro homosexuality statements
> 
> I'm not doing that.... but that's me
> 
> I would do the bars and stars because I know it to be a about historic rebellion not about hate but freedom.


Therefore all businesses can just not ask who the cake is for. Last name is good enough. I think we have solved the problem.


----------



## gibbsgirl

If only life were that simple. But, it's not.


----------



## chamoisee

I remember reading a non-fiction account of a doctor's internship. Being an intern is hell. Anyway, this intern had to work with another intern who happened to be an Orthodox Jew (both interns were Jewish IIRC). And even though that guy was assigned to work, once the sun went down on Friday, he'd simply refuse to do anything but kick back and rest. The residents and other doctors went home, leaving only these two interns in charge of many patients at the hospital, which was already really stressful, but then it was just ONE intern running things. If I recall correctly, people died/almost died, because the other intern felt that it was against his beliefs to work on the Sabbath. The remaining intern was furious with him. 

While I realize that the Orthodox intern shouldn't violate his beliefs by working on the Sabbath, I also think that he had to know that part of being a doctor is that people get just as sick on the Sabbath as they do any other day. If he didn't want to work on the Sabbath, for any reason at all, then he shouldn't have become a doctor. 

Don't know about you, but I'd rather have the doctor that worked. 

And people who don't believe in birth control, abortion, responsible management of miscarriages, etc, shouldn't go in to work in the OB/GYN field. Christian Scientists shouldn't be in the medical field at all. People who are going to apply biblical laws intended for a particular time, place, and people, to all people they encounter, should not be in certain professions. The bakery/wedding business appears to be one of those professions.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Or they could have scheduled his shifts to not fall on the sabbath. I'm just saying there are options and work around for most things. But it takes a willingness from the people involved to find ways to peacefully co-exist.

I've known people who do not believe in men touching women who are not relatives. I didn't belittle them when they attempted to gracefully decline a handshake.

Trying to make things free and equal by telling other people they should go away and don't belong somewhere when there are a few issues, but everything else is pretty doable as far as interacting, is not good. It's forcing segregation.

The constitution can help, but it's a crutch when people say things should be all or none thing, or the law should spell it all out. People gave to learn to get through things in real life.


----------



## chamoisee

gibbsgirl said:


> I've known people who do not believe in men touching women who are not relatives. I didn't belittle them when they attempted to gracefully decline a handshake.


I think we would both agree that such a man should not work as a physical therapist, phlebotomist or a nurse, or in any other field in which there is a 25-50% chance he'll have problems reconciling his beliefs with his job.


----------



## Guest

chamoisee said:


> I remember reading a non-fiction account of a doctor's internship. Being an intern is hell. Anyway, this intern had to work with another intern who happened to be an Orthodox Jew (both interns were Jewish IIRC). And even though that guy was assigned to work, once the sun went down on Friday, he'd simply refuse to do anything but kick back and rest. The residents and other doctors went home, leaving only these two interns in charge of many patients at the hospital, which was already really stressful, but then it was just ONE intern running things. If I recall correctly, people died/almost died, because the other intern felt that it was against his beliefs to work on the Sabbath. The remaining intern was furious with him.
> 
> While I realize that the Orthodox intern shouldn't violate his beliefs by working on the Sabbath, I also think that he had to know that part of being a doctor is that people get just as sick on the Sabbath as they do any other day. If he didn't want to work on the Sabbath, for any reason at all, then he shouldn't have become a doctor.
> 
> Don't know about you, but I'd rather have the doctor that worked.
> 
> And people who don't believe in birth control, abortion, responsible management of miscarriages, etc, shouldn't go in to work in the OB/GYN field. Christian Scientists shouldn't be in the medical field at all. People who are going to apply biblical laws intended for a particular time, place, and people, to all people they encounter, should not be in certain professions. The bakery/wedding business appears to be one of those professions.


Anti-gay is wrong,,ok
Antisemitic is ok,,,, ?

Wanting to be accommodated,,,,ok
Demanding to be accommodated,,, ?


----------



## Patchouli

dlmcafee said:


> There is debate over the Greek or Hebrew being the original language of the Matthew scripture, yes.
> 
> "Putting away" is not divorce in the Hebrew tradition, more akin to abandonment. Both Hebrew words, Salach, to put away and K'riythuth used in the phrase certificate (written) of divorce are used and when properly translated shed a different light on the subject.
> 
> Here is a 101 version of what I am attempting to convey.
> http://www.ajewishbeliever.com/2012/03/what-is-gods-view-on-divorce.html


You are talking about a Get. Your link has a rather warped view of it. If they asked a Rabbi about it he would say the Get is actually for the wife's protection. If she refuses it they are still married and she can still force him to support her. That is why the husband must actually put the Get into her hands. So long as she refuses to take it they are legally married in the eyes of Jewish Law. 

I used to be Messianic.


----------



## Patchouli

kasilofhome said:


> Don't use the word never..I grabbed a carrot cake on the way to get married at fred meyers.
> 
> I cheap


That's not a wedding cake. It's a cake you served people at your wedding reception. And yes there really is a difference.


----------



## Patchouli

Tricky Grama said:


> I believe its b/c the divorce already happened...& there are reasons for divorce, like we said b/4 but I realize it will have to be said manymany times...different from the gay wedding.


The wedding has already happened by the time you get to the reception and actually eat the cake.  The cake has zip to do with the wedding ceremony.


----------



## Patchouli

Tricky Grama said:


> "ALL"?!?
> Ya got to be kiddin' me.
> A lot of us Christians know abused women...many of us have volunteered at shelters, counselling, etc.
> I guess some cannot see the forest for the trees...
> 
> But go ahead, keep bringing up divorce. A couple have explained, but I realize sometimes not everything is read or understood. We can be patient. Its making your argument weaker & weaker...


Sounds like a worst case scenario to me and not something to be celebrated.


----------



## painterswife

Patchouli said:


> The wedding has already happened by the time you get to the reception and actually eat the cake.  The cake has zip to do with the wedding ceremony.


I agree. That means that all presents for the happy couple, all cakes for celebrating the anniversaries etc. would be a problem. It could be endless.


----------



## Guest

Patchouli said:


> You are talking about a Get. Your link has a rather warped view of it. If they asked a Rabbi about it he would say the Get is actually for the wife's protection. If she refuses it they are still married and she can still force him to support her. That is why the husband must actually put the Get into her hands. So long as she refuses to take it they are legally married in the eyes of Jewish Law.
> 
> I used to be Messianic.


I would disagree on your warped comment, but yes the writ of divorce is for the wife's protection and the husbands released of marriage. It is mentioned often in the Tanakh. Yashua it appears had a great talent with words, it is a shame that man has subverted those words. I at one time was confused also, I still question and attempt to learn, which by the way if you ask a Rabbi heated debate over nuances in the faith are common and even enjoyed at times.


----------



## chamoisee

dlmcafee said:


> Anti-gay is wrong,,ok
> Antisemitic is ok,,,, ?
> 
> Wanting to be accommodated,,,,ok
> Demanding to be accommodated,,, ?


There is nothing anti-Semitic about any of what I wrote. Both doctors were Jewish. One doctor took to heart the priority on saving lives (it is permissible to break the Sabbath in order to save a life), the other one apparently thought patients should die before he broke the Sabbath. He was in the wrong field of work.


----------



## gibbsgirl

chamoisee said:


> I think we would both agree that such a man should not work as a physical therapist, phlebotomist or a nurse, or in any other field in which there is a 25-50% chance he'll have problems reconciling his beliefs with his job.


But I don't focus on figuring where people don't fit. My mindset is to start from try to make stuff work interacting with others. And, to try and deal with real issues just when they come up. Usually, it's just a bump in the road. Not a dead end.


----------



## chamoisee

gibbsgirl said:


> But I don't focus on figuring where people don't fit. My mindset is to start from try to make stuff work interacting with others. And, to try and deal with real issues just when they come up. Usually, it's just a bump in the road. Not a dead end.


Unless the people are gay?


----------



## Guest

chamoisee said:


> There is nothing anti-Semitic about any of what I wrote. Both doctors were Jewish. One doctor took to heart the priority on saving lives (it is permissible to break the Sabbath in order to save a life), the other one apparently thought patients should die before he broke the Sabbath. He was in the wrong field of work.


Ok, you feel orthodox Jews should not be doctors = antisemitic to me. It is your right to feel that way.

If demanding his beliefs caused his employment to cease at the businesses descreation so be it.


----------



## Jolly

wr said:


> I do believe that I saw you post that you believe in covenant only marriages which would work well for someone like yourself but would not work so well for someone like me.
> 
> I certainly don't wish to force my faith on anyone but that would force me to either convert my faith or not be allowed to marry.
> 
> Does that not run afoul of that whole freedom of religion issue?


Not really.

You can get a covenant marriage in Louisiana. Google it up sometimes and check it out.


----------



## chamoisee

dlmcafee said:


> Ok, you feel orthodox Jews should not be doctors = antisemitic to me. It is your right to feel that way.
> 
> If demanding his beliefs caused his employment to cease at the businesses descreation so be it.


His actions were not congruent with what his religion actually says. There are plenty of good, Orthodox Jewish doctors and I have never said otherwise. 

I do think that no Christian Scientist should be a doctor though. 

IIRC that guy left the medical profession of his own accord and went to live on a kibbutz in Israel- probably a better fit for everyone, and no one else had to die.


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> And that is your choice, but if you provide a business service to the public be prepared for a lawsuit.


So, sue me.

I'd rather lose a business than lose my soul.


----------



## wr

Jolly said:


> Not really.
> 
> You can get a covenant marriage in Louisiana. Google it up sometimes and check it out.


I did take a look at it I can see where it could be a decent option but as it stands, it is still seems to have strong Christian leanings in the sense that one has to prove marriage counseling by clergy but I could see where that could be expanded a bit further. 

If I am understanding you correctly, you advocate covenant marriages for all citizens in place of church and civil ceremonies?


----------



## susieneddy

kasilofhome said:


> If only we did not have so many valid posters she might not be so busy awarding them.... freedom of speech really is a problem for some...it you don't want to deal with some...walk away, shake your head, click ignore..... or just keep complaining because you can't stop others true rights. You can only control how you deal with what you hear.


interesting that you make it out for something else when it was humor :facepalm:


----------



## gibbsgirl

chamoisee said:


> Unless the people are gay?


By others, I meant all people, including gays.


----------



## wr

susieneddy said:


> interesting that you make it out for something else when it was humor :facepalm:


Humor has been scheduled for February 29th and we're looking for a reasonable date for satire and irony but it may require a group vote


----------



## gibbsgirl

chamoisee said:


> His actions were not congruent with what his religion actually says. There are plenty of good, Orthodox Jewish doctors and I have never said otherwise.
> 
> I do think that no Christian Scientist should be a doctor though.
> 
> IIRC that guy left the medical profession of his own accord and went to live on a kibbutz in Israel- probably a better fit for everyone, and no one else had to die.


Boy, some if these posts are filled with talk of excluding others. How can you want to exclude some people but say it's not right to exclude certain people?

Weird.


----------



## Tricky Grama

gibbsgirl said:


> That's not that off the mark for many people.
> 
> Businesses frequently don't know what their products are used for, whether things would be a crime legally or a sin morally.
> 
> Businesses are run by people.
> 
> I don't fault people from attempting to use their best judgment about whether they should complete a business transaction, if during the course of the transaction they determine that they may be inadvertantly enabling someone to commit a legal crime or if they feel that they will become party to enabling a sin they feel they will have to atone for.


How does it usually go for those who sue the legal gunseller when one of the guns they sold ends up in the hands of a murderer? Have any of the merchants lost?


----------



## Tricky Grama

chamoisee said:


> I remember reading a non-fiction account of a doctor's internship. Being an intern is hell. Anyway, this intern had to work with another intern who happened to be an Orthodox Jew (both interns were Jewish IIRC). And even though that guy was assigned to work, once the sun went down on Friday, he'd simply refuse to do anything but kick back and rest. The residents and other doctors went home, leaving only these two interns in charge of many patients at the hospital, which was already really stressful, but then it was just ONE intern running things. If I recall correctly, people died/almost died, because the other intern felt that it was against his beliefs to work on the Sabbath. The remaining intern was furious with him.
> 
> While I realize that the Orthodox intern shouldn't violate his beliefs by working on the Sabbath, I also think that he had to know that part of being a doctor is that people get just as sick on the Sabbath as they do any other day. If he didn't want to work on the Sabbath, for any reason at all, then he shouldn't have become a doctor.
> 
> Don't know about you, but I'd rather have the doctor that worked.
> 
> And people who don't believe in birth control, abortion, responsible management of miscarriages, etc, shouldn't go in to work in the OB/GYN field. Christian Scientists shouldn't be in the medical field at all. People who are going to apply biblical laws intended for a particular time, place, and people, to all people they encounter, should not be in certain professions. The bakery/wedding business appears to be one of those professions.


I think that is really a slap to most Jewish folks. IIRC, if your WORK requires something of you, you are dispensed of that sacred law, among other things, life & death being some other things. 
I'd say the guy who was trying to get out of his work was wrong, but better to ask an Orthodox Jew.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Tricky Grama said:


> How does it usually go for those who sue the legal gunseller when one of the guns they sold ends up in the hands of a murderer? Have any of the merchants lost?


Not unless they did so knowingly, then they may have to answer to the govt authorities for their involvement.

Same scenario for when a person in business feels they may be held to account for knowingly doing wrong to whatever spiritual authority they subscribe to.


----------



## Guest

Tricky Grama said:


> I think that is really a slap to most Jewish folks. IIRC, if your WORK requires something of you, you are dispensed of that sacred law, among other things, life & death being some other things.
> I'd say the guy who was trying to get out of his work was wrong, but better to ask an Orthodox Jew.


I am not an orthodox Jew but, felt that the man worked at the pleasure of his employer. If the employer accommodated *his beliefs*, that is the employers decision, not a whiney co-workers. Stating someone following *their* beliefs as an orthodox Jew should not be a doctor, sounds antisemitic to me.


----------



## MO_cows

wr said:


> Humor has been scheduled for February 29th and we're looking for a reasonable date for satire and irony but it may require a group vote


Oh every day here is irony day, intentional or not.:banana:


----------



## wr

MO_cows said:


> Oh every day here is irony day, intentional or not.:banana:


My mistake, I was thinking of ironing day and I think it's still packed in the man reefer covered in dust :facepalm:


----------



## MO_cows

dlmcafee said:


> I am not an orthodox Jew but, felt that the man worked at the pleasure of his employer. If the employer accommodated *his beliefs*, that is the employers decision, not a whiney co-workers. Stating someone following *their* beliefs as an orthodox Jew should not be a doctor, sounds antisemitic to me.


When someone brings to the attention of their superiors a life and death situation, they aren't being a "whiny co-worker". They are a concerned human being.


----------



## kasilofhome

Dear mm

I find that it is a lie to complain that homosexuals CAN'T buy anything .....seems that the couple had been customers in the past...it was only when they wanted to hire the baker to go above and beyond and do a special custom job for the sale reason of a celebration of a sin in the faith of the people they wanted to the wedding cake.

Sorry buy it off the shelf ....it worked for me and others have done it to. I had no clue what it would be, my son picked it out ....had and Easter bunny munching a carrot.
Made my mother in law happy to get a photo of us cutting the cake seconds after the I do's then the made rush to get the guys out to fish....but she had her photo and the kid had fun.

Same flour used in wedding cake just something simply... some folks care more about a wedding than the marriage. I wish the state just took its claws out of private relationship. Seems that though the state wants folks to buy into .....


By the power of the state of___________ invested in me...(an agent of the state will decree)

Think about that.... does it really take a state's power to make a marriage.....seem like divorcing became far more common with the power of the state.....maybe the state not being involved made relationship more personal and less government interference.....when has the government every improved any thing...

So...mm..... have you lead the discussion that gays can't shop for food gays eat ....I've seen them


----------



## gibbsgirl

I was given the wrong rx by a pharmacist once while ill while pregnant. I found out when I had already taken some on a saturday. She was seventh day Adventist.

She refused to work that day to deal with it. I was upset, but just directed my attention to the staff working and insisted they identify what medication was in the bottle and replace it with the proper medication.

It didn't even occur to me that the woman should lose her job because she wouldn't work during her weekly sabbath time. She probably shouldn't have even lost her job for messing up my rx. Mistakes happen. She didn't lose her job BTW.

It was a bump in the road. Not the end of the road. But, after reading some posts on here, I think some people would think she had no business having that job.


----------



## kasilofhome

chamoisee said:


> I remember reading a non-fiction account of a doctor's internship. Being an intern is hell. Anyway, this intern had to work with another intern who happened to be an Orthodox Jew (both interns were Jewish IIRC). And even though that guy was assigned to work, once the sun went down on Friday, he'd simply refuse to do anything but kick back and rest. The residents and other doctors went home, leaving only these two interns in charge of many patients at the hospital, which was already really stressful, but then it was just ONE intern running things. If I recall correctly, people died/almost died, because the other intern felt that it was against his beliefs to work on the Sabbath. The remaining intern was furious with him.
> 
> While I realize that the Orthodox intern shouldn't violate his beliefs by working on the Sabbath, I also think that he had to know that part of being a doctor is that people get just as sick on the Sabbath as they do any other day. If he didn't want to work on the Sabbath, for any reason at all, then he shouldn't have become a doctor.
> 
> Don't know about you, but I'd rather have the doctor that worked.
> 
> And people who don't believe in birth control, abortion, responsible management of miscarriages, etc, shouldn't go in to work in the OB/GYN field. Christian Scientists shouldn't be in the medical field at all. People who are going to apply biblical laws intended for a particular time, place, and people, to all people they encounter, should not be in certain professions. The bakery/wedding business appears to be one of those professions.



Seems like a clear case of poor management... 

Seem like requesting 24 hours off a week is far from too much to ask..


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Dear mm
> 
> I find that it is a lie to complain that homosexuals CAN'T buy anything .....seems that the couple had been customers in the past...it was only when they wanted to hire the baker to go above and beyond and do a special custom job for the sale reason of a celebration of a sin in the faith of the people they wanted to the wedding cake.
> 
> Sorry buy it off the shelf ....it worked for me and others have done it to. I had no clue what it would be, my son picked it out ....had and Easter bunny munching a carrot.
> Made my mother in law happy to get a photo of us cutting the cake seconds after the I do's then the made rush to get the guys out to fish....but she had her photo and the kid had fun.
> 
> Same flour used in wedding cake just something simply... some folks care more about a wedding than the marriage. I wish the state just took its claws out of private relationship. Seems that though the state wants folks to buy into .....
> 
> 
> 
> By the power of the state of___________ invested in me...(an agent of the state will decree)
> 
> Think about that.... does it really take a state's power to make a marriage.....seem like divorcing became far more common with the power of the state.....maybe the state not being involved made relationship more personal and less government interference.....when has the government every improved any thing...
> 
> So...mm..... have you lead the discussion that gays can't shop for food gays eat ....I've seen them



The state makes the marriage legal, nothing more nothing less. You want the state out of it but you only married for that legal piece of paper.


----------



## Guest

MO_cows said:


> When someone brings to the attention of their superiors a life and death situation, they aren't being a "whiny co-worker". They are a concerned human being.


Where did the OP state in her tale that the superior was notified? 

The phrase "if I recall correctly", used here by the OP, " If I recall correctly, people died/almost died, because the other intern felt that it was against his beliefs to work on the Sabbath. The remaining intern was furious with him." Is it sensationalizing for the purpose of their point? Which is it died or almost died or neither?

Stories are great ain't they, if the story said the overworked Jew went to his supervisor and they failed to act is it the Orthodox Jews fault or the supervisors for not taking action?


----------



## Evons hubby

dlmcafee said:


> Where did the OP state in her tale that the superior was notified?
> 
> The phrase "if I recall correctly", used here by the OP, " If I recall correctly, people died/almost died, because the other intern felt that it was against his beliefs to work on the Sabbath. The remaining intern was furious with him." Is it sensationalizing for the purpose of their point? Which is it died or almost died or neither?
> 
> Stories are great ain't they, if the story said the overworked Jew went to his supervisor and they failed to act is it the Orthodox Jews fault or the supervisors for not taking action?


It was Bushs fault!


----------



## Jolly

wr said:


> I did take a look at it I can see where it could be a decent option but as it stands, it is still seems to have strong Christian leanings in the sense that one has to prove marriage counseling by clergy but I could see where that could be expanded a bit further.
> 
> If I am understanding you correctly, you advocate covenant marriages for all citizens in place of church and civil ceremonies?


Not quite.

I advocate them for heterosexual couples who wish to marry. The clergy part is somewhat adaptable, due to religion.

While not mandatory, I think you'd have a lower divorce rate for couples who engaged in such marriages, as they are harder to get into and harder to get out of.


----------



## Jolly

dlmcafee said:


> I am not an orthodox Jew but, felt that the man worked at the pleasure of his employer. If the employer accommodated *his beliefs*, that is the employers decision, not a whiney co-workers. Stating someone following *their* beliefs as an orthodox Jew should not be a doctor, sounds antisemitic to me.


I enjoyed having a couple of Jewish guys on staff.

It meant having Christmas off...:banana:


----------



## wr

Jolly said:


> Not quite.
> 
> 
> 
> I advocate them for heterosexual couples who wish to marry. The clergy part is somewhat adaptable, due to religion.
> 
> 
> 
> While not mandatory, I think you'd have a lower divorce rate for couples who engaged in such marriages, as they are harder to get into and harder to get out of.



Why do you wish to segregate gays?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Patchouli said:


> The wedding has already happened by the time you get to the reception and actually eat the cake.  The cake has zip to do with the wedding ceremony.


The cake is at the celebration. 
NO ONE should have to provide a service that goes against their religion.
NO ONE.
No bacon from the Jewish mkt, no gay cakes from the muslim baker.


----------



## Jolly

wr said:


> Why do you wish to segregate gays?


Because regardless of what SCOTUS rules, gays cannot marry.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Patchouli said:


> Sounds like a worst case scenario to me and not something to be celebrated.


How heartless is it of someone to think its a worst case scenario for an abused woman to be free of her abuser.


----------



## kasilofhome

I just learned there is only one way to marry.

One must meet up at one place for the wedding
Then they must travel for a reception.....guess I'm not married at all...silly me.

I hope my vow were at least worded to fit wedding regulations I did not know existed.


----------



## wr

Jolly said:


> Because regardless of what SCOTUS rules, gays cannot marry.



It seems they can because they are doing it as we speak. 

Why do you wish to segregate me? Is it against the law for me to marry.


----------



## Tricky Grama

chamoisee said:


> There is nothing anti-Semitic about any of what I wrote. Both doctors were Jewish. One doctor took to heart the priority on saving lives (it is permissible to break the Sabbath in order to save a life), the other one apparently thought patients should die before he broke the Sabbath. He was in the wrong field of work.


Not really in the wrong field...well, yes, if he used that excuse but its NOT true. Not at all. Many Doctors are Orthodox & take care of patients when needed. Your scenario was a movie, right? How 'bout we talk about reality.


----------



## kasilofhome

wr said:


> Why do you wish to segregate gays?


I going to go out on a limb... and say scripture of a certain faith... I would choose that over forcing church leaders to become agents if the state.


----------



## Tricky Grama

chamoisee said:


> Unless the people are gay?


Many folks chose to be martyrs all their lives. 
Some try to live life to the fullest, taking things as they come.


----------



## Tricky Grama

chamoisee said:


> His actions were not congruent with what his religion actually says. There are plenty of good, Orthodox Jewish doctors and I have never said otherwise.
> 
> I do think that no Christian Scientist should be a doctor though.
> 
> IIRC that guy left the medical profession of his own accord and went to live on a kibbutz in Israel- probably a better fit for everyone, and no one else had to die.


Great that you have that judgmental attitude, too bad for all the great Christian Scientist docs. How 'bout Jehovah's Witness docs? You think they're unworthy also? I've known both. Excellent docs.


----------



## wr

kasilofhome said:


> I going to go out on a limb... and say scripture of a certain faith... I would choose that over forcing church leaders to become agents if the state.



I'm not gay so why would it be necessary for me to be segregated form others who may wish to marry.


----------



## greg273

Jolly said:


> For the vast majority of gay people, it's a choice. For some, maybe not - but no gay gene has yet been found.
> .


 Again you ignore the question, you say its a choice... when did you decide? When did you mull the possibilities and say, yep, this is who I will be attracted to?


----------



## Shine

Originally Posted by *chamoisee*  
_There is nothing anti-Semitic about any of what I wrote. Both doctors were Jewish. One doctor took to heart the priority on saving lives (it is permissible to break the Sabbath in order to save a life), the other one apparently thought patients should die before he broke the Sabbath. He was in the wrong field of work.

Perfect example of Orthodox vs Messianic - one operates under the Law of the old testament, the other under the new testament...

_


----------



## Tricky Grama

Jolly said:


> I enjoyed having a couple of Jewish guys on staff.
> 
> It meant having Christmas off...:banana:


I'll never forget the groups of Jewish folks who came to the hosp where I worked every Christmas eve & Christmas day, volunteered their rears off.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Tricky Grama said:


> I'll never forget the groups of Jewish folks who came to the hosp where I worked every Christmas eve & Christmas day, volunteered their rears off.


See, that"s a perfect example of being successful finding ways to complement each other, rather than shunning each other for differences.

Thanks for sharing!


----------



## arabian knight

Jolly said:


> Because regardless of what SCOTUS rules, gays cannot marry.


And it is not a marriage not in the true sense of the word.


----------



## coolrunnin

kasilofhome said:


> I going to go out on a limb... and say scripture of a certain faith... I would choose that over forcing church leaders to become agents if the state.


Clergy aren't forced they freely signed on for the benifits


----------



## kasilofhome

wr said:


> It seems they can because they are doing it as we speak.
> 
> Why do you wish to segregate me? Is it against the law for me to marry.


If you are gay you would not qualify for what I understand of covenant marriage.

The faith where I know of this is of the one xx and one xy as it is xx &xx fail yy & yy fail ..there are requirement... I don't know about Louisiana but .under firemen Lt. gov Loren lemman as a private person...he just had the media attention .... churches band together to aid in making families stronger by making marriage hard and with requirements prior to gain the blessing from the churches. Our church was one of them.

Snippet from Wikipedia

As a legislator and subsequently as Lieutenant Governor, his interests included budget discipline, education accountability, promoting wise use of Alaska's natural resources, and strongly supporting the right to life. Leman was an advocate for fiscal responsibility through adopting and following a five-year plan to reduce State spending by $250 million. A social conservative, he led efforts to require parental notification for teens seeking to have abortions and sponsored a 1998 constitutional amendment that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. He was also active on the multi-state Energy Council, Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission and Pacific States Legislative Task Force. He taught the Alaska constitution and legislative process to Boys and Girls State delegates, âWinning Womenâ seminars and has been a guest lecturer to high school and University of Alaska students. *During his four years as Lieutenant Governor Leman led Alaska's Faith-Based & Community Initiatives, to develop synergies between government and Alaska's faith communities. After barely one year of existence of this initiative, the White House recognized Alaska as a ârole model Stateâ for its FBCI achievements. As Lieutenant Governor Leman spoke on the role of people of faith in politics and community service. He represented the State as one of seven commissioners on the Denali Commission, a unique State-federal cooperative effort to improve health care, energy, transportation, economic opportunities and workforce development, primarily in rural Alaska.[citation needed]*


----------



## kasilofhome

coolrunnin said:


> Clergy aren't forced they freely signed on for the benifits



Has nothing to do with benefits.... all to do with not practicing marriage officiating with out a license...... per state laws.....agent of the state.


----------



## coolrunnin

kasilofhome said:


> Has nothing to do with benefits.... all to do with not practicing marriage officiating with out a license...... per state laws.....agent of the state.


Uh huh sure, church's sold out years ago to the altar of the almighty dollar


----------



## kasilofhome

Sorry thought you said you were gay.

Nothing special... just that not everyone meets the standard....
Those who do not attend church regularly for a year....Sorry
Those who do not attend the six month weekly meeting of lessons and education.....Sorry


Hey, it's not for everyone don't like the requires too bad.. the church gets to say...no
Go some where else or better yet wait and think are the two of you really ready to make a life long commitment.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by Jolly View Post
> Because regardless of what SCOTUS rules, gays cannot marry.





arabian knight said:


> And it is not a marriage not in the true sense of the word.


Do ya'll go out on sunny days, look up at the sky and say, "It doesn't really look blue"?


----------



## arabian knight

Well he will argue in court Tuesday that his religious beliefs should protect him from sanctions against his business. So this is not over.


----------



## kasilofhome

coolrunnin said:


> Uh huh sure, church's sold out years ago to the altar of the almighty dollar


And since the irs claims to be the law of the land in defining what a church is... and isn't per the irs you might be close to being almost spot on but church means different things to different people.

Somehow since the irs came after God I think God got it right and not the irs.. they might find out latter..

But it is the state law that set up the license to officiate marriages. The regs requires always that. A license to marry be valid and a certificate signed turn over to the government.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> Do ya'll go out on sunny days, look up at the sky and say, "It doesn't really look blue"?


That's just what the SCOTUS ruling _said_, it's not what they really _meant_.


----------



## wr

kasilofhome said:


> If you are gay you would not qualify for what I understand of covenant marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> The faith where I know of this is of the one xx and one xy as it is xx &xx fail yy & yy fail ..there are requirement... I don't know about Louisiana but .under firemen Lt. gov Loren lemman as a private person...he just had the media attention .... churches band together to aid in making families stronger by making marriage hard and with requirements prior to gain the blessing from the churches. Our church was one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> Snippet from Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> As a legislator and subsequently as Lieutenant Governor, his interests included budget discipline, education accountability, promoting wise use of Alaska's natural resources, and strongly supporting the right to life. Leman was an advocate for fiscal responsibility through adopting and following a five-year plan to reduce State spending by $250 million. A social conservative, he led efforts to require parental notification for teens seeking to have abortions and sponsored a 1998 constitutional amendment that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. He was also active on the multi-state Energy Council, Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission and Pacific States Legislative Task Force. He taught the Alaska constitution and legislative process to Boys and Girls State delegates, âWinning Womenâ seminars and has been a guest lecturer to high school and University of Alaska students. *During his four years as Lieutenant Governor Leman led Alaska's Faith-Based & Community Initiatives, to develop synergies between government and Alaska's faith communities. After barely one year of existence of this initiative, the White House recognized Alaska as a ârole model Stateâ for its FBCI achievements. As Lieutenant Governor Leman spoke on the role of people of faith in politics and community service. He represented the State as one of seven commissioners on the Denali Commission, a unique State-federal cooperative effort to improve health care, energy, transportation, economic opportunities and workforce development, primarily in rural Alaska.[citation needed]*



I'm not gay but for some reason it was suggested that secular marriage, with some modifications might work for me so I would like to know why my marriage needs to be segregated.


----------



## mmoetc

kasilofhome said:


> Dear mm
> 
> I find that it is a lie to complain that homosexuals CAN'T buy anything .....seems that the couple had been customers in the past...it was only when they wanted to hire the baker to go above and beyond and do a special custom job for the sale reason of a celebration of a sin in the faith of the people they wanted to the wedding cake.
> 
> Sorry buy it off the shelf ....it worked for me and others have done it to. I had no clue what it would be, my son picked it out ....had and Easter bunny munching a carrot.
> Made my mother in law happy to get a photo of us cutting the cake seconds after the I do's then the made rush to get the guys out to fish....but she had her photo and the kid had fun.
> 
> Same flour used in wedding cake just something simply... some folks care more about a wedding than the marriage. I wish the state just took its claws out of private relationship. Seems that though the state wants folks to buy into .....
> 
> 
> By the power of the state of___________ invested in me...(an agent of the state will decree)
> 
> Think about that.... does it really take a state's power to make a marriage.....seem like divorcing became far more common with the power of the state.....maybe the state not being involved made relationship more personal and less government interference.....when has the government every improved any thing...
> 
> So...mm..... have you lead the discussion that gays can't shop for food gays eat ....I've seen them


Now show me the post where I made this lie. 

I've asked why, if a cake can be denied because it involves one in a marriage between gays other foodstuffs also can't be denied. The answer seems to be it depends. Ive never claimed gays can't buy food ( a nice bit of hyperbole on your part) but why is it so unfeasable to think it may happen. There are those here who insist that no one can be forced to act against their religion. If one's religion forbids contact with gays or they decide that support means something different to them than to you why couldn't they withhold anything? The hardware store owner was well within his right to post a no gays allowed sign as sexual orientation isn't a protected class in his area. If he can do it, why not the grocery, the baker, the gas station or the pharmacy? 

There's a difference between posting a question and declaring a truth. There's a difference between taking responsibility for ones words and trying to justify them.


----------



## kasilofhome

Sorry try to link and having trouble with the kindle


----------



## Tricky Grama

I was thinking that SCOTUS mentioned religion in its ruling...a couple links of interest-



http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...lowed-to-refuse-wedding-cakes-to-gays/284061/

https://www.insidehighered.com/news...rriage-challenge-or-change-christian-colleges

The decision itself expressed support for the religious liberty and free speech rights of those who oppose same-sex marriage. But the decision does not speak directly to the question of colleges' tax exemptions, and a dissent suggests that religious organizations could be challenged.

In the majority decision, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote: "Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered."

Sorry 'bout the faith based college bit but thats where I found the judge's quote.
So, guess the baker will win.
Also found in my search nearly a dozen gay bakeries that would not provide 'straight' cakes...tit for tat, I guess.


----------



## kasilofhome

Kindle issues right now..

Short version... anything custom... is above and beyond thus off the shelf and on the shelf ....is all up to first come first serve... custom no whole new deal... that's why if milk is on your shopping list and you go to the store and not get it the store does not charge a restocking fee cause it was on your list....


But custom has a form signed with detailed terms disclosed.

Price, date , time item.. that protects each party

When you buy pies off the shelf.. transaction final

During the writing up of the terms eighter party can refuse.

Why... Price might be higher than interested party is willing to pay
The company might not have the storage space due to other plan or prior commitments when the terms start forming and prior to signing.

There really is a difference between custom and off the shelf.


----------



## Patchouli

dlmcafee said:


> I am not an orthodox Jew but, felt that the man worked at the pleasure of his employer. If the employer accommodated *his beliefs*, that is the employers decision, not a whiney co-workers. Stating someone following *their* beliefs as an orthodox Jew should not be a doctor, sounds antisemitic to me.


That's not what she said though. She didn't say Orthodox Jews should never be doctors. She said if this particular guy, who happened to be an Orthodox Jew, put his religion before saving patients he should not have become a doctor. And honestly his Rabbi would have kicked him in the shorts for not saving lives. Sounds more like he was being lazy to me. 

I don't think if you are Catholic and you refuse to hand out birth control you should be a Pharmacist. Does that mean I hate all Catholics? Of course not.


----------



## Patchouli

Tricky Grama said:


> The cake is at the celebration.
> NO ONE should have to provide a service that goes against their religion.
> NO ONE.
> No bacon from the Jewish mkt, no gay cakes from the muslim baker.


You know we can keep doing this all day long. Whether it is a divorce party, a shower for an out of wedlock baby, marriage number 5 for someone who had non-biblical reasons for divorcing spouses 1-4 or any other scenarios you like the cake is ALWAYS at the celebration after the "sin" not a part of the sinful act. 

You can't have your cake and eat it too on this one. Either making cake for a party celebrating a sin is wrong or it isn't.


----------



## kasilofhome

We don't have covenant marriage here we just have a signed please by many plaster that they will not marry any one who has not gained the churches approval... no approval... no getting married at our church... even changed our charter to include it.


----------



## Patchouli

Tricky Grama said:


> How heartless is it of someone to think its a worst case scenario for an abused woman to be free of her abuser.


Oh for goodness sakes. I think the reason for the divorce is the worst case scenario. It's horrible because she (or he) was abused. Which the bible doesn't even allow for as a legitimate excuse for divorce by the way.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> Well he will argue in court Tuesday that his religious beliefs should protect him from sanctions against his business. So this is not over.


He can argue anything he likes
He just can't discriminate in his business, which is seperate from his religion

When he loses, will you admit it's "over"?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Patchouli said:


> You know we can keep doing this all day long. Whether it is a divorce party, a shower for an out of wedlock baby, marriage number 5 for someone who had non-biblical reasons for divorcing spouses 1-4 or any other scenarios you like the cake is ALWAYS at the celebration after the "sin" not a part of the sinful act.
> 
> You can't have your cake and eat it too on this one. Either making cake for a party celebrating a sin is wrong or it isn't.


NO ONE should be required to to provide a service that is against their religious beliefs. NO ONE.

In the majority decision, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote: "Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered."


----------



## Tricky Grama

Bearfootfarm said:


> He can argue anything he likes
> He just can't discriminate in his business, which is seperate from his religion
> 
> When he loses, will you admit it's "over"?


Will you when he wins?


In the majority decision, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote: "Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered."


----------



## Guest

A


Patchouli said:


> That's not what she said though. She didn't say Orthodox Jews should never be doctors. She said if this particular guy, who happened to be an Orthodox Jew, put his religion before saving patients he should not have become a doctor. And honestly his Rabbi would have kicked him in the shorts for not saving lives. Sounds more like he was being lazy to me.
> 
> I don't think if you are Catholic and you refuse to hand out birth control you should be a Pharmacist. Does that mean I hate all Catholics? Of course not.


Ahhh I get ya, only antisemitic if you say it about more than 1.

The OP said maybe he should not be a doctor, also lumped a bunch more groups that should not be doctors. Now you add Catholics pharmacists that follow their tenants.

I see the fear of the religious being justified by the comments here and else where being substantiated. I could care less about the choice of one's personal life and treat all as they deserve, respect and compassion, but do not force compliance on me to cater to choices that are not mine. You nor the government can not force me to believe in anything. 

Shalom (peace)


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Tricky Grama said:


> Will you when he wins?
> 
> 
> In the majority decision, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote: "Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines,* may continue to advocate* with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned.
> 
> The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek *to teach* the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered."


He has no grounds for winning an appeal, and he won't win

Posting that identical quote 50 times won't change the antidiscrimination laws
It doesn't say they can discriminate.
It says they can continue to *object* outside of their business dealings


----------



## Patchouli

Tricky Grama said:


> NO ONE should be required to to provide a service that is against their religious beliefs. NO ONE.
> 
> In the majority decision, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote: "Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered."


That's not what we are arguing here. That's fine but you should have to prove some consistency in your beliefs. And Christians have none which leads people to think this is not about sin this is about homophobia. You can't make a good case for yourselves if you let a whole pile of sins slide and only balk at one.


----------



## Patchouli

dlmcafee said:


> A
> 
> Ahhh I get ya, only antisemitic if you say it about more than 1.
> 
> The OP said maybe he should not be a doctor, also lumped a bunch more groups that should not be doctors. Now you add Catholics pharmacists that follow their tenants.
> 
> I see the fear of the religious being justified by the comments here and else where being substantiated. I could care less about the choice of one's personal life and treat all as they deserve, respect and compassion, but do not force compliance on me to cater to choices that are not mine. You nor the government can not force me to believe in anything.
> 
> Shalom (peace)


In order to be antisemitic you have to hate Jews as a race. Nobody is doing that here. 

As for the rest I think you are looking at this from the wrong angle. If I go to my doctor and they give me a prescription for birth control pills I should be able to walk into a pharmacy and get it filled. You should not be able to decide for me whether those pills are morally right or not. That is none of your business. By refusing to fill a valid prescription you are forcing your religious beliefs on me and that is wrong. 

If you can not do the normal everyday functions of your job due to your religious beliefs you need a different job.


----------



## wr

dlmcafee said:


> A
> 
> Ahhh I get ya, only antisemitic if you say it about more than 1.
> 
> The OP said maybe he should not be a doctor, also lumped a bunch more groups that should not be doctors. Now you add Catholics pharmacists that follow their tenants.
> 
> I see the fear of the religious being justified by the comments here and else where being substantiated. I could care less about the choice of one's personal life and treat all as they deserve, respect and compassion, but do not force compliance on me to cater to choices that are not mine. You nor the government can not force me to believe in anything.
> 
> Shalom (peace)


I don't think you should get too excited. I just found out that apparently, I need a secular marriage even though I'm not secular, not gay and already married but for some reason, it's not okay for me to have the regular kind of marriage.


----------



## Guest

wr said:


> I don't think you should get too excited. I just found out that apparently, I need a secular marriage even though I'm not secular, not gay and already married but for some reason, it's not okay for me to have the regular kind of marriage.


Not excited at all, but thanks for the slap. It does not please me that so many want to be controlled by others. Luckily I am rapidly approaching the end of my days and I will then be free. Your union is whatever you say it is to you, that is all that really matters.


----------



## wr

dlmcafee said:


> Not excited at all, but thanks for the slap. It does not please me that so many want to be controlled by others. Luckily I am rapidly approaching the end of my days and I will then be free. Your union is whatever you say it is to you, that is all that really matters.


Not intended as a slap at all but more Canadian humor that is sometimes lost on others.


----------



## Guest

Patchouli said:


> In order to be antisemitic you have to hate Jews as a race. Nobody is doing that here.
> 
> As for the rest I think you are looking at this from the wrong angle. If I go to my doctor and they give me a prescription for birth control pills I should be able to walk into a pharmacy and get it filled. You should not be able to decide for me whether those pills are morally right or not. That is none of your business. By refusing to fill a valid prescription you are forcing your religious beliefs on me and that is wrong.
> 
> If you can not do the normal everyday functions of your job due to your religious beliefs you need a different job.


My Doctor prescribed me Dilaudid, my regular pharmacy refused to fill it. I went a cross the street and got it no problem. See how free trade works. Maybe I should sue them for discrimination of a cancer patient, lol,,, And in this realm we see things differently.


----------



## Guest

wr said:


> Not intended as a slap at all but more Canadian humor that is sometimes lost on others.


I took it that way and returned some good old southern back at cha.


----------



## mmoetc

dlmcafee said:


> My Doctor prescribed me Dilaudid, my regular pharmacy refused to fill it. I went a cross the street and got it no problem. See how free trade works. Maybe I should sue them for discrimination of a cancer patient, lol,,, And in this realm we see things differently.


And that works well as long as the next pharmacy is across the street. Here that distance is ten miles and that one is owned and operated by the same family of pharmacists. The next is 23 miles, two chains who would likely have no problem. Free trade works in many ways. It works best when all are free to engage in that trade.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Bearfootfarm said:


> He has no grounds for winning an appeal, and he won't win
> 
> Posting that identical quote 50 times won't change the antidiscrimination laws
> It doesn't say they can discriminate.
> It says they can continue to *object* outside of their business dealings


Really?
"...The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection..."

You are sadly mistaken. "PROPER PROTECTION". 1st amendment.

I suggest you find us a link supporting YOUR theory.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Patchouli said:


> That's not what we are arguing here. That's fine but you should have to prove some consistency in your beliefs. And Christians have none which leads people to think this is not about sin this is about homophobia. You can't make a good case for yourselves if you let a whole pile of sins slide and only balk at one.


I think you need a link to support your theory.

"...The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection..."

Prolly should also go back to Hobby Lobby...little bit of picking which belief they wanted to take a stand on as well...
YOU are NOT the endall&be all when it comes to ANOTHERS' faith. YOU are NOT. You do not get to pick what hill a Christian gets to defend.


----------



## Jolly

Maybe so.

But many years ago in this country, it wasn't so. And I'm not talking about Jim Crow, or anything having to do with race or creed. The proprietor had control of his own shop...He was free to sell to whom he wished. The buyer was free to buy from whom he wished. With some exceptions, it worked pretty well.

Fast forward to today, where everybody has "rights", real and imagined, where everybody has no respect for the wishes and feelings of others, where everybody is their own little tin God, a paragon of super-ego.

There is coming a day - whether it be the Second Coming or whether it be economic collapse, where we can no longer afford silliness - when these people will be told "no" to many of their wishes and there will be no appeal to Big Brother to make things "right".

Wonder how they'll handle it?


----------



## haypoint

Near Grand Rapids, MI, the owner of a really good diesel engine repair shop announced that he wasn't going to do business with anyone that is openly gay. 
Huge backlash. But before we get too excited, how many, if any, openly gay customers does a diesel truck shop get?

If I were gay and needed my diesel repaired, I have three choices. I could go elsewhere. I could go there, act my normal flamboyant self and get refused service. I could go there, keep my sexual orientation to myself and get my truck fixed. 

Civilized society mandates that actions I enjoy that offend others must be done privately. If I want to walk around nude, I must do it in my back yard. I'm more comfortable with my feet on the seat in front of me in the theatre. I want to take cell phone calls while in the theatre. I don't because others find it offensive. 

I don't need to know you are Gay. Just as I am not compelled to announce to everyone I meet, " Hi, I'm Haypoint, I enjoy sex with women." TMI. 

But my diesel Chevy had over 200,000 miles and had some repair issues. So, I hauled it 300 miles to Grand Rapids, MI to be repaired by a good mechanic that incidentally doesn't serve openly gay customers. I hope my $5000.00 helped make up the lost business from the openly Gay diesel truck drivers.


----------



## mmoetc

Jolly said:


> Maybe so.
> 
> But many years ago in this country, it wasn't so. And I'm not talking about Jim Crow, or anything having to do with race or creed. The proprietor had control of his own shop...He was free to sell to whom he wished. The buyer was free to buy from whom he wished. With some exceptions, it worked pretty well.
> 
> Fast forward to today, where everybody has "rights", real and imagined, where everybody has no respect for the wishes and feelings of others, where everybody is their own little tin God, a paragon of super-ego.
> 
> There is coming a day - whether it be the Second Coming or whether it be economic collapse, where we can no longer afford silliness - when these people will be told "no" to many of their wishes and there will be no appeal to Big Brother to make things "right".
> 
> Wonder how they'll handle it?


"With some exceptions it worked pretty well." You might wish to ask those black baseball players who had to stay in the local "colored" hotel as opposed to the nice hotel downtown how well it worked. Or who had to get their meal from the back door of the restaurant and eat on the bus rather than sit down in the dining room with their white teammates. Or how that view from the balcony in back compared to the view from the main floor of the movie theater. 

Based on those good working "exceptions" and thousands more large and small , what is a gay couple not being able to purchase the cake of their choice? In the grand scheme of life, not much. But if we truly believe all men are created equal (read that somewhere) then shouldn't our laws be set up to ensure they are all treated equally and afforded the same opportunity whether it's cake, movie seats, restaurant food, or any other public accomodation. Do what you wish in your private life. But open that life, or business, to the public and don't be surprised when the public, all of it, gay, straight and in between, believers and non believers and doubters , walk through your door all expecting the same thing. To be able to purchase what you freely offer for sale.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mmoetc said:


> "With some exceptions it worked pretty well." You might wish to ask those black baseball players who had to stay in the local "colored" hotel as opposed to the nice hotel downtown how well it worked. Or who had to get their meal from the back door of the restaurant and eat on the bus rather than sit down in the dining room with their white teammates. Or how that view from the balcony in back compared to the view from the main floor of the movie theater.
> 
> Based on those good working "exceptions" and thousands more large and small , what is a gay couple not being able to purchase the cake of their choice? In the grand scheme of life, not much. But if we truly believe all men are created equal (read that somewhere) then shouldn't our laws be set up to ensure they are all treated equally and afforded the same opportunity whether it's cake, movie seats, restaurant food, or any other public accomodation. Do what you wish in your private life. But open that life, or business, to the public and don't be surprised when the public, all of it, gay, straight and in between, believers and non believers and doubters , walk through your door all expecting the same thing. To be able to purchase what you freely offer for sale.


It could be viewed as having worked "pretty well" to a certain segment of the population...


----------



## mmoetc

Irish Pixie said:


> It could be viewed as having worked "pretty well" to a certain segment of the population...


As a quick explanation for my examples since the poster I replied to said he wasn't talking of Jim Crowe or other race based laws and I'm sure my post will be challenged on those grounds.

Eliminating the most egregious examples can make almost anything look good. Mussolini made the trains run on time and Hitler revitalized the German economy. Except for that final solution thing and a world war they did a pretty good job and things worked for most people. Dismissing exceptions is fine for most until they become one of the exceptions. Showing how easy it is to cross the street is great until the street is 10 or 100 miles across. I know everyone here is greatly tolerant and would understand completely a business that said I don't like you because you are - fill in whatever label you wish- and you can't purchase my shiny new toy. I'm going to sell the last one to the guy behind you who looks and believes just like me. 

Yeah, I have some irrational beliefs, too.


----------



## chamoisee

Tricky Grama said:


> Not really in the wrong field...well, yes, if he used that excuse but its NOT true. Not at all. Many Doctors are Orthodox & take care of patients when needed. Your scenario was a movie, right? How 'bout we talk about reality.


No, it was a non-fictional account of a doctor's internship, by that doctor. I'll have to see if I can find it. Might be packed away in a box somewhere.. :-/


----------



## chamoisee

Tricky Grama said:


> Great that you have that judgmental attitude, too bad for all the great Christian Scientist docs. How 'bout Jehovah's Witness docs? You think they're unworthy also? I've known both. Excellent docs.


Let's hope you don't have a life threatening condition that requires more than prayer and faith healing from your Christian Scientist doctor. 

Or that you don't get into a car wreck and start bleeding out, and have your JW doctor refuse to give you a transfusion.


----------



## Tricky Grama

chamoisee said:


> Let's hope you don't have a life threatening condition that requires more than prayer and faith healing from your Christian Scientist doctor.
> 
> Or that you don't get into a car wreck and start bleeding out, and have your JW doctor refuse to give you a transfusion.


Let's hope you'll educate yourself on the profession of physicians.

CS doc treated lots of CS patients, using lots of holistic methods, etc. did a great service, & had ordinary patients too. 
JW doc had many JW patients, ran lipids and other parental nutritions when those pts did not want transfusions. Very difficult and sometimes ins. Didn't want to cover the longer hosp stays, so he took them into his OWN home to care for by he & his wife.
Yeah, what a horrific thing to have either of them be my doc.


----------



## Jolly

mmoetc said:


> As a quick explanation for my examples since the poster I replied to said he wasn't talking of Jim Crowe or other race based laws and I'm sure my post will be challenged on those grounds.
> 
> Eliminating the most egregious examples can make almost anything look good. Mussolini made the trains run on time and Hitler revitalized the German economy. Except for that final solution thing and a world war they did a pretty good job and things worked for most people. Dismissing exceptions is fine for most until they become one of the exceptions. Showing how easy it is to cross the street is great until the street is 10 or 100 miles across. I know everyone here is greatly tolerant and would understand completely a business that said I don't like you because you are - fill in whatever label you wish- and you can't purchase my shiny new toy. I'm going to sell the last one to the guy behind you who looks and believes just like me.
> 
> Yeah, I have some irrational beliefs, too.


Didn't take you but 20 minutes to see your mistake, did it? 

Nah, you can pull out whatever you wish...Utopia does not exist, no matter how much we mangle society to try to achieve it.

You know, the early parts of my life were spent in a segregated South. And while not good, neither was it quite as horrible as you would like people to believe, especially out in the rural areas.

At least an eight year old black boy had a better chance of reaching adulthood and a better chance of not being incarcerated back then, than he does today.

Wonder what was worse...Having to sit in the back of a bus, or dying in a street gutter from gunshot wounds? Neither one is good, but please have some perspective.

Kinda like this thread...As a nation, we are turning society upside down for about two to three percent of the population, when I feel our time and energy could be much better spent elsewhere.

Bread and circuses. Circuses and bread.


----------



## Patchouli

Tricky Grama said:


> I think you need a link to support your theory.
> 
> "...The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection..."
> 
> Prolly should also go back to Hobby Lobby...little bit of picking which belief they wanted to take a stand on as well...
> YOU are NOT the endall&be all when it comes to ANOTHERS' faith. YOU are NOT. You do not get to pick what hill a Christian gets to defend.


You are correct it is not up to me what they choose to defend. But their choices either make them look like sincere believers or hypocrites. And by only picking one sin as the great evil to take a stand on they look like hypocrites. And homophobes.


----------



## chamoisee

Tricky Grama said:


> Let's hope you'll educate yourself on the profession of physicians.
> 
> CS doc treated lots of CS patients, using lots of holistic methods, etc. did a great service, & had ordinary patients too.
> JW doc had many JW patients, ran lipids and other parental nutritions when those pts did not want transfusions. Very difficult and sometimes ins. Didn't want to cover the longer hosp stays, so he took them into his OWN home to care for by he & his wife.
> Yeah, what a horrific thing to have either of them be my doc.


It's one thing to choose that. But would we want such a doctor to be sprung on us, unexpectedly, if we showed up in an emergency room, seriously injured? Most would not. I am pretty sure that their faith of choice would not be of any comfort to me if that were my kid dying from a ruptured spleen while they prayed or refused a transfusion.


----------



## Patchouli

haypoint said:


> Near Grand Rapids, MI, the owner of a really good diesel engine repair shop announced that he wasn't going to do business with anyone that is openly gay.
> Huge backlash. But before we get too excited, how many, if any, openly gay customers does a diesel truck shop get?
> 
> If I were gay and needed my diesel repaired, I have three choices. I could go elsewhere. I could go there, act my normal flamboyant self and get refused service. I could go there, keep my sexual orientation to myself and get my truck fixed.
> 
> Civilized society mandates that actions I enjoy that offend others must be done privately. If I want to walk around nude, I must do it in my back yard. I'm more comfortable with my feet on the seat in front of me in the theatre. I want to take cell phone calls while in the theatre. I don't because others find it offensive.
> 
> I don't need to know you are Gay. Just as I am not compelled to announce to everyone I meet, " Hi, I'm Haypoint, I enjoy sex with women." TMI.
> 
> But my diesel Chevy had over 200,000 miles and had some repair issues. So, I hauled it 300 miles to Grand Rapids, MI to be repaired by a good mechanic that incidentally doesn't serve openly gay customers. I hope my $5000.00 helped make up the lost business from the openly Gay diesel truck drivers.



That is probably the most homophobic post I have ever seen here. I am genuinely flabbergasted.


----------



## Guest

chamoisee said:


> It's one thing to choose that. But would we want such a doctor to be sprung on us, unexpectedly, if we showed up in an emergency room, seriously injured? Most would not. I am pretty sure that their faith of choice would not be of any comfort to me if that were my kid dying from a ruptured spleen while they prayed or refused a transfusion.


You are good at hype I'll give you that. So you believe there should be no business accommodation for ones beliefs, even your own? Your selecting religious beliefs as a basis for non accommodation if an accommodation is available violates the civil rights act, and probably the fair labor standards act. 

Have you seen or read about those heinous acts of malfeasance in abundence, or even anything more than an isolated instance related to a religious belief? Poor choices, errors in diagnosis, laziness and malpractice are not unheard of, might even a gay doctor fall victim to such?

Businesses are there to make money, even the business of emergency health care. Supplying the best care they can determines in a large part their success and accommodating the best staff they can adds to that formula. Maybe you would feel more comfortable with banning people of faith from any employment. It appears there is a community that wishes just that, from cake bakers to Presedents. I would wish you good luck but that would be disingenuous.


----------



## Tricky Grama

chamoisee said:


> It's one thing to choose that. But would we want such a doctor to be sprung on us, unexpectedly, if we showed up in an emergency room, seriously injured? Most would not. I am pretty sure that their faith of choice would not be of any comfort to me if that were my kid dying from a ruptured spleen while they prayed or refused a transfusion.


Again, educate yourself. An ER doc refusing to give a needed transfusion? Really? 
I'm not sure if there are CS hospitals. But if there are, they might run differently, would have to be called something else, I imagine.


----------



## mmoetc

Jolly said:


> Didn't take you but 20 minutes to see your mistake, did it?
> 
> Nah, you can pull out whatever you wish...Utopia does not exist, no matter how much we mangle society to try to achieve it.
> 
> You know, the early parts of my life were spent in a segregated South. And while not good, neither was it quite as horrible as you would like people to believe, especially out in the rural areas.
> 
> At least an eight year old black boy had a better chance of reaching adulthood and a better chance of not being incarcerated back then, than he does today.
> 
> Wonder what was worse...Having to sit in the back of a bus, or dying in a street gutter from gunshot wounds? Neither one is good, but please have some perspective.
> 
> Kinda like this thread...As a nation, we are turning society upside down for about two to three percent of the population, when I feel our time and energy could be much better spent elsewhere.
> 
> Bread and circuses. Circuses and bread.


Not a mistake. A deliberate act to point out that the utopia we agree doesn't exist is no closer when a "little" discrimination based on something other than behavior is allowed to exist. 

An interesting thing about our Constitution. It doesn't set a percentage for how prevalent a population must be to be treated equally. Kind of what makes it work for everyone.


----------



## AmericanStand

mmoetc said:


> "With some exceptions it worked pretty well." You might wish to ask those black baseball players who had to stay in the local "colored" hotel as opposed to the nice hotel downtown how well it worked. Or who had to get their meal from the back door of the restaurant and eat on the bus rather than sit down in the dining room with their white teammates. Or how that view from the balcony in back compared to the view from the main floor of the movie .



Well based on your examples it must have worked pretty good. 
I've noticed blacks will pretty much take over the back of the bus , the movie balcony and certain hotels and try to intimidate whites out.


----------



## haypoint

If I opened a bakery and wanted to grow my business, I'd let it be known everyone was welcome in my store. I might even post Gay Friendly or a rainbow, getting the word out that I welcome Gays.
But as soon as a bakery opened up down the street, owned and operated by an openly Gay baker, where would my Gay customers go? If you think it depends on who is the best baker, you are naÃ¯ve. People support their own. 

In my limited contact with Gays, there has been a common thread of announcement, followed by a pause that seems to seek my reply of acceptance. But I'm ambivalent, I don't care, I don't want to "pick a side". It would be the same with anyone I just met, " Hi, I'm Bruce, I'm Roman Catholic." or " Hi, I'm Pat, I'm a Republican." The Gays in my circle of friends don't announce and tone down the flamboyancy a notch or two and are fully accepted and judged on their own merit. 

If I run a Bakery, should I post a "Gay Friendly" sign? Then to assure my Christian customers, must I post a "God Loves You" sign? Add to it, "Black is Beautiful"? Where does it end? Transgender Approved, I support Gender Reassignment, No shoes, no problem, No Shirt, Come on in, Baggy Pants, Boxers Showing Welcome.

To me it is a tiny issue that serves as a distraction to the important issues of the day. Ok, you are Gay and Proud, now get back to work.


----------



## AmericanStand

mmoetc said:


> And that works well as long as the next pharmacy is across the street. Here that distance is ten miles and that one is owned and operated by the same family of pharmacists. The next is 23 miles, two chains who would likely have no problem. Free trade works in many ways. It works best when all are free to engage in that trade.



So ?
Don't people decide where to live based on available services ?
Where I live the local gas station sells only has with ethanol the next station 11 miles down the road is the same brand. 18 miles away there's a station that sells regular gas but if I want leaded gas I have to drive even farther. 
Who should I sue ?


----------



## mmoetc

AmericanStand said:


> So ?
> Don't people decide where to live based on available services ?
> Where I live the local gas station sells only has with ethanol the next station 11 miles down the road is the same brand. 18 miles away there's a station that sells regular gas but if I want leaded gas I have to drive even farther.
> Who should I sue ?


Sue whomever you wish but it will likely be a waste of money. The choice is yours to make where you buy your gas. The choice isn't forced upon you. Not one of those businesses is saying you cannot walk up to the pump and make a purchase. They are saying this is what I offer for sale, you can chooses to purchase from me or not. They are not posting a sign that says open to the public and then telling you you are not one of the public.


----------



## Jolly

mmoetc said:


> Not a mistake. A deliberate act to point out that the utopia we agree doesn't exist is no closer when a "little" discrimination based on something other than behavior is allowed to exist.
> 
> An interesting thing about our Constitution. It doesn't set a percentage for how prevalent a population must be to be treated equally. Kind of what makes it work for everyone.


The only reason the Constitution works, is because we agree to abide by it. As time goes on and it becomes increasingly irrelevant, revolution is assured. It'll just be a question of what we wind up with on the other side.

One thing I don't think the LGBT community appreciates, is the accepting nature of a country where the major religion is still Christianity. If somebody flipped a switch and the U.S. woke up in the morning as a primarily Muslim nation, do you think we would be spending days arguing over the rights of a gay couple vs. the rights of a Christian baker?

No, the sound you'd be hearing is the sound of thousands of closet doors slamming shut, as people tried to protect their own hide. Gay weddings?

*Bwhahahahahahahaha!*

Never hurts to keep a bit of perspective, especially in the face of the fastest growing religion on the planet. Maybe it's not as bad here as all the hyperbole would suggest...


----------



## painterswife

Jolly said:


> The only reason the Constitution works, is because we agree to abide by it. As time goes on and it becomes increasingly irrelevant, revolution is assured. It'll just be a question of what we wind up with on the other side.
> 
> One thing I don't think the LGBT community appreciates, is the accepting nature of a country where the major religion is still Christianity. If somebody flipped a switch and the U.S. woke up in the morning as a primarily Muslim nation, do you think we would be spending days arguing over the rights of a gay couple vs. the rights of a Christian baker?
> 
> No, the sound you'd be hearing is the sound of thousands of closet doors slamming shut, as people tried to protect their own hide. Gay weddings?
> 
> *Bwhahahahahahahaha!*
> 
> Never hurts to keep a bit of perspective, especially in the face of the fastest growing religion on the planet. Maybe it's not as bad here as all the hyperbole would suggest...


The constitution makes sure that Christianity nor Muslims get to make the laws we live by. We are not a nation of religion. We are a nation of people who are allowed to live their religion but not makes other live by their religion.


----------



## kasilofhome

And the people the bully homosexuals would find that many they bully would reach out to aid them.

Note the white privileged people were the back bone of the under ground railroad

Non Jews saved the Jews.

Just some historical validated backing for my view.


----------



## Jolly

painterswife said:


> The constitution makes sure that Christianity nor Muslims get to make the laws we live by. We are not a nation of religion. We are a nation of people who are allowed to live their religion but not makes other live by their religion.


Let me assure you of one thing - There is nothing in our Constitution that trumps the Koran. Nothing.

As I pointed out to you, should you suddenly wake up in a Muslim nation in the morning (and by Muslim, I mean where the majority of Americans are Muslim), what you think about your "rights" is moot. If the Constitution does not align with the Koran, the Koran trumps all.

That's just the way it is, even with some of the most moderate Muslims.


----------



## greg273

Jolly said:


> No, the sound you'd be hearing is the sound of thousands of closet doors slamming shut, as people tried to protect their own hide. Gay weddings?
> 
> *Bwhahahahahahahaha!*


 Maybe they'd all just 'choose' to be straight, right Jolly? Didn't you say thats how it works? Shouldn't be a problem then.


----------



## greg273

Jolly said:


> Let me assure you of one thing - There is nothing in our Constitution that trumps the Koran. Nothing.


 The 2nd Amendment does.


----------



## AmericanStand

mmoetc said:


> Sue whomever you wish but it will likely be a waste of money. The choice is yours to make where you buy your gas. The choice isn't forced upon you. Not one of those businesses is saying you cannot walk up to the pump and make a purchase. They are saying this is what I offer for sale, you can chooses to purchase from me or not. They are not posting a sign that says open to the public and then telling you you are not one of the public.


 But I want leaded gas they should mix some up for me. The only reason they won't is that I'm heterosexual.


----------



## kasilofhome

Any one see where the cake makers placed the sign

open to the public

?


----------



## Jolly

greg273 said:


> The 2nd Amendment does.


You'd like to think it does, but it won't.

In the scenario I described, you're outnumbered. And since we're talking about the 2nd, they'll be equally well gunned.

Besides, if they are the majority, they'll control washington and subsequently, the armed forces.

Unless you think you can run a coup?


----------



## Jolly

greg273 said:


> Maybe they'd all just 'choose' to be straight, right Jolly? Didn't you say thats how it works? Shouldn't be a problem then.


They could choose it or not.

The people I'm talking about won't care about your niceties or your distinctions. They'll just bring the hammer down, and not have a second thought about it.


----------



## greg273

Jolly said:


> The people I'm talking about won't care about your niceties or your distinctions. They'll just bring the hammer down, and not have a second thought about it.


 They're welcome to try. Most of us won't put up with any organized religion telling us what to do, Muslim or not. We don't need to tolerate that garbage here in the USA.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> Any one see where the cake makers placed the sign
> 
> open to the public
> 
> ?


It's always assumed a business is open to the public when they advertise to the public, and when they have no notices that say "private" or "members only".

http://www.sweetcakesweb.com/

Some of your arguments seem so "off the wall" it's hard to know if you're being serious or sarcastic


----------



## Irish Pixie

greg273 said:


> They're welcome to try. Most of us won't put up with any organized religion telling us what to do, Muslim or not. We don't need to tolerate that garbage here in the USA.


Well said.


----------



## Cornhusker

greg273 said:


> They're welcome to try. Most of us won't put up with any organized religion telling us what to do, Muslim or not. We don't need to tolerate that garbage here in the USA.


Most of you will do what Obama tells you, no questions asked


----------



## painterswife

Cornhusker said:


> Most of you will do what Obama tells you, no questions asked


I am not sure why so many work hard at trying to believe that but if you must cling to that delusion then we won't dissuade you. It makes no difference to us.


----------



## Jolly

greg273 said:


> They're welcome to try. Most of us won't put up with any organized religion telling us what to do, Muslim or not. We don't need to tolerate that garbage here in the USA.


Then you'll die.

It's not hard. All power comes from the barrel of a gun. Ask Mao, Stalin or anybody else responsible for the death of people in the millions.


----------



## greg273

Jolly said:


> Then you'll die.
> 
> It's not hard. All power comes from the barrel of a gun. Ask Mao, Stalin or anybody else responsible for the death of people in the millions.


 We all gotta die sometime. But I'd take out as many would-be jihadis or other relgious kooks as I could before that happens. 
In reality though your little fantasy situation isn't going to happen any time soon, there are enough people in this country who are NOT religious radicals, who are well armed, and don't take religious instruction from the barrel of a gun. Just because YOU may be a religious radical, don't think the majority of people are. Most just want to live thier lives, and don't care if their neighbor is a Muslim, a Buddisht, a Christian, or gay, black,white, whatever. Why do so many have to shout from the rooftops their hatred, small mindedness and bigotry??


----------



## Jolly

greg273 said:


> We all gotta die sometime. But I'd take out as many would-be jihadis or other relgious kooks as I could before that happens.
> In reality though your little fantasy situation isn't going to happen any time soon, there are enough people in this country who are NOT religious radicals, who are well armed, and don't take religious instruction from the barrel of a gun. Just because YOU may be a religious radical, don't think the majority of people are. Most just want to live thier lives, and don't care if their neighbor is a Muslim, a Buddisht, a Christian, or gay, black,white, whatever. Why do so many have to shout from the rooftops their hatred, small mindedness and bigotry??


You're still missing the point of my little exercise in "what if?".

Christians, specifically the Judeo-Christian view of the Founders, is what allows you to say and be what you'd like, with some constraints as outlined in the Constitution. It is mostly those wicked Christians that have given folks the societal accommodations to mostly live life as they want.

Muslims will not do that. And if history is any proof, non-religious people won't do it, either.

People, including yourself, rail against the "bigotry" and "small mindedness" of the religious people, when in fact, I'm seeing a lot more animosity towards Christian believers, than I see from Christians towards the non-religious.

Right now, you're literally biting the hand that feeds you, until that hand goes away and is replaced with someone else's iron glove.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> People, including yourself, rail against the "bigotry" and "small mindedness" of the religious people, when in fact, I'm seeing a lot more *animosity* towards Christian believers, than I see from Christians towards the non-religious.


You're seeing only what you want to see then, because I see a pretty even mix, with the majority on both sides just trying to mind their own business.


----------



## mmoetc

Jolly said:


> You're still missing the point of my little exercise in "what if?".
> 
> Christians, specifically the Judeo-Christian view of the Founders, is what allows you to say and be what you'd like, with some constraints as outlined in the Constitution. It is mostly those wicked Christians that have given folks the societal accommodations to mostly live life as they want.
> 
> Muslims will not do that. And if history is any proof, non-religious people won't do it, either.
> 
> People, including yourself, rail against the "bigotry" and "small mindedness" of the religious people, when in fact, I'm seeing a lot more animosity towards Christian believers, than I see from Christians towards the non-religious.
> 
> Right now, you're literally biting the hand that feeds you, until that hand goes away and is replaced with someone else's iron glove.


The biggest reason for that tolerance by Christians is their fractured state and lack of power. When Christianity was largely defined by Roman Catholicism and the Holy Roman Empire it had no real problem throwing its weight around. That whole schism that brought us modern Protestants brought about a few hundred years of war and strife as Christianity sorted itself out and neither side was without a bit of atrocity in their god's name. Our forefathers were on the tail end of that and were involved the struggle of the religous kingdoms and governments of Europe as they tried to divy up control of the new world. They lived first hand the perils of state religions and set up our system to avoid them. Our forefathers were wise men. Taking the power from religion makes sure all religions have power.


----------

