# Blanket Statements



## DKWunlimited (Sep 11, 2006)

There is a saying around the Autism community that if you have met someone with autism, then you know ONE person with autism and not to assume that they are all the same. I have always said that same statement applies to all special interest groups. The loud and proud few paint the rest in a ugly light. 

I've been told that people with disabilities don't like to be called handicapped/ gimp/ cripple.. _______ (fill in the blank) As someone who has spent more than 40 years in and out of hospitals and wheelchairs, I couldn't give a rats behind about any of those words. My dad always told me that you are only as offended as you choose to be. 

I've been told that Native Americans don't like to be called indians. My grandma that was 50% Cherokee called us little wild indians all the time. Again, not offended.

And finally a family member who has been openly gay for almost 60 years says that the for all the yelling and flashy parades that you see demanding acceptance there are far more gay people rolling their eyes and living quiet normal lives.

There will always be people who claim that they speak for the masses and are looking for something to be offended about and there will always people who are not even IN that group jumping on the bandwagon to make claims without all the facts, it's just a sign of our times.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

Got to agree. Were living in a time when facts and non facts can both be processed and sent out to anybody who cares to see them almost immediately. We are also living in a time when reporters have finally realized that non facts sell about as good as real facts. In Fact, lol, most people, are likely to be as ignorant of what is real facts, as they were 100yrs ago. Yes we get 100 times more information, but you need, like a cream separator to separate that few statements that are real facts from the deluge of stuff that is just skim milk.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

You sound offended, did something trigger you ?


----------



## DKWunlimited (Sep 11, 2006)

oneraddad said:


> You sound offended, did something trigger you ?


LOL, Not at all, just reading all the post about the baker. On a side note, there are plenty of gay bakers. they do fabulous work!


----------



## hunter63 (Jan 4, 2005)

oneraddad said:


> You sound offended, did something trigger you ?


The OP was out of context and seems like a rant......
My question was and still is after a partial explanation ....What's your point?


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

I was at Costco yesterday looking at their giant pumpkin pie, that thing is huge. I'm not sure if I saw any gay bakers though, how can you tell ?


----------



## DKWunlimited (Sep 11, 2006)

oneraddad said:


> I was at Costco yesterday looking at their giant pumpkin pie, that thing is huge. I'm not sure if I saw any gay bakers though, how can you tell ?


There is a secret handshake, if you are not in the club, they won't show it to you.


----------



## DKWunlimited (Sep 11, 2006)

oneraddad said:


> I was at Costco yesterday looking at their giant pumpkin pie, that thing is huge. I'm not sure if I saw any gay bakers though, how can you tell ?


Sorry, was just being silly. Here in MY area there are social groups that meet for meals. The 2 that I know of have facebook pages and they posts resturant suggestions and share business ads. One meets every Sunday for brunch and the other is a Tuesday night supper club. They tend to support each others businesses and spread the word. So not hard to find a gay baker


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DKWunlimited said:


> LOL, Not at all, just reading all the post about the baker. On a side note, there are plenty of gay bakers. they do fabulous work!


Why should I care about the sexual preference of a baker? They either make tasty treats or they don’t. That’s all I’ll judge them by.


----------



## DKWunlimited (Sep 11, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Why should I care about the sexual preference of a baker? They either make tasty treats or they don’t. That’s all I’ll judge them by.


And that is your right. Some people like to choose where they spend their money bases on other demographics. My friend from ElSavador always checks the Hispanic chamber website before she goes shopping, she prefers to support hispanic run businesses. My family member prefers to support friends in the gay community. I will drive a few extra miles to support single mom businesses because I want to help them succeed.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

I went to one of the pot dispensary in town and I also had a hard time telling if any of their baked goods were made by gays. There was an old lady with pink and gray hair and one young lady with a nose ring, are either of those things a sign ?

Can you guys look at my avatar photo and tell how I like my sex ?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DKWunlimited said:


> And that is your right. Some people like to choose where they spend their money bases on other demographics. My friend from ElSavador always checks the Hispanic chamber website before she goes shopping, she prefers to support hispanic run businesses. My family member prefers to support friends in the gay community. I will drive a few extra miles to support single mom businesses because I want to help them succeed.


Thanks for answering. All things being equal, such as quality and price, I’m guilty of favoring some businesses over others myself. But such extraneous factors such as ethnicity, sexual preference or marital status will never be my primary driver for seeking out someone to do business with.

And I only asked because I wasn’t sure what your statement had to do with the case of the baker.


----------



## frogmammy (Dec 8, 2004)

oneraddad said:


> ...
> Can you guys look at my avatar photo and tell how I like my sex ?


Cold?

Mon


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

frogmammy said:


> Cold?
> 
> Mon


Hahahahahahaa


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

DKW: I am pretty much of the same opinions as yours. As for the Indian part, I'm about as German/Bohemian as one can be, and MY mama called me a wild Indian more than once. Must have had something to do with the movies of that era.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

Im just joking when I say this Chuck,
BUT
When you were young, the Indians WERE still wild LOL.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

FarmboyBill said:


> Im just joking when I say this Chuck,
> BUT
> When you were young, the Indians WERE still wild LOL.


Some of us still are.....Remember that Ladies


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

LOL, true---I never saw an Indian until I was grown, but Barb tells me her father took her to the reservation at Ft. Sill when she was about 7 or 8 years old and told her to look carefully because she might never see blanket Indians again. 

An old fellow about 15 years older than I told me much the same thing about the Indians around Pawhuska, OK---brush arbors, killing steers and hanging the meat on poles, holding a 3-day pow-wow and eating the last of the meat after it had hung on the arbor all those three days. That would have been sometime around 1920's, Barb's visit in the '30's. 

As for me, wild now means staying up for the late news.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

DKWunlimited said:


> And that is your right. Some people like to choose where they spend their money bases on other demographics. My friend from ElSavador always checks the Hispanic chamber website before she goes shopping, she prefers to support hispanic run businesses. My family member prefers to support friends in the gay community. I will drive a few extra miles to support single mom businesses because I want to help them succeed.


Interesting people patronize those who they like.

So a Christian Baker while not operating a Christian bakery might be patronized by other christians?

And a gay Baker while not operating a gay bakery might be patronized by people who like the work of gay bakers? 
Does that give each of them an incentive to let their preferences be known ?
And perhaps to stand up for those preferences?

Do you suppose that anyone has ever operated a gay or Christian or Hungarian or mother’s business without being one of those things simply to draw clientele?


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

I would suppose a really Christian bakery would have something hanging on the wall to show their devotion, same as Hungarian or Hungarian jew, or gay or the pink ladies, or the red hats, ect. Shriners included.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

FBB why would you think such a thing ?
The churches I’ve been to would never do such a thing fearing it ventures to close to idolatry.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

The Autism spectrum is broad. Ashburgers Syndrome is in there, too. Many highly successful people are in that syndrome. Seldon Cooper, in the TV show Big Bang depicts the traits of Ashburgers.

Foolish to say Amish are good carpenters. They are individuals. We tend to judge a group by the members of those groups that we have met.
I worked in a factory with a transgender guy. He was always after me for sex. My mistake was to be accepting of his differences and that seemed to act as encouragement.
We do tend to draw towards people like us. In regards to the baker, let's turn it around a bit.

Let's say I'm running a Bakery across town from the Bakery that refuses to cater to a gay wedding. As a businessman, I post a sign in the window, " Gay Friendly". I get all the customers that like my glazed donuts and the gays in the community frequent my Bakery. I show no bias and refuse to see people as gay or straight. My business grows.

But then a gay baker opens a bakery. Will my gay customers buy from me or do they go to the other bakery to support the gay baker? Isn't that the same type of unfair bias we are critical of? I lose business because I'm not gay. Is that fair?

How is it fair that straight, white males are evil if they focus their friends and purchases based on their sexual orientation, color and gender, while gays, Blacks and women can have their committees, parades, magazines and universities?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> The Autism spectrum is broad. Ashburgers Syndrome is in there, too. Many highly successful people are in that syndrome. Seldon Cooper, in the TV show Big Bang depicts the traits of Ashburgers.
> 
> Foolish to say Amish are good carpenters. They are individuals. We tend to judge a group by the members of those groups that we have met.
> I worked in a factory with a transgender guy. He was always after me for sex. My mistake was to be accepting of his differences and that seemed to act as encouragement.
> ...


I don’t believe anyone here has stated that straight white males are evil for using whatever criteria they wish to inform their purchases. It’s perfectly legitimate behavior, no matter who you are. We’re talking about businesses using those prejudices to exclude people not people using their prejudices to exclude themselves from businesses. 

Businesses have the choice to operate in ways that allow them to freely and openly exclude whomever they wish. If they wish to do so they should. What they shouldn’t do is to pretend to welcome everyone in when they don’t.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> We’re talking about businesses using those prejudices to exclude people not people using their prejudices to exclude themselves from businesses.


Not sure If I'm fully understanding your position.
You think it is wrong for a baker to refuse to bake a wedding cake because it goes against his beliefs about getting into heaven. Even when he sells donuts, breads and even cakes to gay customers without reserve. He should be more accepting of others, without showing absolutely any preferences or predigests. Right?
But for the entire gay community in a town to avoid a Bakery, that openly promotes a gay friendly atmosphere, so they can shop at a gay owned business, showing a clear pro-gay bias or to put it another way a anti- straight bias is fine? 
If the reduction in business from former gay customers results in a business failure, isn't their gay bias a prejudice? Is it your position that customers can exhibit prejudices, but businesses cannot?
This is just hypothetical.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> Not sure If I'm fully understanding your position.
> You think it is wrong for a baker to refuse to bake a wedding cake because it goes against his beliefs about getting into heaven. Even when he sells donuts, breads and even cakes to gay customers without reserve. He should be more accepting of others, without showing absolutely any preferences or predigests. Right?
> But for the entire gay community in a town to avoid a Bakery, that openly promotes a gay friendly atmosphere, so they can shop at a gay owned business, showing a clear pro-gay bias or to put it another way a anti- straight bias is fine?
> If the reduction in business from former gay customers results in a business failure, isn't their gay bias a prejudice? Is it your position that customers can exhibit prejudices, but businesses cannot?
> This is just hypothetical.


No, I don’t think it’s wrong for the baker to refuse to sell a cake for any purpose. I do think it’s wrong for a baker to advertise cakes he has no intention of selling. Don’t want to bake cakes for same sex weddings then set your business up in a way you do not have to. He advertised wedding cakes for sale and then refused to sell one. That, in my opinion, is false advertising and fraud.

It’s a totally different thing from customers deciding where they will spend their money. When the customer makes a promise to the store they should honor that promise and can often be held legally to do so. Unless all those errant customers in your hypothetical had entered into such agreements with the first bakery they are free to take their business to any bakery they wish in the future. The situations you describe are no where near analogous.


----------



## shea (May 23, 2017)

AmericanStand said:


> Interesting people patronize those who they like.
> 
> So a Christian Baker while not operating a Christian bakery might be patronized by other christians?
> 
> ...


I shop and shop and buy, where I get the best value for my money -ONE Christian.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

IF YOULL NOTICE, I said Christian BAKERY, NOT A CHURCH.
My former Ins agent had religious stuff on her desk. A Tulsa heat and Air ad on TV says, (What we need is Jesus) in a circle around their companys name.


----------



## DKWunlimited (Sep 11, 2006)

FarmboyBill said:


> IF YOULL NOTICE, I said Christian BAKERY, NOT A CHURCH.
> My former Ins agent had religious stuff on her desk. A Tulsa heat and Air ad on TV says, (What we need is Jesus) in a circle around their companys name.


Many of the businesses around here do the same, a cross or fish on thier signs and business cards.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

IF I saw a sign that said, GAY FRIENDLY, I wouldnt shop there.
Id worry
What if my family caught me there when there were other bakerys in town
What would my church think
Guys at the feed mill.
Other gays.
Guys where I worked, ect.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Is this like ordering a pork chop at a Jewish or Muslim eatery and being unhappy at the response?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

FarmboyBill said:


> IF I saw a sign that said, GAY FRIENDLY, I wouldnt shop there.
> Id worry
> What if my family caught me there when there were other bakerys in town
> What would my church think
> ...


Given your ongoing financial difficulties I’d guess most of them would think “What’s Bill doing wasting his money on baked goods?” or “Dang, if Bill’s spending his money there they must have some darned good crullers.”

More importantly, why should you care?


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

What do you mean, WHY SHOULD I CARE?????????????????????????????????????

NOBODY KNOW OF MY FINANCIAL PROBLEMS, CEPT u GUYS AND MY dd AND ds AND x


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

FarmboyBill said:


> What do you mean, WHY SHOULD I CARE?????????????????????????????????????
> 
> NOBODY KNOW OF MY FINANCIAL PROBLEMS, CEPT u GUYS AND MY dd AND ds AND x


You specifically mentioned your family. 

What concern is it if anybody else where you buy your donuts?


----------



## DKWunlimited (Sep 11, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Given your ongoing financial difficulties I’d guess most of them would think “What’s Bill doing wasting his money on baked goods?” or “Dang, if Bill’s spending his money there they must have some darned good crullers.”
> 
> More importantly, why should you care?


WOW, That was an ugly personal attack.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DKWunlimited said:


> WOW, That was an ugly personal attack.


What attack? Bill has openly discussed his financial difficulties here. I would think those would both be legitimate thoughts by anyone who has read his posts telling us why he might have to step away from this forum or his struggles to pay for other things. If he’s using his precious funds to buy bakery I hope he’s spending it on the best bakery.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

CajunSunshine said:


> RE:
> 
> 
> mmoetc, please re-read FBB's post. No one is actually buying anything, nor is he even _considering_ buying anything. It is all hypothetical.
> ...


No, I read Bill’s post numerous times before responding. Bill offered a hypothetical question about how his family and others might react if he were to frequent a “gay friendly” bakery. I offered hypothetical answers based, in part, on Bill’s own description of his circumstances. 

I hold no animus towards Bill though I find some of his attitudes distasteful. My comments were in no way meant as a personal attack. I am still curious about why he might care what others think about where he buys his donuts.


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

Maybe for the same reason a devout churchgoer may not want to be seen going into a biker bar? As in being the last place on earth anyone would expect to see them? As in totally out of character, etc.

.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> No, I read Bill’s post numerous times before responding. Bill offered a hypothetical question about how his family and others might react if he were to frequent a “gay friendly” bakery. I offered hypothetical answers based, in part, on Bill’s own description of his circumstances.
> 
> I hold no animus towards Bill though I find some of his attitudes distasteful. My comments were in no way meant as a personal attack. I am still curious about why he might care what others think about where he buys his donuts.


Interesting. I know (of) a guy in Nebraska that lives near a small town, operates a good size farm. He drinks 3 or 4 gallons of milk each week, but he buys it at different places because he doesn't want people to know how much milk he drinks. Sounds like some folk care what others might think than I do. Seems odd to me.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

CajunSunshine said:


> Maybe for the same reason a devout churchgoer may not want to be seen going into a biker bar? As in being the last place on earth anyone would expect to see them? As in totally out of character, etc.
> 
> .


Reminds me of the story about an old guy wanted to become a member of a local church. An outspoken spinster spoke up that they didn't want any drunks as members of their church, "I see his truck at the Tavern every Saturday night".
So when the bar closed the following Saturday night, he parked his truck in front of her house and walked home.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

CajunSunshine said:


> Maybe for the same reason a devout churchgoer may not want to be seen going into a biker bar? As in being the last place on earth anyone would expect to see them? As in totally out of character, etc.
> 
> .


Perhaps.

It does seem limiting to base one’s enjoyment of life, and baked goods, on what others think about your presence in a specific establishment.

I’ve met some of the most interesting and worthwhile people in some of the most “interesting” places.


----------



## frogmammy (Dec 8, 2004)

A sign saying "gay friendly" does not necessarily mean that the owner is gay, only that a gay customer won't have anyone refusing to serve them, won't be ridiculed, or treated in an aggressive manner, or as a second class citizen.

Mon


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

frogmammy said:


> A sign saying "gay friendly" does not necessarily mean that the owner is gay, only that a gay customer won't have anyone refusing to serve them, won't be ridiculed, or treated in an aggressive manner, or as a second class citizen.
> 
> Mon


Sort of like “pet friendly” doesn’t mean everyone inside is a pet?


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

DKWunlimited said:


> WOW, That was an ugly personal attack.


Did you read what Bill posted? Thats about as ugly as it gets


----------



## DKWunlimited (Sep 11, 2006)

coolrunnin said:


> Did you read what Bill posted? Thats about as ugly as it gets


Did you see Bill take anyones personal information and use it to attack them? All he has posted are thoughts and ponderings, not directed at any individual in this group.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DKWunlimited said:


> Did you see Bill take anyones personal information and use it to attack them? All he has posted are thoughts and ponderings, not directed at any individual in this group.


Again, where did I attack him? I offered answers to his question. If one doesn’t expect answers one shouldn’t ask questions. If one doesn’t want personal information about themselves to inform those answers one shouldn’t post that personal information.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

Mmnmnm I mentioned my family and you guys, as the only ones who know about mu financial problems.
If you cant understand why it would concern me that people who knew me saw me go into a bakery or any other institution that the town knew had a sign hung up in the front window gay friendly, then I don't know how to answer you.
It IS limiting, BUT, it is what it is. Example, The law says that women cannot go out in public topless, which limits my education, in that area, BUTT, it is what it is lol.
As ive said before, ive been in biker bars, country bars, straight bars, Mexican bars, gay bars and gay ladies bars, HOWS THAT JAY LOL, and ive NEVER met anyone interesting. COURSE, I don't try to strike up conversations at those places.
#1 it aint particulary healthy to do so
#2 I cant hear anything but the noise unless one sticks their mouth 1/2 way down my ear lol.
I KNOW , in my own mind, that NOBODY in those places are going to want to talk about anything that im interested in hearing.

I did not intend to offend ANYBODY, personally. I was just stating my personal preferances in the other posting.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

FarmboyBill said:


> Mmnmnm I mentioned my family and you guys, as the only ones who know about mu financial problems.
> If you cant understand why it would concern me that people who knew me saw me go into a bakery or any other institution that the town knew had a sign hung up in the front window gay friendly, then I don't know how to answer you.
> It IS limiting, BUT, it is what it is. Example, The law says that women cannot go out in public topless, which limits my education, in that area, BUTT, it is what it is lol.
> As ive said before, ive been in biker bars, country bars, straight bars, Mexican bars, gay bars and gay ladies bars, HOWS THAT JAY LOL, and ive NEVER met anyone interesting. COURSE, I don't try to strike up conversations at those places.
> ...


And, as I pointed out before, you also mentioned your family as those who might judge you in some way for being seen in a “gay friendly” bakery. So people who would know your financial concerns might well answer as I suggested. I have my own theories as to why you said what you said but I’ll not presume. I’m sure you could explain it if you wished but I’ll not belabor the point. 

I’m not offended by the positions you’ve taken. I do find those positions disagreeable. They’re your feelings and your positions and as long as you don’t try to impose them on me we’ll get along just fine. I’ll never make you buy a donut from a gay baker. No matter how good they are.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

Same goes here lol


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Hiro said:


> Is this like ordering a pork chop at a Jewish or Muslim eatery and being unhappy at the response?


Not at all.


----------



## Nsoitgoes (Jan 31, 2016)

Hiro said:


> Is this like ordering a pork chop at a Jewish or Muslim eatery and being unhappy at the response?


A Jewish or Muslim eatery will not be selling pork to anyone, regardless of the prospective purchaser's race, religion, gender or orientation. If they don't stock, offer or sell an item to anyone then they are not discriminating.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

FarmboyBill said:


> As ive said before, ive been in biker bars, country bars, straight bars, Mexican bars, gay bars and gay ladies bars, HOWS THAT JAY LOL, and ive NEVER met anyone interesting. COURSE, I don't try to strike up conversations at those places.
> 
> I KNOW , in my own mind, that NOBODY in those places are going to want to talk about anything that im interested in hearing.
> .


Oh Bill you have missed out on so much! I’ve been and all those places in more besides I’ve always found interesting conversations and weirdly enough I’ve always found myself welcomed in those places because I thought the conversations were interesting !
At least I think that’s why I was welcome.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

As to my not buying a cake at a bakery that had a sign that read Gay Friendly,
I would NOT, being a NE native Kansas Yanker, also not buy from a business that had a reb flag flying inside.
Nor from one that had a swatska, or say a big pic of the grand lizard with all his craven lol.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

I wouldn't hold, or think a thing about the people running those businesses, as, has been said, its their business, and if they are succeeding, then its cause many others do not have the same thoughts or feelings as I, and that's fine.
I WOULD do business with businesses that had NO indication of ANY affliation with any organization of any kind, OR ne with religious stuff out and about. I don't care for religion, but at least it points kinda to what I do care about.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Nsoitgoes said:


> A Jewish or Muslim eatery will not be selling pork to anyone, regardless of the prospective purchaser's race, religion, gender or orientation. If they don't stock, offer or sell an item to anyone then they are not discriminating.


That is my point. I don't think the bakers were offering wedding cakes to any same sex couple, they didn't stock it, offer it or sell them to anyone. I suspect these bakers would have been more than happy to make them a pie or a cupcake. I have no idea how this case will resolve itself, but I really don't think it is about discrimination or a wedding cake. If I were refused service for a reason that I felt discriminatory, a lawsuit wouldn't be my foremost concern. It would be procuring the service that I was denied by seeking another provider. But, I am weird like that.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Hiro said:


> That is my point. I don't think the bakers were offering wedding cakes to any same sex couple, they didn't stock it, offer it or sell them to anyone. I suspect these bakers would have been more than happy to make them a pie or a cupcake. I have no idea how this case will resolve itself, but I really don't think it is about discrimination or a wedding cake. If I were refused service for a reason that I felt discriminatory, a lawsuit wouldn't be my foremost concern. It would be procuring the service that I was denied by seeking another provider. But, I am weird like that.


The baker was selling wedding cakes. Including wedding cakes for dogs. Since no one else has answered maybe you can. What’s the difference between one three tier cake covered in fondant and buttercream flowers and another? What makes one cake a gay cake? Same ingredients, same cake pans, same ovens, same cake.

You’re free to react to discrimination in any way you please. That doesn’t mean everyone has to react the same way. And, to be clear, the couple in question filed no lawsuit nor sought any damages from the baker.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

FarmboyBill said:


> I wouldn't hold, or think a thing about the people running those businesses, as, has been said, its their business, and if they are succeeding, then its cause many others do not have the same thoughts or feelings as I, and that's fine.
> I WOULD do business with businesses that had NO indication of ANY affliation with any organization of any kind, OR ne with religious stuff out and about. I don't care for religion, but at least it points kinda to what I do care about.


I attended a very nice wedding last summer for two great friends of mine. Both men stood at the alter of the Christian church they attend on a weekly basis and were married by the minister who preached in the pulpit each week. The cross in the background of their wedding photos probably looks a lot like the ones you say would indicate a business shares your views. 

All other things being equal I’ll give my business to those who include people, not those who try to exclude them.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

mmoetc said:


> The baker was selling wedding cakes. Including wedding cakes for dogs. Since no one else has answered maybe you can. What’s the difference between one three tier cake covered in fondant and buttercream flowers and another? What makes one cake a gay cake? Same ingredients, same cake pans, same ovens, same cake.
> 
> You’re free to react to discrimination in any way you please. That doesn’t mean everyone has to react the same way. And, to be clear, the couple in question filed no lawsuit nor sought any damages from the baker.


So, if Mary and John walked into this bakery and asked for a same sex wedding cake, they would have made it. But, if Mary and Mary walked in, they woudn't have? You can't force someone to serve you something or make you something that they wouldn't make for anyone.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Hiro said:


> So, if Mary and John walked into this bakery and asked for a same sex wedding cake, they would have made it. But, if Mary and Mary walked in, they woudn't have? You can't force someone to serve you something or make you something that they wouldn't make for anyone.


If Mary and John had walked in and asked for a wedding cake they would have been sold one. The couple denied asked for a wedding cake and weren’t. They asked for the same thing.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

mmoetc said:


> If Mary and John had walked in and asked for a wedding cake they would have been sold one. The couple denied asked for a wedding cake and weren’t. They asked for the same thing.


I can't speak for the baker. But, I suspect if Mary and John had walked in and asked for a same sex wedding cake, he wouldn't have made it for them either. You are not obtuse and are either ignoring my point or not addressing it effectively. No doubt you'll attempt some analogy that isn't relevant next........

I am curious what sort of economic damages this same sex couple suffered that would lead to an actionable lawsuit. Granted, I don't live in Colorado. But, the states that I have been involved in litigation that was the primary issue. Did they cancel their wedding? Were they unable without undue complications find a baker that made them a cake? Or was this to cause division among citizens that really couldn't care less about their wedding or sexual orientation and wish them happiness in this world? I imagine you can guess what I believe on the subject.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Hiro said:


> I can't speak for the baker. But, I suspect if Mary and John had walked in and asked for a same sex wedding cake, he wouldn't have made it for them either. You are not obtuse and are either ignoring my point or not addressing it effectively. No doubt you'll attempt some analogy that isn't relevant next........
> 
> I am curious what sort of economic damages this same sex couple suffered that would lead to an actionable lawsuit. Granted, I don't live in Colorado. But, the states that I have been involved in litigation that was the primary issue. Did they cancel their wedding? Were they unable without undue complications find a baker that made them a cake? Or was this to cause division among citizens that really couldn't care less about their wedding or sexual orientation and wish them happiness in this world? I imagine you can guess what I believe on the subject.


I’m not obtuse at all. But you haven’t yet told me what makes one cake different than another? Since no design was discussed for the cake there’s no indication it wouldn’t have been exactly the same cake Mary and John would have asked for.

There are no “same sex” weddings. Legally, there are only weddings with the exact same liscensing requirements and the exact same paperwork.

Again, the couple filed no lawsuit nor sought any damages. They filed a complaint with the exact same commission you could use in Colorado were you to be denied service based on your sex, race, national origin or religion. You’re free to believe whatever you wish. But your believing it doesn’t make it so.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

I stated that you weren't obtuse, so I am not sure who you are trying to convince by claiming you aren't. 

If there are no "same sex" wedding cakes, what is the issue over? Is it a cake celebrating something the baker doesn't morally agree with? Can you force a Palestinian baker to make a cake celebrating the anniversary of the modern Israeli state? Can you force a New Yorker to make a cake celebrating the 9/11 attacks? I am not equivocating any of these to same sex marriage on a moral level, by any means, it is just a terribly dangerous road you are parading down to force any private citizen to cater to whatever is demanded of them. My recollection of Public Accommodation non-discrimination laws was only service at their place of business was actionable. Are you going to make, by force of action of a State Commission, a vegan bakery staffed by muslim employees cater a hog slaughter?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Hiro said:


> I stated that you weren't obtuse, so I am not sure who you are trying to convince by claiming you aren't.
> 
> If there are no "same sex" wedding cakes, what is the issue over? Is it a cake celebrating something the baker doesn't morally agree with? Can you force a Palestinian baker to make a cake celebrating the anniversary of the modern Israeli state? Can you force a New Yorker to make a cake celebrating the 9/11 attacks? I am not equivocating any of these to same sex marriage on a moral level, by any means, it is just a terribly dangerous road you are parading down to force any private citizen to cater to whatever is demanded of them. My recollection of Public Accommodation non-discrimination laws was only service at their place of business was actionable. Are you going to make, by force of action of a State Commission, a vegan bakery staffed by muslim employees cater a hog slaughter?


If the baker morally disagrees with legal weddings he shouldn’t make cakes for them. All of your examples require a baker to make something he normally wouldn’t. He normally makes wedding cakes. What makes this cake different? It’s just another wedding cake. No specific design was discussed so any assumptions that it might have been different in any way from the cake he made for two dogs are pure speculation. 

I don’t expect anyone to make or provide anything demanded of them. I do expect them to comply with laws that require them to provide the exact same thing to you or me. Service at the bakery was the issue. He refused service to this couple because they were gay in violation of local statutes. Why would I expect the vegan Muslim to act outside their normal business practice? Would you allow the Muslim baker to deny a cake to the Christian couple? 

To be clear, I see two ways to resolve this. One is to allow any business to discriminate at any time for any reason. This would remove such protections for sex, race, age, National origin and religion. The other would be to extend such protections to everyone regardless of those categories. The question, to me, is why any group should be provided protections another group isn’t?


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

mmoetc said:


> If the baker morally disagrees with legal weddings he shouldn’t make cakes for them. All of your examples require a baker to make something he normally wouldn’t. He normally makes wedding cakes. What makes this cake different? It’s just another wedding cake. No specific design was discussed so any assumptions that it might have been different in any way from the cake he made for two dogs are pure speculation.
> 
> I don’t expect anyone to make or provide anything demanded of them. I do expect them to comply with laws that require them to provide the exact same thing to you or me. Service at the bakery was the issue. He refused service to this couple because they were gay in violation of local statutes. Why would I expect the vegan Muslim to act outside their normal business practice? Would you allow the Muslim baker to deny a cake to the Christian couple?
> 
> To be clear, I see two ways to resolve this. One is to allow any business to discriminate at any time for any reason. This would remove such protections for sex, race, age, National origin and religion. The other would be to extend such protections to everyone regardless of those categories. *The question, to me, is why any group should be provided protections another group isn’t?*


That is my question as well.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Hiro said:


> That is my question as well.


But the couple in question wasn’t asking for protections above or beyond those of the other protected classes. They were just asking for the same protections.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

No I wouldn't hold it against a muslim baker to not make a cake for a Christian wedding.

AND
Yes, the cross in the church, a Christian church is the same as one I mentioned MIGHT be in a Christian bakery. IF YOUL NOTICE< I said that I didn't have much use for religion per se


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

FarmboyBill said:


> No I wouldn't hold it against a muslim baker to not make a cake for a Christian wedding.
> 
> AND
> Yes, the cross in the church, a Christian church is the same as one I mentioned MIGHT be in a Christian bakery. IF YOUL NOTICE< I said that I didn't have much use for religion per se


Yes, I noticed what you said. You’ve also said you’d do business with those displaying such symbols because you’d presume they shared your values. I simply pointed out that those symbols might not mean what you think.

I appreciate your answer but why should the Muslim baker’s religous right be more important than the Christian couple’s religous right?


----------



## shea (May 23, 2017)

FarmboyBill said:


> IF I saw a sign that said, GAY FRIENDLY, I wouldnt shop there.
> Id worry
> What if my family caught me there when there were other bakerys in town
> What would my church think
> ...


Haha, true 

All things being equal --they are not always. Christian, gay, atheist, when I hire someone to paint my house, will they actually do a good/great job? Some people with the fish will, and some won't...


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> The baker was selling wedding cakes. Including wedding cakes for dogs. Since no one else has answered maybe you can. What’s the difference between one three tier cake covered in fondant and buttercream flowers and another? What makes one cake a gay cake? Same ingredients, same cake pans, same ovens, same cake.
> .


 Lol but that’s not what happened they didn’t try to buy a cake. 
They tried to commission art. 
Now I see the art in any cake but they wanted more they want the baker to create something just for them. 

That’s important.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol but that’s not what happened they didn’t try to buy a cake.
> They tried to commission art.
> Now I see the art in any cake but they wanted more they want the baker to create something just for them.
> 
> That’s important.


No, that’s exactly what happened. The couple walked in to purchase a cake to celebrate their legal marriage. Before any discussion of design happened they were told they wouldn’t be sold any cake for that celebration. That information, including the bakers own words, have been posted numerous times and it would be appreciated by me if you wouldn’t try to distort the facts to suit your narrative.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> If the baker morally disagrees with legal weddings he shouldn’t make cakes for them. All of your examples require a baker to make something he normally wouldn’t. He normally makes wedding cakes. What makes this cake different? It’s just another wedding cake. No specific design was discussed so any assumptions that it might have been different in any way from the cake he made for two dogs are pure speculation.


The key question here , the key to all of this is what makes this cake different?
The first thing that makes this cake different is it was to be commissioned ,in other words it was supposed to be specifically created for the Couple in question. So no the cake he created for dogs could not have met the requirements 
In fact I have been given to understand that this Baker does not create generic wedding cakes, but that’s a moot point since this Couple specifically asked him to create a cake for them. The act of specifically creating something is an expression of your view on the subject.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> The key question there any keyed all of this is what makes this cake different?
> the first thing that makes this cake different is it was to be commissioned ,in other words it was supposed to be specifically created for the Couple in question. So no the cake he created for dogs could not have met the requirements
> In fact I have been given to understand that this Baker does not create generic wedding cakes, but that’s a moot point since this Couple specifically asked him to create a cake for them. The act of specifically creating something is an expression of your view on the subject.


Again, you don’t know, and neither did the baker know, what would have sufficed for this couple since such discussion never occurred. The baker was quite clear that no cake from his shop, be it custom creation or sheet cake from the cooker, would be sold for use by this couple to celebrate their legal marriage.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

In the interviews with the baker that I have seen he says they specifically asked him to make them a wedding cake.
That is commissioning a work of art


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

If they had just walked in and bought a cake he would’ve never known what it was going to be used for.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> In the interviews with the baker that I have seen he says they specifically asked him to make them a wedding cake.
> That is commissioning a work of art


Yes they did. But no design for such a cake was ever discussed so there is no way of knowing if the “commission” would have been for an original design or identical to the dog cake. A print of a painting isn’t original art. And in those same interviews the baker stated he would sell no cake to the couple for their celebration. Is every sheet cake waiting in the cooler a commissioned work of art?


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

Shea (when I hire someone to paint my house, some with a fish will, some wont.
IVE NEVER seen a good paint job done by using a fish.) What kind was it LOL


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

mm A muslim baker believes in God and in the books wrote by Moses. So does a Christian.
Gay people, who don't ask for forgivness for that particular sin DONT...........
I BELIEVE
Gay people CAN be forgivin for that sin, IF there truly repentant of it, EVEN IF they are forced by Satan and their weak will to continue it. Most sins aren't ended overnight by one quick prayer. OR a thousand lol. Its a work in progress


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

FarmboyBill said:


> mm A muslim baker believes in God and in the books wrote by Moses. So does a Christian.
> Gay people, who don't ask for forgivness for that particular sin DONT...........
> I BELIEVE
> Gay people CAN be forgivin for that sin, IF there truly repentant of it, EVEN IF they are forced by Satan and their weak will to continue it. Most sins aren't ended overnight by one quick prayer. OR a thousand lol. Its a work in progress


As I pointed out earlier I attended a wedding between two men in a Christian Church officiated by a Christian pastor. Because you believe what they do is sinful doesn’t mean everyone, including every Christian believes the same. It’s difficult for me, and many others, to see love between consenting adults as a sin.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> If they had just walked in and bought a cake he would’ve never known what it was going to be used for.


And if he had just sold them a wedding cake as his signs and advertisements promised he would we wouldn’t be having this discussion. He’s the one who violated the law and broke his word.


----------



## DKWunlimited (Sep 11, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> And if he had just sold them a wedding cake as his signs and advertisements promised he would we wouldn’t be having this discussion. He’s the one who violated the law and broke his word.



Hmm, keep your word to man, or keep your promise to God. Not a tough decision. We can love indiduals without accepting their sin.


----------



## LAFarm (Mar 8, 2015)

FarmboyBill said:


> mm A muslim baker believes in God and in the books wrote by Moses. So does a Christian.
> Gay people, who don't ask for forgivness for that particular sin DONT...........
> I BELIEVE
> Gay people CAN be forgivin for that sin, IF there truly repentant of it, EVEN IF they are forced by Satan and their weak will to continue it. Most sins aren't ended overnight by one quick prayer. OR a thousand lol. Its a work in progress


So, if I run a stop sign, fail to use my blinker on a lane change, do not go to church or break a couple of the ten commandments, do those sins keep me from being able to buy a cake from this guy? Or does he only select certain sins as deserving his condemnation? Shouldn't there be some type of bar or standard when someone elects to use 'sin' as a justification to reject a paying customer? People as recent as the 1950's used scripture to justify refusing to allow black people - who god supposedly cursed in the old testament - to eat in restaurants, attend schools, buy houses or even walk down the sidewalk in some areas. Why can't we acknowledge that a bigot is a bigot, a racist is a racist and a homophobe is a homophobe instead of trying to whitewash and defend their twisted opinions by calling it 'moral values'? Heck, the moralists support alleged child molesters for political office! Now that should really be one for the Ripley's Believe it or Not record book.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

DKWunlimited said:


> Hmm, keep your word to man, or keep your promise to God. Not a tough decision. We can love indiduals without accepting their sin.


I’m not a biblical scholar but as I remember your god spoke poorly of those who lied and deceived others. I don’t remember any scriptures about baking cakes. 

And you can serve those who walk into your store without accepting their sins. Unless the baker gave every couple who entered looking for a cake a morality test, and there’s no indication he did, he likely rewarded a lot of sinners with pretty cakes.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

Your right Deb, and to an extent so are you LA. Sin is a sin that is a sin. There all the same, EXCEPT, the Bible seperates gayness from ALL other sins OTHER than using Gods name in vain. Those 2 are the worst.
The fact that the baker rejected the job of making the cake cause of that reason, ie, the customers were gay, shows that he realized that gayness is a cut above almost all other sins.
Myself, I can like and respect the gay person IF I know that he hates that sin within him, and continues to seek to have God remove it from him.
I can tolerate all other gay people who revel in their lifestyle. That's how it is with me.
I can respect all others who disagree with my thoughts on the subject, AS FAR, as it only goes to my thoughts on the subject. Elsewise, I may hold my respect, and slide into toleration lol.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

FarmboyBill said:


> Your right Deb, and to an extent so are you LA. Sin is a sin that is a sin. There all the same, EXCEPT, the Bible seperates gayness from ALL other sins OTHER than using Gods name in vain. Those 2 are the worst.
> The fact that the baker rejected the job of making the cake cause of that reason, ie, the customers were gay, shows that he realized that gayness is a cut above almost all other sins.
> Myself, I can like and respect the gay person IF I know that he hates that sin within him, and continues to seek to have God remove it from him.
> I can tolerate all other gay people who revel in their lifestyle. That's how it is with me.
> I can respect all others who disagree with my thoughts on the subject, AS FAR, as it only goes to my thoughts on the subject. Elsewise, I may hold my respect, and slide into toleration lol.


And yet God was there when my gay friends got married. Or so I was told.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

Being gay is neither a sin, nor a choice. Some people are gay, it's in their DNA. Some people are black, some people are redheads. Good lord, they're all people. What is wrong with them living their own life? They ain't coming to get you and make you gay, they're just people.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

FarmboyBill said:


> There all the same, EXCEPT, the Bible seperates gayness from ALL other sins OTHER than using Gods name in vain. Those 2 are the worst.


I disagree. Being gay did not make the 10 commandments, while not taking the Lord's name in vain did.

At any rate, being gay seems to run in some families, which would make it hereditary, in spite of what the ancient preachers said.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

FarmboyBill said:


> Your right Deb, and to an extent so are you LA. Sin is a sin that is a sin. There all the same, EXCEPT, the Bible seperates gayness from ALL other sins OTHER than using Gods name in vain. Those 2 are the worst.
> The fact that the baker rejected the job of making the cake cause of that reason, ie, the customers were gay, shows that he realized that gayness is a cut above almost all other sins.
> Myself, I can like and respect the gay person IF I know that he hates that sin within him, and continues to seek to have God remove it from him.
> I can tolerate all other gay people who revel in their lifestyle. That's how it is with me.
> I can respect all others who disagree with my thoughts on the subject, AS FAR, as it only goes to my thoughts on the subject. Elsewise, I may hold my respect, and slide into toleration lol.


How do you know what's in someone else's heart and is it your place to judge or your creator and is it right to judge someone by a small portion of their life or simply because you assume they're gay?

A minor few of one woman's accomplishments are, making sure her eldery neighbour has nourishing meals daily (even though her own budged doesn't support feeding another), reads to shut ins and takes veterans to Memorial Day ceremonies and out for coffee, and mentors at risk teens (all who's families seem to have forgotten them) and when she was 20, she raised just over $25,000.00 to cover funeral costs of two friends who died in a tragic house fire. 

It's interesting to me that you seem to know what's in my daughter's heart, define her by one small facet and scorn her by calling her a [exceeds HT limits]. In spite of your unkindness she would be of the very first people to come to your assistance if you were in need. I know this because a woman struck her with an umbrella on the street, called her an abomination as well as the condescending names like you prefer and when that woman was injured when she slipped on ice, my daughter provided first aid, called an ambulance, remained with her until the ambulance arrived and checked on the woman in hospital. 

Since you're claiming moral superiority over this woman, please feel free to share Christian like acts you've performed for people around you in the last few years.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

I’ll just take a moment to mention the two men I keep speaking of will be among the band of mysterious elves delivering surprise boxes of food and gifts to folks around the county this week. A motley crewe they’ve joined but their contributions have been welcomed with arms as open as their hearts.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

I don't know what is in peoples hearts. I only know what one MIGHT say to me. IF someone dosnt care to say anything about their life to me, then I remain blissfully ignorant.
Your right Terri. Jesus says nothing about gayness in the 10 commandments. Only God through Moses does.
Jesus DOES say, that a man and a woman will become one, and separate from their parents.
WHY IS IT , wr, clem mm
That you SEEM to condem me for my thoughts, when I have NOT condemed you for yours???? I respect you all as people even with your thoughts. Why are you trying to change mine? Im NOT trying to change yours.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

Because you are publicly prejudicial against some of God's children.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

FarmboyBill said:


> I don't know what is in peoples hearts. I only know what one MIGHT say to me. IF someone dosnt care to say anything about their life to me, then I remain blissfully ignorant.
> Your right Terri. Jesus says nothing about gayness in the 10 commandments. Only God through Moses does.
> Jesus DOES say, that a man and a woman will become one, and separate from their parents.
> WHY IS IT , wr, clem mm
> That you SEEM to condem me for my thoughts, when I have NOT condemed you for yours???? I respect you all as people even with your thoughts. Why are you trying to change mine? Im NOT trying to change yours.


Bill, show where I’ve condemned you or your thoughts. I have, and will challenge them. No one’s thoughts or beliefs should be beyond challenge. If they are just and true they’ll hold up. If not they’re not worth holding. Only you can decide that for yourself. 

But you are guilty of what you complain about. You have condemned others simply for who they love. And I’ll always criticize that kind of behavior.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

FarmboyBill said:


> I don't know what is in peoples hearts. I only know what one MIGHT say to me. IF someone dosnt care to say anything about their life to me, then I remain blissfully ignorant.
> Your right Terri. Jesus says nothing about gayness in the 10 commandments. Only God through Moses does.
> Jesus DOES say, that a man and a woman will become one, and separate from their parents.
> WHY IS IT , wr, clem mm
> That you SEEM to condem me for my thoughts, when I have NOT condemed you for yours???? I respect you all as people even with your thoughts. Why are you trying to change mine? Im NOT trying to change yours.


Why is in okay for you judge and degrade my daughter and many good people like her and expect no judgement in return?
I have little respect for anyone who speaks of another human being in a derogatry manner and I will work to educate people who fear gay people as you seem to. 

I'd also be interested in what you feel one of them MIGHT say to you? I'm pretty confident, my [Exceeds HT limits] (as you like to call them) would chat with you about tractors and livestock at the farm auction, tell you some funny stories about growing up on the ranch and leave you feeling like somebody cared. How does that make them bad people and how does chatting with a friendly person affect you in a negative way.


----------



## shea (May 23, 2017)

LAFarm said:


> So, if I run a stop sign, fail to use my blinker on a lane change, do not go to church or break a couple of the ten commandments, do those sins keep me from being able to buy a cake from this guy? Or does he only select certain sins as deserving his condemnation? Shouldn't there be some type of bar or standard when someone elects to use 'sin' as a justification to reject a paying customer? People as recent as the 1950's used scripture to justify refusing to allow black people - who god supposedly cursed in the old testament - to eat in restaurants, attend schools, buy houses or even walk down the sidewalk in some areas. Why can't we acknowledge that a bigot is a bigot, a racist is a racist and a homophobe is a homophobe instead of trying to whitewash and defend their twisted opinions by calling it 'moral values'? Heck, the moralists support alleged child molesters for political office! Now that should really be one for the Ripley's Believe it or Not record book.


The Moralist...Your blanket statements. 
Different churches are in different paradymes, the problem here is you apparently don't believe they are simply trying to do the right thing according to their conscience. 

Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." KJV. 

What you call love the bible calls an abomination.

Jus saying...
Now imagine having been taught this all your life...

I don't know how you can call them bigots, they don't hate gays, but do believe there sexual behavior is wrong..


----------



## newfieannie (Dec 24, 2006)

I have more gay friends than straight and if something were to happen and I had to choose I've no doubt whatsoever who I would choose. of the ones I know they are the kindest, most loving and giving people I have ever met. ~Georgia


----------



## shea (May 23, 2017)

newfieannie said:


> I have more gay friends than straight and if something were to happen and I had to choose I've no doubt whatsoever who I would choose. of the ones I know they are the kindest, most loving and giving people I have ever met. ~Georgia


My personal position, is not to have "favorites" but to have acceptance for everyone. Acceptance doesn't mean approval, it simply places intrinsic value were it belongs -on each human life, regardless of behavior good or "bad".


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

shea said:


> The Moralist...Your blanket statements.
> Different churches are in different paradymes, the problem here is you apparently don't believe they are simply trying to do the right thing according to their conscience.
> 
> Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." KJV.
> ...



Leviticus also says this-

Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of materials. 

Perhaps they should throw out all those cotton poly blend shirts. Or not sell cakes to those who wear them.

How about not turning to idols or making metal gods? 

Seems like that cross or fish hanging on the wall might send the wrong message.

I can go on, including the verses about not lying, deceiving or cheating one’s neighbor but you get the point. 

Everyone’s free to pick and choose their beliefs but to claim some special righteousness for using the ones that allow them to disadvantage others while ignoring the ones that might cause them disadvantage will get me to apply labels like bigot to them. Heck, feel free to call me a bigot. I’m bigotted against those who would use their religion as a bludgeon.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

mn As I cant find the post, and it dosnt seem to even appear, I retract my statement towards you, and apologize for it. I hope your not claiming im using some sort of special rightiousness in my beliefs. There my beliefs, and like shea says, I grew up with them.
mn Show me where im using religion as a club. Im stating a fact, as I see it. IF I were using a religion as a club, it would be to knock all those who didn't agree with me into line. Im not doing that.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

FarmboyBill said:


> mn As I cant find the post, and it dosnt seem to even appear, I retract my statement towards you, and apologize for it. I hope your not claiming im using some sort of special rightiousness in my beliefs. There my beliefs, and like shea says, I grew up with them.
> mn Show me where im using religion as a club. Im stating a fact, as I see it. IF I were using a religion as a club, it would be to knock all those who didn't agree with me into line. Im not doing that.


Bill, no apology neccessary. The only times I’ll request an apology are if someone attacks me personally or intentionally lies about what I’ve said. You’ve done neither. We’ve argued ideas and if I’ve overstepped you have my apology. Sometimes my style can be a bit brusque.

Your condemnation of gays based on who they love does seem, to me, to be claiming some special righteousness because you love differently and shows some bigotry. But I don’t know anyone, including me, who isn’t bigoted in some way. 

Your support of those who would use their beliefs to deny others things as simple as a cake does, to me, make you somewhat complicent in that bludgeoning. Stating that you wouldn’t feel comfortable frequenting a “gay friendly” business makes you further complicent in my eyes.

None of this, to me, makes you a bad or evil person. It makes you different from me and differences make the world go round.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

oneraddad said:


> I went to one of the pot dispensary in town and I also had a hard time telling if any of their baked goods were made by gays. There was an old lady with pink and gray hair and one young lady with a nose ring, are either of those things a sign ?
> 
> Can you guys look at my avatar photo and tell how I like my sex ?


The young one is a transgender. If she has a nose ring, she must think she is a bull!


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

mn It seems to me that your saying I need to change my attitude about gays, and buy there cakes, REGARDLESS of how that makes me feel. I suppose I can/could change my attitudes, but, theres the old saying, he who wont stand for something, will fall for anything.
I think that we BOTH are standing for something. I don't think either one of us is entirely right, and I don't see either one of us changing our attitudes or minds on the subject. Theres another saying that's old. Love conquers all. I don't think it conquers all. I think that love abides all.
BUTT
To take the conversations weve been having these merry 5 pages down another street.
Suppose, I like a receipt that I have for making a cake, that's different from one others have. Others swear by their cakes, as being the best. AND, with theirs being the best, mine must be bad.
I say that MINE comes from an OLD 1860 Fannie Farmer Cookbook, so it HAS to be the best. Others say that it dosnt matter where or what book I got my receipt out of they've tasted theirs and they KNOW that there the best.
I read them my receipt, and tell them to sift the flour. They read my THEIR receipt and tell me to areate the flour, and IF I don't areate my flour, my cake will taste like sift. lol. They refuse to eat my cake, and I likewise do the same.
Are we gonna starve? No, cause we will live of our own cakes.
Will we hate each other. No, cause, after all, its just a cake, and IF eating your/mine own cake dosnt kill me/us, it will make us stronger.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

FarmboyBill said:


> mn It seems to me that your saying I need to change my attitude about gays, and buy there cakes, REGARDLESS of how that makes me feel. I suppose I can/could change my attitudes, but, theres the old saying, he who wont stand for something, will fall for anything.
> I think that we BOTH are standing for something. I don't think either one of us is entirely right, and I don't see either one of us changing our attitudes or minds on the subject. Theres another saying that's old. Love conquers all. I don't think it conquers all. I think that love abides all.
> BUTT
> To take the conversations weve been having these merry 5 pages down another street.
> ...


No, I’m not asking you to change a thing. You’re free, in my eyes, to live by whatever standard you wish, denigrate whatever people you wish in forums like this and elsewhere, shop where you wish to shop and act in any bigotted way you wish in your private dealings. I’ll take every opportunity to tell you why I think such things are wrong and you can choose to listen and think about such things and maybe modify some of those stances or not. That choice is entirely up to you but I’ll never advocate for any law that requires you to think or act any way you don’t wish to.

As I’ve said before, if the baker doesn’t want to sell wedding cakes to gays he doesn’t have to. He can structure his business to allow himself to discriminate against any one he chooses. I will hold him to the same standards of service as any business open as a public accomodation on his street if he chooses to act as one.

You can enjoy whatever lousy cake you wish. But when I put my perfect cake in the window with a sign reading for sale to the public I won’t deny you’re part of the public for any reason.


----------



## shea (May 23, 2017)

mmoetc said:


> Leviticus also says this-
> 
> Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of materials.
> 
> ...


You are missing my point, or you maybe don't like it. It also says don't ratio your body...again THIS is not my point. I am simply attempting to call out the paradymes. There are 40,000 different protestant churches! All of which feel extremely confident they have the TRUTH. And yet you expect they should all be able to be more "reasonable" or better yet, see things your way? 

Or understand the bible your way?


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

shea said:


> You are missing my point, or you maybe don't like it. It also says don't ratio your body...again THIS is not my point. I am simply attempting to call out the paradymes. There are 40,000 different protestant churches! All of which feel extremely confident they have the TRUTH. And yet you expect they should all be able to be more "reasonable" or better yet, see things your way?
> 
> Or understand the bible your way?


Why are there 40,000 different protestant churches?

Could it possibly be because there are 40,000 different interpretations of the same words in the same book? But it appears you accept that as normal, but would deny anyone else their interpretation.

People should get to believe anything they care to, it's only when those beliefs cause harm to other people with different beliefs that government should step in.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

shea said:


> You are missing my point, or you maybe don't like it. It also says don't ratio your body...again THIS is not my point. I am simply attempting to call out the paradymes. There are 40,000 different protestant churches! All of which feel extremely confident they have the TRUTH. And yet you expect they should all be able to be more "reasonable" or better yet, see things your way?
> 
> Or understand the bible your way?


And I think you miss my point. I recognize all those differences. I recognize the differences in those beliefs and all the other belief systems in the world. I don’t question any of the believers their beliefs. They’re free to pick and choose as they see fit. I’ll point out what I see as the hypocrisy of those choices only to emphasis why no else but they should be forced to bow down to those beliefs. I don’t care what Bill or the baker choose to believe or what rules they choose to follow. I do care that if they invite me in with the promise that I might purchase something they don’t make that purchase dependent on me following their beliefs.


----------



## shea (May 23, 2017)

coolrunnin said:


> Why are there 40,000 different protestant churches?
> 
> Could it possibly be because there are 40,000 different interpretations of the same words in the same book? But it appears you accept that as normal, but would deny anyone else their interpretation.
> 
> People should get to believe anything they care to, it's only when those beliefs cause harm to other people with different beliefs that government should step in.


Whoa, hold on there. This is precisely what I am saying, we shouldn't expect, so many differing opinions, to come in line with our own, but lend tolerance. And I could not agree more, beliefs should NOT cause harm to others.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

So, it sounds like I actively denigerate people every chance I get, and am a bigot, AND, on top of that, I make a lousy cake lol.
I think I am biased towards some beliefs. We probably need to sift and areate out the words, to get down to basics


----------



## LAFarm (Mar 8, 2015)

shea said:


> The Moralist...Your blanket statements.
> Different churches are in different paradymes, the problem here is you apparently don't believe they are simply trying to do the right thing according to their conscience.
> 
> Leviticus 18:22: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." KJV.
> ...


The 'closely held religious beliefs' argument is nothing more than a back door way for people to discriminate against groups or individuals that they dislike. The old testament which you quote also admonishes people not to consume pork, shellfish, fish without scales or hoofed animals that do not chew a cud. Does that individual cherish those taboos also? Does his store close on the Sabbath? Does he patronize stores, businesses or restaurants who are open on the Sabbath thereby financially supporting the sin and the sinners? If you are a merchant, our laws require that all customers (and employees) be treated the same. To advocate for any erosion of this standard risks a return to closely held religious beliefs against serving black people among a whole host of things that our country should have abandoned many, many years ago. Was raised in an extremely conservative evangelical Christian home and support any individuals choice to interpret the scriptures any way that they choose. However, when you open your business and hang out your shingle, there are rules, regulations and laws that have to be complied with. The old adage ' do unto others as you would have them do unto you' applies in this case as it does to so much of our interactions in life. If we all attempted to keep this in mind, I truly believe the majority of the ills our society suffers from would begin to diminish. Just my thoughts as I have gotten to experience the unwanted privilege of suffering from peoples religious discrimination in my life. Didn't like it then and abhor it now.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

FarmboyBill said:


> So, it sounds like I actively denigerate people every chance I get, and am a bigot, AND, on top of that, I make a lousy cake lol.
> I think I am biased towards some beliefs. We probably need to sift and areate out the words, to get down to basics


So I’m not entitled to my opinion of your cake? 

No one said you denigrated people every chance you get but I think it would be difficult for you to deny that you have done so and have expressed bigotry.

I think we have pretty well gotten down to the basics here. I, among others, don’t wish to be lied by businesses.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

LAFarm said:


> The 'closely held religious beliefs' argument is nothing more than a back door way for people to discriminate against groups or individuals that they dislike. The old testament which you quote also admonishes people not to consume pork, shellfish, fish without scales or hoofed animals that do not chew a cud. Does that individual cherish those taboos also? Does his store close on the Sabbath? Does he patronize stores, businesses or restaurants who are open on the Sabbath thereby financially supporting the sin and the sinners? If you are a merchant, our laws require that all customers (and employees) be treated the same. To advocate for any erosion of this standard risks a return to closely held religious beliefs against serving black people among a whole host of things that our country should have abandoned many, many years ago. Was raised in an extremely conservative evangelical Christian home and support any individuals choice to interpret the scriptures any way that they choose. However, when you open your business and hang out your shingle, there are rules, regulations and laws that have to be complied with. The old adage ' do unto others as you would have them do unto you' applies in this case as it does to so much of our interactions in life. If we all attempted to keep this in mind, I truly believe the majority of the ills our society suffers from would begin to diminish. Just my thoughts as I have gotten to experience the unwanted privilege of suffering from peoples religious discrimination in my life. Didn't like it then and abhor it now.


Let me ask you this: How is it morally superior to force one person to engage in activities which violate his convictions, religious or otherwise, while simultaneously arguing that it should be illegal to 'impose' himself on some other people through non-participation in their personal choices? I find it interesting that on the end of the day, there is much argument that does not make any real pretense of being 'right' but rather merely who gets to used government as a bludgeon against whom.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

IndyDave said:


> Let me ask you this: How is it morally superior to force one person to engage in activities which violate his convictions, religious or otherwise, while simultaneously arguing that it should be illegal to 'impose' himself on some other people through non-participation in their personal choices? I find it interesting that on the end of the day, there is much argument that does not make any real pretense of being 'right' but rather merely who gets to used government as a bludgeon against whom.


In this case no one is forcing the baker to bake, to offer wedding cakes for sale or even to serve those he doesn’t wish to. He voluntarily opened a business and agreed to abide by all the laws governing that business. He voluntarily put up signage and offered wedding cakes for sale. He voluntarily opened his doors to the public. The only bludgeon the government is using is the same one it uses on all businesses equally. The one that requires adherence to laws and to honor agreements freely entered into with the public.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

I imagine that if you are a baker, your calling is baking, not dithering about other people's sexual orientation. You may be able to morally determine whether you should bake a cake or a mudpie, or any other question about baking, but determining whether or not the customer is up to your personal standards of conduct is just asinine. The baker's job is baking. Plain and simple. If a baker can't bake he needs to close up shop. and if he can, he needs to baking, not practicing his bigotry skills.

When a TV preacher preaches, is it his job to determine who gets to listen?

Furthermore, would you feel comfortable with a surgeon who was mostly famous for turning away a patient because he didn't like his sexual preference, race, creed, color, etc?

So, how far down from the very top of the food chain do you have to be where it's OK to be a bigot, of any sort?


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

mmoetc said:


> In this case no one is forcing the baker to bake, to offer wedding cakes for sale or even to serve those he doesn’t wish to. He voluntarily opened a business and agreed to abide by all the laws governing that business. He voluntarily put up signage and offered wedding cakes for sale. He voluntarily opened his doors to the public. The only bludgeon the government is using is the same one it uses on all businesses equally. The one that requires adherence to laws and to honor agreements freely entered into with the public.


First, you apparently don't believe in the First Amendment.
Second, tolerating government overreach in exchange for being allowed in the public square is extortion, not an agreement entered freely.
Third, he offered wedding cakes for sale BEFORE an activist court changed the definition of wedding.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Clem said:


> I imagine that if you are a baker, your calling is baking, not dithering about other people's sexual orientation. You may be able to morally determine whether you should bake a cake or a mudpie, or any other question about baking, but determining whether or not the customer is up to your personal standards of conduct is just asinine. The baker's job is baking. Plain and simple. If a baker can't bake he needs to close up shop. and if he can, he needs to baking, not practicing his bigotry skills.
> 
> When a TV preacher preaches, is it his job to determine who gets to listen?
> 
> ...


I would point out that none of these other examples you use require the service provider to become involved in the potential customer's homosexuality. Supplying goods or services for a homosexual wedding does.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

IndyDave said:


> First, you apparently don't believe in the First Amendment.
> Second, tolerating government overreach in exchange for being allowed in the public square is extortion, not an agreement entered freely.
> Third, he offered wedding cakes for sale BEFORE an activist court changed the definition of wedding.


First, the court changed no definition. The court ruled that all citizens are due equal protection under the law. But this case started before that ruling so even that argument is moot.

Second, government overreach would be a law, or set of laws, specifically directed at religous belief. The laws in question do no such thing. They apply equally to all businesses regardless of their religiosity or lack thereof. They leave room for businesses to operate in discriminatory manners if they wish. They do not leave room for businesses to lie about who they serve.

And third, I fully understand the First Amendment. I understand that it doesn’t allow for laws that target religion( see my comments above) but neither does it grant privilege to the religous that others don’t have.


----------



## shea (May 23, 2017)

LAFarm said:


> The 'closely held religious beliefs' argument is nothing more than a back door way for people to discriminate against groups or individuals that they dislike.


I believe it is for some, though personally I haven't known them. I wrote earlier, the people I know are able to distinguish the person from their behavior. I would not throw a BLANKET STATEMENT out there for all religious people. 

I do believe is good to treat others as I want to be treated.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

IndyDave said:


> I would point out that none of these other examples you use require the service provider to become involved in the potential customer's homosexuality. Supplying goods or services for a homosexual wedding does.


How? In this case the wedding was to have happened many states away. The cake was for a celebration of that wedding and was to have occurred days later. The cake was no part of the wedding ceremony. And I’ll point out once again that the baker knew none of this when he denied the request. He only knew the couple were gay.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

A cake is a cake. It doesn't turn into a snow lily that is offended by what may happen after it's eaten and forgotten about. Your contention that somehow the baker would get involved in the couple's sex life is weird beyond the scope of this particular conversation.


----------



## LAFarm (Mar 8, 2015)

IndyDave said:


> Let me ask you this: How is it morally superior to force one person to engage in activities which violate his convictions, religious or otherwise, while simultaneously arguing that it should be illegal to 'impose' himself on some other people through non-participation in their personal choices? I find it interesting that on the end of the day, there is much argument that does not make any real pretense of being 'right' but rather merely who gets to used government as a bludgeon against whom.


I don't fully understand your question, so please bear with me. "How is it morally superior to force one person to engage in activities which violate his convictions, religious or otherwise". As I mentioned, when you open a business and hang out your shingle, there are rules, regulations and laws that must be followed by your business. If the non-discrimination business regulations violate an individuals personal and/or religious convictions, perhaps they should not be in that occupation. Don't see that one as a moral question so much as being opposed to it does have an immoral connotation.
"while simultaneously arguing that it should be illegal to 'impose' himself on some other people through non-participation in their personal choices?" If you are equating refusing service to imposing himself through non-participation, this just appears to be another angle to justify the same discrimination. Kind of like Woolworths's chose not to participate in black peoples desire to order a sandwich at the lunch counter during my lifetime. Our country has came a long way, but the inherent desire to discriminate against people who are different is as persistent as a cancer. Sadly.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

LAFarm said:


> I don't fully understand your question, so please bear with me. "How is it morally superior to force one person to engage in activities which violate his convictions, religious or otherwise". As I mentioned, when you open a business and hang out your shingle, there are rules, regulations and laws that must be followed by your business. If the non-discrimination business regulations violate an individuals personal and/or religious convictions, perhaps they should not be in that occupation. Don't see that one as a moral question so much as being opposed to it does have an immoral connotation.
> "while simultaneously arguing that it should be illegal to 'impose' himself on some other people through non-participation in their personal choices?" If you are equating refusing service to imposing himself through non-participation, this just appears to be another angle to justify the same discrimination. Kind of like Woolworths's chose not to participate in black peoples desire to order a sandwich at the lunch counter during my lifetime. Our country has came a long way, but the inherent desire to discriminate against people who are different is as persistent as a cancer. Sadly.


There is a constitutional right to the freedom of religion. There is not an enumerated right to have other do business with you on your terms, nor is there any constitutional authority to mandate any such thing.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

IndyDave said:


> There is a constitutional right to the freedom of religion. There is not an enumerated right to have other do business with you on your terms, nor is there any constitutional authority to mandate any such thing.


Again, the laws in question don’t target religion. They are required of all businesses, religous or not. Businesses can be set up to allow them to discriminate against anyone they wish. The baker could have done just that. He chose not to and lied about what he would sell. Religion doesn’t grant one freedom from abiding by laws that apply to all equally.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Not expecting an answer but I’ll ask again- Why do antidiscrimination laws protect the religous?


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

mmoetc said:


> Again, the laws in question don’t target religion. They are required of all businesses, religous or not. Businesses can be set up to allow them to discriminate against anyone they wish. The baker could have done just that. He chose not to and lied about what he would sell. Religion doesn’t grant one freedom from abiding by laws that apply to all equally.





> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Your argument is irrelevant. No where, as demonstrated in the First Amendment quoted in its entirety above, does it say anything about whether a law 'targets' religion or not. Forcing someone to engage in an act contrary to his religion is an infringement on his religion. You could make the same argument regarding people being drafted for military services, but there is a reason why Jehovah's Witnesses, among others, were exempted from being required to submit to the draft. Discriminating against people is not the issue. The baker would have been more than happy to make the individual in question a birthday cake or a retirement party cake, just not a wedding cake, which is participation in something squarely against the baker's religious beliefs to which he is constitutionally entitled to exercise freely. Let me reiterate, the objection pertains to an ACTION not a state of being. Issues like race or other typical criteria are states of being, not actions in which you are demanding the participation of an unwilling party.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

mmoetc said:


> Not expecting an answer but I’ll ask again- Why do antidiscrimination laws protect the religous?


Not much protection there, otherwise the famous cake never would have been an issue.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Indy Dave finally got it. The baker, myself and many other questions can love gay people and not discriminate against them while refusing to participate in the actions that we consider sin. 
The only discrimination is against the sin not the people.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

mn WHERE DO YOU SEE that I said you WERNT entitled to your openion????????

As to your last, last, Id guess its cause Religion is the most discriminated against organization there is. More people have been killed because of their religious beliefs than for any other reason. From Jews to Indians, to Mormans, and to the First Christians, people have been killed for solely that reason, AND THEN for the property that they may have had.
I believe a person who is predijuced against someone, is one who actively shows that predijuce, in his physical actions, thereby showing those around him his beliefs.
I believe a person who DOES NOT do anything predjudicial? and does NOT actively and physically discriminate against a person, thereby causing physical harm TO that person iis not predicuial?
I DONT LIKE the fact that im made up of German, French, and Indian nationalities. Im not going out and club a few of them each to show my beliefs to the world. I live with their beliefs, and they have to live with mine, or get the heck away from me.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

AS (not parcipitate in) and NOT accept as right, in our own individual minds due to our moral upbringing or beliefs.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

IndyDave said:


> First, you apparently don't believe in the First Amendment.
> Second, tolerating government overreach in exchange for being allowed in the public square is extortion, not an agreement entered freely.
> Third, he offered wedding cakes for sale BEFORE an activist court changed the definition of wedding.


Government changes the definition of wedding when they began licensing it, first amendment only disallows the government from stifling your speech, or making you worship a particular way. The baker didn't choose to go that route with his suite.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

IndyDave said:


> Your argument is irrelevant. No where, as demonstrated in the First Amendment quoted in its entirety above, does it say anything about whether a law 'targets' religion or not. Forcing someone to engage in an act contrary to his religion is an infringement on his religion. You could make the same argument regarding people being drafted for military services, but there is a reason why Jehovah's Witnesses, among others, were exempted from being required to submit to the draft. Discriminating against people is not the issue. The baker would have been more than happy to make the individual in question a birthday cake or a retirement party cake, just not a wedding cake, which is participation in something squarely against the baker's religious beliefs to which he is constitutionally entitled to exercise freely. Let me reiterate, the objection pertains to an ACTION not a state of being. Issues like race or other typical criteria are states of being, not actions in which you are demanding the participation of an unwilling party.



It’s entirely relevant. One cannot ignore traffic laws because they are religous. Why not? Because the laws apply to everyone and are not directed solely at the religous. Know why native Americans can’t legally use peyote in religous ceremonies? Because the drug laws forbidding it don’t apply only to them.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/494/872

So, yes, that is the legal standard.

Jehovas Witnesses are not and have never been exempted from the draft. Local draft boards and judges could, and sometimes did, offer such exemptions but many JH’s have been jailed for not complying with draft orders or not serving in alternative capacities when recognized as conscientious objectors.

Is being a member of a religion an action or a state of being. Those same antidiscriminstion laws you say don’t protect gays protect the religous from discrimination from gays.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

IndyDave said:


> Not much protection there, otherwise the famous cake never would have been an issue.


I’ll rephrase the question in a way even you cannot misconstrue. 

Why do antidiscriminstion laws protect the religous from discrimination from others just as those laws protect men, women, all races and ethnicities?


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

IndyDave said:


> There is a constitutional right to the freedom of religion. There is not an enumerated right to have other do business with you on your terms, nor is there any constitutional authority to mandate any such thing.


Your free to exercise your religion, not force it on others.

Don't want to serve certain people set your business up that way, and you are free to deny all you want


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

When you start asking every person who enters your business what they are using your services or product for to ensure they are not using it in a way that is against your religious beliefs, you can discriminate. Until then you can't.


----------



## LAFarm (Mar 8, 2015)

IndyDave said:


> Your argument is irrelevant. No where, as demonstrated in the First Amendment quoted in its entirety above, does it say anything about whether a law 'targets' religion or not. Forcing someone to engage in an act contrary to his religion is an infringement on his religion. You could make the same argument regarding people being drafted for military services, but there is a reason why Jehovah's Witnesses, among others, were exempted from being required to submit to the draft. Discriminating against people is not the issue. The baker would have been more than happy to make the individual in question a birthday cake or a retirement party cake, just not a wedding cake, which is participation in something squarely against the baker's religious beliefs to which he is constitutionally entitled to exercise freely. Let me reiterate, the objection pertains to an ACTION not a state of being. Issues like race or other typical criteria are states of being, not actions in which you are demanding the participation of an unwilling party.


"The baker would have been more than happy to make the individual in question a birthday cake or a retirement party cake, just not a wedding cake, which is participation in something squarely against the baker's religious beliefs to which he is constitutionally entitled to exercise freely." I understand what you are saying, but what if it was a devoutly christian banker telling a gay couple that you may have a right to marry, but I should not be required to loan you money for a house since that would be an action supporting your lifestyle.
"Let me reiterate, the objection pertains to an ACTION not a state of being. Issues like race or other typical criteria are states of being, not actions in which you are demanding the participation of an unwilling party." So, so long as someone remains a 'state of being' standing out in the middle of a field, they are protected against discrimination. It is only when they request an ACTION - like trying to buy a cake or ordering a sandwich at the Woolworths lunch counter - that they are 'demanding' the participation of an unwilling party. Hmmmmm, I fully understand where you are coming from and exactly what you are standing for. Not too much more to say on this matter.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> Again, the couple filed no lawsuit nor sought any damages. They filed a complaint with the exact same commission you could use in Colorado were you to be denied service based on your sex, race, national origin or religion. You’re free to believe whatever you wish. But your believing it doesn’t make it so.


 Lol wasn’t the hope commission would file the suit for them ?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol wasn’t the hope commission would file the suit for them ?


No. The commission is only charged with enforcing the statute. They have, as far as I know, no way of taking money from the baker or any other business and giving it to the complainants. And that’s not what the commission tried to do. As much as you, and many others, wish to make this about things it isn’t there’s not one bit of evidence that the couple walked in knowing the baker would refuse service. There’s no evidence they had plans to profit from this in any way. There’s no evidence they had any other agenda than getting a cake for their reception from a baker who came highly recommended for his cakes.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

mmoetc said:


> No. The commission is only charged with enforcing the statute. They have, as far as I know, no way of taking money from the baker or any other business and giving it to the complainants. And that’s not what the commission tried to do. As much as you, and many others, wish to make this about things it isn’t there’s not one bit of evidence that the couple walked in knowing the baker would refuse service. There’s no evidence they had plans to profit from this in any way. *There’s no evidence they had any other agenda than getting a cake for their reception from a baker who came highly recommended for his cakes.*


That is amusing.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Hiro said:


> That is amusing.


Glad to know you find the truth so amusing. Show evidence of anything else. The couple in question has had years to file suit or in any way profit yet despite all the claims no one has brought forth one bit of evidence that they’ve attempted to profit from this situation . I do know the baker has numerous fund raising accounts on various platforms supporting him.


----------



## shea (May 23, 2017)

mmoetc said:


> Leviticus also says this-
> 
> Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of materials.
> 
> ...


Point taken.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

LAFarm said:


> "The baker would have been more than happy to make the individual in question a birthday cake or a retirement party cake, just not a wedding cake, which is participation in something squarely against the baker's religious beliefs to which he is constitutionally entitled to exercise freely." I understand what you are saying, but what if it was a devoutly christian banker telling a gay couple that you may have a right to marry, but I should not be required to loan you money for a house since that would be an action supporting your lifestyle.
> "Let me reiterate, the objection pertains to an ACTION not a state of being. Issues like race or other typical criteria are states of being, not actions in which you are demanding the participation of an unwilling party." So, so long as someone remains a 'state of being' standing out in the middle of a field, they are protected against discrimination. It is only when they request an ACTION - like trying to buy a cake or ordering a sandwich at the Woolworths lunch counter - that they are 'demanding' the participation of an unwilling party. *Hmmmmm, I fully understand where you are coming from and exactly what you are standing for.* Not too much more to say on this matter.


No, you very obviously don't understand. If you can't understand the difference between discriminating based on a characteristic/state of being, like being of an ethnicity, a religion, or even homosexual and an action which is squarely in violation of one's conscience, like a homosexual wedding, there really isn't anything I can do to help you with this.

As for your ridiculous other example, you can very easily sell them a sandwich without participating in an action contrary to your beliefs. It defies my understanding that you can't see the difference, unless, of course, you are choosing to be willfully obtuse for the purpose of supporting your agenda.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

I think your last is the most right.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

IndyDave said:


> No, you very obviously don't understand. If you can't understand the difference between discriminating based on a characteristic/state of being, like being of an ethnicity, a religion, or even homosexual and an action which is squarely in violation of one's conscience, like a homosexual wedding, there really isn't anything I can do to help you with this.
> 
> As for your ridiculous other example, you can very easily sell them a sandwich without participating in an action contrary to your beliefs. It defies my understanding that you can't see the difference, unless, of course, you are choosing to be willfully obtuse for the purpose of supporting your agenda.


I think we all understand that the only reason the baker didn’t want to participate in the wedding, and there is only one kind of license issued for such things, was because of who the participants were. He discriminated based on the “state of being” of the participants.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

IndyDave said:


> No, you very obviously don't understand. If you can't understand the difference between discriminating based on a characteristic/state of being, like being of an ethnicity, a religion, or even homosexual and an action which is squarely in violation of one's conscience, like a homosexual wedding, there really isn't anything I can do to help you with this.
> 
> As for your ridiculous other example, you can very easily sell them a sandwich without participating in an action contrary to your beliefs. It defies my understanding that you can't see the difference, unless, of course, you are choosing to be willfully obtuse for the purpose of supporting your agenda.


Let’s change just one word in your claim and we’ll see if you’ll still back it. Let’s change “homosexual” wedding to “interracial” wedding. Or “Baptist” wedding. Or “Japanese” wedding. Does the same standard still apply?


----------



## shea (May 23, 2017)

mmoetc said:


> I think we all understand that the only reason the baker didn’t want to participate in the wedding, and there is only one kind of license issued for such things, was because of who the participants were. He discriminated based on the “state of being” of the participants.


We all understand? 
Is it possible they did not want to seem to say that the perversion of anal sex is ok, that in there view, it goes against the laws of nature? You don't think that could possibly be a consideration?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

shea said:


> We all understand?
> Is it possible they did not want to seem to say that the perversion of anal sex is ok, that in there view, it goes against the laws of nature? You don't think that could possibly be a consideration?


Did the baker ask all who came into his shop seeking wedding cakes their sexual practices?

But even your statement doesn’t disprove what I said. It does reaffirm it. The only reason the baker refused service was because the couple was gay. Whatever the underlying reasons for his disapproval are irrelevant to the argument. He judged the couple by their gayness and found them lacking. He discriminated based on their sexual orientation in violation of the law. 

You could take a shot at my question above. Would it be acceptable for him to deny a couple because he disapproved of the “abomination” of miscegenation? How about the “abomination” of Catholicism? Can I discriminate against him for the “abomination” of his religous beliefs?


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

shea said:


> We all understand?
> Is it possible they did not want to seem to say that the perversion of anal sex is ok, that in there view, it goes against the laws of nature? You don't think that could possibly be a consideration?



So it's because they're dudes the baker didn't bake the cake and he wouldn't have had a problem if it was two females because they don't have anal sex ?

I've heard that some females also like anal sex, how does the baker know which ones to discriminate against ?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

My understanding is that the business did not refuse to bake the cake because the couple was gay. It is true that a cake is a cake.
They would have baked a birthday cake, a retirement cake, etc. It was the event and the message.
Was it widely known that this was a Christian bakery? Should it matter?
Should it matter if I enter a Muslim bakery and expect the same product? There are numerous online videos of Muslim bakers refusing service for such a request. So should one also be sensitive to the diversity of business owners; rather than label them as bigots or homophobes or impending terrorists? The thread seems to continually shift gears between a religious/social/legal/political argument, none of which usually goes smoothly regardless of the topic.


----------



## shea (May 23, 2017)

mmoetc said:


> Did the baker ask all who came into his shop seeking wedding cakes their sexual practices?
> 
> But even your statement doesn’t disprove what I said. It does reaffirm it. The only reason the baker refused service was because the couple was gay. Whatever the underlying reasons for his disapproval are irrelevant to the argument. He judged the couple by their gayness and found them lacking. He discriminated based on their sexual orientation in violation of the law.
> 
> You could take a shot at my question above. Would it be acceptable for him to deny a couple because he disapproved of the “abomination” of miscegenation? How about the “abomination” of Catholicism? Can I discriminate against him for the “abomination” of his religous beliefs?


So, I don't mean to take a shot...
I am frankly saying it is likely they, see their behavior, no different than that of sexual preditors. 60 years ago this was the moral consensus, even among those who were not racial bigots. I can say this because I am a church goer. And this is the paradym I was in.

I have a relative who is gay with HIV. And I love and respect him as much as anyone in my family.


----------



## shea (May 23, 2017)

oneraddad said:


> So it's because they're dudes the baker didn't bake the cake and he wouldn't have had a problem if it was two females because they don't have anal sex ?
> 
> I've heard that some females also like anal sex, how does the baker know which ones to discriminate against ?


I see your point, I've noticed on TV over the years,, as they began to show, same sex couples, there were more women situations than men...


----------



## shea (May 23, 2017)

I have NOT read or followed the baking situation, really. I just know from personal experience that not every christian refusing to accept "alternative lifestyles" , hates the people involved in these lifestyles.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

To the mods and everyone else. I apologize for the inappropriate turn this thread has taken. Such a turn and such discussion isn’t appropriate for this section. I’ve said all I need to say on this issue. I’ve spent the last I don’t know how many posts repeating the same facts and asking the same questions without direct response or rebuttal to any of them. The Supreme Court will rule in this issue and no matter which way they do it will become the law of the land and I’ll accept it. I may still disagree with it but I won’t demean the court for ruling however they do.

Now, I’ve got cookies yet to bake, gifts yet to make and a grizzled group of the world’s tallest elves to join in spreading some good cheer to those who could use some in this time. The elves don’t care about what happens behind other elves closed doors or the doors of those who will find food and gifts outside them. Happy Holidays to each and every one of you no matter what or how you celebrate or who you celebrate with.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

The thought of me participating in gay sex makes me want to hurl, but I don't care what others do. As long as I'm not bothering anybody I just want to be left alone to do as I please.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

Dad, as mn has said above you, that's what ive been trying to say for a doz posts.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

FarmboyBill said:


> Dad, as mn has said above you, that's what ive been trying to say for a doz posts.


Nothimg you posted suggests anyuthing similiar to what dad posted


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

The difference is I'm selling two puppies to a gay couple that was referred to me by a gay lady I sold a puppy to. Their being gay don't affect me so I don't mind doing business with them


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

AS you AINT read ALLA my posts for 8 pages to determine just what I said.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> No. The commission is only charged with enforcing the statute. They have, as far as I know, no way of taking money from the baker or any other business and giving it to the complainants. And that’s not what the commission tried to do. As much as you, and many others, wish to make this about things it isn’t there’s not one bit of evidence that the couple walked in knowing the baker would refuse service. There’s no evidence they had plans to profit from this in any way. There’s no evidence they had any other agenda than getting a cake for their reception from a baker who came highly recommended for his cakes.


 Beat the heck out of that straw man !
The commission they filed the complaint with apparently has some means to punish the baker that’s what they wanted isn’t it? And by having the commission do it the complainants didn’t have to spend any money.

What’s that another strawman taking a beating?
I never said that Couple went to the baker for any reason other than a cake.

Good grief do I see another strawman taking a beating it must be a bad day to be a strawman.
I never once said that they were trying to profit from the situation.

Please be nice to the strawmen in the future they’ve had enough meetings.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> Let’s change just one word in your claim and we’ll see if you’ll still back it. Let’s change “homosexual” wedding to “interracial” wedding. Or “Baptist” wedding. Or “Japanese” wedding. Does the same standard still apply?


Some of those would some wouldnt. 
Some are about creating a sin some aren’t.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Some of those would some wouldnt.
> Some are about creating a sin some aren’t.


I'm confused. Which of those listed would be creating a sin?


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

The interracial, Japanese, or Hungarian Ethopian cerimonies wouldn't.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

FarmboyBill said:


> The interracial, Japanese, or Hungarian Ethopian cerimonies wouldn't.


The bible considers intereracial marriages a sin?


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

Wouldn't. FBB said wouldn't


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

mmoetc said:


> To the mods and everyone else. I apologize for the inappropriate turn this thread has taken. Such a turn and such discussion isn’t appropriate for this section. *I’ve said all I need to say on this issue. *I’ve spent the last I don’t know how many posts repeating the same facts and asking the same questions without direct response or rebuttal to any of them. The Supreme Court will rule in this issue and no matter which way they do it will become the law of the land and I’ll accept it. I may still disagree with it but I won’t demean the court for ruling however they do.
> 
> Now, I’ve got cookies yet to bake, gifts yet to make and a grizzled group of the world’s tallest elves to join in spreading some good cheer to those who could use some in this time. The elves don’t care about what happens behind other elves closed doors or the doors of those who will find food and gifts outside them. Happy Holidays to each and every one of you no matter what or how you celebrate or who you celebrate with.


So, you have made all the "points" you want to make. Likely haven't convinced anyone you are "right". So, let's shut down the thread to any further discussion. That too is amusing.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Terri said:


> Wouldn't. FBB said wouldn't


Gotcha. That still leaves me confused because Americanstand indicated that some of those wouldn't but some would be creating sin. I'm not Christian so I'm confused unclear on how how any of the three would fall into that category.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

Well I am a Christian but I do not know either: perhaps FBB will explain by and by


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

wr said:


> Gotcha. That still leaves me confused because Americanstand indicated that some of those wouldn't but some would be creating sin. I'm not Christian so I'm confused unclear on how how any of the three would fall into that category.





Terri said:


> Well I am a Christian but I do not know either: perhaps FBB will explain by and by


Some people have manufactured 'sin' out of things like interracial marriage by taking some very thinly stretched interpretations, piling on some assumptions, and then declaring it 'the word of God' even though it really isn't there to be found, unlike very straightforward condemnations of homosexual behavior, along with a lot of other things that most believers find easier to overlook. My own perspective is that while I cannot condone homosexual conduct, it is not my prerogative to condemn people but is my prerogative to not participate in activities revolving around the conduct itself or its extensions, like marriage for example. I certainly don't hold it up as the ne plus ultra sin in a class all by itself as some do, but that doesn't mean I am going to condone it either.

Generally, the issues with interracial marriages are built either on the platform of the Tower of Babel plus one's own self-produced assumptions of how that implies a perpetual separation of all dissimilar peoples, leading to a prohibition of marriage outside your own tribal group. Others essentially take one form or other of an aboriginal descent argument supposing everyone outside one's own group to be outside the realm of the grace of God or even outside the realm of true humanity. This, of course, is not confined to Christianity's darker corners. Most tribal societies have names that in their language means 'real men' or 'real people' suggesting that outsiders are less than fully human.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

God told Moses that no JEW should intermarry. He said NOTHING about other peoples yes or no. BUT, Lets look at the record.
Abraham married out of his nationality, as did Noahs boys. Cain married his sister, Hosea married out of his nationality, AND she was a tool that gardeners use in their gardens to make rows. lol. The gal in Jerico who hid the isrialite spys married a isrilite, Naomis sons married foreign women, and her relative Boaz married Ruth, a Moabite. SO, you can see that IF the jews couldn't live by Gods word 3000yrs ago, how can you ask people who aren't, and never were jewish to do it, ie not intermarry with other nationalities.
Jesus says nothing about it whatsoever, BUT does say that a man will marry a woman and cleive unto her, and leave his pa and ma.
IF we take the word cleave? and use it as unto cleavage, that means a split or slit. SO, I leave you to ponder the meaning of what Jesus said when he said (clieve unto her). The Bible has been translated into 3 ORIGIONAL languages, so that word unto, could be misspelled, from what He really said. lol.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

Hitler was a big believer in not marrying out of your race. He got all fired up about other nationalities, one in particular, and then, so did they. As Solomon said, life is but a whiff of smoke, and then your gone, and so that became true for so many lives of his nationality, Im german, and I say that Hitler stunk. He had gas, and he used it lol.
It amazes me that someone could be intolerant about marrying out of their nationality, YET condone people being gay.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

wr said:


> I'm confused. Which of those listed would be creating a sin?


Lol that’s the fun part YOU have to decide what your bible would say on the subject. 
There are certain parts of Japanese wedded life that Baptists see as sin just as many Japanese see interracial marriage as a sin And of course we all know about those Baptist.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

shea said:


> We all understand?
> Is it possible they did not want to seem to say that the perversion of anal sex is ok, that in there view, it goes against the laws of nature? You don't think that could possibly be a consideration?


Is anal sex still a perversion if it occurs between man and a woman? Why are you so worried about what happens in someone's bedroom?


----------



## shea (May 23, 2017)

Irish Pixie said:


> Is anal sex still a perversion if it occurs between man and a woman? Why are you so worried about what happens in someone's bedroom?


Oh, I'm not, plz read reread my post or thread for your answer.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

shea said:


> Oh, I'm not, plz read reread my post or thread for your answer.


I did read the thread so I asked, and I'll do so again, do you think anal sex is a perversion if it occurs between a man and a woman? 

If you don't care what goes on in someone's bedroom why are you trying to impose your religious views on what happens in one? I'm an atheist, and a "I'll try anything once, and more often if I like it" kinda woman, can I impose my views on you?


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

Why come nobody ever ask me about my preferences and views on different positions and so on? I guess cause I look like a predator.....


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Clem said:


> Why come nobody ever ask me about my preferences and views on different positions and so on? I guess cause I look like a predator.....


Nah, it's because you don't try to impose your personal beliefs on consenting adults...


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

It's none of my business what they do, only what I do.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Doesn't seem to be much difference between the word "beliefs" and "opinions" other than the reason one is used over the other.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

GTX63 said:


> Doesn't seem to be much difference between the word "beliefs" and "opinions" other than the reason one is used over the other.


Unless one uses their religious belief to impose their view on others, then it could be discrimination. A opinion is simply a thought.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I should have been more specific. There doesn't seem to be much difference between the word "beliefs" and "opinions" in this thread, other than the reason one is used over the other.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol that’s the fun part YOU have to decide what your bible would say on the subject.
> There are certain parts of Japanese wedded life that Baptists see as sin just as many Japanese see interracial marriage as a sin And of course we all know about those Baptist.


My faith doesn't involve the bible so I was asking a legitimate question so I could understand your commment. It's odd that we haven't heard about a baker refusing to bake cakes for any one of these sins.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

wr said:


> My faith doesn't involve the bible so I was asking a legitimate question so I could understand your commment. It's odd that we haven't heard about a baker refusing to bake cakes for any one of these sins.


It is difficult to speculate with accuracy on the absence of a phenomenon, but as I see it there are a few explanations, any combination of which may apply: No one has a problem with baking cakes for any of the other situations, they are not aware they are baking cakes under those particular circumstances (after all, a cake for John and Claire wouldn't reveal race or religion where Adam and Steve is pretty obvious), or they do in fact refuse to do so but since interracial or interreligious marriages aren't the political hot button that homosexuality is at the present, it just isn't deemed 'newsworthy'.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

Hate to differ Ollie, lol, But a cake for John and Clair, would reveal their ethnicity , and perhaps their religion, even if presumed on the last, as soon as they walked through the door.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

FarmboyBill said:


> Hate to differ Ollie, lol, But a cake for John and Clair, would reveal their ethnicity , and perhaps their religion, even if presumed on the last, as soon as they walked through the door.


How do you figure? All it guarantees you is that they are both most likely English-speakers.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

John and Clare could be English, French, german or whatever nationality European. The bakers wouldn't know till they spoke.
IF a couple walked through the door, they could POSSIBLY look jewish, Spanish, india n
In the bakers clueing onto anything they could see or hear, they could guess at their religion.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

FarmboyBill said:


> John and Clare could be English, French, german or whatever nationality European. The bakers wouldn't know till they spoke.
> IF a couple walked through the door, they could POSSIBLY look jewish, Spanish, india n
> In the bakers clueing onto anything they could see or hear, they could guess at their religion.


That is an awfully long stretch. You forgot that we have lots of people of non-European descent with traditional English-language names, and regardless of their religion, there is no religious issue with two of them getting married. I fail to see the point.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

just ironing out a wrinkle.
10 pages and the post hasn't yet been pulled. I think that might be a record.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

wr said:


> My faith doesn't involve the bible so I was asking a legitimate question so I could understand your commment. It's odd that we haven't heard about a baker refusing to bake cakes for any one of these sins.


 There are a couple ways to take that. Maybe we don’t hear about bakers refusing those things be cause the people involved don’t feel the need to force the baker to do anything. 
Or perhaps it’s so normal No one comments.

Since it’s about faith You should consult whatever you use as a guide. The Bible doesn’t define what religions are protected in this country.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

Irish pixie asked about what the Bible says about anal sex, and before she gets her irish up, ill answer this.
As to the practice of O or A sex, the Bible says nothing. Ballbusting however is another matter. Woman doing that dies for doing it, trying to help her husband in a fight with another man.
Dosnt say what happens to a man who does it to another man in a fight, OR what happens to a woman trying to protect herself from rape.
It does say a man should cling to the breasts of his wife in old age. Wonder if that's why guys had alotta wives then. (each one around the age of his first when first married ) lol.
Wives were Solomons downfall, and also Davids to some extent.
AS to the practice of religions, God instituted the practice of religion, but later came to hate it, as the people went around the rules He set and just made a sham of it to cover their donkeys while trying all other religions around them. Jesus ABSOLUTLY hated religion, and the practioners thereof.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

Well, I see that the bakers lost some dough, and got cooked in their court case lol. I think the court was 1/2 baked lol


----------

