You know your “free” country is headed in a dubious direction when government combines with organized mob identity politics warriors to engage in religious persecution under the phony rationale that, in a supposedly free and market based country, denial of baking services is a civil rights crime, there being but one bakery to choose from, and no takers anywhere ever for gay and lesbian money.
Whereas hectoring and boycotting Christian businesses into closing because they adhere to their beliefs? Why, that’s just like Dr King’s march on Washington!
WE ARE INTOLERANT OF INTOLERANCE! And we are not ashamed to say that WE HOPE ALL THE HATERS DIE, AND TAKE THEIR HATEFUL SPAWN WITH THEM!
Because only then can we stop the hate.
A family-owned Christian bakery, under investigation for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple, has been forced to close its doors after a vicious boycott by militant homosexual activists.
Sweet Cakes By Melissa posted a message on its Facebook page alerting customers that their Gresham, Ore. retail store would be shut down after months of harassment from pro-gay marriage forces.
“Better is a poor man who walks in integrity than a rich man who is crooked in his ways,” read a posting from Proverbs on the bakery’s Facebook page.
“It’s a sad day for Christian business owners and it’s a sad day for the First Amendment,” owner Aaron Klein told me. “The LGBT attacks are the reason we are shutting down the shop. They have killed our business through mob tactics.”
Last January, Aaron and Melissa Klein made national headlines when they refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple.
Klein tells me he has nothing against homosexuals — but because of their religious faith, the family simply cannot take part in gay wedding events.
“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman,” he said. “I don’t want to help somebody celebrate a commitment to a lifetime of sin.”
The lesbian couple filed a discrimination with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries and told their story to local newspapers and television statements.
Within days, militant homosexuals groups launched protests and boycotts. Klein told me he received messages threatening to kill his family. They hoped his children would die.
The LGBT protestors then turned on other wedding vendors around the community. They threatened to boycott any florists, wedding planners or other vendors that did business with Sweet Cakes By Melissa.
“That tipped the scales,” Klein said. “The LGBT activists inundated them with phone calls and threatened them. They would tell our vendors, ‘If you don’t stop doing business with Sweet Cakes By Melissa, we will shut you down.’”
To make matters worse, the Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries announced last month they had launched a formal discrimination investigation against the Christian family.
Commissioner Brad Avakian told The Oregonian that he was committed to a fair and thorough investigation to determine whether the bakery discriminated against the lesbians.
“Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to discriminate,” he told the newspaper. “The goal is to rehabilitate. For those who do violate the law, we want them to learn from that experience and have a good, successful business in Oregon.”
There is but one God and He is the State. In this instance, he has dispatched one of His bureaucratic angels, a Mr Brad Avakian, to teach these “free citizens” that, should they wish the government’s licensing to earn a living (and here you though you had a right to pursue sustenance on your own!), they most use their labor in a way determined by the State.
Because failure to design and bake wedding cakes for gay and lesbian couples, or make “coming out” cupcakes for people who demand them — given that you don’t recognize same sex marriage or homosexuality as legitimate as part of your faith — is almost like turning dogs and fire hoses on these poor put upon victims of hateful hatred. Because, like, where in the hell else is a gay or lesbian couple going to find someone who specializes in high end pastries, what with all the homosexuals who have been unfairly frozen out of, say, the boutique bakery business, or the floral business, or the wedding gown business, etc?
The libertarian in me says that when you own a business, you should have the right to refuse service based on your beliefs. If those beliefs are noxious to others, the market will eventually close you down.
Having the state step in to demand you bake cakes for functions that go against your religious beliefs replaces your religious liberty with the State’s demands over your labor and time.
This only happens in a country that has watched “tolerance” become inverted to mean “government sanctioned and approved beliefs that you must appear to follow.”
I almost can’t wait for the pendulum to swing back. And I hope it’s one of them Poe-type numbers, too.
(h/t Dennis D)
I am totally in favor of allowing private businesses to refuse to serve anyone for any reason. I hope they would put up a big sign to that effect.
As Jeff said, the market will decide whether that was a good idea or not.
The notion that one is force to do business with everyone or no one is ridiculous, and an affront to liberty.
Sounds like they need to sue some activists.
1. Should a business be allowed to refuse service to anyone it chooses to?
2. Should a business owned by a Muslim be allowed to refuse service to a woman not covered by a burqa (or unescorted by a male family member)?
I answer yes. A business should be able to tell blacks to get lost, not allow Muslims, keep out gays, or tell whites to beat it.
Just change the Civil Rights Act….
oh grow the fuck up, would you?
Homosexuals can still shop there. They just can’t get wedding cakes.
A better analogy might be should a Muslim -owned store or a Kosher Deli be forced to serve ham?
I want ham. Gimme, you Kike. And you too, Hosni. It is my civil right to have the lunch meat of my choice, regardless of whether or not you recognize that lunchmeat as legitimate.
I don’t get any particular thrill out of doing business with someone who doesn’t want my money. God knows they don’t have to say up front, “I refuse to do business with you” for me to get the message.
But it would be refreshing, and save them and me both a lot of aggravation, if they could just say it up front.
I think churches should be required to have at least one “Turkish bath night” a week. And maybe a “Swingers’ Tuesday”.
Remind, me, Tracy the sophist, were any of these people denied service because they were gay?
Or instead did the owner refuse to produce a special order that s/he didn’t wish to make?
Are those the same thing? Discuss. After you’re done polishing your halo.
No wonder this country has gone to shit. The kind of “thinking” evidenced above is what passes for both “moral” and “intelligent.”
Gee Jeff, NOT the same thing….the Muslim store or Kosher Deli don’t SERVE ham. The baker bakes cakes, someone wanted a cake. It was the nature of the customer that was at issue, not the service/product being offered.
Actually, it wasn’t the “nature of the customer.” It was the occasion to be celebrated with the cake, an occasion which the bakers’ religious beliefs do not sanction. And make no mistake. This was not accidental. I’m sure these assholes sought out a Christian business among all the bakers in New Mexico for this precise purpose. This was a deliberate attempt to destroy a Christian business which does not have the wherewithal to take this to SCOTUS. It is not about tolerance. It is about mandatory acceptance and approval of something, our first amendment rights be damned.
Jeff: “Remind, me, Tracy the sophist, were any of these people denied service because they were gay?”
Let’s see….
photographer in AZ refused to photograph a commitment ceremony because the couple was gay and…
“A family-owned Christian bakery, under investigation for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple”
I guess the answer is yes.
I’m still gobsmacked that there are no gay bakers in Portlandia.
“In Soviet Portland, homosexuals put YOU in oven!”
And so the 1st and 13th Amendment fly out the window, but only in cases where gay people desire to indenture Christians, when there are a zillion bakers and photographers willing to take their money? Next up, Abortion Cakes!
I want to hear more about Jeff’s bigoted fever dream where the “pendulum swings back”
Gosh, please inform us what services could be denied to gays, maybe blacks depending on the state of ‘freedom’ at the time simply because Jesus demanded it? Let’s dismantle the Civil Rights Act and its associated protections because of some fringe moral beliefs, smells like America!
“. . . no gay bakers in Portlandia.”
Could be there are though. And may properly resent the loss of trade even, cursing their misfortune of opinion, but just haven’t been heard from yet.
Shermlaw: so, the AZ photographer would have refused to take pictures of a ‘commitment ceremony’ by straights (no marriage = living in sin)?
I’m still gobsmacked that there are no gay bakers in Portlandia.
Sure there are gay bakers in Portlandia. I happen to think this particular bakery was chosen to be made an example of.
I’m surprised there are any Christian bakers in Portlandia.
Gee Jeff, NOT the same thing….the Muslim store or Kosher Deli don’t SERVE ham. The baker bakes cakes, someone wanted a cake.
Delis serve lunchmeat. Ham is a widely recognized and popular lunchmeat. How is it that a lunchmeat purveyor can decide not to purvey certain lunchmeats on religious grounds, but bakers may not decide against purveying certain cakes on the same grounds?
What if bacon were the “coming out cupcake” of processed meat?
It was the nature of the decorations on the product which were at issue. Decorations which were not offered/served by the store.
If they had just wanted a cake, they could have easily gotten a cake. If you wanted a sandwich at a Kosher Deli there is no problem until you demand that they put ham on it.
so the AZ photographer would have refused to take pictures of a ‘commitment ceremony’ by straights (no marriage = living in sin)?
In a free country, the AZ photographer could have that right. In your world, they wouldn’t be able to make that choice.
Isn’t freedom great?
So, Dalek and Tracy are cool with slavery.
Also, I can guarantee you this homosexual couple wouldn’t dare try this with a bakery owned by Muslims. Be a good way to lose your head.
So, Civil Rights only go in one direction and do not benefit those who wish to exercise their 1st Amendment rights, because you assert without evidence–indeed contrary to 2000 years of evidence if not more–that the Judeo-Christian worldview is a “fringe” belief?
Got it.
So, AZ photographer would have refused to take pictures of a ‘commitment ceremony’ by straights (no marriage = living in sin)?
You think she should be forced to, Tracy?
Can somebody explain to me how cupcakes and portraits fall under the definition of “public accommodations?”
Remember, kids — nothing says “tolerance” better than driving your Christian neighbors into hiding!
They kind of said it straight (STRAIGHT) out, they don’t believe that this ceremony is good for the people, so they don’t want to endorse it. To them, it is a moral issue.
Call me crazy, but they’d probably refuse to make specialty cakes for “Junior’s first murder!” or “Sally’s popped her cherry!”
But sure, until we force Christians to make touching dick cakes with Cream Cheese frosting, we’re just not a moral culture yet. Go out of business, H8ers!!
It wasn’t that businesses decided not to serve black customers in the South. It was the government, State and local, run by Democrats, which passed laws forbidding businesses to serve all races in the same fashion.
This is comparable to the old South only in that in both cases it is government, run by Democrats, deciding by law how a business will interact with a customer who is seen by the government to be part of a collective identity-based group which the government has defined as deserving of special treatment.
First Amendment isn’t just about religion and speech, folks…
Everyone forgets that we also have the protected right to “freely associate” with those we choose, and if those who are not so chosen feel slighted, then let them rise to my standards so that I will freely choose.
And being forced to work against your wishes is a violation of the 13th Amendment, no matter how much is offered as payment. Of course, it also requires the presence of armed individuals, too.
Blake…not sure how you get slavery. No one was asking for a cake for free.
I Callahan, I am all for businesses being able to tell a customer to get lost for whatever reason they want. That is not the law however. Change the law.
Shermlaw…I don’t think you have ‘got’ anything.
Squid, a deli that does not serve ham can’t be forced to serve ham, but a deli that serves ham can be forced to serve that ham to customers willing to pay for it. Forced? No, I think the AZ photographer should receive a fine for failing to serve based on the circumstances (and they did, sorta, by having to pay the attorney fees of the couple – there were no damages applied).
Tracy, you’re not that dense. It doesn’t matter how much money is offered, if you’re being forced to do something against your will, it is slavery.
Drumwaster. I agree about free association. Change the law. But it is not being forced to work. The baker bakes cakes and they were being asked to bake a cake and get paid for it. The photographer takes pictures and was asked to take pictures and get paid for it. Neither wanted to bake cakes or take photos for gays – given their status as licensed businesses providing cakes and photos, that option was illegal discrimination.
Gosh, please inform us what services could be denied to gays, maybe blacks depending on the state of ‘freedom’ at the time simply because Jesus demanded it?
What’s ironic is that if we assume that all whites are racist (per Dale’s assertion), and would refuse any kind of services to blacks, the market vacuum created would spawn the creation of huge numbers of black-owned businesses, employing blacks to provide goods and services to other blacks. Imagine the opportunities created for black entrepreneurs and families looking to provide for themselves without depending on handouts. That single stroke would probably do more to reverse the damage caused to black communities by their Democrat overlords than any other piece of legislation could dream of doing.
Why do you hate blacks, Dale? Why do you want to see them forever mired in the pits of despair that your oh-so-enlightened political masters have spent decades creating?
I guess, Tracy, you’ve no problem with the backlash against the couple refusing to make the cake? They got what they deserve? Meanwhile, the couple that kicked up a fuss over a cake was harmed how? They didn’t get their cake?
I guess a massive boycott and death threats balances the scales again the massive butthurt of the homosexual couple.
Blake. I agree that a business should be allowed to serve whomever, or not serve whomever they choose – but that is not the law. The baker bakes cakes – they are not being forced to do anything they otherwise would not do. They don’t have leave their shop to ‘serve’ the cake. People come in, order a cake, pay for it, leave with it all day. Saying that I will serve these 20 people, but not this one, is not forced labor.
No one has answered my question: would you support a business refusing to serve a woman not in a burka….say a gas station?
Blake, I am not sure how you think I support the backlash, I think it is typical leftist bullshit. Just another example of their intolerance. I disagree with the suing of the AZ photographer and the OR bakers – but people like to sue. ( I work for attorneys.) I think businesses should be allowed to refuse whomever, and I think people should be free to point out such businesses. I support protestors at abortion clinics and striking workers picketing businesses. Don’t you?
Tracy, I’m done. Sometimes, you’re okay, but in this case, you’re being willfully obtuse.
Squid, a deli that does not serve ham can’t be forced to serve ham.
That doesn’t follow at all. Of course a deli can be forced to serve ham! All that’s required is for a dedicated contingent of pork-loving “lifestyle choice” advocates to get legislation passed and harass non-compliant delis out of business.
And all those horrible Jews and Muslims would be forced to go along. Freedom of religion be damned, right, Tracy? What is the First Amendment when compared to local anti-discrimination laws?
Blake, glad you can read my mind.
Social Justice = If I don’t like you, then you don’t have rights.
Squid, if you reached any further you’d fall flat on your face….
I agree about free association. Change the law.
Why should I? I have the Constitution. Change your attitude.
Or push through an amendment that overrides religious views in favor of Government-supported views. Your call.
No one has answered my question: would you support a business refusing to serve a woman not in a burka….say a gas station?
I would not support such a business with my custom, but I would certainly support their right to make such a decision.
Just as freedom of speech is meaningless if it only applies to socially acceptable speech, freedom of association and private property lose all meaning if such freedom is limited only to acceptable uses.
I’m perfectly happy to live in a world where the bigots and idiots are free to make themselves known, and the rest of us are free to befriend or ignore them accordingly. In fact, one of the few things that gives me consolation with regards to this situation is that I’m certain the bakers are going to have all the business they can handle for the next year or two, as their Christian neighbors go out of their way to show support. The State can try to turn us all into subjects, but we will always find ways around It.
Squid, if you reached any further you’d fall flat on your face.
How is it reaching? You’re the one making arbitrary distinctions between charcuterie and patisserie. I think it’s apparent to all that your assertion that pork is not a lunchmeat is as baseless and self-serving as any argument made around here in a long time.
Wherein I spend the better part of a day tangling with much dimmer bulbs on this subject.
Salient points:
1. If the bakery had refused to produce a cake for the Aryan Nations that said “Death to N*ggas,” they’d be given the key to the city and honored as heroes.
2. If a straight couple had come in and ordered a same-sex committment ceremony cake, the answer still would have been no.
3. If the gay couple comes in — in drag, swinging rainbow flags and singing Judy Garland tunes — and they wish to purchase a dozen chocolate-chip cookies and a loaf of bread, the bakery gladly sells it to them, no questions asked.
Having the state step in to demand you bake cakes for functions that go against your religious beliefs replaces your religious liberty with the State’s demands over your labor and time.
If I’m not mistaken (and I was never clear on this), a complaint was filed with the state, but the boycott and protests were what ruined the bakery. If the protesters were intimidating people who were trying to go into the bakery, then I wonder why that was OK when we have all those laws protecting abortion clinics from similar incidents.
Should a prostitute be persecuted because she doesn’t want to have sex with a lesbian?
Women in burkas don’t drive, Tracy. I don’t recall meeting any Muslim gas station owners, either. If there are any, I wouldn’t trade with them.
The problem is in forcing the Christian baker to trade with persons they cannot morally trade with. The same is true of the Christian photographer who I am quite certain would have the same objection to taking porno shots of your teenaged daughter for her senior portrait. You are no doubt aware that a gay male couple are attempting to sue the Church of England to allow them to “marry” in the sanctuary? Gays swore up and down and sideways that they wouldn’t pull shit like that. That makes them liars who lie. Why not seek out Unitarian preachers to marry them? Tatted up fauxhawked college drop outs to bake their cakes? Atheist photographers? Gay florists? Those aren’t hard to find.
This was deliberate and it is bullshit.
They also threatened vendors who did business with them. That is known as tortious interference with business relations.
Yup.
Drumwaster – what do I need to change? I believe every business SHOULD have the right to refuse to serve any customer at any time for any reason. Except that is not the law. I’m for changing the law – I think the Civil Rights Act was in violation of the Constitution when it outlawed freedom of association. Straights should be able to tell gays to get lost, Muslims should be able to tell Jews no, blacks and whites should be able to refuse their opposites and all should be free to point out the results.
But that is not the law. I should be able to tell an employee to wear the uniform provided, no burkas, no cross necklaces, no kippah.
Squid? I never said pork is not a lunchmeat, I said that if a deli did not serve ham, it can’t be forced to serve ham. If a photographer does not paint, he can’t be forced to paint. If a baker does not serve hamburgers, he can’t be forced to serve hamburgers. But if a deli serves ham, it can’t refuse to sell ham.
Hello, butthurt! Goodbye America.
Woman Wins $280,000 Award in “N*gger” Case
Or push through an amendment that overrides religious views in favor of Government-supported views.
We already have that amendment. It was the first one.
Also, even if it’s the law, nobody gets to engage in conscientious objection? Or does the heckler’s veto always win the day.
People are, of course, free to not do business with someone (except in the case of HEALTH INSURANCE), but to harass and intimidate like that?
THEY ought to be in jail.
But if a deli serves ham, it can’t refuse to sell ham.
The bakery doesn’t do same-sex commitment-ceremony cakes. Not for anyone.
Jeff: “Remind, me, Tracy the sophist, were any of these people denied service because they were gay?”
Let’s see….
I guess the answer is yes.
Actually, the correct answer is “No”.
Watch this interview with the bakery couple here and note (at the 5:00 mark) where he says that they’ve made cakes for this couple before. They just refused to make a wedding cake for them.
They don’t refuse to serve gay customers, they just refuse to serve (and thereby support) gay weddings specifically.
Except that is not the law.
See also US Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2), Amendment I and Amendment XIII.
Being forced to work against your wishes* is called “involuntary servitude”, even if you are getting paid, and no matter how much you get paid. Is that too tough for you to understand?
* – no matter what the source behind those wishes might be
Change the law.
Just as they did on California with Prop 8?
In case you hadn’t noticed, the people have no recourse anymore. The government — especially the judiciary — is drunken with power and hubris. The governors will not be dictated to by the governed.
“Change the law,” she says.
Yes, that will happen right there in the middle of a pig’s eye.
Or does the heckler’s veto always win the day?
I’d also like to add that the law wasn’t actually involved in this case. The bakery never got its day in court, was never charged or fined or subjected to due process of any kind.
But their tormentors will get away with it because they’re currently on the cusp of the victimology wave. Had the Westboro Baptist Church picketed them for not making a “God Hates Fags” cake, they’d still have their bakery.
Leigh: “Women in burkas don’t drive, Tracy. I don’t recall meeting any Muslim gas station owners, either”
Of course women in burkas drive. And many gas station/mini-marts are owned by Muslims.
Porno shots? No one is suggesting illegalities. I guess there would be serious support for laws that reverse anti-discrimination. People should be allowed to discriminate – I am all for it…freedom of association.
I am aware of the couple in England. I was a member of the Episcopal Church for more than a decade. I agree that the militancy of the left has nothing to do with individual rights and everything to do with destroying institutions and promoting the State, therefore, my call for individual rights may sometimes sound like ‘leftist liberalism’ when it is mere coincidence.
dicentra….I am all for freedom of association, the ability to contract freely, and for government to get out of ‘anti-discrimination’. That’s why I support gay marriage.
If a gay couple owns a print shop, can they LEGALLY refuse to print up a fresh batch of “God Hates Fags” signs for Fred Phelps’s crew?
Can I? I sure hope I can. Because that’s what I would do: refuse.
If the law doesn’t allow people to refuse to print “God Hates Fags” signs, then the law is an ass.
That’s why I support gay marriage.
So why should your belief in this issue override that of another? You really want to put approval and permission to act based on Majority Rule? Really? Or do you prefer bullying and unelected cherry-pickers to decide what is and is not allowed?
That’s why I support gay marriage.
Marriage qua marriage requires the recognition of the entire community. That’s why every society on the face of the earth has a wedding ceremony to mark the commencement of the marriage, regardless of whether that society has a government or gubmint benefits or insurance policies — something official has to take place that the whole society recognizes as legitimate and proper.
Forming a household sans marriage is the free association that all people are allowed to make — even polygamists, provided that they don’t claim legitimacy for more than one union. They are still free to go to a lawyer and draw up paperwork for inheritance and similar things.
Once you get married, though, you’ve gone from a private act to a public one, because the contract is betwixt the couple on the one hand and society on the other. This dynamic is ancient, predating government and any State by millennia, and therefore is not the State’s to change.
Let’s not forget this part:
“The goal is to rehabilitate.”
That was Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries Commissioner Brad Avakian
To repeat:
“The goal is to rehabilitate.”
“The goal is to rehabilitate.”
“The goal is to rehabilitate.”
“The goal is to rehabilitate.”
There’s no good faith going on here, no intent to honor liberty of conscience or rule of law.
“The goal is to rehabilitate.”
After the government compels you to do something you do not want, then the lawyers will come in and sue you out of business for discrimination for not doing a “good” job. The cycle will be complete. Freedom of conscience is preserved as long as you believe what the government tells you to.
If memory serves, the lesbian couple had ordered and bought cakes from this bakery before. They therefore had a good idea what the owners believed and decided to screw with them because of those beliefs. Sue me, hector me, threaten me, but I’ll be damned if I’d accede to a demand from the state to bake a cake.
One of the reasons that I’ve opposed gay marriage-other than the inversion of the term- is that the radical gay rights activists have long had this as their end goal. Oh sure, you can say that most of them want to be left alone. Much like the secularist live-and-let-live Muslims, in theory. However, much like the supposedly moderate Muslims, the vast majority of live-and-let-live gays will simply remain silent while their activist brethren go scorched earth, thereby giving their implicit support.
Tagentially related aside: many years ago, my mother and I opened up a bakery. Times were hard, but we were starting to make headway. A minority woman walked in and asked if her son could get a part-time job at our store. We politely declined, saying that we weren’t making enough at the time to pay other laborers. She started screeching that she’d sue us for discrimination, that we weren’t hiring her son because he was black, she’d own the store, etcetera. I guess that even ambulance chasers have some integrity- or probably there was no money to be won- because we never heard from her again. In any event, I’ve long viewed these “protected classes” with a jaundiced eye, believing that they consist of people with one handful of gimme and another of much obliged, without the “much obliged” part.
Dreamwaster, I think I am being consistent – I support gay marriage and I support businesses being able to refuse anyone, anytime, for any reason. Where is the inconsistency?
dicentra. Hmmm, why does marriage REQUIRE the recognition of the entire community? Can’t a family disavow a child that marries ‘the wrong person’? Can’t they refuse to recognize the marriage? Can’t I refuse to recognize a marriage? Does my refusal delegitimize the marriage?
So, society uses government to discriminate against actions/people it doesn’t like. So, you accept that government needs to discriminate – as long as it conforms to the will of the majority. Regardless of the minority? Why should gay couples have to do something different than straight couples – because that’s the way it has always been? Because ‘religious beliefs’? Because that is ‘good’ discrimination?
The state is not changing it, people are going to the state and demanding that it cease discriminating against one group, a VERY minor group – though obviously loud one. If you support discrimination, and government sanction of that discrimination, then you are consistent….
Tracy, since when is porn illegal? Assuming one is of age, as in my example, it is not.
The point we are ALL trying to make is that one cannot compel another to perform a service/labor. Does it lead to ludicrous examples? Of course. Have many of those examples had life breathed into them? Certainly. This couple has lost their livelihood and likely their savings because their faith was put to the test by the state through the auspices of “fairness”. Surely those dykes could have found another to bake their cake. They chose to crush this couple whom they had patronized for a long time. They chose to organize sympathizers to run them out of business and by extension other wedding providers who might engage in reciprocal business arrangements with them by threatening to crush them as well.
This is extortion. It is rule by might and not by right. It may indeed be the law, but the law does not make it right. I hope those bitches who drove them out of business get karma back in spades.
Physics Geek, I don’t know if the couple bought there before, but isn’t it just as likely because they had without issue they believed that a cake for their ceremony would equally be a non-issue?
Yep, lots of people demand. with regard to your bakery, two things I find hard to find done well: bearclaws and custard bismarks….
Leigh, you said ‘teen porn’…
Squid? I never said pork is not a lunchmeat, I said that if a deli did not serve ham, it can’t be forced to serve ham.
And I keep telling you that if a bakery can be forced to bake and sell gay wedding cakes, then a deli can be forced to serve ham. You pretend that I’m creating some kind of weird equivalence, when in fact the parallel is there for everyone to see. Everyone except you, that is. And probably Dale.
Ham is to lunchmeat as “Coming Out Cupcake” is to baking. And if you think the religious objections of the latter can be overruled by harassment and legislation, then you’ve no leg to stand on when it comes to the former.
And I still don’t understand why we should need to work to “change” legislation that’s clearly unconstitutional. The only thing we need to “change” is the attitude of our neighbors who treat such legislation as if it were legitimate.
Sure, split hairs. I said teenaged daughter’s senior portrait. Most seniors are eighteen or older today.
When this couple opens their new home bakery, let me suggest a name for their business and a slogan:
Kafkatrapping: It’s What’s For Dessert!
Physics Geek, I don’t know if the couple bought there before, but isn’t it just as likely because they had without issue they believed that a cake for their ceremony would equally be a non-issue?
They had. See my link at 1:34pm.
If the couple was thinking “hey, we previously bought a birthday cake from these nice Christian bakers, so why would they have an issue making a wedding cake for us?”, then that was an assumption on their part and their mistake.
Leigh…where were the ‘christian’ supporters of the bakery? None to be found? I recall the Chick-fil-A issue last year where people rallied around the chain. If a ‘community’ desires to ‘purge’ itself of a business, what matter is it of yours? If a gay porno shop opened in a Christian community and people protested it and ran it out, would you be happy or lamenting the owners loss of business and income? Or glad the COMMUNITY stood up for ITS standards.
“The point we are ALL trying to make is that one cannot compel another to perform a service/labor.”
I AGREE that no one, no business, should be compelled to provide service to anyone it chooses not to. But that is not the law. The law says that a business must provide the goods or services it holds out to the public to anyone willing to pay the price of the goods or service. The law removes freedom of association. It has since the 60s. I don’t recall any opposition to it in the 70s, 80s, or 90s. When libertarians mention it, they are accused of wanting anarchy or a return to Jim Crow laws.
…isn’t it just as likely because they had without issue they believed that a cake for their ceremony would equally be a non-issue?
In which case they were mistaken, and were politely informed that they were mistaken, and chose to react not by going to another bakery, but by bringing down the wrath of their fellow travelers and the power of the State to drive them out of business.
Lovely couple. I’m just happy that they can make each other miserable; hopefully it keeps them from ruining a lot of other people’s lives.
daveinsocial: it wasn’t a wedding cake, it was for a commitment ceremony…
Interview with the couple here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVqwuAW9BZM
I’m not certain there are any other Christians in Portland. Or perhaps they are rightly fearful of being treated like the bakers.
I am disturbed that you are NOT disturbed by the thuggish actions of the gays in question. This isn’t Selma all over again. There are many bakeries in Portland. This was deliberate and orchestrated intimidation.
Sort of like a gay cross burning.
If a gay porno shop opened in a Christian community and people protested it and ran it out, would you be happy or lamenting the owners loss of business and income? Or glad the COMMUNITY stood up for ITS standards.
I would prefer the community stand up for its standards by not patronizing that establishment, whereby it goes out of business due to lack of customers. As opposed to strong-arming and threatening other businesses not to transact with them in order to drive them out of business as quickly as possible. As in the bakery case. Which despite all your protestations to the contrary, you seem to be justifying because, hey, the law is the law, right? And has been for like, forever?
Oddly, there are many porno shops in Amish country. I am uncertain as to who their client base is since I never shopped there.
It wasn’t a wedding cake, it was for a commitment ceremony…
A swing and a miss on the misdirection.
From Wikipedia:
“A same-sex wedding is a ceremony in which two people of the same sex are married. This event may be legally documented as a marriage or another legally recognized partnership such as a civil union. Where such partnerships are not legally recognized, the wedding may be a religious or symbolic ceremony designed to provide an opportunity to make the same public declarations and celebration with friends and family that any other type of wedding may afford. These are often referred to as “commitment ceremonies.”“
thanks for the link dicentra. Interesting point that they turned down other same sex marriage cakes without any issue. Shows that not all gays are militant lefties….
Leigh…where were the ‘christian’ supporters of the bakery? None to be found?
Tracy, how do you define lowercase scare-quote ‘christian’ supporters? Do you mean fake Christians who go out of their way to make others look hypocritical or fringe-y? Or fair-weather Christians who ignore the restrictions of their faith when it’s inconvenient? Or regular workaday Christians who might be afraid to stand up to the State and its favored identity group du jour?
I ask merely so that we can address our arguments accordingly.
Exactly so. It really is not difficult to understand that this would work just fine.
why does marriage REQUIRE the recognition of the entire community?
Can’t a family disavow a child that marries ‘the wrong person’? Can’t they refuse to recognize the marriage? Can’t I refuse to recognize a marriage? Does my refusal delegitimize the marriage?
Individuals can “refuse to recognize” the marriage because they think it’s wrongheaded, but the people are still married in the eyes of the community. Because they jumped through the hoops and did the things to make it legitimate according to the law. Private opinion is irrelevant. That’s why a small ceremony in a judge’s chambers with the cleaning lady and janitor for witnesses is legitimate, but if you invite 3000 people to celebrate your love without performing a legal rite, you’re not married.
Without the official rites (rites sanctioned by the community), it’s not a real marriage. This isn’t my opinion: it’s how things have worked everywhere, throughout time.
The opposite-sex component and the publicly sanctioned component of marriage are weight-bearing walls: you can’t change them without changing the function or nature of marriage.
One of the primary functions being to civilize men by binding them to women. “You’re not an adult until you bind with a woman and focus all your (sexual) energy on making that alien being happy.”
Societies have learned time and again that unattached males are like range fires: they consume everything in their paths, whereas a fire in a blacksmith’s forge is a creative force.
I am very sorry that you are unable to participate in marriage for reasons beyond your control. I recognize that your motives are good.
But I can’t let my desire to be nice to nice people override my understanding of what does and does not hurt society.
But that is not the law. The law says that a business must provide the goods or services it holds out to the public to anyone willing to pay the price of the goods or service.
Not so very long ago, The Law stated that a business must NOT provide its goods and services to blacks, regardless of how much money they had. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the state of AntiPortlandia had statutes on the books forbidding businesses from catering to gays, and the current hubbub was because a Christian baker felt that his faith compelled him to show kindness to the sinner regardless of the sin. Would you be equally nonchalant about the State and its favored foot soldiers shutting down that business, since they’re just enforcing The Law?
Which is, of course, the goal.
Leigh, I don’t have a problem with protestors, or people forming groups to boycott businesses – the husband said their vendors had been threatened and I think THAT is heinous. I oppose and condemn threats against people and property and hope if possible such threats lead to criminal prosecution.
But I don’t have a problem with protesters or a community rallying against a business they feel doesn’t reflect the community. It would appear – as is often the case – that people from OUTSIDE the community became involved and instigated a large blow-up.
daveinsocial – sorry, I don’t consider a ‘commitment ceremony’ to be a wedding – didn’t think many here did… The law is the law. Smoking weed might be ‘ok’ to many people but it is against the law. There are many laws I don’t agree with, but I follow them because I am not interested in dealing with the consequences. MY beliefs don’t require me to engage in ‘civil disobedience’, and I respect people that do – as long as they don’t whine about the consequences.
I think the idea entering people’s minds from the top down and eliminating raco=ism or bigotry is naive nonsense favored by mainly idiots with no grasp of history (the sort of idiots who think that Bull Connor was a neocon/libertarian/tea party type).
You don’t solve racism or bigotry. You control it like a symtom when it gets too bad to tolerate. The solution is palliative not therapeutic. Bigots who behave themselves are not a problem. Their behavior is what is important. Futile attempts to cover up bad behavior or excuse it in progressive heroes or to normalize the human creature itself to never think bigoted thoughts are all non-starters. Instead enforce the law and punish the harmful bigotry. Leave the rest up to individuals.
dicentra, I was once married, legally, opposite sex. No children, lasted 4 years. V and I were together for 18+ years, raised an adopted child (from China) – she just started college last week.
No one is suggesting that straight marriage end. Nor does anyone suppose that straight people will marry gays. 98% of marriages will remain straight marriages and 40? 50% of them will fail. The damage to the institution of marriage over the last 50 years has had little or nothing to do with gays and pretty much everything to do with straights destroying it. Banning gays from marriage will do nothing to save the institution.
After being in both same sex and opposite sex relationships, FOR ME, the same sex relationship was more productive and beneficial to us and our families.
Maybe the next time some business gives me shitty customer service so that I want to spend my money somewhere else, I should sue them for violating my civil right to do business with somebody that wants me to go do business with his competitor.
Under the totally unconstitutional laws Tracy is arguing need to be changed, I would have a case.
tracy writes
Except that they are – see “Pablo says September 4, 2013 at 1:27 pm”.
That 50% figure is a canard that uses skewed statistics. Persons who are divorced, tend to divorce more than once yet they are counted in the total as a See! Half of marriages end in divorce!
Most cancer treatments fail, which is a compelling argument for treating cancer with things other than chemo and radiation and calling it “cancer treatment.” For example, banana milkshakes and gummy bears.
No laetrile? It worked for Steve McQueen . . .Oh. Wait.
Basically, either you agree with Dicentra (and myself, and hosts of others) that heterosexual marriage, on the whole, is a benefit to society and should be accorded special status or you don’t.
Shows that not all gays are militant lefties….
Doy. Of course not.
But those who didn’t kick up a fuss have no effect on those who did, even if the ratio is 1,000,000:1.
[I] hope if possible such threats lead to criminal prosecution.
Who is going to prosecute? The goal was to rehabilitate the BAKERY, not the protesters.
THAT mission was accomplished. Time to burn the next heretic.
No one is suggesting that straight marriage end.
These Activists with a capital A very much are.
They’re the ones who will prevail, no matter how reasonably you argue and contend and debate them. Any gay person who is not down with the whole enchilada will be excommunicated as a heretic.
Banning gays from marriage will do nothing to save the institution.
No, it will just dilute it down its electrolytes.
Where’s ‘feets?
Didn’t he promise to stand up for Christers when they were being driven out of bidness by the Gay Mafia?
(As one AoSHQ commenter quipped, “Gay Mafia is not a joke. It’s a promise.”)
Stand up and be all staunch for us, ‘feets!
You said!
Yea..I can see where wanting to get married is the surest way of killing off marriage.
I don’t care if the % is 20%, marriage is and has been being destroyed by heterosexuals.
if evil people use guns to kill people, then we should ban guns….oh, sorry, wrong argument
if evil gay people want to kill off marriage, we should ban marriage for gay people….
As a gay classical liberal, I get it from both sides….
You guys are all missing the point. Religion is private. Something you practice, say in the in your own bedroom.
Sex,on the other hand, is public and belongs in the street where it can be celebrated.
When you ask for society’s blessing upon your actions, you must meet the standards set by the community, whether those actions are to practice law, build a house, drive a car or get married. If the community sets standards you are unwilling to meet, your argument is to punish the 99% for the whims of the 1%. With the 99% having no recourse.
And you wonder why I question your motives.
The word order matches the priorities at least.
I think government should pass a law that defines cows, pigs, chickens, and fish as vegetables. Then McDonald’s can be a vegetarian restaurant.
(h/t and a pour out to Ric Locke, RIP)
Gad! Ernst, it’s almost suppertime.
Darth, you might have them pass a law that defines ham and bacon as halal/kosher while you’re at it. Then we can all force our favorite “greengrocer” to sell us our favorite “vegetables” or suffer our righteous wrath!
Drumwaster, if the 99% want to abuse the minority, well, that is the benefit of being in the majority.
Ernst, you couldn’t….never mind…..
Scooter, I think marriage is VERY important. That’s why I support more people becoming married.
Freedom’s just another word for ‘nothing left to lose’. — Job, Land of Uz, speaking to Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite
well, that is the benefit of being in the majority
Prop 8 says differently.
Strike 3, you’re out.
Tracy – not to get all curmudgeonly, but you’ll note I specified heterosexual marriage. The kind whose activities produce children. I commend you, whether you want it or not, for being in a committed same-sex relationship and choosing to raise a child. Your union didn’t create that child, however.
I’m forced to admit that I tend to think that having a father and a mother is better than 2 of either one, although 2 of either is likely better than having just 1 of either. You’ll note I’m not advocating for single-parent households (regardless of the sexual orientation of the single parent) over 2-parent households, with exceptions made for abusive parents, etc. We could go on all day listing the potential exceptions where gay parents are superior to some other hypothetical parental configuration but, in general, I’m of the opinion that heterosexual parents are optimal and as such, should be encouraged/promoted by society as much as possible. Redefining marriage is contra to that.
it wasn’t a wedding cake, it was for a commitment ceremony…
That might seem to be an important distinction for you, but whether something violates someone’s conscience is a matter for that someone to determine, not an outside party.
Conscientious objection must be supported. And let us emphasize again that it was a product they objected to, not the customer.
I specified heterosexual marriage. The kind whose activities produce children.
Also the kind that civilizes men, regardless of whether it produces offspring.
I can’t emphasize this enough.
Over at The Corner thread, near the end, I said:
A commenter responded:
I’m not willing to issue a blanket condemnation of deaf parents or gay parents as selfish and needy, but there’s something to the parallel: The refusal to distinguish between normal and abnormal. Ears are for hearing, and if you’re deaf, something went wrong. Eyes are for seeing, and if you’re blind, something went wrong. If you’re a dwarf, something went wrong. If you have cerebral palsy, something went wrong. And if you’re unable to bond sexually with the opposite sex, something went wrong.
It’s part and parcel of the effort to efface and obliterate distinctions, and then to invert them. First Potsie starts wearing a leather jacket and Fonzie is struck dumb in the presence of a girl. Next thing you know, Potsie and the Fonz are sharing wardrobes, experimenting with hairstyles, riding bicycles.
And then Potsie emerges with his hair slicked back and his chick-magnet ON while Fonzie dorks around in the booth with Ralph Malph and Richie.
DOGS AND CATS LIVING TOGETHER.
Drumwaster, fortunately we aren’t into mob rule and when the majority wants to bludgeon the minority, they have rules to follow.
Yes Scooter, you said heterosexual, but I expanded it because I happen to think MARRIAGE is a benefit to everyone involved…not just heterosexuals. Correct, we did not give birth to CJ, she was abandoned by her heterosexual parents on Christmas day in an abandoned building when it was 30 degrees outside. We however DID raise her into the fine young woman she is today.
I won’t disagree that having mom and dad is better than any other arrangement, however absent that, two parents are better than one. I disagree that promoting marriage is bad if it isn’t the right kind of marriage. Much of the adoption landscape still bears the ‘anti-interracial marriage’ scars.
dicentra, they objected to the purpose of the cake – a symbol of a gay marriage – the cake was a cake so they didn’t object to the ‘cake’, just what it represented to people and by their providing it, the assumption they endorse, accept, or agree with gay marriage. They said they serve gays and have no problem with them as customers, just won’t support gay marriage which they oppose. So, serving a gay couple scones on the weekends is fine, birthday cakes bought to surprise one partner is ok, but a wedding cake…there they draw the line…because living in sin is ok, but getting married….
So, leaving barbarian men aside, what about women? Is it the potential for a lack of suitable women for civilizing men that leads to an opposition for lesbians to be married? I am not sure what you want gay men to do? Ok, I realize you want them to stop being gay and to get married and raise children. But since many of them don’t seem to want to follow that path, would you banish them from communities? (enough of them self segregate as it is to create their own ‘communities’ but some are not interested in those types of communities).
I have come across the ‘deaf’ communities more militant people. I don’t agree with them. But a deaf or blind or even gay person IS abnormal – but that doesn’t make them BAD. And if they work to ‘live’ with their condition and want to be part of the larger society, why is that to be opposed? I am supportive of places that work to be more accessible to ‘abnormals’, V in her last couple years was mostly confined to a wheelchair in public and ‘accomodations’ were much appreciated. I however opposed the ADA – my brother had muscular dystrophy and we as a family opposed ADA.
Back in WI, we were part of a small neighborhood. CJ babysat for neighbors, we had barbecues together, helped out with shoveling snow and digging out stuck cars, watched over each other’s kids. We were part of the community, not evil interlopers. CJ hasn’t and as far as I know none of the other children in the neighborhood turned out ‘gay’. None of the other marriages were disrupted.
I am one example of abnormals living normally with normals. Yes, there are hundreds of thousands of examples of gay militants – with tens of millions of heterosexuals supporting them – seeking to destroy the family and ‘the church’ (quotes because there are several religions under attack).
See, you don’t oppose gay people….you are happy to sell me cupcakes, cookies, scones and birthday cakes and happy to get paid to take pictures of our parties….but weddings….ewwww…that is going just too far.
Nobody said that being abnormal makes you bad.
But I also won’t certify a blind man to fly a plane. I don’t need to be squicked out by his blindness to say no.
because living in sin is ok
Were they celebrating housewarmings for shack-ups?
You don’t know that.
who doesn’t like cake man these people are weirdos
fortunately we aren’t into mob rule and when the majority wants to bludgeon the minority, they have rules to follow
Pick a side. Either the majority can push around the minority at will, or they cannot.
You still avoid the “involuntary servitude” problem, by the way, but I don’t blame you. Truths can be so uncomfortable when they don’t go away with a wave of a whim, can’t they?
And as for the “mob rule” isn’t that what the boycotters are trying to accomplish? “I want what I want when I want it, and no haters are gonna shut me up! They only deserve to DIEDIEDIE!!!eleventy!!1!!”
And as far as your desperate need to change an institution that has been around a hell of a lot longer than any nation or religion has, I refer you to the parable of Chesterton’s gate. Until you have shown that you understand the need for the institution as it stands now, I will NOT let you go around trying to alter it on your whim.
Nor would I hire a deaf person to answer phones. But would you deny either of them the attempt to live ‘normal’ lives? Would you prevent them from marrying? How about a deaf person marrying another deaf person, or two blind people marrying – even if the likelihood of children being deaf or blind was greater? Would you deny abnormal people the chance to live as normally as possible?
Would you prevent them from marrying?
No, nor would I prevent a gay man and a lesbian from marrying.
But I would refuse to honor the wedding of two DEAF lesbians.
By asking the question you did, you confused the categories. I’ve already stated that the opposite-sex component is a weight-bearing wall in the definition of marriage.
I won’t hire a deaf woman to answer the phones because her ears don’t work. I won’t honor a same-sex union as a marriage because one of the sexes is missing.
Would you prevent them from marrying?
Do they meet the impartial standards set by the society in which they reside? (Notice that the desires of the individuals are irrelevant under those standards, only their willingness.)
Next question: why doesn’t society have the authority to set the standards required of those who seek their approval and permission?
if you’re happy and you know it your deaf lesbo face will show it but you’d be even more happier with cake
If I wanted to drive a car on the roads owned and maintained by the State, the State has the right and authority to set the standards I would need to meet before I could legally do so.
If I wanted to practice law or medicine or construction, I must meet the standards set by the State in order to receive a license to legally do so.
But if I am asking the State to cast its benevolent gaze of approval on my wish to unite in marriage, I must similarly meet the standards set by the State in order to obtain a license to lawfully do so. Until someone drops their binky and gets a judge to overturn two popular elections.
Drumwaster: individual rights, even if the majority wants to take them away, WE don’t want that to happen. Now, I am not going to drag people kicking and screaming into a ‘rights’ discussion, but this country is based on majority rule, minority rights. That means just because you have a majority doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want to the minority.
Do you oppose boycotters? Protesters? I don’t. I strongly oppose people that threaten others for whatever reason.
I stated that I believe a business should be able to serve, or not serve, anyone they choose, at any time, for any reason. But that is not our law. I’d like to see it changed. I’d support a repeal of many of the civil rights act provisions – especially those that force a business to serve people they don’t want to – and those rules that make discrimination based on anything illegal. I think people should be free to discriminate if they want to.
I have no desperate need. I was married 33 years ago, divorced 29 years ago. I was in a same sex relationship for 18+ years. My partner died almost 2 years ago and I have no intention of ever being involved in an intimate relationship ever again, same or opposite sex.
I support the institution of marriage, agree that it is a vital and necessary thing – I just believe opening it up to 2% of the population will have minimal (if any) effect….and might just be beneficial to those involved.
I hardly think that this requires the weight of the state.
However, I understand that examples need to be made. In a very short time these people will no longer be in business.
cake is for closers you are not a closer therefore you do not get any cake
individual rights, even if the majority wants to take them away
You mean like the rights of that baker? Oh, wait…
I just believe opening it up to 2% of the population will have minimal (if any) effect….and might just be beneficial to those involved.
I believe otherwise, and you haven’t met any kind of evidentiary burden. Your feelings on the matter don’t count, nor do mine. And, since the motives of the more militant have been openly declared to be the ultimate destruction of marriage, I continue to call your own motives into question.
If same-sex couples want to go through a ceremony, there are LOTS of people who would be willing to perform their handfast/commitment ceremony, and just as many who would be happy to provide all the food and catering and decorations.
But these groups are going after those who would prefer to just be left alone. The alternatives out there – no one claims that there are not other bakers or photographers in the area – just don’t enter into their equation.
“The purpose is to rehabilitate.” Look up “rehabilitate” and see against whom they are applying the intention. Ask “why”. If you dare.
i’d bake the gaysters a cake. oops how did those bits of chocolate bhut jolokia peppers get into the recipe?
Damn bloodsucking bourgeois christers. Gotta start somewhere eliminating those types. Might as well go for the twofers first.
Drumwaster: “Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant—society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it—its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself”
So, yes, it can set it’s standards and does…until sufficient of it decides that those standards are not the be all and end all and should be changed. I too am a member of society…
However, I understand that examples need to be made.
Omelets. Eggs.
Best put some kind of visible label on their clothing to make it easier to identify them in future…
So, yes, it can set it’s standards and does…until sufficient of it decides that those standards are not the be all and end all and should be changed.
Yep, those standards were put up for a vote, to see whether they could be changed. Twice. Lost both times. So far, you’re not arguing the case you think you are…
“Should be”? Arguable (Although I haven’t seen any argument other than “HOMOPHOBE H8R” and am not expecting any)
“Will be”? Not yet.
So since society won’t do things your way, let’s get a judge, right?
“until sufficient of it decides that those standards are not the be all and end all and should be changed. ”
you gaysters don’t work that way. if the voters say no you find a gayster judge to say yes citing some penumbra somewhere. gaysters are dishonest and dullies.
dullies =bullies
Drumwaster, dicentra linked to a video of the OR bakers. Did you see it? I watched, they said they had other gay couples ask for a cake and they turned them down also. Those couples went elsewhere. But I am glad you prefer to continue to lump me in with the militants.
The exercise of individual rights has consequences. The OR bakers choose to operate with a license from the State of Oregon. That license requires them to operate according to the laws of the state. One of those laws was to not discriminate. They have chosen to close their business. The State has not forced the issue – some people, acting like the mafia, choose to harass their vendors and that cost them business. I find those people reprehensible.
I have probably been involved in a dozen conversations here, probably 10 of them on this topic. Jeff considers me juvenile, I’m unlikely to change anyone’s mind, no one is likely to change mine. I will continue to comment and to enjoy the posts.
” The OR bakers choose to operate with a license from the State of Oregon.”
no they had to by force of law obtain a license from oregon. because baking is a very important state matter.
One of those laws was to not discriminate
Define “discriminate.”
They were not turning gays away for being gay. It wasn’t the customer they objected to, it was the product that was requested. If they’d turned down a “God Hates Fags” order, nobody would call it illegal or discriminatory.
Please recognize the double standard at work here. Please recognize where the malice and will to act on it is coming from.
But I am glad you prefer to continue to lump me in with the militants.
If the shoe fits… if you do not being lumped in with their actions, do not defend their results.
The OR bakers choose to operate with a license from the State of Oregon
Since when does the State Department of Health check religious beliefs?
One of those laws was to not discriminate.
They aren’t discriminating against them. The gay couples are more than welcome to buy anything else they offer on their menu. Same-sex wedding cakes do not appear on that menu. For ANYONE. It is not discrimination to not offer to a gay couple what is not available to anyone else.
The State has not forced the issue
Commissioner Brad Avakian told The Oregonian … “The goal is to rehabilitate. But you’re right, it was only the illegal mob action by the extortionists (anyone care to wager whether any charges are ever brought for their threats against third parties?) that pre-empted the rehabilitation.
And it’s all because there was no one else in the State that wanted their money, and they were forced to select the ONE business that would tell them exactly why.
I didn’t see you answer it, so I will ask dicentra’s question again: should a gay-owned business have the right to tell Fred Phelp’s crew to pack sand, or would you support the State forcing the owner to print the “GOD HATES FAGS” signs against their wishes?
re God hates Fags ‘wedding cake’. Actually, it wouldn’t BE a wedding cake….maybe a ‘special occasion’ cake? for a funeral?
ANYONE should have the right to refuse service for any reason at any time to anyone.
The law says no. If fred phelps wanted a cake(sign) with ‘God Hates Fags’ on it, and someone turned him down, he should be able to sue. I doubt, unlike the gay cases, he’d win on the premise that the saying incites hatred for a ‘minority’ But I don’t accept the premise that the two situations are analogous.
A wedding cake for a straight couple is the same cake for a gay couple – except the gay cake is denied because one person is not the right sex. Discrimination based on ‘sex/gender’.
BTW, neither AZ nor OR required the businesses to act.
What if bacon were the “coming out cupcake” of processed meat?
Squid,
That gives new meaning to the phrase: Bacon is meat candy!
A wedding cake for a straight couple is the same cake for a gay couple
Except for the figures standing on top. The bakery doesn’t have the male-male/female-female pairs, and don’t offer them, to anyone, regardless of the hypothetical other desires of the customer. No discrimination, and the sex/gender/personal beliefs of the ones demanding the special treatment don’t enter into it.
BTW, neither AZ nor OR required the businesses to act. – See more at: https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=50840#comments
So they were within their rights to deny service?
And this deserves the full weight of the law?
Ok, skipping ahead a bit so hopefully I’m not retreading however comma cake baking and photography are artistic endeavors involve the free expression of ideas and talent.
Change the law? How about read the Law! THE CONSTITUTION!
and
and
Everyone’s like “well knock me over with a feather!” and “Wow. Didn’t see that one coming.”
Right?
“Discrimination based on
‘sex/gender’a traditional understanding on what the term ‘marriage’ means.”fify
Mueller, AZ did not require the photographer to photo the ceremony. It did not fine her. It made her pay the attorney fees of the couple that sued. The OR bakers were not required to bake the cake.
But no, they offered their services to the public and refused to provide the services to a gay couple in violation of the AZ law and apparently OR law….that case is still being handled at an administrative level.
Danger skips….the preceding conversation and resets it back 5 hours….
In other words, can I force you to make a movie celebrating the cowardly diver Greg Louganis if you would rather make one about Lou Gehrig
Do we know the judges reasoning for requiring the AZ photog to pay attorney fees in a suit in which she apparently did not lose nor did she bring it?
they offered their services to the public and refused to provide the services to a gay couple in violation of the AZ law and apparently OR
so a group of christians can go to a gay bar everyday and have bible readings concerning gaysterism?
yo tracy we christians can be as militant as you depict us.
please leave out the “west boro bapist church” they’re just demonrat agitprop.
So freedom of expression/religion comes with your oppressors attorney fees now. And it seems that I may have skipped the conversation (I’ve seen it before) but you missed the points.
I’d say your blinded by your ideology.
refused to provide the services to a gay couple
They didn’t refuse to provide it to a gay couple. They didn’t provide the service to ANYONE. It is not discrimination to say “we don’t do that” as long as you say it to everyone.
If a hetero couple walked in and wanted a same-sex wedding cake, they would get turned down, too… That isn’t discrimination, that’s setting a business practice. As long as they don’t offer it to anyone, it is not discrimination to turn down one more person.
Still waiting for your explanation as to why this wouldn’t be “involuntary servitude” (payment is irrelevant, it is the desire of the one being forced to work that matters). And if the gay couple would likely win in court after being sued by Fred Phelps, then why would the Christian couple lose? Is it because one particular minority group is currently (and temporarily) popular? What happens when they are not quite as popular again? Should laws still be decided based not on what the laws actually say, but on the whims of unelected bureaucrats and cherry pickers?
What if it was a Muslim baker? (I’d love to see the logic of “Aggrieved Public Identity” vs “Aggrieved Public Identity” )
Progressives, actually. And they used Ronald Reagan like a bowling alley bathroom vending machine condom in that effort.
“Where’s ‘feets? Didn’t he promise to stand up for Christers when they were being driven out of bidness by the Gay Mafia?”
So what if he did? He was just strikin’ a pose to the beat so the crowd could see his moves. There’s no there there. He doesn’t get wet when he does the swim and he doesn’t have feathers when he does the funky chicken. Then non-sequitor gibberish about snacks happens!
you gaysters want the power of big gov’t to force others to “accept” at the point of a lawyer/gun your perverted lifestyles. screw you or a miley foam finger.
yo newrouter….if you say so….though I don’t think I suggested any christians were ‘militant’. I know enough Scripture to know Westboro is demonspawn, nothing more.
Danger, what is my ideology? Please try to be specific – hint, you can check my website….
I’d lay the blame on the Second Vatican Council, but that’s a different conversation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps
“Fred Waldron Phelps, Sr. (born November 13, 1929) is an American pastor heading the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC), an independent Baptist church based in Topeka, Kansas. Phelps is a disbarred lawyer, founder of the Phelps Chartered law firm, and a former civil rights activist. A member of the Democratic Party, he has occasionally run for political office. In the election for United States Senator for Kansas in 1992, he received 49,416 votes (30.8%) in the Democratic primary, coming in second after Gloria O’Dell (who subsequently lost to later presidential candidate Bob Dole).”
gee Drumwaster, semantics a hobby of yours?
Drumwaster: “And if the gay couple would likely win in court after being sued by Fred Phelps, then why would the Christian couple lose?” Did you miss my comment? Phelps loses for inciting hatred against a minority. I did start the discussion with a question about a muslim business refusing to serve a woman not in a burka….
Pablo….many progressives, like 98% of them, are straight. (oh I’ll concede 80% are straight)….
Leigh…you’d blame the Pope for the downfall of marriage? Hmmm…interesting. Some other time then… As far as I know, the Pope (then and now) are straight….or un-sexual-oriented.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, Tracy. Even the Holy Father’s.
Did you miss my comment? Phelps loses for inciting hatred against a minority.
But all he is trying to do is get some signs printed, and you would deny him his civil rights to free expression because you feel discriminated against?
You keep switching sides.
It’s quite simple, no matter how you try to confuse the issue. The couple doesn’t offer a particular product. To anyone. At any time. For any reason.
It is not discrimination to continue to not offer it even when specifically asked. It is not discrimination for Burger King to refuse to make a Big Mac ™, especially when there are lots of McDonalds around to get one quickly and easily. What’s more, just because you can order a Whopper with two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles and onions on a sesame seed bun doesn’t make it a Big Mac.
If your heart is set on a Big Mac, it is up to you to go to where they are offered.
Leigh, many people in ‘authority’ think they are in that position because ‘God’ trusts them to know what is good for everyone else. Even the heathen thinks s/he got there because everyone trusts them to know whats best. I am fairly certain I know what is best for me, kinda certain what is best for my daughter and damn certain I haven’t a clue about anyone else.
And I keep missing your response to how State Law regarding this alleged discrimination somehow overrides the Constitution.
Again, I know it’s tough when neither the law nor the facts agree with you, but this is the fight you chose.
yo newrouter….if you say so….though I don’t think I suggested any christians were ‘militant’
christians could use the same gayster techniques against gayster no? why not bible readings on homosexuals at the “gay” bar everyday between 6-2 am? equal accommodation no?
many people in ‘authority’ think they are in that position because the state
‘God’trusts them to know what is good for everyone else.I just believe opening it up to 2% of the population will have minimal (if any) effect
Well, as we see by both the cake makers & the photographer, your statement is now moot.
Sorry, but any law interpreted to trump the Constitutional rights under the first amendment is wrong. Period.
98% is probably closer. It isn’t about sexual orientation. It’s about fundamental transformation. I’ll associate myself with Dicentra’s remarks regarding the nature and purpose of marriage and suggest that those foundations are the ones targeted for demolition.
And did anyone (I’ve skimmed the comments) bring up this case?
I’m not going to judge your sexuality, Tracy. That’s not for me to do. I question your good sense in this matter.
Good the ya got THE LAW then.
Tracy,
Perhaps an agenda would have been a more apt description.
Drumwaster, because you keep thinking this is about ‘religious freedom’ when it actually has nothing to do with it. For the same reason Hobby Lobby will lose it’s fight over Obamacare, your religious beliefs do not trump law. (oh the screaming and gnashing of teeth over THAT comment – note, you can not say that your religion prevents you from following the speed limit, or that your beliefs do not allow a zoning board to require every residence include a toilet. ) If you choose to establish a business – YOUR choice – in a state or locality that requires businesses to be licensed and that license requires you to follow all applicable state and local laws, then don’t complain when one of those laws offends you. You had a choice to NOT open the business under those rules.
You can apply all the semantics you want, but a ‘wedding cake’ for a gay couple is the same as a wedding cake for a straight couple – decorations not-withstanding. Choosing to not provide a gay couple with a wedding cake because you oppose gay marriage has been determined to be discrimination. Those laws were put in place ‘by majorities’. None of our rights are absolute. I can shoot someone with a gun to defend myself, I can’t shoot someone because they ‘looked at me funny’. I can practice my religion, I can’t do it on your doorstep. You can proclaim Christ all you want, but not in my office.
So newrouter, no, if Christians want to go into a gay bar to preach, and not drink, they can be bounced out on their ass. Now, if they buy drinks, I’d have no problem with them having a bible study….but preaching to other patrons is not going to be allowed – want to preach, go find a church.
Danger, what do you think is my ‘agenda’?
So newrouter, no, if Christians want to go into a gay bar to preach, and not drink, they can be bounced out on their ass.
can they discriminate against pepsi?
Now, if they buy drinks, I’d have no problem with them having a bible study….but preaching to other patrons is not going to be allowed – want to preach, go find a church
no just the owner.
Leigh, having been on the opposite sides of issues has informed my opinion about a lot of things. For almost 10 years I had seizures (epileptic). For a long time epilepsy was considered demon possession, then mental derangement, then just mental retardation…now it is known and treatable. We are gaining new knowledge about a lot of things and society is changing…faster than some prefer.
Pablo, I don’t disagree that many on the left seek to destroy institutions (marriage, church), but sure how wanting to be married in itself is seen as a method of doing so. Demonizing marriage, making its ‘practice’ intolerable seem more in keeping with a desire to destroy….
tracy you gaysters find the whole society “your” church.
Drumwaster, because you keep thinking this is about ‘religious freedom’ when it actually has nothing to do with it.
It has everything to do with it. It is because of the religious beliefs of the owner of the bakery that the product under question wasn’t offered. I would bet that you couldn’t get a cake in the shape of a vagina, either, and for much the same reason, and the personal sexual preferences/gender/age/whatever of the one asking for the vagina cake wouldn’t enter into it. Full stop.
your religious beliefs do not trump law.
Actually, First Amendment trumps any State Law to the contrary. Look it up. “Law of the Land” and all that…
but a ‘wedding cake’ for a gay couple is the same as a wedding cake for a straight couple – decorations not-withstanding.
And if your aunt had balls, she’d be your uncle. Decorations matter.
I can practice my religion, I can’t do it on your doorstep.
But this is exactly what was done. The gay couple came onto the bakery property and demanded that they be sold something that the business didn’t offer, and then claimed that they had been discriminated against, because their whims outweigh the rights of the business owner to set his own scope of business.
If it was just about a cake, the couple could have just bought a plain cake of specified flavor/frosting, and bought the figures themselves and added it later.
This was about sending a message, and punishing enemies. “The goal is to rehabilitate.” Rehabilitate who, and in what fashion? “Boy, I bet they won’t stand on their religious belief next time… fuckin’ haters.”
“Danger, what do you think is my ‘agenda’?”
Some form of anti-religion or at least very strong agnosticism (same/same) with very apparent homosexual loyalties.
“Choosing to not provide a gay couple with a wedding cake because you oppose gay marriage has been determined to be discrimination.”
By who?
. For a long time epilepsy was considered demon possession, then mental derangement, then just mental retardation…now it is known and treatable.
and homosexuality is scientific? because gaysters breed alot?
Tracy, I am also an epileptic (controlled) as well as a psychologist by training. Demons are the business of the Church. We just help people get their personal lives together and deal with life.
Often times, individuals need more help than prayer.
When I go to the Federal Courthouse, there is a sign that basically says, ‘you enter, we are going to search you’. Now, probable cause and reasonable suspicion have nothing to do with it, your choice: enter and be searched, or don’t enter. Many places in our society offer the same choice: leave some of your rights at the doorstep or don’t bother coming in. You are still free express your rights, but when you are off your property, you are subject to limitations. The Constitution doesn’t change that.
tracy it is easy as cake: men have sex with women to create children. all other sex is stupid/adolescent pleasure.
Many places in our society offer the same choice: leave some of your rights at the doorstep or don’t bother coming in.
All of them called “public buildings”, too, not private business establishments. And you have switched sides (again).
“This is my bakery. I do not offer certain products that may be desired by some people with whom I have a religious disagreement. If you enter this building, you are giving up your right to complain about that limitation, or don’t bother coming in.”
“When I go to the Federal Courthouse, there is a sign that basically says, ‘you enter, we are going to search you’. ”
if you gaysters believed in the us constitution that would be your fight not some bakery in oregon!
Because, You didn’t build that is why.
leigh, my appreciation of your efforts to help people – lots of bad/wrong information out there. I know several psychologists at University of Chicago and Northwestern University medical centers. Good people doing good work. I was on a presentation panel once for a class at UC for docs in training. Class lasted 90 minutes, panel discussion an hour, question/answer afterwords….5 hours. Very enlightening.
newrouter…homosexuality is going to be found to be a complex result of genetic and hormonal variations (IMO). Are there people that ‘choose’ to be gay? yes. But they are very much the minority among gays. BTW, when did you decide to be straight? (if in fact you are….)
1. Just because a law is in place doesn’t make it Constitutional.
2. Being forced to express someone else’s wishes is much different than having limits on expressing your rights in someone else’s house.
” when did you decide to be straight”
you assume alot. me this failshit america isn’t worth the effort to produce slaves for it’s bullshit state. you gaysters are another proggtard assault on the foundation of this nation.
i didn’t “decide” to become “straight clown. i decided that the bullshit zeitgeist wasn’t in tune to reality. take your stupid cake and lick too.
drumwaster….noooo. As a business owner, you get to tell customers ‘leave some of your rights at the door’, but also, as a business owner, you give up some of YOUR rights to have a license to operate. That kinda is the idea about society – we all give up a little freedom so that we can all live and work together.
” you give up some of YOUR rights to have a license to operate”
you statists losers sux. lesbian tax on licking. asshat.
The Dalek blathered:
I want to hear more about Jeff’s bigoted fever dream where the “pendulum swings back”
You need to learn to distinguish between what is said and what the voices in your head tell you was said.
Some of us a little more than others, it seems.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Ld_xNuln32w/UWluZP-vRzI/AAAAAAAACY8/6NDT_yG6t3Y/s400/gandalf.jpg
aw newrouter…and I’ve been so polite. Gays didn’t decide to be gay either. ( exception the aforementioned few).
Danger. Hmmm…that is your opinion. I do agree we have laws on the books that are not Constitutional. Our choice is to ignore those laws to call attention to them (and suffer the consequences) or to accept them. Most people accepted the ‘anti-discrimination’ laws. The AZ court found the photographer was not exercising ‘freedom of expression’. We can disagree with every court opinion that goes against us…as a matter of fact that is more or less what happens – any opinion that is disliked, 1) the losing side accuses the court of ‘activism’, 2) the losing side accuses the result as ‘unconstitutional’.
I thank you, Tracy. It is fascinating work, indeed.
you can not say that your religion prevents you from following the speed limit,
So, no conscientious objection allowed.
Got it.
Also, YOU may not thing that an SSM wedding cake is different from the straight version, but the owners of the baker did not.
Oregon doesn’t even recognize SSM. Why should the bakery?
has been determined to be discrimination
By whom?
Remember, the law wasn’t actually involved. The bakers never had their day in court, never were judged by a jury of their peers. They were deemed guilty and punished by a mob.
” Gays didn’t decide to be gay either.”
so there is no free will? there is not a “gay” community that has procreated. you folks are a figment of your own imagination. especially females. proggtards to the core.
“you can not say that your religion prevents you from following the speed limit, ”
missed that stupid assertion. how my gaysterism?
Demonizing marriage, making its ‘practice’ intolerable seem more in keeping with a desire to destroy…
The sexual revolution did plenty of damage from the outside by offering fornication, adultery, and “living in sin” as alternatives. Now the Activists want to co-opt the institution and destroy it from within.
I’ve heard/read them myself: first force the filthy Christers to shove their heteronormativity up their bung-holes, then Occupy Marriage, then challenge the very concept of fidelity and monogamy and whatever other thing they can transgress.
Tracy, why did you and your partner need to be legally married to raise your daughter? You got to freely associate, set up your household as you saw fit, even adopt a child.
Why do you need the piece of paper?
you give up some of YOUR rights to have a license to operate.
And those rights involve getting inspected as to the cleanliness of your equipment, not whether you agree with the politically-correct whim du jour.
Again, no one was discriminated against, and the people were bullied by militants, and you are applauding their results, even while you pretend to abhor their methods.
As has been pointed out, both here and elsewhere, none of the states where these cases have happened allow for same sex marriage, so why should a business be punished and forced to close for upholding the law, not to mention the Constitution?
When the law is on your side, pound on the law.
When the facts are on your side, pound on the facts.
When neither is on your side, pound on the table.
I’m sure you can find a nice table somewhere…
Oh boy – another dipwad posting dozens of obtuse and dishonest comments to scroll through.
At least happyfeet has an easily recognizable avatar that makes ignoring his comments easier.
Guys, the question of what causes same-sex attraction is totally beside the point. Some of it comes from sexual abuse, some from what happens in utero, some from other junk. Who knows?
The causes don’t speak to whether men and women are fungible in marriage — which is a social convention, not a biological one.
dicentra, on what would you base your conscientious objection to the speed limit? Of course people can object to anything they want using whatever belief they want, doesn’t mean it will be acceptable as an excuse for failing to follow the law.
Correct, I don’t think it is an issue. Correct on ‘determination’, that only applies in the AZ photographer’s case. The community turned against the bakers – though I will concede because it is more than likely that in fact it was ‘agitators’ from outside the community that caused the OR issues. I reiterate, I consider the people that threatened vendors to be criminal. People in the community asked for same sex cakes in the past and were also refused without it prompting any issues.
newrouter, done.
tracy did you ever ponder that you are wrong?
as a business owner, you give up some of YOUR rights to have a license to operate.
More of that fine print in the Good and Plenty Clause, I guess.
“newrouter, done.”
didn’t need to pose the ? how efficient.
Tracy
do you know the expression “strict scrutiny”? Then you know any law that interferes with Constitutional rights comes under strict scrutiny and there has been many many cases where the courts have enforced religious accommodation based on “free exercise of religion”
It is freedom of religion, NOT freedom of worship. And it is the first freedom listed in the First Amendment.
There’s law and then there’s law Drumwaster. I’m sure the Bureau of Labor and Industries has some regulation that Tracy can pound.
And why should Hobby Lobby “lose”? Or do you think Catholic hospitals should be forced to perform abortions and sterilizations?
BTW, when did you decide to be straight? (if in fact you are….) –
Interesting how sexual orientation is fixed at birth, but gender is not.
At least for the political convenience.
tracy : can you argue the opposition’s side? i can because it is feel good “do sumthing” . basically stupid emotion.
I’m pretty sure it’s actually the freedom of belief Darleen, though I can’t cite case law on it.
Just be careful how you act on those beliefs.
on what would you base your conscientious objection to the speed limit?
That’s not your concern, and definitely not the State’s.
Remember, all of my Mormon polygamist ancestors had their First Amendment rights violated six ways till Sunday: from being driven off their property by mobs multiple times (no redress), to being raped and murdered (no redress), forced to drop a marital practice (under threat of property seizure and jail).
The Good Christians in the rest of the country declared that our plural marriages were “barbaric,” like slavery, thus forming the two principal planks of the Republican Party.
So the State gets to say which of our beliefs has basis and legitimacy? Whom were were hurting? We had been driven into a Godforsaken desert (Mexico at the time) so that we could do as we pleased, but no. We had to be stopped.
You got to live your gay lifestyle in your own home. Was your daughter scooped off the streets and forced to rat you and your partner out? Were either of you forced to flee to Canada to avoid being jailed? Are gays being denied the vote for being gay? If a mob beats you up for being gay, can you get your case heard in court? If you go to the White House and ask the president if he can for the sake of God muster some forces to protect you, will he say, “well, you people aren’t too popular right now, and it IS an election year.”
Spare me you talk of “illegal discrimination.” My ancestors suffered more unconstitutional discrimination than any homosexual alive, and WE SURVIVED.
Thrived.
Which, after all, is the best revenge.
I would also like to point out that my polygamist ancestors never petitioned the State to sanction the plural marriages: we were happy to have it be amongst ourselves. They were guilty of “unlawful cohabitation,” see.
Is it “unlawful cohabitation when” a pair of lesbians to live together and raise a child?
Thought not.
“on what would you base your conscientious objection to the speed limit?”
yes the state can discriminate of state roads. tracy you got a problem with dat?
dicentra, V adopted CJ from China – in WI they don’t allow third party adoptions so I could not also adopt CJ. WI also has a law on the books that prevents ‘the same or similar rights to marriage’ being offered in things like civil unions. Going out of state and returning married is also against the law. Because V and I could not marry, I had no legal rights to CJ. If we split up, I didn’t even have standing to ask a court for visitation – I would have been treated the same as a person off the street asking for visitation. Though we raised CJ together and we had many documents between us (wills, powers of attorney) and the community in general accepted us, I had no legal standing. When V died, I was given guardianship over CJ. In CA, the process of adopting a minor takes a couple of years, CJ was almost 17 at the time. We decided to wait til she was 18 and the process would be much shorter. but of course, she is an adult now so it is just a matter of giving legal recognition to the relationship – it will have no other impact as she is the beneficiary in my will. (it will have an impact if I die rich (HA!), transfer to family member is treated differently for tax purposes.)
As to ‘infiltration’….V was a divorce attorney for almost 30 years – we saw lots of destruction. We attended Episcopal and Luthern churches – all accepting. BTW, V was very, VERY liberal. Our political ideologies were very different. Also, I am and have been for almost 30 years, agnostic. V was very religious and CJ was raised in the Church. About 4 years ago CJ was asked if she was Christian (after service during coffee hour), she said, “Mom and I have God in our hearts, but Tracy doesn’t”. Social justice was a big deal in those churches – I was pointedly not invited to join those discussions.
Because V and I could not marry, I had no legal rights to CJ. If we split up, I didn’t even have standing to ask a court for visitation – I would have been treated the same as a person off the street asking for visitation.
That’s definitely a precarious situation legally, and I can see why that’s not acceptable to you.
Nevertheless, you were allowed to cohabitate unmolested by the law. My ancestors were not.
you don’t “stand up” for people by making comments you have to actually stand up for them but in this case we are not being asked to stand up for people but for a “Christian bakery”
what the fuck is a christian bakery
Jesus never even had an ez bake oven and now he for sure doesn’t cause of incandescent bulbs are illegal and against the law in America and the NSA is keeping records
personally I think everyone involved needs to do a lil tcb
but beyond that it looks to me like the problem is with the Christian bakers not having the courage of their convictions – they need to man up and deal with the situation
they’re living in a state where it looks like they don’t have a lot of protection with regards to telling the unchristian homosexuals nonono you cannot have cake because Jesus, so they need to do some thinking and figure out what they want to do
if they want to stand up for their right to discriminate then they need to get someone to sponsor legislation that says it’s alright to refuse to do business with homosexuals
beyond that it looks like the system is working as it should
they’re asserting their right to discriminate which is their right as Americans (except in Oregon), and people are also asserting their rights to say hey y’all are stupid we don’t want your stupid hate bakery and we’re gonna a.) not buy your tasty baked goods and b.) we’re gonna tell everybody how much you suck ass
I only have a limited understanding of the situation cause if I opened a bakery I’d be tickled to death every time someone custom-ordered a cake from me
that must be a tremendously validating experience
tremendously. validating.
for a baker
it’s like people are saying hey we really respect your work please please please be a part of our special occasion
and the bakers are all like no fucking way homo piss off
and so what the gay homosexuals should do is go somewhere else and get an even better cake or think outside the box and maybe do beignets or something
individual, anecdotal stories are sad and depressing but NOT sufficient to overturn a millennia-old practice
dicentra, V adopted CJ from China – in WI they don’t allow third party adoptions so I could not also adopt CJ. WI also has a law on the books that prevents ‘the same or similar rights to marriage’ being offered in things like civil unions. Going out of state and returning married is also against the law. Because V and I could not marry, I had no legal rights to CJ. If we split up, I didn’t even have standing to ask a court for visitation
yep another demonrat voter. change the subject when losing.
“what the fuck is a christian bakery”
is it like this:
Join GayCities, the fun way to discover the world
“they’re asserting their right to discriminate”
when it comes to yellow pickachus you betcha
what the fuck is a christian bakery
But I bet if I said “Kosher deli” you’d understand.
mendouchiness
tracy
back in the bad old 1960’s, our family doctor was a Catholic. He was a good, kind man and he made it clear to my mom he didn’t prescribe The Pill or any other contraceptive.
So my mom saw the other doctor in the practice to get her BC.
There was mutual respect for each other’s belief system and every one went their own way.
There was a time when gays lamented that all they wanted was that people leave them alone and considered them individuals who just happened to be gay … and that their gayness was only one component of their whole being.
Now the gay mafia spits on tolerance, spits on acceptance and demands full-throated celebration.
kosher delis are expensive
we have Jerry’s in the valley – there’s like 5 on Ventura alone – we also have Art’s
both of them are expensive for what you get but very tasty but still I’d rather go to Du-par’s which is not kosher cause of they have the slap your mama pancakes, which are for fat losers not for me or Ashton Kutcher because we make Good Choices is what we do, me and Ashton
for sure there was a christian coffee shop near where i used to live and one day i went in and ordered a latte
to be clear i thought it was a normal coffee shop there was a tv over where you would go sit with your coffee and if was nice and quiet – you walked in and ordered on your wall to the right and to the left was a room you’d have to step down a couple steps into to go find a table
and I ordered and what was weird – I noticed this with my keen eye for observation
what was weird was that the price was in the form of a “suggested donation”
but I was still relatively new to LA so I’m just like ok whatever, hippies
and so I’m waiting kinda longer than usually you would
and then like a million people say PRAISE HIM CLAP CLAP
just two sharp claps
scared the mother-loving crap out of me
I turned around and in the place where you would go take your coffee – what I hadn’t noticed – were all these people sitting on the FLOOR watching the tv which I now see is all about spreading the Word
who sits on the floor at a coffee shop? Especially one off of Ventura? That’s so nasty.
Anyway I got a look on my face I know I did and just sort of looked at a fixed point on the wall til I got my latte and then I left and never went back.
It’ got tored down last year and now there’s a Walgreen’s there that often has food trucks parked to the side as they offer vaccinations or blood pressure what have you
I hardly ever eat at food trucks anymore cause of the whole fat losers etc. thing
*it* was nice and quiet I mean
and that should just be *It* got tored down no apostrophe
Darleen, I think we have been over this before – our rights are not provided by the Constitution. The first amendment is a restriction upon government, not a grant of rights.
That said, yes, I have heard of strict scrutiny – it is a reason opposition to gay marriage loses in courts.
Of course I don’t think hospitals or doctors should be forced to perform abortions – nor to I think businesses should be forced to serve people they don’t want to. CJ’s pediatrician, a very liberal greenie, and V’s best friend for 35 years refused to do abortions unless the mother’s life was in immediate peril (she said she only did two over 20 years) but supported abortion on demand. I think a hospital that refuses to do an abortion in the case of a mother’s life being in immediate peril is negligent and should face consequences for it – but I am unaware of any such instance. Generally, abortion is an elective surgery and hospitals can refuse to perform elective surgery if they don’t otherwise offer it.
dicentra, ah, so all the crap and terror piled on you made you stronger so gays should just suck it up because they got it so much easier?
tracy : i’m muslimiod: hack the heads of the gay dc. hi nsa.
“our rights are not provided by the Constitution. The first amendment is a restriction upon government, not a grant of rights.”
too stupid clown
” best friend for 35 years refused to do abortions unless the mother’s life”
you can’t argue with stupid
tracy the borg will embrace your foolishness. say hi to stalin, che, and pol pot on your way down!!11!!
The fact that the establishment gave the task of
defending its positions to the usual political and journalistic hacks
was probably a case of Hobson’s choice in an emergency, but it
gained it nothing and was just one further error, since those gentlemen’s
standards are notorious. As could be expected, they immediately
brought into play against the Charter a whole set of slanders,
distortions, abuse, half-truths and absolute falsehoods which all
represent the dismal range of their capacity. Ispeak from experience
as one who has been a favourite target for their sort of behaviour for
the past thirty years, and who could well lay claim to the laurels of
seniority and worthy service. Though the powers that be may not
know it, or rather, would sooner not know it, nay, cannot afford to
know it (for where else would they find more obedient, unscrupulous
and servile creatures), the media are the principal, albeit
unintentional, creators and encouragers of opposition, since they
are totaJIy suspect and nobody believes them. People almost automatically
take for gospel the opposite of what the papers say. Once
all-powerful, the media were capable of pointing the finger that
condemned people to death. As they lost all credibility they also lost
some of their power, and at the very least were obliged to change
their methods, if not their ends. Nowadays, they do not directly fix
the noose around people’s necks, but they do endeavour to destroy
their honour and slay them with a hail of repeated slanders and lies,
power of the powerless 127
Darleen, gay mafia = leftist that uses gay rights as a battering ram, not because they have any interest in ‘rights’ or even gays’, just the prop for their march to ‘social justice’….
there’s nothing particularly Christian about making cakes made largely out of white flour and eggs and butter what in truth – and let’s be honest with each other about this – what in truth only serve to make people fat and place them at High Risk of diabetes and coronary heart disease and unsightly blemishes.
Sure.
I understand that isolated over-eating events are not significant contributors to weight gain.
But temptation is of the devil and cakes are a wicked wicked temptation.
I want to eat them up!
dicentra, sorry, not on you, but on your ancestors. But yes, Mormons were most certainly abused. CJs best friend family is Mormon – we have missionaries here regularly. They won’t come in to talk to me anymore – no man in the house. V was raised Mormon…her ‘lifestyle’ ended that shortly after she went to college and left her parents home.
“there’s nothing particularly Christian about making cakes made largely out of white flour and eggs and butter what in truth –”
Yeah, unfortunately that never really bootstrapped itself into anything approaching relevance. Just noise.
“dicentra, sorry, not on you, but on your ancestors”
please do keep hiding the the argument of this thread. it shows how shallow your rebuttal cake licker.
“Yeah, unfortunately that never really bootstrapped itself into anything approaching relevance. Just noise, pronounced Mr. palaeomerus, suddenly feeling very, very weary of it all.
“The internet isn’t supposed to have pikachus,” he thought to himself. “Why come there’s all these pikachus?” he asked aloud, plaintively.
But the Austin night ventured no reply.
noise,”
I mean
sorry i should type more carefully
” V was raised Mormon…her ‘lifestyle’ ended that shortly after she went to college and left her parents home.”
yea statist losers had nothing to do with dat. sure clown. with fed gov’t funding. man the licking lesbos are quite stupid.
The first amendment is a restriction upon government, not a grant of rights.
And I said otherwise?
” “Why come there’s all these pikachus?” ”
eff fag “culture”. fags are idiots working with the ivy league faggots to be sumthing stupid.
go putin!!11!!
“The first amendment is a restriction upon government, not a grant of rights. ”
you have natural rights cake licker the fed gov’t takes them away
the cake licker folk are really stupid in their partisanship.
That said, yes, I have heard of strict scrutiny – it is a reason opposition to gay marriage loses in courts.
Sorry, but no. It has only won by fraud, plain and simple. Judge Vaughn’s opinion in Prop8 was convoluted and shameful as was the self-contradicting opinion in the NM photographer case.
Let me ask you, writers are as self-employed as photographers and both, according to court rulings deal in expression. For hire.
Can/should a Jewish writer be sued for discrimination for not writing a book that makes Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood look wonderful?
cake is a double-edged sword Mr. newrouter, not unlike a sword with two-edges, except delicious
Darleen, I took this:
“Then you know any law that interferes with Constitutional rights comes under strict scrutiny and there has been many many cases where the courts have enforced religious accommodation based on “free exercise of religion” It is freedom of religion, NOT freedom of worship. And it is the first freedom listed in the First Amendment.”
as a suggestion that the Constitution grants rights…especially the last sentence. Although I understand how some people use the term ‘Constitutional rights’ to mean those rights recognized by the Constitution, but a large % use the term to mean ‘Constitutionally granted rights’.
Can/should a Jewish writer be sued for discrimination for not writing a book that makes Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood look wonderful?
I’m gonna go out on a limb and say no
“as a suggestion that the Constitution grants rights”
no cake licker the constitution says what the fed gov’t “rights” are. see amendment 9 & 10 clown
” but a large % use the term to mean ‘Constitutionally granted rights’.”
FUCK YOU STATIST. double it. you are a clown
tracy there is no “debating” you. take the vibrator and make yourself “feel” better. with the other cake licker.
The Constitution secures and protects inherent rights. And those rights begin with the right to EXERCISE one’s religious beliefs. That is why any statute or law that interferes with EXERCISE is under strict scrutiny.
Or it was until recently.
The anti-Semites and Christophobes are relentless.
“tracy 3 years later: “why didn’t you tell me it was going to crash?”
Darleen, the prop 8 case I think is a different animal. I was thinking of the Iowa Supreme Court decision specifically.
As to the NM case, this came from Volokh Conspiracy :
“The First Amendment does not protect the photographer. There is no free-speech right of a business to discriminate in providing services to the public. While the act of taking photographs may contain expression, the government mandates no particular message. The court argued that the photographer has the choice not to be in the business of taking pictures at all, but if it offers services to the public it must do so on the antidiscrimination terms mandated by the state. The court thus distinguished a line of cases involving compelled speech that the Cato Institute, Eugene, and I argued in an amicus brief should lead to reversal of the lower state court decision. It also rejected the idea that especially creative and expressive professionals (like photographers) should be exempted under the First Amendment while more mundane and generic services (like cake-baking) should not be.” http://www.volokh.com/2013/08/22/new-mexico-photographer-loses-discrimination-case/
Here is the IA Supreme Court case final comments: (I will note I was in error on this case, I thought it had gone to strict scrutiny, but it didn’t rise to that level: “Because we conclude Iowa’s same-sex marriage statute cannot withstand intermediate scrutiny, we need not decide whether classifications based on sexual orientation are subject to a higher level of scrutiny.”)
Conclusion. Having examined each proffered governmental objective through the appropriate lens of intermediate scrutiny, we conclude the sexual-orientation-based classification under the marriage statute does not substantially further any of the objectives. While the objectives asserted
may be important (and many undoubtedly are important), none are furthered in a substantial way by the exclusion of same-sex couples from civil marriage. Our equal protection clause requires more than has been offered to justify the continued existence of the same-sex marriage ban
under the statute.
“we conclude the sexual-orientation-based classification under the marriage statute does not substantially further any of the objectives.”
who elected you? what is our recourse?
So I’m sitting here going over these translated GUI terms and I have to tweeze out a particular proper noun that was being used as an adjective.
With the Romance languages, I can pull that sucka out slick as a whistle, but with Arabic, German, and Japanese, I don’t dare. I don’t know enough about how those languages are structured to just yank out the recognizable term and figure that what’s left is still correct. For all I know, there are inflections or word order to be changed as well. Or a preposition that I don’t recognize.
So I’m letting the translators take care of it.
Buffalo Springfield – For What Its Worth
dicentra, ah, so all the crap and terror piled on you made you stronger so gays should just suck it up because they got it so much easier?
<sarc>Of course that’s what I’m saying. What else?</sarc>
i notice the gaysters have no problem when gayster judges rule their way. like allan damned islamists in turkey.
“so gays should just suck it up ”
that’s what you perverts do
the “tracy world ” communist fight for “rights:
“The primary purpose of the outward direction of these mo
ments is always, as we have seen, to have an impact on society, not
affect the power structure, at least not directly and immediatel
Independent initiatives address the hidden sphere; they demonstr
that living within the truth is a human and social alternative and t
struggle to expand the space available for that life; they help – ev
though it is, of course, indirect help – to raise the confidence
citizens; they shatter the world of ‘appearances’ and unmask the r
nature of power. They do not assume a messianic role; they are not
social ‘avant-garde’ or ‘elite’ that alone knows best, and whose t
it is to ‘raise the consciousness’ of the ‘unconscious’ masses (t
arrogant self-projection is, once again, intrinsic to an essenti
different way of thinking, the kind that feels it has a patent on so
‘ideal project’ and therefore that it has the right to impose it
society). Nor do they want to lead anyone. They leave it up
each individual to decide what he or she will or will not take fr
their experience and work.”
Darleen, you can’t have a conscientious objection to a speed limit. First, having a license to drive means that you agree to adhere to the rules of the road – if you object to them, don’t drive. When I served in the Air Force, a couple people tried to get out of service using CO – the problem was it was during a period of ‘all volunteer’ enlistments. Further objections to ‘going to war’ were also dismissed as it is the nature of the service to engage in war. So, while you might have CO, yes, it matters exactly what it is if you want to offer a reason not to be charged with a violation of a law.
newrouter and the devil uses truth to led the faithful astray – it doesn’t mean we should not acknowledge the truth or fail to use it just because the devil does. Individual rights can be abused, the fight for individual rights can be misused, that does not mean we should abandon individual rights.
Power shifts at the centre of the bloc can influence
conditions in the different countries in various ways. Economic
factors naturally have an important influence, as do broader trends
of global civilization. An extremely important area, which could be
a source of radical changes and political upsets, is represented by
international politics, the policies adopted by the other superpower
and all the other countries, the changing structure of international
interests and the positions taken by our bloc. Even the people who
end up in the highest positions are not without significance,
although as I have already said, one ought not overestimate the
importance of leading personalities in the post-totalitarian system.
There are many such influences and combinations of influence, and
the eventual political impact of the ‘dissident movement’ is thinkable
only against this general background and in the context that
background provides. That impact is only one of the many factors
(and far from the most important one) that affect political developments,
and it differs from the other factors perhaps only in that its
essential focus is reflecting upon that political development from the
point of view of a defence of people and seeking an immediate
application of that reflection.
The primary purpose of the outward direction of these movements
is always, as we have seen, to have an impact on society, not to
affect the power structure, at least not directly and immediately.
Independent initiatives address the hidden sphere; they demonstrate
that living within the truth is a human and social alternative and they
struggle to expand the space available for that life; they help – even
though it is, of course, indirect help – to raise the confidence of
citizens; they shatter the world of ‘appearances’ and unmask the real
nature of power. They do not assume a messianic role; they are not a
social ‘avant-garde’ or ‘elite’ that alone knows best, and whose task
it is to ‘raise the consciousness’ of the ‘unconscious’ masses (that
arrogant self-projection is, once again, intrinsic to an essentially
different way of thinking, the kind that feels it has a patent on some
‘ideal project’ and therefore that it has the right to impose it on
. society). Nor do they want to lead anyone. They leave it up to
each individual to decide what
In societies under the post-totalitarian system, all political life in the
traditional sense has been eliminated. People have no opportunity
to express themselves politically in public, let alone to organize
politically. The gap that results is filled by ideological ritual. In such
a situation, people’s interest in political matters naturally dwindles
and independent political thought, in so far as it exists at all, is seen
by the majority as unrealistic, far-fetched, a kind of self-indulgent
game, hopelessly distant from their everyday concerns; something
admirable, perhaps, but qui.te pointless, because it is on the one
hand entirely utopian and on the other hand extraordinarily
dangerous, in view of the unusual vigour with which any move in
that direction is persecuted by the regime.
Yet even in such societies, individuals and groups of people exist
who do not abandon politics as a vocation and who, in one way or
another, strive to think independently, to express themselves and in
some cases even to organize politically, because that is a part of their
attempt to live within the truth
the power of the powerless- v. havel 1978
Ideology is a specious way of relating to the world. It offers human beings the illusion of an identity, of dignity, and of morality while making it easier for them to part with them. As the repository of something suprapersonal and objective, it enables people to deceive their conscience and conceal their true position and their inglorious modus vivendi, both from the world and from themselves. It is a very pragmatic but, at the same time, an apparently dignified way of legitimizing what is above, below, and on either side. It is directed toward people and toward God. It is a veil behind which human beings can hide their own fallen existence, their trivialization, and their adaptation to the status quo. It is an excuse that everyone can use, from the greengrocer, who conceals his fear of losing his job behind an alleged interest in the unification of the workers of the world, to the highest functionary, whose interest in staying in power can be cloaked in phrases about service to the working class. The primary excusatory function of ideology, therefore, is to provide people, both as victims and pillars of the post-totalitarian system, with the illusion that the system is in harmony with the human order and the order of the universe.
“newrouter and the devil ”
fuck you faggot cake licker
can you call a “lesbian” a “faggot”?
So, while you might have CO, yes, it matters exactly what it is if you want to offer a reason not to be charged with a violation of a law.
– I call BS on this one tracey. The military has ALWAYS offered none-punitive honorable discharges as an option for CO cases, at least since the seventies.
your religious beliefs do not trump law.
Yes they do. There is a legal difference between a preference and a belief.
I may prefer not to give service to a gay couple and in so doing commit an unlawful act. But if it is my firm belief that my existence stands in jeopardy if I do so then no court in the country can compel me to do it.
It is why we still have the Amish.
I contend that this is an effort to set an example. The object is to make others-not just businesses-fear to speak up for their beliefs lest they be driven from society.
These people have lost their business and the income that’s derived therefrom. But, as with the Buckyball fiasco, it doesn’t end there. The State will make sure they live in penury. Hounded at every turn for their heresy.
Tolerance or Death!
All you are doing, Tracy, is making excuses for fascists.
– The three (at least) working phrases here are: If its good for me it can’t be fascist; if my ox isn’t getting gored then it must be a good thing; and when you’re a hammer (gaye) everything in life has to be a nail.
– UmmKayyy. Just don’t expect others to buy it.
– Here’s the three retorts: Your “rights” end at the tip of your nose and do not extend into my space.; Your ox isn’t one damn bit better than mine; and your privates are none of my business and I’m totally uninterested in your nail issues as long as they do no harm, so keep them to yourself and in your own space.
– The real issues here are the need for some people to have reassurances they’re not fucked up, and the need for many of those same people to tell others to live the same way so they can pretend its somehow “normal”. Its the old game of “if everybody does it then it must be okay, or put another way, if everyone is fucked up then no one is.
– Its all agitprop bullshit to bandaide over the gaye abnormalities that some suffer from.
– Oh, and it gives Progressives another opportunity to carve out an identity group they can pander too for votes, people they wouldn’t associate with in any way normally if there wasn’t a political benefit to be gained.
What is the compelling benefit of putting this family out of business?
For the encouragement of the rest, Mueller?
The reason for putting them out of business is to keep everyone else in line.
More Minogue:
This is why you can’t be a Christian and a baker. At least not at the same time.
this family isn’t being put out of business they’re actively turning business away on purpose plus pissing off a lot of people who would otherwise buy their artery-clogging adipose-inducing baked goods
they need to rethink their business plan I think
they’re obviously doing something wrong and they need to figure out where they messed up
No, they declined one job and now the gay mafia wants them smashed.
What’s interesting here, though, is how your principles don’t exist and how utterly empty your bleating actually is.
They’re declining to enter into business under certain circumstances
Clearly they made the mistake of thinking they had a right to operate a business in a manner consistent with their morality instead of the politicized morality required by “social justice.”
my bleating is chock-full of wisdom for example if you want to be in the cake-selling business you should make cakes and then sell them to people
that’s how your most successful bakeries do it for example Gambino’s
They would tell our vendors, ‘If you don’t stop doing business with Sweet Cakes By Melissa, we will shut you down.”
oh sweet jesus these are fucking cakes not iPhones you don’t need vendors you get your ass up and go to costco and get your white-ass flour and your eggs and your shortening and your food coloring and your cocoa and what have you and you go back to where you have your oven and you make your fucking cakes
Like I said.
Martino’s for example is sort of underwhelming in some respects for example their cookies but their tea cakes are to die for
maybe christian baking family should try making tea cakes instead of wedding cakes since they seem to have bolloxed up their wedding cake operations
they could also make cupcakes and perhaps even some tasty challah
warm challah with a lil warm lechera drizzle brings everyone closer to God
And if you don’t do it the way the hepatic hamster bleats, by God he’ll put you out of business!!!
I am mystified that people don’t take you seriously.
</sarcasm font>
i’ve been very very supportive of the bakers of america up until only just recently
I won the red stapler by the way it is mine I won it
I lost 20.6 pounds in 28 days
and yes I did it by not eating any baked goods or anything else involving carbs unless you count grapes
the thomcord grapes at Trader Joe’s are so stupid good
but no the people I boycott are more like Pepsi because they were such obscene obamawhores particularly in the first election what saw that fascist soros-fellating cumpig become president
I also boycott california wines right now cause fuck california
I would say I boycotted Russian vodka but I was never a big fan – I’m more of a Goose/Tito’s kind of guy
Also I try to avoid shopping at union grocery stores like Ralph’s and Von’s and Gelson’s in favor of Trader Joe’s and Smart n Final and Fresh n Easy and Vallarta
there’s also a charming jewish armo-mart west of here where I get my sammins of a sunday morning when I want to make extra so people can take some home
last russian vodka i tried was this
it was just nasty
you can infuse your own vodka and get something way more better than this crap
sammins I’m starting to worry about though cause of the japanese radiations
I may prefer not to give service to a gay couple and in so doing commit an unlawful act .
Stop saying that!
They didn’t want to provide a particular product TO ANYBODY. The customer wasn’t the issue; the product was.
GodDAMN you people need to get off my team if you can’t think straight.
Whoever put a quarter in the happyfeet machine, step forward for punishment.
can you call a “lesbian” a “faggot”?
You need to get off my team, too.
Here we’re trying to establish the fact that objection to same-sex marriage is NOT based on bigotry or being squicked-out by someone else’s private life, and then jag-offs like you (and at The Corner, and at A0SHQ) have to keep dumping bigoted shit like this in the thread.
If I didn’t know better, I’d say you were a Moby, trying to discredit conservatives.
KNOCK IT OFF ALREADY.
Geez louise.
The customer wasn’t the issue; the product was.
the article gives no indication whatsoever that there was anything intrinsically gay about the cake that was ordered – which makes sense as you can see most wedding cakes aren’t particularly crafted to make statements with respect to the genders of the people getting married mostly they’re just elegant cakes
just cause something is fancy doesn’t mean it’s gay
Somebody needs to invent that. Maybe the letters could appear drippy?
Also, an irony font. Or maybe just a punctuation symbol
‘Feets is running off at the mouth because his head is about to asplode.
For months, we argued and argued with him about SSM, wherein he asserted that it was all about being nice to gay people, you biggits, and we kept saying that it wasn’t about fairness at all but about marginalizing Christianity and driving believers out of the public square and into exile.
Now that definitive proof is being presented, he’s having a hard time with the cognitive dissonance, so he writes comments that are FAR longer than ever, hoping that the word salad will eventually make some sense to comfort his reeling mind.
Have mercy on his befuddled mind. It must be awfully distressing to find out that your moral support was lent to Nazis.
the article gives no indication whatsoever that there was anything intrinsically gay about the cake
A wedding cake with “Mary & Alice: Together Forever” would qualify, wouldn’t it?
We don’t know exactly what they asked for, but the bakers made the call, as is their privilege. Whether the cake was actually in violation of their consciences is not yours to determine, nor is it the state’s.
Exactly like there’s nothing porcine about kosher deli meat.
The gentiles ought to sue. They being descriminated against when they can’t get a ham sandwich.
How do you explode a vacuum?
Meanwhile, elsewhere, he writes comments that identify just this sort of fascism. But in this case, he really enjoys it so shut up and sniff the glove! Oh, and foozle!
Pablo, they had previously rejected gays for wedding cakes without any fuss by the gays. Why it happened this time probably has much more to do with the ideology of the gay than anything the bakers did/did not do.
dicentra, sorry, its about the gay, not the product. I am sure they would have refused to sell any of their products for the purpose of a wedding celebration. They noted they had sold product to the couple before – so I am not sure how drawing the line at a wedding makes sense. Obviously the couple is gay (in sin) and living together (in sin) so saying they can buy whatever they want as long as they don’t get married (in sin?) and want product doesn’t make sense to me. I think someone said that OR doesn’t allow gay marriage, so this may have been a commitment ceremony – no legal recognition?
If a porno shop or a liquor store opened up near a school or church in the community and the community rallied to run them out of business, would anyone here be up in arms about the poor owners of that business? If the ‘activists’ were local and threatened boycotts that ended the bakers business – I don’t have a problem with a ‘community’ setting a standard – serve us as you serve everyone else or leave. If the ‘activists’ were NOT local, then the vendors were cutting their noses off to spite their face but the activists were nothing more than bused-in rabble rousers and the community should have stood up for their neighbor regardless of how they felt about the business.
Lastly, given the State has not intervened (yet?), this is between a business and its community – the business has said it will not serve one type of customer one type of product because it doesn’t like what the customer does – not in their store, not with their product but in their life – so the community said fine, you don’t want to serve us, we won’t buy from you, and we are going to tell our friends, and their friends not to do business with you either. You want to ‘refuse’ based on who we are, we refuse to buy based on who you are. We feel persecuted for being gay and wanting the same things straights have, you feel persecuted for your religious beliefs.
How do you explode a vacuum?
– As the resident phisyssist that one is easy. You don’t explode a vacuum, you implode a vacuum.
– However in mustard toes case the result is the same, a whole lot of nuthin.
I don’t have a problem with a ‘community’ setting a standard – serve us as you serve everyone else or leave.
But the gay couple is demanding exactly the opposite: “Serve us something that you don’t sell to anyone else”, with the power of the State backing them up.
Does the small businessman have the right to determine what kinds of products he will offer (since it is his labor and expertise in question)? We are not talking about the whims of the customers, we are talking about forcing Burger King to sell a Big Mac.
– Anyone who lives in Oregone and expects to not be Progressived to fucking death needs to get a brain cell. You couldn’t pay me to live there.
Happy, you’re a lying liar what lies? I thought you said you’d defend the e-vil Christers when this sort of thing came to be? That was a hollow promise?
I feel so betrayed.
– Nonsense Leigh. You simply cannot be betrayed by a yellow sponge brain that wears square pants, and whos best friends are rainbow colored Unicorns.
The point being Feets. That you can, or should be able to, sell whatever you want to who ever you want or not.
Yes. You turn away customers at your own risk, but that’s the business owners decision.
I personally would like to be able to a cup of coffee at any gas station in Utah, but religious beliefs prevent them from offering it.
I do my best not to be offended.
dicentra I’m at a loss as to what you want me to do about Christian Baking Tragedy in Oregon
where’s the injustice what’s occurring? Christian Baking Family is free not to make gay cake and gay people are free to encourage people not to shop at hatey Melissa’s house of hate cake.
Now we do have this business of the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries announcing an investigation to see if Christian Baking Family were engaged in discriminatory practices.
And it seems clear that yes the CBF are indeed behaving in a manner that discriminates against gay people. However it doesn’t sound like anyone in the Oregon government is super-eager to sanction them and it seems noteworthy that CBF says their business is already dead cause nobody will buy their cakes anymore, so the investigation by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries may end up being a moot point.
I can’t make people buy cake they don’t want and baking is a highly competitive low-cost-of-entry sort of dealio so people what go into this business need to be very careful about not squandering goodwill cause of people can always go elsewhere.
So as far as I can see this is no different than how these same people boycotted JC Penney’s when they hired that lady from Finding Nemo to be their spokesperson.
What’s a lil pikachu to do?
What’s a lil pikachu to do?
You could always try telling the truth. I know, I know, you’ve never tried it before, but it’s always worth a try, especially when you are caught in that spotlight.
It might even work.
What’s a lil pikachu to do?
– I’m going to take a wild guess here and speculate that you really wouldn’t want to know the concensus concerning your fate if a poll were taken of the PW community.
– On the other hand wheres the fun if we don’t have at least one closet Progressive Rodent among us to torture and ridicule. Great stress relief, and your useless ass can serve a function at the same time. Win / win.
Evolve, already. You’re more like Meowth anyway.
so I am not sure how drawing the line at a wedding makes sense
Drawing the line at the same-sex wedding cake is how they distinguish between the product and the customer.
If a straight couple comes in and asks for a wedding cake for “Alice & Mary,” they’re told no.
If a gay couple comes in and asks for a wedding cake for “James & Mary,” they get the cake.
ERGO, it’s the product, not the customer.
Also, the fact that other gays were denied wedding cakes and they took no action means what? It only took one militant couple to unhinge the bakers’ lives. It’s also irrelevant that the harassers may have been from out of state: it’s the damage that’s the problem, not where the damagers came from.
MUCH of the argument here is not whether SSM is legitimate or good but that SSM is being pushed more as a bludgeon to destroy Christians than as a means to fairness.
If this is what believers can expect in a state where SSM isn’t even legal, what happens to us when it is?
Chick-fil-A owners donated money to causes considered to be “anti-gay,” but they sold their wares to gays all day long. They broke NO LAW, did nothing wrong, committed NO ACT of discrimination, and still those jackass mayors declared that they were going to be treated differently (worse) than other businesses. They felt safe in making those public declarations, BTW. The fact that they had to back down this time doesn’t mean such things are going to stop.
Those same agitators and bullies who threatened the bakery’s vendors aren’t going to limit themselves to businesses that commit acts of “discrimination.” It won’t be long before the mere fact of belonging to a Christian church that doesn’t sanction SSM is enough to get the treatment.
Oh yes it will happen. History shows that it always happens. This is what vicious fanatics do when they know they won’t be punished for their crimes. The momentum is headed in one direction and in one direction only — toward illicit persecution of those who cling to their sky-god and boomsticks, because they’re ruining EVERYTHING.
And so they must be ruined. To protect the gays.
gay people are free to encourage people not to shop at hatey Melissa’s house of hate cake.
Gay people threatened their vendors that if they did business with that bakery, they’d be next.
THUG TACTICS are not OK.
Back in February, One Million Moms, which is a project of the American Family Association, asked shoppers to call JC Penney and ask that the company replace DeGeneres as a spokeswoman.
That’s not a boycott, moron, nor are they threats to destroy the company unless they COMPLY.
Please compare apples and orangutans again.
dicentra I’m at a loss as to what you want me to do about Christian Baking Tragedy in Oregon
Admit that you were dead wrong.
You assured me that Teh Ghey didn’t give a rip about our failshit little churches in flyover country and that we’d be left alone.
You were wrong. The persecution continues apace and it will accelerate.
I contend that you will continue to not lift a finger to defend us because you’ll find some kind of technicality to rationalize that we had it coming.
And when they start targeting Christian-owned businesses regardless of their business practices, you’ll chide us for clinging to our h8 despite the tender ministerings of the thugs who only want to make America a happy place for everyone. “Just let teh gheys get married in your chapels” you’ll squeak, “it doesn’t hurt you, and besides, Jesus didn’t say no.”
No principles beyond “Viva the Victor,” right? As long as it’s not YOUR ox being gored, it’s all good.
Upthread, happy asked why the bakers need vendors. As a consumer of boutique cupcakes, you should ask the owners about their policy with regard to trade and purchasing, as well as any reciprocal dealings they may have with party planners and the like. I thought you had a business background? Bakeries are the epitome of “just in time” operations. They cannot keep large stocks of perishables in house because of spoilage. Deliveries are key to their survival.
In your willingness to support some unknown lesbians, you are willing to stamp out the American Dream for one couple: the ownership and operation of one’s own business. Owning a business is a massive undertaking. With the snap of the fingers the lesbians managed to bring their case to the media, stir up unrest, and drive this couple from their business. All to Get Their Own Way.
I hope you’re happy, happy.
At least stop pretending to be operating according to any sort of principle other than self gratification.
Upthread, happy asked why the bakers need vendors.
Obviously, they should be growing their own wheat, bleaching and grinding it themselves, growing their own vanilla beans, sugarcane, and cacao (in Oregon, that tropical paradise), breeding their own yeast, raising chickens for the eggs (and growing the corn for the chickens), mining and smelting the ore for the metal to make the ovens, mixers, and tables, and making their own glass for the display windows.
Supply-chains are for luuuusers.
So, we’ve got this going for us….
Obama to meet with LGBT groups in Russia
That is exactly what I was thinking that the President of the United States of America should be doing. Meeting with Russian activist groups. Most Fabulous Regime Change Ever in the works, perhaps?
Wait, there aren’t Syrian homos ObaZma can succor just now?
Every single ingredient in the cakes is EXACTLY the same, the process to make it, the same. It is disingenuous to say that it is an entirely different product than a ‘wedding’ cake because the frosting spells Jane instead of John. I am sure that if I published a book “Gone with the Storm” that was otherwise identical to “Gone with the Wind” no one would consider it a ‘totally different product’.
SSM doesn’t destroy Christians. Christians can still attend services of their choice, hold beliefs of their choice, practice the tenets of their beliefs, speak about their beliefs all in the face of ssm. MY marriage prevents nothing you wish to do. My beliefs do not stop you from doing anything with regard to your religious beliefs except applying them to my life.
If you think same sex marriage is a sin – don’t get married to a same sex partner. MY marrying a same sex partner only decreases the available population of same sex partners, doesn’t stop you from marrying an opposite sex partner, won’t end your current marriage, won’t encourage straights to marry gays, won’t prevent you from having or raising children within your marriage or belief system.
SSM doesn’t destroy Christians.
Now I’m sure that you’re being deliberately obtuse.
I’ve stated clearly that the issue is being used by the enemies of Christianity to destroy it.
All of the rest of your assertions are tinder-dry straw men.
ProTip: When happyfeets is the only one who agrees with you, perhaps you should investigate your precepts.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as long as it conforms to the beliefs of the majority and is acceptable to them….
Has a nice ring to it….
Whose pursuit of happiness was ruined here? Who has to close down their chance at the American Dream because there was NO OTHER BAKER who would be willing to sell this couple their cake? What is the goal of the “rehabilitation” spoken of several times?
The right to complain about the menu ends when you walk in the door. If the shop doesn’t offer what is desired, shop elsewhere. Free market.
This was not about the right to marry (especially since Oregon doesn’t recognize the act, either), this was about punishing those who are unpopular.
And since the majority also disapproves of men raping young boys, are you then arguing that NAMBLA’s pursuit of happiness outweighs that of the young boy? Or his parents?
Oh, one last point. We are talking about the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence.
“Freedom of religion”. “Involuntary servitude”. You have nothing to offer as a compromise that counterbalances what we already have.
Christians can still attend services of their choice, hold beliefs of their choice, practice the tenets of their beliefs, speak about their beliefs…
The first two of your assertions I agree with; the second two I do not. Christians cannot practice the tenets of their beliefs without punishment by the State. The pharmacist whose beliefs prohibit contraception must still provide birth control, or he loses his license. The OB/GYN who believes that abortion involves the murder of an innocent child must still commit murder, lest she lose her license. The adoption agency who does not recognize same-sex marriage must still place children with same-sex couples, lest they lose their license. The baker who believes homosexuality is a sin must still bake and decorate cakes celebrating behavior he finds sinful.
And those Christians who dare to stand up against the abuses heaped upon them by the State and its preferred “victim group” of the moment can expect to be shouted down and harassed, while the State turns a blind eye to any lawlessness involved, and oh-so-sophisticated thinkers give a Gallic shrug and sniff “Waddya gonna do? ‘Tis the law!”
You may be technically correct that Christians are still free to profess and follow their faith, but don’t pretend that the State and the new reigning culture* won’t extract a painful and costly price for any who do so openly.
* (formerly the counterculture, and far more fringe-y than those they deride and abuse today)
dicentra, the only way marriage is destroyed is if heterosexuals decide to destroy it. Gays WANTING to be married doesn’t destroy it – only if heterosexuals decide…well, if gays can do it, I won’t.
So, Roman persecution doesn’t destroy Christianity, the Inquisition doesn’t destroy Christianity, Muslims don’t destroy Christianity, gays getting married does. Seems it has gotten pretty weak amongst Christians to let 1-2% of people wanting to get married to bring down Christ and His Church.
I said ssm doesn’t destroy CHRISTIANS. If Christianity fails it is because Christians abandon it, nothing it’s enemies can do can prevail against Christianity when Christians keep THEIR faith.
Drumwaster, if all the world opposed conservatism, I’d still be conservative. I am conservative not because I agree with others or they agree with me, but because it is the right thing to be. MY beliefs are not stronger because they are popular, nor weaker because they are not.
Conservative? Except when the State is pushing the decision you approve of, I see…
If they had refused to bake a cake celebrating drug use or having sex with pre-teen children, you would be supporting the baker, because they have the right to refuse to offer their services to celebrate illegal acts, as defined by the State. Except when it gores your particular ox, I see…
Quite conservative. Andy Sullivan would probably agree.
nothing it’s enemies can do can prevail against Christianity when Christians keep THEIR faith.
I suppose you rationalize this statement by claiming that the action wasn’t against Christianity, only those who actually practice what they preach.
Squid, choices have consequences. If you seek a license from the state, then you agree to abide by the rules of the state. If you don’t like the rules, don’t seek the license. No one says a doctor MUST perform an abortion, or a baker bake a cake or a photographer take pictures – but if you hold a license from the state to be a doctor, a baker or a photographer, then it is the state that determines what you must do – you are still free to NOT do it, give up the license, accept a fine….
Why must people shift the focus to illegal acts as a comparison?
Drumwaster, for ME, conservative = classical liberal. for YOU conservative might = classical conservative. Classical conservatives supported the state in the form of the King, classical liberals put the individual as the sovereign and the state as subservient.
Christianity is the Church, it is not a separate monolith – it is the Body. If the tyranny of the majority, ie society, which once marginalized gays and non-Christians, has changed to support gays and non-Christians, it seems your issue is not with the mechanism, only who is in charge of it.
Right. And the ingredients in you and me are also exactly the same, ergo we are interchangeable. Our ingredients came from supernovae, so we’re also interrchangeable with massive stars.
Makes all the sense in the world to me.
Tracy, I believe you fail to see the great irony of this situation. By gays forcing the State (in the case of Prop 8 in California) to thwart the will of the people by judicial fiat and the State of Oregon forcing businesses to provide goods and services that conflict with their religious beliefs in order to honor a practice that is not even sanctioned by the State, gays are engaging in the bullying they have suffered in the past. And by past, I mean since at least since the 1970s.
I await a gay Kristallnacht on Christian businesses and places of worship. The justification for acts of vandalism will be interesting.
Kristallnacht
Uh, in keeping with that time, this is a different order of business, I think. The apparent usefulness of this particular branch of the party apparatus will be understood to be at an end when the Long Knives come out.
Leigh, call me, I’ll stand with Christian businesses against violence.
I note that laws that ban discrimination were not passed by gays. They were passed by white, straight Christians who thought discrimination against minorities was wrong. Separate but equal was considered the heart of discrimination.
California created a ‘separate but equal’ system for ‘marriage’. Marriage for straights, civil unions for gays. The Supreme Court of CA said that is a ‘separate but equal’ solution and in direct conflict with the ‘anti-discrimination’ code of the California Constitution. So, the majority changed the Constitution to allow specific discrimination in marriage. We can debate the court cases all day, but I will concede that the Supreme Court was right – it had no business deciding, so it punted. If the People of California want to discriminate and want to write that discrimination into their Constitution, let them. Despite the idea that marriage is a fundamental right, it is not protected by the Constitution as a CONTRACTUAL obligation. The freedom to associate does not include the right to establish that association by contract enforced by the State. So gays can ‘live together’, but no government sanctioned/protected contract to do so.
I have said repeatedly that I believe people should be able to discriminate in their businesses. Guess what, people can discriminate by boycotting such a business (which I believe everyone here accepted as ok); I even believe that people can tell their friends to boycott and that they can tell other businesses they will be boycotted if they do business with the boycotted business. I oppose ANY suggestion of criminal behavior, but to say I will get everyone I know to stop doing business with you and any other business you do business with, is perfectly OK. I am just discriminating. Call it failure to serve a clientele, or discriminating against religious beliefs. Are you saying I CAN’T discriminate against religious beliefs? No of course you are not. You suggest that I am using the government to support that discrimination. Except, in the case of the OR bakers, the discrimination started with the bakers. Bakers bound by state law not to discriminate…..state law put into place by straights, not gays. (except the State and laws did nothing to stop the bakers from discriminating)
That’s what CA did, they created a law to discriminate. In this tiny, single place, straights said we can stop you from a freedom to associate with a government sanctioned contract.
Tracy @ 12:54
Now you’re equivocating.
Christianity is the Church, it is not a separate monolith – it is the Body. – See more at: https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=50840#comments
So wrong on several levels, but the low fruit is a stereotypical view of Christianity.
FIY Tolerance does not necessarily mean acceptance.
The apparent usefulness of this particular branch of the party apparatus will be understood to be at an end when the Long Knives come out.
Quite so, sdferr.
Baker Who Lost Shop After Refusing Gay Couple’s Wedding Cake Has Surprise Reaction to Ongoing Attacks: ‘My Eternal Home Is What Matters’
Naturally…
tracycoyle says September 5, 2013 at 12:47 pm –
Why must people shift the focus to illegal acts as a comparison?
Because we remember some historical “illegal acts” that are now ascendant in society, and anticipate that these compared behaviors will too.
Did I miss it? Did anyone else agree that a business should be able to refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason? Did anyone else agree to get rid of the Civil Rights Act to ban discrimination? It appears (wrongly?) that everyone here supported Prop 8, so I guess everyone here supports legalizing discrimination.
Did I miss it?
““Yeah, unfortunately that never really bootstrapped itself into anything approaching relevance. Just noise, pronounced Mr. palaeomerus, suddenly feeling very, very weary of it all. “The internet isn’t supposed to have pikachus,” he thought to himself. “Why come there’s all these pikachus?” he asked aloud, plaintively. But the Austin night ventured no reply.”
And that bit of noise merely followed the prior bit of noise. And had about as much impact.
Because, in Portland, declining to take money in exchange for baking a cake and then decorating it the way a same-sex couple wants it decorated for their wedding/commitment ceremony in exchange for money is the same thing as HATE, which must be punished by the
communitycollective, so that the HATERS can be rehabilitated.There’s no discrimination in Prop 8. Everyone is entitled to the institution of marriage. You’ve partaken of it, IIRC.
Society’s refusal to redefine the term to your liking is not discrimination.
I love the underlying assumption that what’s happening here is not a form of discrimination, and that, absent the all encompassing, ever vigiliant, warm and comforting, blanket of benign state authority, the klan, and the brownshirts would start pouring out of the woodwork to get their oppression back on.
Along with rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers and Methodists, too, I suppose.
nice to know that “discrimination” = “not agreeing with me”.
You really do keep switching sides. And you have yet to acknowledge that it is the State in this case that prohibits same-sex marriage, not these bakers that you seem so willing to castigate for their beliefs.
No one is discriminating against gays by not offering what gay couples are so desperate to have, because their gayness doesn’t enter into the requirements set by the State. Their whims don’t enter into the equation, only their willingness.
If one gay man and one lesbian woman showed up to get married, no one at the State will deign to ask whether they are interested in the other party, only whether their decorations match what the requirements say.
It is similarly restrictive as to the number of parties wishing to take part, i.e., two, one of each gender, and degree of consanguinity in some locations. If those impartial requirement are met, nothing else matters, and that is not discrimination, either.
If a straight couple had showed up and asked for a same-sex commitment cake, they would also have been turned down, as it is not a product offered by the bakery, no matter the sexual proclivities of the one(s) doing the asking.
You also keep (deliberately?) missing the point: what was the purpose behind the intended rehabilitation, and at whom was it aimed? Certainly not the couple that is seeking to violate State Law…
I realize that it is unpleasant having to defend thuggish behavior, but you chose your side… (even though you have a tendency to keep switching without perhaps realizing it, as though even your own brain can’t let you get away with the lies and distortions you are attempting and is finding ways to squeeze reality through the cracks).
Modern Liberals prefer moral indiscriminateness over what they perceive as the sin of having discriminated. — Evan Sayet
If they were truly indiscriminate, they would insist the boycotters to buy their gay wedding cakes from Hatey Hate bakery.
Ernst, it is ABSOLUTELY discrimination. The ‘gays’ have lashed out and said, if you don’t want to serve us, we will boycott you, and anyone that does business with you and we will tell all our friends and their friends what a terrible and horrible business you are. So, THERE!
The bakers discriminated, and the ‘community’ responded in kind. The bakers were kind enough to take the couples money before ‘for cakes’, but not this time. So, as long as the ‘gays’ act appropriately, out there in public, the bakers will serve them. But get TOO sinful and well, take your business elsewhere.
I assumed everyone here was on board with discrimination…..
drumwaster…..the bakers refuse to sell a ‘wedding’ cake to gays. So, unless the couple traveled to somewhere else, it was a ‘commitment’ ceremony, not a wedding ceremony. As the only thing I have heard is that the couple wanted a ‘wedding’ cake, it is irrelevant if the State of OR has sanctioned ssm or not. Do you actually need a wedding license to be able to buy a wedding cake?
How nice that you will ‘allow’ a gay man to marry a lesbian. That of course supports the institution of marriage so well. Please tell me what ingredients are in a same sex wedding cake that are not in a opposite sex cake that differentiates the two.
What rehabilitation? A comment by a ‘gov official’? As far as I am aware, no gov agency has sought or acted upon the case. The alternative is that if a business does not follow state regulations it can forfeit it’s license or fix the issue, ie, rehabilitate.
I don’t defend ‘thugish’ behavior. I condemn physical threats or violence absolutely. If I believe a business is not serving the community, I will not purchase from there, I’d recommend my friends not purchase from them, I might even suggest other businesses should not do business with them or risk my business also. That is not ‘thugish’, that is being discriminating, judgmental.
Along with rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers and Methodists, too, I suppose.
Heh. All we need here is a testimonial in authentic frontier gibberish.
If you don’t like the rules, don’t seek the license.
So you’re fully on board with the State driving people out of their vocations because their religious beliefs do not conform to the State’s vision of How Things Should Be. You’re fully on board with regulations and restrictions that run afoul of the intrinsic rights that we believed were recognized in and protected by the Bill of Rights, because evidently “it’s the law!” and local licensing codes override the Bill of Rights. And you’re stridently insistent about your conservative bona fides.
You maintain that a baker who won’t use certain cake decorations is a criminal who must be rehabilitated and/or driven out of business, but a butcher who won’t touch certain animals is perfectly pure. You maintain that there is no inconsistency in such an argument.
There’s simply no way to reason with a man who sees no contradiction in these stances. Live long and prosper.
Gosh, the time I’ve wasted reading this thread.
What Pablo said briefly.
What Drumwaster said less briefly.
Tracy said – “California created a ‘separate but equal’ system for ‘marriage’.” No, it didn’t. It said the definition of “marriage” is the union of one man and one woman (age and consanguinity appropriate). It said that other arrangements do not fit the definition. The gheys always try to make it about equal rights when they already have the equal right to engage in marriage. Or the equal right to contract for another legal relatiohship that is not one man, one woman.
As I said to the radioactive pikachu long ago, you can have any other word you want, just not “marriage” – how about “garriage”? The whole cake kerfuffle is the gheys trying to force us to accept something that isn’t.
The bakers discriminated
No, they didn’t. They didn’t offer that product to anyone, and it isn’t discrimination for Burger King to refuse to sell a Big Mac, no matter what the sexual orientation of the one in the drive-thru.
So, unless the couple traveled to somewhere else, it was a ‘commitment’ ceremony, not a wedding ceremony.
dicentra already addressed this lie. Try again.
Please tell me what ingredients are in a same sex wedding cake that are not in a opposite sex cake that differentiates the two.
scroll up until you see the word “decoration”. Asked and answered. Strike 2.
The alternative is that if a business does not follow state regulations
When those State regulations are in direct conflict with the protections guaranteed by the Constitution, the Constitution wins. Every time. First Amendment overrides bruised feelings. Every time. Thirteenth Amendment overrides “IwantitIwantitIwantit”. Every time.
Strike 3.
I can only assume the obtuseness is deliberate, but I see no point in continuing to try and correct it, since you don’t bother reading what is written.
There aren’t enough pixels to spell out what you’ve missed.
IOW, they clearly did not discriminate against them. They merrily did business with them. What they didn’t do was create something for them that they weren’t comfortable creating.
Why doesn’t that apply to the marriage license?
Because shut up, Pablo.
I forgot the sarcasm font. Sorry.
Since I am too obtuse, contradictory, I’ll leave it here. Please don’t assume that I tire of the discussion – I am happy to continue it.
The OR bakers refused to make a ‘wedding’ cake. They make wedding cakes all the time. There wasn’t a discussion of ‘decorations’ – the PURPOSE of the cake was to celebrate a wedding. Apparently a wedding with no legal basis. The bakers did not say they will make a cake but not put a specific decoration on it. The bakers discriminated against the actions of the gay couple – getting married. The bakers make wedding cakes.
The bakers are free to express their religious beliefs. No one has prevented them from doing so. No one is suggesting that the state would force them to act contrary to their religious beliefs. However, the people of OR established that businesses that offer goods and services to the public can not discriminate against customers. The idea that a same sex wedding cake is intrinsically different than an opposite sex wedding cake is just….pathetic.
States license businesses. Nothing offered suggests that OR is preventing the couple from exercising free speech or free exercise of their religion. Free speech has consequences. The OR couple exercised their religious beliefs and the community responded. As far as I am aware, no one told them to stop exercising their religious beliefs – only that doing so would have economic consequences. Apparently if I refuse to do business with a company that expresses a religious belief I disagree with I am engaging in religious persecution.
See ya all on the next go around….
Ernst, it is ABSOLUTELY discrimination.
– So what. There are many many things in life we all discriminate against each and every day. Some things just scream to be discriminated against. Another case of perjorative labling so the Left can play word games.
– You’re fucking a right people discriminate. If they didn’t you jackass some truly homophobic group would have hunted those like yourself down and hung you from the nearest tree.
– Fortunately for your screwed up ass we discriminate against vigilante groups and unlawful hangings.
– Since you seem to think discrimination is, by rote, an unacceptable thing, maybe we shouldn’t.
– See. Its all about what you want, and all the twisted resasoning and linguistic tap dancing doesn’t change reality.
In this case, it’s discriminating against Christians for being uppity enough to think they had the right to operate their business in a manner consistent with their beliefs. Which is okay. Because Christians, unlike gays, aren’t considered vulnerable and in need of government protection. So there’s no penalty for hurting their feelings —or livelihood either.
And an organized campaign of intimidation (so it seems to me) isn’t the same thing as you deciding as an individual to take your business elsewhere; or asking other persons as individuals to consider doing the same.
The bakers discriminated against the actions of the gay couple – getting married
No, the couple was still able to get (ahem) “married”, they just didn’t get a baker to offer a product to them that he never offered to anyone else. Just as they wouldn’t bake a “Hey, It’s Your First Rape!” cake, either. The potential future actions of the couple are irrelevant as to whether this particular bakery offered a particular product. They didn’t, and they were punished, the laws of the State and the nation notwithstanding. You are defending this, yet claim that you are not.
States license businesses
Please show me where the State gets to override religious beliefs of the citizens? And I would also like to see where in the licensing requirements for food businesses are found the requirements to ignore religious beliefs? Please be specific, because merely saying “local zoning regulations” does NOT override the Constitution.
And, as has been pointed out, they also license marriages, but those are somehow unconstitutional oppression of the poor downtrodden. Which shall it be?
No one is suggesting that the state would force them to act contrary to their religious beliefs
This is a lie. You have been doing so, on the shaky grounds that for them to exercise their beliefs would be discriminatory against those who want what they want. And it was never about whether or not a cake could be obtained elsewhere, it was about the militants punishing those who don’t actively support their whims.
Free speech has consequences.
You’re really stretching here… How about we start forcing people to pray in the public square using that argument? “You want free speech? You’ll say only what we want and like it!”
They didn’t offer a class of products to ANYONE, it is irrelevant as to why they refuse to offer that type of product, and it is not discrimination to continue to refuse to provide it indiscriminately. All the lawsuits in the world cannot force Burger King to sell a Big Mac, even if “free speech has consequences”.
It WOULD be discrimination if they offered same-sex ceremony cakes to individuals and straight couples, and then refused to sell one to a gay couple, but to not offer it in the first place is not discriminatory. No one can buy one from them, no matter how much might be offered, and there are certainly others who can provide that service.
This was about punishment.
For the record, my point was in fact that the Christians were being discriminated against. Which appears to be acceptable solely because these victims aren’t part of a victim group.
They did what!?! Discriminated against their actions?
Pardon me, I have to go discriminate against doing 50 MPH in the left lane.
That’s not a boycott, moron, nor are they threats to destroy the company unless they COMPLY. –
Yes it was a boycotty boycott with destructive intent.
I still don’t get what I’m supposed to do for Christian Bakery Family. They alienated like a ton of their customers.
And I ‘m sorry leigh and dicentra the whole vendor/supply chain twiddle twaddle doesn’t fly cause of everything you need to make an absolutely scrumptious christian cake you can get at Costco.
The Christian Bakery Family’s Christian Bakery was just 20 minutes away from Costco! Even if every vendor in Obama’s godless America were to refuse to do business with them (which would be discrimination if you ask me), all the Christian Bakery Family had to do was go to Costco and get some stuff for the next day or two.
They probably would’ve saved money too cause Costco is all about value.
gaysters should buy their cakes from costco i think
How about you refuse to buy cakes from them?
I’m not sure what that would accomplish per se
something short of demanding State intervention in the personal beliefs of others, I would guess
They alienated like a ton of their customers.
– I suppose its a total waste of time to bother asking, but just as a point of interest do you ever tire of erecting anecdotal strawmen.
– There are not “a ton” of gays, even in bastions like SF. They are a very small demograpgic that make a lot of noise and gets way more attention than they deserve, principally because the press loves to sell their bullshit to make money and being “different” when you are a pervert takes no special talent, but makes for great tabloid journalism.
Mr. Hunter then why come nobody wanna buy the tasty christian baked goods?
It’s cause they find these people to be off-putting in some way I think.
Either that or the cakes are sort of meh.
It all comes back to using quality ingredients. Quality ingredients at fair prices like you’ll find every day at Costco.
It’s cause they find these people to be off-putting in some way I think.
smearing them in big media will do dat. i know this from st. trayvon
where were they smeared in big media?
that’s not part of the story you made that up
The relevant vendors aren’t just supply chain, genius. Think referrals. They did.
where were they smeared in big media?
Sweet Cakes By Melissa, Oregon Bakery, Under State Investigation For Anti-Gay Discrimination
Were I to guess? Probably because nobody wants to put a
starcross on their back for thebrownpinkshirts to zero in on.probably at costco I bet don’t you think so leigh and dicentra?
CAUSE OF TEH SUPPLY CHAIN!!!
Think referrals.
There is nowhere in any article anywhere any documentation whatsoever of a “vendor” that stopped referring people to the Christian Bakery Family because of they were fearful of a boycott.
That’s nonsense… and even if people stopped referring people to the Christian Bakery Family it’s most likely cause all on their own they either didn’t want to send them any business or cause would prefer to send business elsewhere.
or cause *they* would prefer to send business elsewhere.
Facts are just facts, eh?
See, that’s how you win, when you know what the fuck you’re talking about!
Whatever would we do without your incandescent brilliance? Week old glow sticks, maybe?
pikachu glo sticks trending
CAUSE OF TEH BUSINESS REFERRALS!!!
“Just the whole being affected big time in our wedding industry part of the business — the vendors not referring us any more,” Melissa said when asked how the incident impacted her business.
That’s completely different than asserting that “vendors” had been intimidated.
Sounds to me like they just didn’t want to refer people to Christian Bakery Family. Probably for the same reason people stopped shopping there.
Cause they were put off by something the Christian Bakery Family said or did I bet.
Happy, stop it. Costco makes you pay cash. Most small businesses are cash poor. Vendors extend credit. I see that you have never owned and operated a business. Well, I have: A small electronics company and later a hardware store. Credit is the thing that keeps the business afloat in lulls and allows you to keep the power on and pay your staff. It’s a 30 day free ride that you don’t pay any interest on. You just make sure that you settle your accounts in 30 days.
By agitating complete strangers to hassle this couple, they have destroyed their livelihood and likely their nest egg. Fuck trouble-making shitheads like these persons who can’t buy a goddamn wedding cake at Walmart like the white trash they are.
The stupid is strong with this one. Willful, too.
Pablo got there first with the most.
Just like Nathan Bedford Forrest.
Who was the first head of the Ku Klux Klan
Why does Pablo have to behave like a Klansman?
I say we ban his Klan ass.
/sarcasm font
Fuck trouble-making shitheads like these persons who can’t buy a goddamn wedding cake at Walmart like the white trash they are.
ok so it’s super terrible wrong for vendors to refuse to sell stuff to Christian Bakery Family but it’s super wonderful goodness for Christian Bakery Family to refuse to sell stuff to other people?
I don’t get it.
That’s completely different than asserting that “vendors” had been intimidated. Sounds to me like they just didn’t want to refer people to Christian Bakery Family. Probably for the same reason people stopped shopping there.
Well, that’s a lie, too. When this incident was first reported, it was noted in print and on video that the vendors had been called and hassled. Threatened and intimidated by “activists”.
Just because you haven’t seen it or read doesn’t mean the rest of us haven’t.
You’re still a lying liar who lies. A false friend. A douchebag and a disgrace to Pikachus everywhere.
Most small businesses are cash poor.
oh sweet jesus you can run a dinky one display case bake shop like the one in question for months and months on a Visa card
we’re talking flour and eggs and vanilla extract not lcd displays and table saws
You’re still a lying liar who lies.
Find one “vendor” who stopped making referrals cause of they were intimidated by gay homosexuals.
Just one.
ok so it’s super terrible wrong for vendors to refuse to sell stuff to Christian Bakery Family but it’s super wonderful goodness for Christian Bakery Family to refuse to sell stuff to other people?
ok happyfeet i concede that this is a good point you make here
very logical and well-supported by reason
good job, pikachu
\sarcasm font
By the way, anybody not in favor of banning a known Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan must have a white hood in their closet, so I say we ban all of them too.
And anybody who quotes, agrees with, or otherwise seems supportive of a known cross-burning, church-destroying Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan too.
WHY DOES EVERYONE HERE TOLERATE THIS OBVIOUS RACIST SEXIST BIGOT HOMOPHOBE!?!?
/sarcasm font
This is the same as the astroturfed Stop Rush bullshit. These people really should be beaten bloody.
Pikachu has evolved into Lie-achu!
I have not evolved.
Clearly, the thing to do is to go out homosexual owned businesses and destroy them. Smear them and threaten anyone who does business with them. Make them radioactive, and let people know that anyone who associates with them will pay for it. Because tolerance!
Lie-achu uses LIE. ” I have not evolved.”
It wasn’t very effective.
We noticed. You’re all id.
Happy, you don’t bake. There is a lot more to running a bakery than flour, eggs and vanilla extract. Besides not having a clue-by-four as to how a small business operates, you don’t have any idea what is involved in producing the product.
So shut. up.
Hey, how did that “See more…” thing get in there? It’s the damndest thing…
It’s not a lie if he’s devolved.
Though the powers that be may not
know it, or rather, would sooner not know it, nay, cannot afford to
know it (for where else would they find more obedient, unscrupulous
and servile creatures), the media are the principal, albeit
unintentional, creators and encouragers of opposition, since they
are totaJIy suspect and nobody believes them. People almost automatically
take for gospel the opposite of what the papers say. Once
all-powerful, the media were capable of pointing the finger that
condemned people to death. As they lost all credibility they also lost
some of their power, and at the very least were obliged to change
their methods, if not their ends. Nowadays, they do not directly fix
the noose around people’s necks, but they do endeavour to destroy
their honour and slay them with a hail of repeated slanders and lies,
pikachues with a human face pg 127
ok so it’s super terrible wrong for vendors to refuse to sell stuff to Christian Bakery Family but it’s super wonderful goodness for Christian Bakery Family to refuse to sell stuff to other people?
It is when vendors are being pressured not to do business with Christian Bakery Family because Christian Bakery Family doesn’t offer a product for sale to anyone because that product doesn’t exist, in spite of the effort of a willfully determined pressure group to will said product into existence.
I mean, that would be like organizing a pressure campaign against Burger King’s business partners because Burger King can’t sell you a Big Mac. And they told you that you could have it your way too, the bastards!
there is no evidence at all that any vendors were “pressured” not to do business with the Christian Bakery Family Mr. Ernst
I think everyone was urged to boycott Christian Bakery Family on principle and it sounds like the vendors joined cause of they wanted to
Burger King on the other hand, something has gone very very wrong with them
last time I got a sammich there was on Victory in BurbankI ended up throwing it away and the time before that I was in Cherokee NC and I threw a lot of my order away then too and the time before that was at an airport, and it was edible but not something you could feel good about eating
*Burbank I* is how that should read
Because you’re denser than lead:
The LGBT protestors then turned on other wedding vendors around the community. They threatened to boycott any florists, wedding planners or other vendors that did business with Sweet Cakes By Melissa.
There is a lot more to running a bakery than flour, eggs and vanilla extract
well sure there’s cocoa, which is non-perishable, and sugar which is also non-perishable and there’s milk, which is perishable but easily acquired and you also need baking powder which is non-perishable
so basically most of what you need is non-perishable except for eggs and milk
even coconut keeps forever if you refrigerate it
so this whole vendor supply chain thing is a crock I think
people just didn’t want their hatey cakes no mores
they said no thank you I will go over here and have tasty love cake if it’s all the same to you
people just didn’t want their hatey cakes no mores
why do you h8te the christians. the muzzies do “hey let’s drop gaysters from 10 story building”?
that’s just a sentence Mr. Pablo it doesn’t document a single instance of this actually happening
it’s just a narrative assertion
if you use logics you can soon see that this assertion is silly
what florist does any meaningful business with a bakery?
Hi bakery this is the florist we would like to order 24 cakes this week. Yup same as last week ok thanks.
No that NEVER happens.
And wedding planners don’t give a fuck where you get your cake unless the venue says you can’t bring in a cake from the outside. Which happens sometimes but it’s really super uncommon and probably even more uncommon than that in the Portland area. Mostly people know where they want to get their cakes without needing the wedding planner’s help on that.
here is where many of the hispanical peoples and others in the Los Angeles area like to get their wedding cakes from
cause of they’re so freaking good is why
plus also they’re made with huge dollops of love
plus also they’re made with huge dollops of love
the gaysters have a problem
“King’s Hawaiian Bakery has created delicious, decadent wedding cakes for brides and grooms since 1950. ”
this joint be using dick and pussy for marriage
you just have to have faith that everything’s gonna work out for the best
mock the gaysters alinsky says
(Re: The rodent’s desperate lying and Pokemon-based snark about it)
Evolution doesn’t always mean improvement. Especially in the rodent’s case.
“what florist does any meaningful business with a bakery?”
So you’ve really never heard of a referral system in the services business? So dumb…
What automechanic does any meaningful business with a taxi service? What music store does any meaningful business with music venues? What restaurant does meaningful business with hotels? Hurrrrrrr…
griefer blathered:
people just didn’t want their hatey cakes no mores they said no thank you I will go over here and have tasty love cake if it’s all the same to you
…and yet the ones who seem full of hate are the ones using strong-arm tactics to push people out of business for having the “wrong” opinion on something.
Oh and those like you who are mindlessly cheerleading said tactics.
And this is why liberal ideas about how to run the business world better because of experts and theory always wreck lives. They don’t know shit and they don’t know they don’t know shit, and they think the real credit lies in trying instead of succeeding.
“and wedding planners don’t give a fuck where you get your cake -”
Unless potential clients tell them that they won’t be planning no weddings if they do business hatey cakes (see attached list). Are you trying to come off as clueless?
Lemme tell y’all how Tracy is playing you.
She is all about the lefty strategy of making you play her game. It’s like this; she has only one goal in mind, and all the rest is just bullshit to baffle you.
The one thing she wants all to come away with? all these things are the same, IE, a civil right:
1) race
2) gender
3) sexual behavior
4) disabilities
Yup, her only goal here is to naturalize the idea homosexuality is a civil right. Once you swallow that bit o’ shit, the war is won. After that, it’s just waiting for the inevitable acceptance of Gods will, constitutional patriotism, and family values…
Odd, it isn’t working on me. Back in ’04 or ’05 or so I was considering the possibility of it as a civil right, so I did a bit more research on the concept. While I encountered some bigots like, oh, newrouter, I also found some thoughtfully-written rebuttals to the idea by people like dicentra.
I check the pro-gay marriage side and I find nothing but “shut up, h8r” or similar and the presumption that anyone opposed to it was like newrouter.
This convinced me that the movement is not trying to push a civil right. It’s making the claim to one, but that’s just a fancy mask to use as an excuse to crush people who were considered a threat by progressives. Oh and for morlocks like grieferfeet to scree, make disgusting remarks, and pretend they were enlightened for doing so.
Dicentra has it right: This isn’t about a civil right, it’s a weapon to use against their enemies while pretending to have the moral high ground by claiming it’s a civil rights issue. Because, shut up h8r!
gaysters rule xtians drool
Damn. And here I thought she was trying to argue a variation of that old kindergarted admonition: I hope you brought enough candy for everyone.
Everybody gets cake or nobody gets cake. And it doesn’t matter to her which.
While I encountered some bigots like, oh, newrouter
yo faggots don’t reproduce anti “science” clown. fact of so called “life”.
bigots, racists it all the same with proggtards
Also, why do you think I was quoting KennethMinogue?
Yup, her only goal here is to naturalize the idea homosexuality is a civil right.
If so, then it is one granted by the States (Amendment 10), and is thus subordinate to the protections granted in the Federal Constitution, by definition. Where it might agree, there is no conflict, but where they disagree, the Constitution wins.
“But, but, but… zoning laws!!!“
You keep using that word, newrouter, but I don’t think it means what you think it does.
Yeah, you kind people will keep calling newrouter a bigot right up til the time all of America is Folsom Street, and the crowd at your door is demanding you give up your children like they did Lot in Gomorrah.
Then the really nice ones of you will end up pillars of salt.
Or I’ll note how newrouter does things like throw the word “faggot” in a demeaning way and consider it an act of prejudice against a certain group.
Actually, I see a similarity between him and grieferfeet. They just have different things that draw their spewage.
Pervert, queer, faggot…seems the only choice is pride or prejudice. You’re going to have to pick one, they insist.
What if it’s reserved to the people?
then you get Prop 8
y’all wanna act like I’m so dumb like I don’t know nothing about running a small business but I didn’t run no dinky-assed bakery into the ground now did I?
no i did not
thank you very much
then you get Prop 8
….and instead of trying to convince people to vote their way in a future referendum they use the courts to invalidate that vote that didn’t go their way.
you’ve really never heard of a referral system in the services business
what I know is referral systems tend to break down when you start calling your customers abominations in the eyes of the Lord
for example there once was a little christian bakery in oregon…
Griefer:
“We all” act like you’re dumb because you write like a simpering wannabe thug jumping on whatever bandwagon you think will help you feel better about yourself. Among other things.
HTH. HAND.
nevertheless
what I know is referral systems tend to break down when you start calling your customers abominations in the eyes of the Lord
Cite?
i read it on the internet
IOW, you can’t back up your claim.
That requires integrity.
“what I know is referral systems tend to break down when you start calling your customers abominations in the eyes of the Lord ”
And there you have a triumphalist commercial for pious civil rights thuggery and and an admission that you were full of shit in most of your posts on this thread.
That’s because The People can only be trusted when they do what they’re told by the Better Sort, Patrick. Like in Maine, Maryland and Washington.
I liked Drumwaster’s answer to my question, by the way.
there is no thuggery here Mr. pal – people in the portland area decided they didn’t want hate cake
have you ever been to Portland?
they not the kind of people what are gonna line up for hate cake like they was voodoo donuts
it’s just not how they do it there
if you wanna have a successful bakery in a super-liberal area like up there you have to be a little more strategic than these ones were
First it was a lie that couldn’t possibly work because of logic. Now it’s social justice. Because magic.
That would be called blaming the victim
if Christians were a protected class of victim.
But since they’re not, then they must be victimizers, right? I mean, what else could they be?
So that makes it all good.
i have to take a shower brb
“there is no thuggery here Mr. pal – people in the portland area decided they didn’t want hate cake have you ever been to Portland?”
Going after other vendors is thuggery.
” have you ever been to Portland?”
It’s a colder, hillier, damper, more run down Austin only even smugger.
Hate Cake because someone claims they were called “abominations unto the Lord” and before being told that “their money wasn’t equal”?
Isn’t that just a sentence, a narrative assertion?
Aw, griefer’s mind hamsters strained on their wheel and dug up an unsupported assertion in the complaint and takes it as proof.
Give them a treat for all that effort. Must’ve been a grave strain.
Though I guess it’s useful as an example of what our blog host has been talking about all these years.
I personally would like to be able to [get] a cup of coffee at any gas station in Utah, but religious beliefs prevent them from offering it.
You’ve never been to Utah.
There are exactly zero restrictions on coffee and tea. You can get coffee at any restaurant, any Quick-E mart, any grocery store. We have Starbucks. Not at Seattle-density levels, but they’re there. Nobody pickets them because they’re not violating anyone’s religion by existing.
I was a waitress: I served coffee by the gallon. I served beers. I steeped tea. I didn’t violate the tenets of my faith in doing so.
I had a non-Mormon friend over for a few days, so I bought some instant coffee for her (she picked it out); the remains are still in my cupboard.
The alcohol laws are more byzantine than strict, but you still can getcher wine at Olive Garden and sit at the bar at Applebees and getcha a cocktail and buy a case of beer at the 7-11.
Please don’t misrepresent.
I guess fairness obliges me to point out to folks like griefer that an unedited, full-context recording of someone saying what was said is my criteria of proof. Progs and their cheerleaders tend to… embellish things to fit their own narrative.
So it’s more likely the couple said no and the ones filing the complaint added the “abomination” part because it fits the narrative. For the Truthiness!
So why can’t you bake a gay wedding cake for a gay wedding?
(The reason I ask being the widespread all or nothing fallacy. I know you’ve addressed why gay and wedding is an oxymoron.)
Queers are not only an abominations unto the lord, but an abomination to good hygiene and a perversion of nature.
I hope y’all are ready for lots of guy on guy public displays of
affectionperversion, because love is a beautiful thing, and shit on his stick is what a marriage is all about.Isn’t that just a sentence, a narrative assertion?
it is but it’s at least a wee lil bit credible cause of how baker boy goes on about how literally he takes the bible, which is the only way simple uneducated people ever even learn the word abomination
Just as an aside, the Ricochetti in their code-of-conduct cocoon took a much different tack in their discussion, and I found it more alarming than the flat-out opposition I’ve run into.
you just have to have faith that everything’s gonna work out for the best
said the Jews as they got aboard the cattle cars.
Going after other vendors is thuggery.
what would “going after” other vendors actually comprise
hey we’re not buying your flowers no more cause of I heard you referred people over to the hate bakery last week
how would they ever actually hear that?
I suspect that this is specious, this whole “going after” other vendors thing
which is the only way simple uneducated people ever even learn the word abomination
And if it turns out that the word was added by the militant groups that lied to advance a narrative? Wouldn’t that make the lying liars what lied “simple uneducated people”? Or are there no such critters among same-sex marriage proponents?
said the Jews as they got aboard the cattle cars.
yeah but this is different this is a story about moist delicious cake and who can have it and who cannot have it because Jesus
what would “going after” other vendors actually comprise
Didn’t read the story, didja?
And if it turns out that the word was added by the militant groups that lied to advance a narrative?
that would be very wicked but the thing is their narrative stands just fine, and is otherwise undisputed, without this detail
but you have a point in that the fascist state government of Oregon can slap emotional damages on in these sorts of cases
i read the story Mr. waster I read it real good
“yeah but this is different this is a story about moist delicious cake and who can have it and who cannot have it because Jesus”
No Lie-achu, it is about not making (or decorating) a specific KIND of cake for anyone who ask at all.
And how do we know he’s simple and undeducated? He takes his social cues from the Bible instead of from pop culture.
It’s fun to get your bigot on when you don’t have to worry about social opprobrium, isn’t it?
Also abomination is a Marvle comics character since the mid 60’s. Even fatso union thugs can use it.
but the way the christian bakers behaved was rude and unkind whether or not he called his would-be customers abominations or not
Jesus doesn’t give a shit if you bake a cake for a gay wedding or not
what kind of freaky santeria-assed hoodoo shit is that
big picture, people
eyes on the prize errybody
do unto others and et cetera
chop chop
Marvel
that would be very wicked but the thing is their narrative stands just fine, and is otherwise undisputed, without this detail
As does that of the bakery owner, someone who doesn’t have a political narrative to advance. Because Christians aren’t the automatic victim group, they don’t presume the victim status and seek to bolster it.
Of course, all those self-inflicted hate crimes tend to make me really suspicious when evil behavior is blamed on those who appreciate societal norms.
it is but it’s at least a wee lil bit credible cause of how baker boy goes on about how literally he takes the bible,
Guess what?
I’ve never heard the phrase “wives, submit to your husbands” over the pulpit, but I hear it non-stop from feminists who accuse Christianity of being misogynist. It’s fun to cherry-pick nasty-sounding phrases from scripture and put them in your enemy’s mouths!
which is the only way simple uneducated people ever even learn the word abomination
I doubt he said it at all: that’s not how actual Christians roll. If they were selling other product to gays without incident, they didn’t whip out “abomination” when “sorry, we don’t do that” would do.
Didn’t you see their live interview? They weren’t militant or Church Lady or anything. But the people who wanted to destroy their business, they wouldn’t lie about what happened?
Jesus doesn’t give a shit if you bake a cake for a gay wedding or not
And you know this because you spend so much time in church, communing with Him and reading His word.
i haven’t seen their live interview
but the way the christian bakers behaved was rude and unkind whether or not he called his would-be customers abominations or not
How is it rude or unkind to say “sorry, we don’t offer that service to anyone”? They were treated exactly the same as anyone else who came in and asked for a product that the store didn’t offer.
How hateful, huh?
I know this because I was learned up about Jesus and he’s not like that to where he wants people to be mean to gay people
big picture, people
Oh, I see it, all right.
Christianity is a threat to the socialisms, picachu, so it has to be destroyed by any means necessary.
Useful idiots in comment threads are just gravy.
It is so disputed. Go back and read from your own damn quote in your own damn comment.
” the way the christian bakers behaved was rude and unkind whether or not he called his would-be customers abominations or not ”
The bakers had it coming? They were fair game who deserved to be the target of righteous thuggery? So if they make the cake it’s no big deal because you say so, and if they don’t it’s an abomination? All noncompliance is hatred?
“Jesus doesn’t give a shit if you bake a cake for a gay wedding or not ”
Unless he does. and you’re full of shit again.
” what kind of freaky santeria-assed hoodoo shit is that ”
The kind you clumsily made up because of your anti-christer bigotry.
” do unto others and et cetera”
So you feel counter-thuggery and counter agitation is called for?
he’s not like that to where he wants people to be mean to gay people
Who’s being mean, the bakers or the thugs who threatened other businesses?
Mr. waster they make wedding cakes these people had already bought one form the Christian Bakery Family before for $250
they were repeat customers, or woulda been
and now look what happened
Jesus punished the Christian Bakery Family and took away their business
Pikachu is confused because he’s never had to stand up for his faith against the full force of mainstream opprobrium.
He somehow thinks that qualifies him to determine what bigotry is.
*from* the Christian Bakery Family
don’t be so dramatic dicentra there was no full force at work here
just bad business decisions
“Jesus punished the Christian Bakery Family and took away their business”
No, thugs did that. And liars covered for them.
“they make wedding cakes”
They don’t make same sex weeding cakes.
<blockquote.Jesus doesn’t give a shit if you bake a cake for a gay wedding or not
what kind of freaky santeria-assed hoodoo shit is that
big picture, people
eyes on the prize errybody
do unto others and et cetera
chop chop
You’ve confused the Gospels with Depeche Mode. Again.
Mr. waster they make wedding cakes these people had already bought one form the Christian Bakery Family before for $250
Right, which disproves the discrimination claim. And so when the gay couple asked for a product not offered by the store, they got offended when told “we don’t offer that to anyone, but would you like one like you bought the last time?”
“No, and we’re going to shut you down, HATERS”
And you are defending it, just like you promised you wouldn’t. Color me shocked, but not really.
y’all live in a dark world of fiery judgment and social awkwardness
god bless you
“Undisputed”?
Ah, grieferfeet suffers from that same stupidity prog trolls all over the internet suffer from: They think no one knows how to scroll up.
Jesus punished the Christian Bakery Family and took away their business
Because Jesus saved all those Christian martyrs who were thrown to the lions.
Being hated by the world is not evidence that God is displeased with you but rather that you are out of step with the world, as all followers of God inevitably must be. The bakers get this, which is why they’re not counter-suing or wreaking revenge.
Who is more likely to be on the side of “world”: the people who hate Christians or those who don’t?
don’t be so dramatic dicentra there was no full force at work here
You will keep downplaying the persecution no matter how hard it gets, won’t you?
When have you EVER had to suffer mockery and persecution because you had principles to stand on?
And you are defending it, just like you promised you wouldn’t. Color me shocked, but not really.
what am i defending? everyone involved is just doing their thang – this is not a civil rights issue it’s a whoops we fucked up and pissed off our customer base issue
we’ll see what happens if the fascist Oregon state government keeps pursuing this, which I guess they might cause the hate baker chick is still selling cakes out of her house, but I kinda doubt they will
it’s so exceedingly rare for people in real life to behave like Christian Bakery Family, and the trend line is going towards it being even more exceedingly rare really really fast
even a fascist blue state like Oregon has bigger fish to fry you’d fucking hope
The bad business decision being choosing to act in accordance with their beliefs instead of submitting to the social power of the gay mafia.
Chick Fil-A is lucky there weren’t a one store mom-n-pop operation. Otherwise, they’d have really taken it up the ass.
When have you EVER had to suffer mockery and persecution because you had principles to stand on?
scroll up toots
Comment threads don’t count, moron.
When have you lost a job, lost friends, been lied about?
“y’all live in a dark world of fiery judgment and social awkwardness ”
Yeah, you’re fuckin’ awesome and shit.
Just posted to Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/taniaseyes/9681419513/
Chick Fil-A is lucky there weren’t a one store mom-n-pop operation. Otherwise, they’d have really taken it up the ass.
they have really tasty sammiches
but unfortunately I can’t eat them
but I have had them before unlike Ashton Kutcher who doesn’t weaknesses of that sort to where he’d have ever been tempted to indulge in a tasty sammich
this whole cake thing must be entirely incomprehensible to him
this whole cake thing must be entirely incomprehensible to him
It’s certainly incomprehensible to you.
And with that photo of Osprey poop, I must go.
As I recall, German Jews fucked up in similar manner by pissing off their neighbors.
i totally get the cake thing
Meanwhile
The gay mafia blows their phones up. Where have you been, child?
I learned that He (which should be capitalized) talked a lot about how people needed to do what His Dad says.
To where? Here? That does answer the question, doesn’t it?
happyfeet says September 5, 2013 at 11:12 pm
y’all live in a dark world of fiery judgment and social awkwardness
god bless you
– See more at: https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=50840#comments
Not really.
I got bounced from a lesbian bar in Madison once several years ago because I was the wrong gender. I didn’t protest. I went to another bar.
See. The thing about being a conservative is you pretty much leave people alone to rise or fuck up as they see fit. But when you open yer big soup cooler and complain about how unfair it all is, then yer gonna get called on it. Because I and most conservatives don’t give a shit if Dick fucks Jane. If Dick dicks Richard or if Jane and Janet flick each others beans. Just don’t whine about it.
lesbians can be so haughty and cruel
feets is still blaming the victim. “If she hadn’t been wearing such a short skirt/standing behind those unpopular beliefs, she wouldn’t have gotten raped/screwed over by those demanding special treatment.” And you can’t tell me that the gay couple couldn’t have bought other things that WERE offered by the bakery. In fact, they already had, with no issue.
It isn’t discrimination for Burger King to not offer a Big Mac on their menu. It is thuggery to shut down Burger King and threaten everyone with whom they do business because the gay couple were told to go to the nearby McDonalds. You are blaming the victim and defending the thuggery.
The discrimination of the “tolerant“.
What is being evidenced here is that most agnostics and amoralists are, for whatever reason, going to side fully with normalizing hedonism (because the equal rights!!!111!!!).
The problem is that history shows that prevalent hedonism is a very difficult state in which to have a stable society. Just from what I’ve observed in my lifetime, societal acceptance of immoral behavior correlates pretty well with societal acceptance of wild government spending and growth.
Excess is excess, corruption is corruption, and tolerance/acceptance is often difficult to distinguish from apathy and fashionable group-think.
But hey, if it tweaks some self-righteous types, it’s all good.
it’s a whoops we fucked up and pissed off our customer base issue
That presumes their customer base is comprised entirely of gays in need of wedding cakes. Another lie.
You really should read the Sermon on the Mount, happy. It’s concise and can be printed on a handy wallet-sized laminated card.
Jesus isn’t Old Testament God, smiting people right and left.
Tell that to the moneychangers in the Temple courtyard.
Will San Antonio be issuing black armbands with a yellow cross on them soon? Or just a web site with a list of names of persons, along with their tattooed number, who will not be allowed in public anymore?
Better open your eyes people.
Gays wanted their civil rights, and almost no one objected to civil unions.
But that wasn’t enough, they wanted civil approval, and so the push for SSM.
But that isn’t enough either, ‘cuz now they demand participation in their perversion.
Best start using judgment now, else you will be judged guilty later.
Also known as the “happyfeet doesn’t speak for me” verse…
Tell that to the moneychangers in the Temple courtyard.
I wasn’t forgetting them, Ernst. Jesus threw them out, He didn’t kill them, turn them to salt or any other special effects stuff like the Old Man did.
Happyfeet is a philistine. As are the persons to whom St. Matthew is referring in that passage.
If all you do is alienate a ton of your customers, no boycott of you and your vendors is necessary. Just stop frequenting the business, and the business will dry up and blow away by itself.
So, I am guessing that “a ton” means something very much like: a small minority. To make boycotts work, normally you have to recruit a whole bunch of people to participate that otherwise would not.
What is being evidenced here is that most agnostics and amoralists are, for whatever reason, going to side fully with normalizing hedonism (because the equal rights!!!111!!!).
That’s a filthy lie, and you should know better. There’s a wide gulf between decriminalizing behaviors (which I support) and promoting those same behaviors (which I do not). There is nothing wrong with a society in which I can say, “You want to poison your body and let your mind and spirit wither? Go ahead; it’s a free country.” I’d far prefer that than to let the moralists decide who gets to do what.
It amazes me that those who would rail against the State’s interference in diet and medicine and education would beg for the State’s interference in other areas of behavior.
happyfeet says September 6, 2013 at 7:33 am
lesbians can be so haughty and cruel
– See more at: https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=50840#comments
Mostly just hypocritically judgmental.
But that wasn’t enough
they wanted civil approvalto punish the Christers with, and so the push for SSM.FTFY
AND YOU HAVE NO RIIIGGGHHHHHHT
to ask me how I feel
It’s not acting.
well then you are operating under some very questionable assumptions my friend
So ‘splain.
There’s at least a preponderance of the evidence, but I will allow that you could be lying.
We may not know (or care) how smart or dumb the attention whore is, but we know it loves attention by its hijacking of another thread with its attention-whoring.
A Jewish drycleaner will clean a cotton suit, a wool suit, a polyester suit but refuses to clean a cotton and wool blend suit.
A Muslim taxi driver refuses to give a drunk man a ride home.
A Muslim refuses to sell to a woman not in a burka.
A Christian employer fires a woman because she became pregnant while single.
Two lesbians are seated in a restaurant, next to them, a young couple with two children. At almost the same moment one lesbian gets up to go to the bathroom, kisses her partner and walks away and the husband does exactly the same with his wife. The lesbian returns and the manager asks them to leave because the wife complained about the sexual display.
In every case the ‘aggrieved’ party sues and in every case, wins.
I have seen pictures of the wedding cakes posted by the OR bakers. None of the wedding cakes had ‘congrats jane and john’, the decorations included wedding rings, stylized hearts and flower bouquets. Bride’s cakes seemed to have a big B on them. None appeared with a ‘husband/wife’ statute. My bet is that if the gay couple had asked for a cake already prepared from a case (I know it doesn’t appear from pictures they had them, but most wedding cake places I’ve been to have some), the OK bakers would probably have refused.
Like the Loving case, it might be courts that force the beginning of the change, but legislatures have approved gay marriage and now voters have… men and women will still get married and have children, or not, in numbers more vast than ever. Gay couples have been raising children for years, welcomed into communities as good neighbors. Society has already changed…time for the laws to catch up.
psst LBascom, I believe in individual rights…
Note about the examples: some were made up, some happened.
Hi I made a cake! I will trade it with you for money!
Ok happy that sounds fair how many monies do you want?
Go away you stupid lesbian. Avant foul abomination!
Haha very funny happy.
I’m not kidding. Get your gay lesbian ass away from my cake I changed my mind it’s not for sale.
Man happy I thought I knew you. You’re being so rude.
Yeah well you thought wrong now don’t make me get a restraining order cause I will. Scoot!
oops I think it’s supposed to be avaunt with a u
but lesbians are super good at using context to figure out what you mean
A Jewish bakery sells its wares to a German couple. They then ask for a cake that celebrates cremation of Jews for their religious views, which views are the ‘law’ of the land.
What result, Tracy and radioactive rodent?
perverts should learn how bake cakes then they won’t have this problem
should gay bakers be forced to make “god hates fags” cakes?
Exactly how far does one’s freedom to be an obnoxious moron go? The couple in PA who ordered a birthday cake for their child named “Adolph Hitler” had all four of their children, included young Adolf, removed from their home by CPS.
Did you know that Harpo Marx’s birth name was also Adolph? Good thing Mrs. Marx and he are both long dead. It would be doubleplus ungood what with them being German Jews and all.
Gee RI Red, does the baker sell Armenian holocaust cakes? How about Rwandan holocaust? Cambodian? Then I think they should have to sell Jewish one too. No? They don’t sell holocaust cakes? Oh, well, then they are out of luck I guess….
Leign, V and I had to go through FBI background checks and home visit and a ‘surprise’ vist by CPS before V could adopt CJ. We went through the same process when we became foster parents for a couple of years.
I saw the story you are referring to. How close do those parents come to child abuse? I don’t know, but naming their kid AH probably doesn’t cross the line such that CPS should take the kids away – I am fairly certain that if they are being that explicit, there is much more going on in private that I WOULD consider abuse.
I do know that a man in NJ? after having served time for murder, petitioned the court for custody of his child because his ex-wife started living with lesbian. He won.
“psst LBascom, I believe in individual rights…”
Right in the comment that snip was from, you compared sexual behavior (gays) to race (Loving case).
They aren’t the same. Homo’s can and do change there behavior, you can’t change your DNA. A homo can walk into a bakery, buy a cake, and walk out, the owner never being the wiser. Black folk couldn’t pretend to be white and sit at the lunch counter.
I know you so want America to think of gays like an ethnic minority, and you probably have a good shot, as stupid as the west has become. But you are conflating a variable with a constant, and it can only end in confusion and a weak society, and a generation coming that will be conquered by a stronger, less confused society.
And I’ll warn you, commies nor muslims, whoever does the conquering, will not be kind to the pervs when the smoke clears…
The important thin g here is that the government should punish me for not making a cake that I don’t want to make.
For Justice. For Freedom!
Hmmmm….
LBascom, I did not compare sexual BEHAVIOR to race. I noted that a fundamental change in society was begun in the courts and it move to the legislatures and eventually to the general populace.
Why would you think I believe gays are an ‘ethnic minority’? Can’t even imagine where that thought originated. Homosexuals are in every ethnic, racial, political and economic group. They are a minority with regard to orientation. I have noted that in very rare instances, sexual preference is a choice, but that in 99+% it is inherent. Unless you want to suggest you choose to be straight, you were ‘born’ that way as are gays.
I take your warning as bluster. I have served in the military and will continue to defend this country.
You’re off the rails with your extremely bad analogies, Tracy Cole. Gay marriages are but mockeries of traditional marriages, conceptualized by extremists who desperately need to justify their awkward and needy existences. That these Gay extremists would attack good people for their beliefs, with tactics reminiscent of Fascists or Nazis, bespeaks their true foul characters.
If this is exemplar behavior of the majority of Gays, it’s a good thing their genes are dead-end non-prolific. Bad behavior from, thankfully, bad eggs.
serr8d, I have been both in an opposite sex marriage and a same sex relationship. I understand the similarities and differences. Whether you have a similar set of experiences or close-hand knowledge of both is unknown to me….so excuse me if I ignore your assessment of the nature of same sex marriages.
As for gays being dead-ends, given that gays have been recorded in every race and noted in virtually every historical setting, it appears to be a ‘natural’ , recurring result that heterosexuals raise gays.
recurring result that heterosexuals raise gays
they raise chickens, cows, idiots and morons too. what’s your point?
it appears to be a ‘natural
procreation is natural. same sex nonsense not so much @ anti darwin
gay marriages are cool! They’re certainly not mockeries. I totally respect people who get gay married.
But I don’t get over the top with it cause I don’t want to make them feel self-conscious I just make like you would with anyone who’s married. Ask them if they have any plans for the weekend.
Married people love that shit cause it’s an invitation for them to respond as a married person and answer about how *we’re* doing this or he or she’s doing this and I’m doing that or what have you. Totally sets everyone at ease.
newrouter, given that same sex behavior happens in many species, it is A natural variation and given that its instances tend to be in extremely small numbers, the overall impact to the continuation of any species is limited or non-existent. No species needs every mature member to procreate to continue the species.
I think raising one’s family in Bethlehem PA is tantamount to child abuse. There is a large population of white supremacists there, as well. I imagine there are a number of Adolphs and Evas running around.
I find it in poor taste at the least and bigoted as hell at the most. However, in a world with children named Fifi Trixibelle (Bob Geldolf’s daughter), who are we to judge, eh?
you judge like a banshee
given that same sex behavior happens in many species
that “given” is like “hey we sometimes manufacture “science” for political purposes”
“Why would you think I believe gays are an ‘ethnic minority’?”
Don’t play dumb, it’s beneath us both. I said you want homosexuals (whom are distinguished purely by sexual behavior) to be treated like minorities, as in the bakery illegally discriminated, and they that don’t accept their lifestyle are bigots .
As for the choosing, I don’t believe 99% of gays are the way they are by genetics. You yourself state you have swung both ways. I know of several people personally that have chosen to switch teams. I also firmly believe that absent religious teaching and social taboos against it, the bisexual community would be MUCH larger.
As for YOUR bluster, there is a reason the soviets had a program to push the homosexual agenda and degrade sexual mores in America in the fifties. A sexually perverted nation is a weak nation. Now I ask you. Wanna compare Putin and Obama as which is the stronger leader.
I try and avoid the comparison as much as possible, ‘cuz I hate the result.
a cowardly brokedick splayed-leg debtwhore nation is pretty weak too I think
you judge like a banshee
So? I admit it, unlike a certain Pikachu.
I’m honest.
a cowardly brokedick splayed-leg debtwhore nation is pretty weak too I think
especially to giving the gaysters any attention
I have to go pick up my friend F bye
Chicken.
LBascom, maybe I should have pointed out more clearly your use of the term ETHNIC. Gays are a minority. So are redheads. I don’t expect anyone to treat a gay any differently than a redhead. If the baker refuses to make a cake for a couple getting married because they are gay, the baker is treating that couple differently. In OR, that is against the law….so it is illegal discrimination. Kinda like undocumented workers are ILLEGALLY in the country.
You are of course free to believe what you want about genetics. I don’t ‘swing’ both ways. I was in monogamous relationships. And I am very rare. BTW, I was raised Roman Catholic. In my 20s I was part of a fundamental non-denominational Christian church (Calvary Chapel).
I am sure that the ‘homosexual’ agenda has had everything to do with the failings of traditional marriage. /sarc
Putin is the stronger leader. He is a communist SOB. Is he a stronger leader because he is a communist or because he is not gay? Obama is an incompetent idiot – I doubt he is so because the gay agenda made him that way.
Except what we’d term exclusively homosexual behavior where an animal never attempts courtship or copulation with a member of the opposite sex in favor of their own sex is only found in humans and domesticated sheep, specifically rams. Homosexual behavior in other animals doesn’t map well to human sexuality.
I don’t expect anyone to treat a gay any differently than a redhead
see you loser you go back to an physical identifier. face it you were in an anti darwin relationship for x years that created no children barren biotch.
Is he a stronger leader because he is a communist or because he is not gay
no because he perfectly understands your stupid proggtardism
Newrouter, there’s no need to call Tracy names. We can disagree without all that. It doesn’t advance the case in either direction. I don’t have a problem with Tracy being gay. It’s who she is and she has had to make many choices because of it. I don’t like single people or gays adopting children, but —this is a huge but —- they were willing to give an abandoned child a good home. Some adoptive homes are for shit, just like biological homes. This appears not to be the case with Tracy’s adopted daughter whom she always speaks of with great pride and affection.
I do have a problem with the notion that the bakery MUST bake a cake for this troublesome couple. The bakers aren’t bigots, they are living their faith and the State of OR can got to hell along with their law. If there was a concerted effort put for by the (false) Baker’s Union of Portland to deny cakes to gays as a policy, that would be wrong, too. I don’t see an answer here since we’re coming at this bakery problem from two different POVs and Liberty is being run over by the cartwheels and the horse as everyone tries to seek advantage.
The law is overly broad. Change the law.
Pelligre, probably because humans are more than just biology and instinct….
Newrouter, there’s no need to call Tracy names.
yea the stoopid ideas needs to be called out
Obama’s team thought US might win Iran’s support against Syria
life is too short to argue with idiots
probably because humans are more than just biology and instinct
not really clown and not most of them
hey tracy and leigh – equal rights to find alot of females idiots no? or that the sexists?
What does that say in English, nr?
Sober up, hon.
I support the baker’s choice not to bake a cake – please ignore the STUPID suggestion they don’t offer ‘same sex cakes’. Had it been me ordering the cake I would have done what other gays turned down by them did – go elsewhere. If someone doesn’t want my business, I certainly am not interested in giving it to them. I have a bigger problem with employers firing people for being gay or for landlords turning away people because they are gay. But I wouldn’t apply for jobs in places where that was an issue and I certainly wouldn’t want to live in a place that was antagonistic. I don’t think the appropriate action to someone being an jerk is to sue them.
Do I think that people that sue in such cases are trying to ‘harm’ the business? Yes. A public boycott calls attention to their choices just as well, so suing is ‘punishment’. Not my style. I have said for a long time that gays are their own worse enemy. The community spends all year trying to convince people they are ‘normal’ and then they put on ‘Pride Parades’ that showcase every type of debauchery imaginable. When we as a family visited San Francisco, V wanted to visit the Castro district….after like 5 minutes I suggested that it was inappropriate for CJ to be there and we left. The ‘activists’ in OR (and for that matter in AZ) do more harm than good.
I try to note that Leftists will do anything possible to subvert ‘society’, any minority that can be co-opted for the process is. Leftists don’t care about the minority, they are just props, hammers to beat others with. The ‘gay agenda’ is a Leftist agenda. I have been saying for years that the Right is a more natural place for gays than the Left. The Left has no desire to support ‘individual’ rights.
“If the baker refuses to make a cake for a couple getting married because they are gay, the baker is treating that couple differently.”
No shit. Probably because the gay couple is treating marriage differently. Notice how it’s not “husband” and “wife”?
“And I am very rare”
Not as rare as advertised, I’m comfortable asserting.
“I am sure that the ‘homosexual’ agenda has had everything to do with the failings of traditional marriage. /sarc”
No, that’s the progressive agenda, which also gave us the gay agenda.
“Putin is the stronger leader. He is a communist SOB. Is he a stronger leader because he is a communist or because he is not gay ?
Putin is the stronger leader not necessarily because of his own merits, but because Obama is the product of a metrosexual nation that is confused and lost .
If the baker refuses to make a cake for a couple getting married because they are gay, the baker is treating that couple differently
You keep trying to make it about the choices of the gay couple, rather than the choices of the baker. The baker didn’t refuse to make the cake because the couple was gay, but because they were asking for something that simply was not on the menu of options. Their personal sexual preferences never entered into the equation, as was proven by the baker selling them many other products that WERE on that menu.
It was about the product, not the putative customers. It would not have mattered one iota if the couple asking for the same sex commitment ceremony were straight, gay or total strangers, the baker didn’t offer it to anyone.
And since Oregon does not recognize same-sex marriage, how can it be discrimination to follow State Law on this issue? How can it be illegal to obey State Law?
Oh, and since you have opened up the door to being called STUPID, I will note your STUPID assertion that same-sex marriage is the same as real marriage. It isn’t.
But since you want to define the limits of your STUPIDITY, please tell us what the difference between a real marriage (as defined by the State of Oregon) and a same-sex marriage, and in what ways that difference can be displayed atop a cake. Your STUPID assertion that it’s just flour, oil, eggs, sugar and water is especially STUPID, given that it is the decoration that makes the difference – the writing or the two grooms/brides, rather than one of each. Those decorations are available through the bakery, if they are offered at all. (My sister makes wedding cakes.)
This bakery didn’t offer those decorations. They did offer cakes, which the couple had purchased in the past. But since you are being too STUPID to notice reality, I feel that I should point out how STUPID you have been and give you one last chance to learn. Given how STUPID you have been in this thread, though, I won’t hold my breath.
Or you could just apologize, if you have the integrity to notice. We shall see how STUPID you wish to be.
LBascom, no, the gay couple is treating marriage the same way straights do, YOU are treating gays differently because you can’t see that.
the gay couple is treating marriage the same way straights do
Except for the most fundamental differences, of course, it’s just the same. Like night is the same as daytime, except for that one little thing.
Drumwaster, maybe you can tell me if this is a same sex or opposite sex cake?
https://sphotos-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/1002982_10151529621447799_1813419111_n.jpg
??
As for the difference between same sex marriage and opposite sex marriage….lets see…the sex of the partner is different…..and…hmmmm….can’t think of anything else….except some people get all up in arms about one and not the other….
Or how about this one?
https://sphotos-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1098289_10151581413012799_1039174602_n.jpg
??
Well, gee, the only difference between the day and night, well, let’s see, it’s the same planet, if you’re at the bottom of a well, you can see stars when you look up, gravity still works, you can still breathe…
Golly, gosh, I CAN’T FIGURE OUT WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS!
“the gay couple is treating marriage the same way straights do”
You can’t be serious.
You do know marriage has been around since the dawn of man, and the concept of same sex marriage isn’t more than one generation old?
I guess you believe yourself the wisest person in history.
Drumwaster: “Except for the most fundamental differences, of course, it’s just the same. Like night is the same as daytime, except for that one little thing.”
What would be that most ‘fundamental difference’? that ONE little thing? I’m stupid remember, enlighten me with your greater experience/knowledge/understanding of same sex and opposite sex relationships….
LBascom, sure I am serious. I’ve been in both. and you’re dreaming if you think gays have never been in intimate, monogamous relationships prior to the last ‘generation’…..
“As for the difference between same sex marriage and opposite sex marriage….lets see…the sex of the partner is different…..and…hmmmm….can’t think of anything else”
That’s what I would call “a clue”.
Drumwaster……come on…you are so observant, tell me which of those cakes is a same sex wedding cake…..
LBascom….and so you think the sex of the partner changes the fundamental characteristics of marriage? hmmm….
Again, it isn’t about the couple, their relationship to each other, and whether that relationship is sanctioned by the State. It is about whether an independent businessperson is entitled to determine his/her own scope of services offered, using whatever criteria seems worthwhile to them.
The free market will determine whether those services are worth supporting, or not.
But since you like the idea of this particular ox being gored, you have no problem with using the force of the State to oppress those with whom you disagree. Don’t come to us when you are being oppressed yourself.
I’ve tried to post this twice, but it won’t work, for whatever reason.
But maybe Tracy can tell us whether these are identifiable enough as a class of product to opt out of offering
http://tinyurl.com/mqvznq6
“you’re dreaming if you think gays have never been in intimate, monogamous relationships ”
Yeah, I can see we need to return way upthread to:
Marriage entails a bit more than a “intimate, monogamous relationship”. That you don’t get that is where you are falling into error.
Ah Drumwaster, don’t want to go there did you? And, as I have said, a business SHOULD be able to decide who, when, where, what. But, we haven’t been there for a LOOOONG time. We decided that businesses were NOT free to serve whomever they choose. If they wanted a license from a state to operate a business, they would have to serve all comers that had the money to pay. So, unless you are willing to get rid of the civil rights act and laws that ban discrimination, as a business owner, that is what you give up for the ‘privilege’ of operating a business in the state.
“you think the sex of the partner changes the fundamental characteristics of marriage”
You act like marriage consisting of two people of the opposite sex is a new idea.
You’re becoming ridiculous. I’m not going to waste any more time with someone so intellectually dishonest.
We decided that businesses were NOT free to serve whomever they choose
Get off that high horse. It isn’t about who was being served, it was about what was being offered. Keep the facts straight. The baker had served the couple several times, and their sexual preferences never once entered into it, until they suddenly demanded something that wasn’t offered.
Suddenly they are being discriminated against for not being given what no one else was being given, either, and the baker must be “rehabilitated” because they chose to follow State Law.
they would have to serve all comers that had the money to pay
You cannot buy what isn’t on the menu. Just try suing Burger King for not offering Big Macs.
And business owners do not have to give up their right to decide which services and products they choose to offer to the public. You can’t buy a steak dinner at a gas station, even if they might have some cold sandwiches back in the cooler.
Drumwaster. Aw….I picked two cakes from the OR bakers facebook site – their photos of their cakes. Cakes that would work in either case of same sex or opposite sex. You have to go find a site that caters to gays to find different ‘decorations’ that are available. I admit that you can decorate a cake in an infinite number of ways, but that was not YOUR argument. You said the bakers didn’t offer ‘same sex’ cakes – when their cakes are not ‘opposite sex specific.
Gee LBascom….I’ve always been of the opinion that marriage is MUCH more than just a man and a woman. Only a few people seem to be willing to distill marriage down to JUST being between a man and woman as if all the characteristics of marriage were encompassed by just that.
You act as if ‘marriage’ consisting of two people of the same sex is a new idea. That society has always refused to ‘marry’ the couples has nothing to do with the fact the couples existed and have for as long as ‘marriage’.
Drumwaster. Of course it was about the couple. Neither of the cakes I referred to were ‘opposite’ sex specific. Either would have been quite appropriate for a same sex ceremony. But that doesn’t suit your storyline….
Cakes that would work in either case of same sex or opposite sex.
And yet, amazingly enough, none of these cakes were good enough. They wanted cakes that were specifically decorated in a fashion that the baker didn’t offer.
Neither of the cakes I referred to were ‘opposite’ sex specific. Either would have been quite appropriate for a same sex ceremony.
But they weren’t good enough for the chance to rehabilitate the baker, were they?
Do you get it NOW, gumdrop?
I admit that you can decorate a cake in an infinite number of ways, but that was not YOUR argument.
Oh, bullshit, I made that point when I referenced aunts and uncles. You were just too STUPID to notice that your argument had collapsed under you.
Drumwaster: gee, I watched the video of the bakers, I read the stories from 6 months ago. Neither suggested that the couple wanted specific decorations that were not offered, the bakers specifically said they were asked for a cake for a same sex wedding and they would not provide one for THAT PURPOSE.
If you have evidence to the contrary, provide it.
Keeping morale high for the Syria thing is a tough slog. Go team O! go, go, go.
“the bakers specifically said they were asked for a cake for a same sex wedding and they would not provide one for THAT PURPOSE. -” –> the bakers specifically said they were asked for a cake for a same sex wedding
So which of those supposedly pre-cleared indistinguishable on the menu cakes was it that was asked for? Or are we going to speculate until the spiteful thuggery takes on a value appearance of justice again while denying the other side the same right to resort to speculation ?
And the two militant gays could not do that; they had to enlist an army of same-sex and far-Left brown shirts to FORCE a Christian business to close. And you, tcoyle, by arguing forcefully for their position, are but a faded brown shirt.
I could care less about Gays legally acquiring whatever economic benefits they deserve via our perfectly reasonable and proffered methods of ‘same-sex unions’. Legally, those would treat interpersonal contracts the same as REAL Traditional Marriages, without the corrupting far-Left influences we were forced (temporarily) to accept.
Yes, temporarily. Don’t think for a second that gay marriages will last for the centuries that Traditional Marriages have endured. If (when) this careening Ship of Stupid post-American Fools finally runs aground, we won’t have much time to celebrate Bill and Bob’s or Nancy and Nina’s freak shows.
Neither suggested that the couple wanted specific decorations that were not offered, the bakers specifically said they were asked for a cake for a same sex wedding and they would not provide one for THAT PURPOSE.
And as you have so convincingly shown, there were plenty of cakes that would have served the purpose without being as “same sex” specific as you claim. The fact that the couple demanded something that the baker did not provide is all the proof I need.
They had provided cakes in the past that didn’t have those decorations on it, and there were options that were not as specific as were obviously demanded, and yet they were not enough for the militants you are defending.
This wasn’t about the actions of the couple when they are alone, and I am sure that the baker couldn’t possibly care less about their proclivities. (Proof lies in the fact that the baker had done business with the couple several times in the past, with the couple always asking for – and receiving – the things they asked for from the menu of options offered by the baker.
The one time they asked for something the baker didn’t offer? “Must be discrimination!” (Even though they were being treated exactly the same as everyone else, and offered exactly the same range of products as everyone else, that’s not good enough, and the baker must be “REHABILITATED” using all the force of the State.)
So which of those supposedly pre-cleared indistinguishable on the menu cakes was it that was asked for?
Don’t know. All I know is that it was something the baker didn’t offer. (The reasons WHY they baker chose not to offer those options are irrelevant, and Constitutionally-protected in any case. I don’t need to know WHY Burger King doesn’t offer the Big Mac, only that if I want a Big Mac, I had better go where they are offered for sale.)
I don’t need to know what it was EXACTLY, just that the baker didn’t offer it, even though there were several options that WERE available. (As you have so gleefully shown, to your own detriment.) And those options were summarily refused, because TOLERANCE.
Amazingly enough, they even refused to simply buy a “good enough” cake, and put on their own decorations. It’s almost as though they were trying to make a point, or something.
Do I think that people that sue in such cases are trying to ‘harm’ the business? Yes. A public boycott calls attention to their choices just as well, so suing is ‘punishment’. Not my style. – See more at: https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=50840#comments
Then why all the drama?
A business license is a license to do business for the sole purpose for the state to collect taxes. How you do business is your business.
Gay = annoying
But in OR, they’re NOT getting married. That is the law. So your premise is flawed.
How about this?
Pablo, you need a wedding license to buy a wedding cake?
Having watched the video of the OR baker couple and read the stories by the local press, they were asked for a wedding cake.
A wedding cake? With two women’s names on it? In a state that doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage?
If they’ve made wedding cakes for other fake ceremonies, you might have a discrimination claim, but if their policy is they make wedding cakes for weddings, maybe not.
McGehee – there is no indication that ‘two women’s names’ were the issue, nor do the wedding cakes they posted on their facebook page have ANY writing on them. All the ‘decorations’ were not ‘gender’ specific. But you ignored the question to Pablo – do you need a wedding license to have a wedding cake?
You know, I’ve been married twice and never have I had my name or that of my husband on said cakes.
Cakes with one’s name on them are for other occasions: birthdays, retirements, baby showers, engagements, first communions, confirmations and the like.
I’m reminded of actus, AKA, the talking telephone pole.
And since you have so gleefully shown us examples that would have served the need admirably well, we are left with only one conclusion that fits the known facts:
This was never about getting a cake, it was about making a point. “The goal is to rehabilitate”, using all the force a vengeful and jealous State can muster. The brownshirts don’t hurt, either, of course…
So what was different about the request that caused the baker to say “no”?
It wasn’t the customers, they had been served indiscriminately several times.
It wasn’t a generic cake, or any of the ones you posted a picture of would have sufficed.
In order to make a cake something that specifically celebrates a same-sex commitment ceremony, the ONLY difference is the decorations, and those kinds of decorations are something the baker neither carried nor offered. To anyone. At any time. For any reason.
The couple could have gotten one of those special cakes (as they had done before) and added the special secret decorations that the baker didn’t offer. But that wasn’t good enough to send the message they wanted to send. Not good enough to rehabilitate them into subservience.
hey let’s get gay married will you gay marry me?
What? That’s kind of out of the blue but yes happyfeet I will thanks for asking! But you have to promise we’ll have a tasty cake at our wedding – something with like at least seven layers and ganache filling for sure but I don’t want any figurines.
NO figurines, understand?
oh. Ok. Yeah no figurines. Ganache. I’ll do my best. I promise. I’ll do my best but I can’t make any promises except for promising to do my best cause of cakes are just for regular weddings. You have to understand this will be a same sex marriage and most people who bake wedding cakes have accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, and Jesus says if you make a wedding cake for a same sex marriage he will make fundamentally important parts on you not work how they should.
It’s in the Bible.
Fuck you happyfeet I ask for one little thing. I don’t feel like you’re very committed to this marriage. This wedding is off!
Ok fine whatever forget I asked.
No worries it’s forgotten, and to be honest happyfeet you’re probably right about the cake. Jesus was very very clear about the cake.
Yes he was. Crystal fucking clear.
Yup. And he’s Jesus so…
Yup.
Actually, Jesus would have regarded anything less than a feast as not worth attending. (cv “Canaan, Miracle at”)
Jesus was a great pal to have around at get-togethers, that’s for sure. No trips to that snobby wine shop with Him around. Endless baskets of bread and fish, too.
“Jesus says if you make a wedding cake for a same sex marriage he will make fundamentally important parts on you not work how they should.”
the pikachu has own personal jesus which is like having a sears poncho
Near as I can make out, Happyfeet is quoting Jesus Gomez, his illegal alien gardener. It helps if you read it like “Hey-zues” when he’s quoting…
i should have done you tube links
Drumwaster: “And since you have so gleefully shown us examples that would have served the need admirably well, we are left with only one conclusion that fits the known facts:”
Fact one: the gay couple had purchased cakes there before, including a wedding cake
Fact two: the gay couple asked for a wedding cake for a same sex wedding
Fact three: the OR baker said no to a same sex wedding cake
What was not said: the Baker didn’t say they didn’t have same sex wedding cakes, he didn’t say they refused specific decorations.
Fact four: the OR baker said he would not participate in a same sex wedding
Fact four suggests he would not provide ANYTHING for a same sex wedding
I don’t see zero hazard with refusing service, however: what’s the difference between this situation (other than scale) and refusing to sell your house to a couple because they are black?
Or, if that’s too much of a hot button: droids (5:20 mark).
Slart, a better example I think would be refusing to sell your house to an illegal alien.
As I tried to point out before, we’re talking behavior, not genetics.
Also, I think the suggestion that businesses only refused to serve blacks because their government told them to is farfetched.
To be kind, really. The legislature is of course elected by the people, and if the people didn’t want laws enforcing segregation, they would have replaced the representatives who passed those laws.
But that didn’t happen. I think the opposite happened: the legislature codified what the people wanted.
I will ask it again:
Since the baker had sold them other cakes in the past, what MUST HAVE BEEN different to distinguish it to the point where it would be a “same-sex” wedding cake? There must have been something specific demanded in order to emphasize the “same-sex”-ness of the cake that the baker didn’t provide.
What do you suppose that NECESSARY DECORATION – the one that was so important that nothing less would do for this occasion, on pain of boycotts and threats of legal intervention by the State – might be?
Fact four: the OR baker said he would not participate in a same sex wedding
The baker said that they would not participate in violating both State Law and their own consciences? Well, hell, drive them out of business and throw them in fucking jail for rehabilitation! That’ll show those Christers who’s boss!
I would refuse to sell my home to an illegal alien because of the illegal part. To my knowledge, it’s not illegal to be gay anywhere in the continental US.
Also, making contract with someone who is illegally present poses certain risks to both parties, so: it would be quite within my rights to decline.
Preparing a wedding cake poses no such hazard. There may be other good arguments for refusing business; this is not one of them IMO.
>Fact four: the OR baker said he would not participate in a same sex weddingor prohibiting the free exercise thereof;<
you want to ban the baker's free excercise of his religion like some muslim fanatic
<or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
I don’t see zero hazard with refusing service, however
They weren’t being refused service, they were being refused a product that the baker did not offer. The reasons behind the choice to not provide it are between the baker and his Deity, not to mention Constitutionally protected, even if it isn’t religious.
“I don’t make enough of a profit margin to offer that variety of products” is just as valid, just as Constitutionally-protected, and beyond the second-guessing of some bureaucrat.
I have seen this asserted repeatedly, here, but haven’t seen it substantiated. But perhaps I missed that.
If “wedding cake” describes a general class of product, and the baker absolutely did offer that class of product, then what? “Gay wedding cake” might be a product that they don’t offer, but what evidence do we have that that was the product requested?
Here’s what I imagine happened (not that it did, just that this probably pose some difficulties for certain people):
Gay couple walks into a baker and asks for a wedding cake. It’s for us! Baker refuses on religious grounds.
Now what? Let’s suppose it’s an undecorated wedding cake. The only thing that distinguishes this cake from any number of other cakes is that the baker knows it’s intended for a gay marriage.
This is where it gets messy, I think, so my guess is that’s about what happened.
” To my knowledge, it’s not illegal to be gay anywhere in the continental US.”
It’s not illegal (yet) to be a Christian and do the free exercise of religion thang either. I know of no religion where you can’t sell your house to black people.
>Gay couple walks into a baker and asks for a wedding cake. It’s for us! Baker refuses on religious grounds.<
gaysters then go all !!!911!! on baker about their gayster "rights"
I don’t think that the law makes any distinction between discrimination on religious grounds and discrimination on any other grounds.
I have seen this asserted repeatedly, here, but haven’t seen it substantiated
The gay couple couldn’t get a cake that was sufficiently same-sex marriage-oriented, even though they had purchased other cakes in the past, and tracy was kind enough to show a few examples of what would have served quite nicely, if not for that specific demand.
The baker did not offer whatever it was that made that cake sufficiently same-sex, even though they offered other cakes, including, I would presume, custom cakes to order.
There was no discrimination, since the baker would not offer whatever it was that made the cake sufficiently same-sex enough to meet their needs to anyone, regardless of their personal sexual preferences or what they did behind closed doors.
And to not offer a product is within the scope of authority of whatever specialist is hired for the purpose. Forcing someone to perform work against their will is called “involuntary servitude”, and the reasons why they do not wish to do that work is irrelevant. The amount of money offered in payment is also irrelevant, except that if no payment is offered, it reverts to simple slavery.
“Gay wedding cake” might be a product that they don’t offer, but what evidence do we have that that was the product requested?
Because regular wedding cakes (as displayed by tracy) were insufficient for a lesbian couple, to the point of boycott and threats of legal action by the State.
So, a woman walks onto a car lot owned by a Muslim. According to this particular Muslim’s religion, a woman should not be permitted to drive. Or: a woman should not be permitted to appear in public unescorted by a male member of her family. Really, it doesn’t matter so much.
He refuses to sell her a car.
Is he allowed to do that?
If you don’t like the illegal alien thing. how about a Christian that owns a commercial building that rents out office space, refusing to rent to an abortionist.
Should he be forced to do so?
I don’t think that the law makes any distinction between discrimination on religious grounds and discrimination on any other grounds
Except that no one was discriminated against. The protected special treatment class of super-citizen was treated exactly the same as the rest of the sub-human scum who infest the world. (ProTip: Even gay people can’t get a Big Mac at Burger King, no matter how much they offer or how loudly they stomp their little feetsies.)
Where can I read that happening, other than in comments in this thread?
Or how about Catholic hospital that does other operations but not abortions which is an operation. Force’em?
>I don’t think that the law makes any distinction between discrimination on religious grounds<
go ask a kosher butcher to slice up a pig?
He refuses to sell her a car.
What if he merely refuses to sell her a same-sex car, even though she is welcome to buy any of the other (regular) cars on the lot? Would it still be discrimination, or just someone trying to prove a legal point in the face of First Amendment protections of religious expression?
(Oh, btw, Muslim cab drivers HAVE managed to refuse to accept drunk passengers and guide dogs – and gays – on religious grounds, and been backed up by legal action. There have been threats to punish them, but nothing yet.)
Where can I read that happening, other than in comments in this thread?
You’re saying that the successful businessman wouldn’t have tried some sort of compromise suggestions? Lots of pictures to spur the imagination to something that could be done? Custom offers? Different flavors, colors, fillings? I’ve been involved in half a dozen weddings as a major participant, and I KNOW that this kind of conversation goes on.
Exactly what was it that hadn’t been on the other cakes that had to be on this one to make it so different, and obviously for a lesbian wedding ceremony? Logic allows for no other explanation. (Feel free to provide a rational possibility. If you can.)
Kosher butchers never, ever sell pigs.
Again: where was the request for a same-sex wedding cake?
Again: not a product they offer.
This is a hypothetical that may have traction in this case. I’ll ponder it.
This notion seems to have taken on a certain reality for you that is not, so rar as I have seen, actually part of this particular story.
It is difficult to find a used Subaru, Drumwaster.
Muslim cab drivers will refuse to allow people with service dogs to ride in their cabs. I’m pretty sure that’s illegal, but I haven’t heard about anyone going to court over it.
Of course not! All you need is someone willing to make you a wedding cake. Or you could make your own.
Kosher butchers never, ever sell pigs.
Christian bakers never, ever sell same-sex wedding cakes. For exactly the same reason.
Again: where was the request for a same-sex wedding cake?
Sorry, “lesbian couple’s wedding cake”. Feel better now? Or are we going to argue whether lesbians qualify as same-sex couples? I was using the generic term, to be as inclusive as possible.
This notion seems to have taken on a certain reality for you that is not, so rar as I have seen, actually part of this particular story.
I would love to hear your alternate explanation, given that the lesbian couple had purchased things from them in the past with no issues arising. What was being requested that was so outside the standard products being offered that the baker refused to offer this time? Be specific.
There had to be something different, or any of the other cakes would have sufficed. But then they couldn’t have taught the Christer a lesson, could they?
Are you entitled to a wedding cake, ever?
>Kosher butchers never, ever sell pigs.<
christain bakers never, ever sell same sex commitment cakes
No one is entitled to cake Pablo. Cake costs.
No, it was not. There’s no such thing as gay marriage in OR. Marriage is something that happens between a man and a woman*. Gay marriage is like male abortion and spinster widows*.
*this may vary in certain proggy states. check your local regulations.
At first I was afraid, I was petrified…
“You’re having a what? Oh. Sorry, not really interested in being a part of that. Thank you, come again!”
Over and done, in America. In Butthurtistan, cake makes you.
ot levin was great tonite hat too
heh, Butthutistan…I see what you did there.
There’s no such thing as gay marriage in OR.
Don’t worry about it, the Zoning Laws Commission is forcing it slowly through the system, one rehabilitation at a time.
I personally believe the OR baker told the couple, ” we don’t make cakes for same sex weddings”. I think the couple was surprised by the statement. I think the OR baker then added, “we don’t believe in same sex marriages”.
Everything else is just sides trying to support their viewpoints.
Drumwaster can’t believe someone would send business away: “You’re saying that the successful businessman wouldn’t have tried some sort of compromise suggestions?”
I think the OR baker was not assuming that one cake would have any impact on his business and that as they had been his customers before, would be again. And since he had refused cakes on that basis before without any fuss, he didn’t expect it this time. Now that it has blown up in their faces, they have to stay with it.
How many other marriage oriented businesses, in the face of a terrible economy, can afford to lose business? How many gays are associated with the ‘wedding’ process? Flowers, planners, dress makers? If the OR bakers lost 4-5 cakes per weekend worth of business, that business went somewhere else, it didn’t just evaporate.
The first year of the OR bakers facebook page they were trying to get to 500 likes. They got to 10,000 likes over this issue in just a couple months. Likes that did not turn into long term business. No one has prevented them from speaking about their faith or their beliefs. They are free to express themselves and people are free to take their business elsewhere.
I am sure everyone here opposed this:
“A conservative Christian organization is calling for a JCPenney boycott over the retailer’s decision to feature talk show host Ellen DeGeneres in a Christmas TV commercial. The One Million Moms group, part of the American Family Association, have previously objected to the comedian serving as a JCPenney spokesperson because she is a homosexual. Now they are calling on their members to forgo shopping at the department store, saying the company has decided to alienate traditional families by featuring DeGeneres in the ad. ”
and….
“As for OMM, the family advocacy group will focus on “GCB,” a television show which depicts good Christian belles “[mocking] Christianity repeatedly,” according to the website. So far, One Million Moms has succeeded in having Kraft pull their advertisements from the program. Philadelphia Cream Cheese commercials will no longer be aired during the controversial show.”
So, boycotts and threats of boycotts are just fine when it serves the right purpose. Attacking the livelihood of someone they disagree with, strictly on who they are. That is standing up for your beliefs.
Choices have consequences.
I think the couple was surprised by the statement.
Why would they be surprised, given that Oregon doesn’t recognize same-sex marriages in the first place? Would it be surprising that a store open for business would obey the laws of the State?
How many other marriage oriented businesses, in the face of a terrible economy, can afford to lose business?
How much business would they be losing to same-sex marriages, given that they are ILLEGAL in Oregon? Probably about as much business as they would lose for the “So you raped your first prison inmate” cakes…
They are free to express themselves and people are free to take their business elsewhere.
Yeah, except for the “rehabilitation” intended by the city council member. You still keep dodging that issue.
So, boycotts and threats of boycotts are just fine when it serves the right purpose.
Please show me in that example where State agents were discussing “rehabilitating” JCPenney, please. And the threats against the companies that supplies the chain, of course.
I mean, you don’t want to be comparing apples and oranges quite so blatantly, do you? People might start to question your motives. Me? I just put it down to how STUPID you are displaying yourself to be.
Eternal consequences. Or so the bakers believe.
And I’m not referring to the alleged “abominations unto the Lord” remark.
Just to pre-empt that retort.
Ernst, me speaking out of turn(as an agnostic), I’m not sure that God will differentiate between serving gays coffee cake but not serving them wedding cake. I could be wrong, He might see a difference between single layers and multilayers.
It’s the difference between hating the sin and loving the sinner. I know, crazy talk, huh?
Drumwaster, I think you are dipping into the rum flavored truffles too hard – there is no where in the United States where same sex wedding cakes are illegal.
there is no where in the United States where same sex wedding cakes are illegal
There is no where in the United States where polygamous wedding cakes are illegal. There is no where in the United States where man-marrying-horse wedding cakes are illegal, either. You just keep coming up with straw men, don’t you? No one said the cake was illegal. It was whether the baker chose to carry what small decorations would designate a cake as being specifically same-sex-oriented. Lesbian, in this case.
So should I assume that you are drunk, as well as STUPID? Lord knows you will need more than one excuse to explain the nonsense you serve up, but I’d avoid ‘mental illness’, if I were you…
Okay. I thought Jeff may have got his Joe Pesci on a bit prematurely. I’m now persuaded that he nailed it, and you Tracy, after one comment.
I think the Catholics call it material cooperation with evil. I’m not sure what the Klein’s call it. Obama called it something like acting out of alignment with his values, but I don’t care enough to look it up.
I don’t have an alternate explanation. It’s not my job to have an alternate explanation. I am simply asking you whether this argument you have constructed is based on anything factual, and it still looks to me as if it’s not.
Which is fine if it’s your opinion.
Does one of those look different from a straight couple’s wedding cake, or contain different ingredients? Is the making of it any different? Is this kosher butcher selling bacon to everyone but the gay couple?
Might be better to ask if the polygamous bestialist’s wedding cake is different from the gay couple’s wedding cake.
Does one of those look different from a straight couple’s wedding cake, or contain different ingredients?
You would have to ask the lesbian couple that refused all those options in favor of a “lesbian couple’s wedding cake”. The mere fact that there was something lacking from all of the options offered by the baker is sufficient cause for me to believe that my opinion is the correct one, and that none of them were “lesbian couple” enough, since the baker does wedding cakes like a champ (again, in my opinion).
I guess that in this case, “close enough” just wasn’t, and they were gobsmacked that the baker wouldn’t offer a cake to celebrate something that is illegal under State law, whatever it might have been that made it lesbian.
Since I myself am not a lesbian, I shall not even venture an opinion as to what it must have been, merely that it was some as-yet-undefined quality or addition that the baker didn’t offer.
Ernst, that would suggest to me that they would have refused to sell them any product if it was intended to be used during a celebration of a same sex wedding – regardless of it needing to be specially made or something out of their cases.
Which would seem to support the idea that no special decorations were required for them to turn down the couple – simply being for a same sex celebration was sufficient to have the OR bakers refuse to provide anything.
So your inference seems to support your supposition? Gee.
Yea Palaeomerus, it tends to make my arguments consistent….
Personally I don’t believe the cake details are important. This bakery didn’t want to participate in a gay wedding or be the baker of the pretend wedding set. There are plenty of other bakeries that do. Why is it important to make this one do what their can’t in good conscience do?
There is an answer, and comrade Avakian has it…
Why is it important to make this one do what their can’t in good conscience do?
See also “rehabilitate”, aka “the point tracy keeps avoiding”
Drumwaster, comrade Avakian was the freak preaching rehabilitation, and tracy isn’t avoiding it, she is encouraging it.
LBascom, because I think the OR baker was having a bad day and rather than just say a polite no, it got more personal. I don’t think he said anything like what the complaint suggested, but it was probably less polite than what was expected. Given the past history – he had made a wedding cake for the family previously, they probably assumed it would be no problem. I think the couple over-reacted to something that was meant to be an affirmative position of beliefs that was taken as a personal condemnation – and it WAS meant as a condemnation of the ‘idea’ of same sex marriages but probably was not intended as a personal rebuke – though their further comments have made clear that it was a personal rebuke….which is more than a polite, no, we don’t do those.
“Yea Palaeomerus, it tends to make my arguments consistent…. ”
With your own suppositions…
Well geez, tracy, when you put it that way (letting the vast amount of suppositions go for sarcasms sake), I guess they deserved to be threatened, harm wished on their children , their vendors intimidated, and the city brownshirts sicked on them.
Impoliteness will not do!
Palaeomerus, wouldn’t make sense to do it with someone else’s inferences that disagreed with mine.
you know LBascom….I write things and they just fly out the window. I never agreed with threats, suggested any threats of physical violence were criminal and should be treated as such. As far as I know, a threat to ‘shut you down’ can be very intimidating. A threat to boycott your business if you continue to do business with ‘them’, is not. But certainly can be taken that way. I have stated clearly that the ‘activists’ need to stay out of it and that they do much more harm than good. However, IF the OK bakers personalized their refusal, they are in violation of OR law.
Protests and boycotts are used by both sides and they have impacts on people’s livelihoods – that is the intent – to punish people and businesses for actions ‘consumers’ disagree with.
People get fired for being impolite to customers.
Tracy, you have writing a hundred freak’in comments on the side of the thugs.
The fags shoulda boycotted. As in, taken their business elsewhere. That isn’t what they did.
You need to show me Oregon law mandating rehabilitation for free exercise of religion.
You don’t know how polite or impolite either party was, but I’m guessing your assumptions are 180 degrees out of phase.
I’ve been told I have a very direct manner on the phone, so it was with some surprise when I was talking to a court clerk to be put on hold abruptly and a Federal Court Judge got on the line and asked why I was yelling at her clerk. I hadn’t been, I’d done nothing wrong. I apologized MY ASS OFF. If I had been there in person, I might have gotten on my knees to beg forgiveness. Pissing off a Federal Court Judge is just BAD, BAD, BAD. And a month later, when MY boss stood in front of her in court, MY BOSS apologized again, several times.
Customers are not always right but you keep that opinion to yourself when dealing with customers directly….any publicity might be good for celebrities, but it is almost always BAD for businesses.
Lbascom, really? the gay couple had been previous customers, so what torqued them off? A bad hair day? They just decided to destroy a business they had, apparently, good relations with?
Exactly what do you think that ONE government employee’s intent was? What did ‘rehabilitation mean? Could it have meant that the business remembers their license says they have to provide goods and services without consideration to…sex, gender, race and sexual orientation? As opposed to revoking their business license…a step the state really didn’t/doesn’t want to take. Or do YOU think it implies religious anti-indoctrination reeducation camps?
Assuming there are such people to be asked.
Again, with the assumption that things went a certain way, presented as fact.
And there we hit the nub of it, which is not cake but butthurt. And thou shalt not inflict butthurt upon teh gheys, lest ye be forcibly rehabilitated.
“You got your religious beliefs in my feelings!“
Does it say that? Are these folks being rehabilitated?
That should be reason enough for the same-sex exhibitionists to hit the door; instead, they summoned their supportive rats.
Bakers should’ve gone ahead with the cake. And baked in it a half-pound of shit, cleverly disguised as decorative Gay decorations (how many of those do you think are coming after this? hint: don’t eat the Gay Wedding Cakes made by bakers who are forced to make Gay Wedding Cakes).
I have been telling y’all that the CAKE is a LIE since the thread began.
It’s about CONTROL, of narrative, of outcome, of every freakin’ facet of our existence the far-Left can tweak. We’ve seen these Liberal Fascists driving political correctness, e.g. #StopRush, my pet ‘anger management’ project for awhile, that perfectly illustrated just how far these bastiches would go to get their ways ground into our thick Hobbity heads.
Personally, sticking my hairy foot up their asses (in the so-called trenches) suited me just fine. Now others are doing the heavy lifting, so I’ve taken a lengthy break.
Maybe I’ll start baking cakes.
For your re-Tweeting pleasure.
I have strong suspicions the queers in question knew this bakery would object to their demand for cake before they even asked. They were targeted to be made an example of.
I don’t have proof, but then neither does tracy for all her pro thug assertions …
LBascom, at least my ‘assertions’ have the benefit of being based on misunderstandings and hurt feelings, not broad conspiracies.
serr8d, Destroying a business and costing thousands of jobs is a ‘righteous’ use of protest/boycott power, right?
leigh, because having gays for customers is fine unless you want to make a point that you condemn them and their lifestyle by refusing to make a cake.
All because a couple wanted to celebrate a marriage. What fine supporters of marriage you all are.
All because a couple wanted to celebrate a marriage.
No, because they wanted to teach some Christers a lesson, especially since what they wanted to do was illegal, and there were other options – other bakers, other cakes, other decorations – available that would have done the job admirably.
They chose to file a complaint and start getting all butthurt because they were told that their every whim wasn’t being catered to by someone with whom they disagreed.
What was it about the other cakes that would not have served the lesbian couple sufficiently? What was so offensive about the baker following both State Law and their own religious convictions that required illegal acts be carried out to punish them? Since you don’t like “brownshirt”, would pink do better to indicate your support of the Gay Mafia and their illegal acts?
Tracy, you’re smarter than that. The bakers were a soft target: A stand alone Mom and Pop store with little capital or, it appears, business savvy. The editors of the local paper(s), in the tradition of leftie newspapers papers everywhere—a reinforcing echo chamber—saw an opportunity to Advance the Cause™. It doesn’t matter to the editors or the lesbians that the persons being wronged were the bakers. That doesn’t fit the narrative that Christians everywhere, especially obscure bakers in Portland, are secretly meeting like the KKK members that they are to make life a misery for innocent gays and lesbians everywhere. Not.
You know what? I’ve been a Roman Catholic for 54 years. We pray for gays as we pray for all sinners, and that includes us. All we want is the respect you demand for yourself. I have yet to have a discussion with gays or straights who are for gay marriage that doesn’t sooner or later devolve into Christian bashing.
Why is that, Tracy? Please don’t weasel and say “well, I’m agnostic so I can’t really answer . . . “
No, it wasn’t a marriage. It was a “commitment ceremony.” I thought we’d established that. Repeatedly.
Wait, so then making the cake would be embracing and validating their lifestyle! Perhaps you see the problem here. But then, you always saw the problem here. You just accept prioritizing the ghey feelings over the liberty of the bakers.
But then, you always saw the problem here. You just accept prioritizing the ghey feelings over the liberty of the bakers.
Precisely Pablo.
All because a couple wanted to celebrate a marriage not recognized by the State as legitimate.
FTFY, BTW. Should the baker be forced, under penalty of “rehabilitation”, to make a polybestial marriage cake, too? FOR THE TOLERANCE!
“LBascom, at least my ‘assertions’ have the benefit of being based on misunderstandings and hurt feelings, not broad conspiracies.”
Ah, so you generally make unusually powerful and valuable assertions that are better than other people’s assertions and must become dominant in the absence of any real clarification due to your assertion that you assert better than everyone else does.
“Ah, so you generally make unusually powerful and valuable assertions that are better than other people’s assertions and must become dominant in the absence of any real clarification due to your assertion that you assert better than everyone else does”
Why, why…I think I’ve been DISCRIMINATED against!!1!
Release the hounds!
Community organizing is not a conspiracy.
I’m sure #OccupyResoluteDesk would agree with you
Leigh,
Jeff: oh grow the fuck up, would you?
Shermlaw: I’m sure these assholes…
Blake: So, Dalek and Tracy are cool with slavery…
William: But sure, until we force Christians to make touching dick cakes with Cream Cheese frosting…
Squid: Freedom of religion be damned, right, Tracy?
Squid: I’m certain the bakers are going to have all the business they can handle for the next year or two, as their Christian neighbors go out of their way to show support. (opps)
Pablo: Should a prostitute be persecuted because she doesn’t want to have sex with a lesbian?
leigh: Surely those dykes could have found another to bake their cake. & I hope those bitches who drove them out of business get karma back in spades
leigh: Sort of like a gay cross burning.
Drumwaster: (Although I haven’t seen any argument other than “HOMOPHOBE H8R” and am not expecting any)
newrouter: you gaysters don’t work that way….gaysters are dishonest and bullies
leigh: The road to hell is paved with good intentions, Tracy. Even the Holy Father’s.
newrouter: tracy you gaysters find the whole society “your” church.
newrouter: i didn’t “decide” to become “straight clown.
again, newrouter: you statists losers sux. lesbian tax on licking. asshat.
newrouter: you folks are a figment of your own imagination. especially females. proggtards to the core.
SmokeVanThorn: Oh boy – another dipwad posting
newrouter: man the licking lesbos are quite stupid.
newrouter: eff fag “culture”. fags are idiots
maybe I should just make a special section….newrouter: FUCK YOU STATIST. double it. you are a clown
newrouter: that’s what you perverts do (and) fuck you faggot cake licker
dicentra points it out: Here we’re trying to establish the fact that objection to same-sex marriage is NOT based on bigotry or being squicked-out by someone else’s private life, and then jag-offs like you (and at The Corner, and at A0SHQ) have to keep dumping bigoted shit like this in the thread.
Drumwaster: And since the majority also disapproves of men raping young boys, are you then arguing that NAMBLA’s pursuit of happiness outweighs that of the young boy? Or his parents?
leigh: I await a gay Kristallnacht on Christian businesses and places of worship.
Ernst Schreiber: Probably because nobody wants to put a star cross on their back for the brownpinkshirts to zero in on.
leigh: Fuck trouble-making shitheads like these persons who can’t buy a goddamn wedding cake at Walmart like the white trash they are.
Pablo: Clearly, the thing to do is to go out homosexual owned businesses and destroy them. Smear them and threaten anyone who does business with them. Make them radioactive, and let people know that anyone who associates with them will pay for it. (honestly, I think this was snark/sarcasm)
patrick chester (speaking of 2004 or 2005….) : I check the pro-gay marriage side and I find nothing but “shut up, h8r” or similar and the presumption that anyone opposed to it was like newrouter.
LBascom: Pervert, queer, faggot…seems the only choice is pride or prejudice. You’re going to have to pick one, they insist.
Lbascom: Queers are not only an abominations unto the lord, but an abomination to good hygiene and a perversion of nature. I hope y’all are ready for lots of guy on guy public displays of affection perversion, because love is a beautiful thing, and shit on his stick is what a marriage is all about.
I am putting happyfeet in here because, well, he says things I don’t understand some times, but he can be irritating too, and he goes after Christianity which supports leigh’s question about it always coming down to Christian bashing….the above were taken chronologically…..
happyfeet: but the way the christian bakers behaved was rude and unkind whether or not he called his would-be customers abominations or not Jesus doesn’t give a shit if you bake a cake for a gay wedding or not what kind of freaky santeria-assed hoodoo shit is that big picture, people eyes on the prize errybody do unto others and et cetera chop chop
serr8d: Gay marriages are but mockeries of traditional marriages, conceptualized by extremists who desperately need to justify their awkward and needy existences. That these Gay extremists would attack good people for their beliefs, with tactics reminiscent of Fascists or Nazis, bespeaks their true foul characters.
LBascom: A sexually perverted nation is a weak nation.
serr8d: And the two militant gays could not do that; they had to enlist an army of same-sex and far-Left brown shirts to FORCE a Christian business to close. And you, tcoyle, by arguing forcefully for their position, are but a faded brown shirt.
lastly, LBascom: The fags shoulda boycotted.
Leigh, I think most of these conversations devolve into bashing because in the end that is all people have. Above are lots of examples of ‘bashing’, pretty tame and minor, of me and gays. There has been some pretty tame and minor bashing of Christians (primarily by happyfeet – which I gather is a common event, much the same seems to come from newrouter the other way).
Christians oppose gays because, (pick one or all): homosexuality is a sin, it is unnatural, it corrupts society, it demeans traditional families. Even in the politest terms, a Christian is saying a gay is evil, a deviant, disruptive and corrupting. I wouldn’t suggest any of those were nice things. So, when gays push back, it is considered anti-religion, religious persecution, anti-family, anti-tradition.
Laws that protected gays from discrimination (laws originally to protect blacks, then expanded to protect women, then handicapped, then gays), are considered ‘extra’ rights. I generally oppose those laws – as did/do many others – but they DO exist. Just like marijuana laws: I think people should be able to smoke when/what they want, but there are laws against it.
I can’t change a Christian’s point of view about homosexuality. Gays are here, have always been here, and probably always will be. We can either accept them(us) into society as equal partners or continue to demonize them. The reason Christian’s oppose gays always seems to be in the end about the evil gays represent. Many gays live peaceful, contributing, productive lives and don’t understand why they are seen as evil.
I don’t think I contributed to the ‘bashing’….but I might have….
Pablo, leigh
When V and I walked into a restaurant and were served, I didn’t think the restaurant was embracing or validating our lifestyle. When V and I purchased a home and a car, we didn’t think the builder or the dealership were embracing or validating our lifestyle. Those businesses were serving customers. When CJ joined a dojo as a student, I didn’t think the instructors were embracing or validating our lifestyle. I guess the OR bakers didn’t think selling cupcakes or cookies to a gay couple was embracing or validating their lifestyle but A CAKE for their wedding was. Ok. In the past, they refused to do so for others. Gay customers ok, gay wedding cake customers not. I respect their choice – they got a big bump in business for making it, and then long term, it cost them business.
1) Because not wanting to involve yourself with something (say, a homosexual union by whatever name) that you happen not to agree with isn’t merely notsupporting that something; it’s tantamount to condemning it. And we can’t have that under the new social morality.
2) Thank you. I agree that we are fine supporters of marriage -at least in the sense that we recognize what marriage Is.
You remember that big fat Greek family with the big fat Greek family restaurant from that Big Fat Wedding movie? You remember how religious they were? Do they have to host your “wedding” reception simply because they served you Souvlaki in the past?
And we can’t have that under the new social morality.
Especially not in San Antonio.
http://tinyurl.com/mcam6xg
Makes it easier to control what the laws will say when you limit those who will get to write them.
North Korea
Mainland China
Iran
Saddam Hussein’s Iraq
San Antonio
FOR THE TOLERANCE
Remember this is a family restaurant. If they have to agree to host the “wedding” reception for Casey and Lacey, do they have to host the “wedding” reception for Tom, Dick, Harry, Betty, and June? What about a dinner party for the Perverts-R-Us Sex Dungeon club?
What about a dinner party for the Perverts-R-Us Sex Dungeon club?
You KNOW we already have the basement of the Masonic Temple under contract, dude…
That was a matter of learning how to behave from our new overlords.
Yup. Except it wasn’t a cake for a wedding. That isn’t possible in OR.
Neither of those things happened until the Gay Mafia set out after them for hurting precious feelings!!! That was the causative factor in the brouhaha, not their declining to make a particular cake. The bakers didn’t make a big deal of this, the hateful, intolerant Gay Mafia did.
WHY CAN’T YOU BE MORE TOLERANT, H8ER? MUST WE DESTROY YOU???!!!???
Tracy, my quoted posts are in the main replies to happy in his style of being as vulgar as possible. He has a regular Occam’s razor sense of cutting to the worst argument possible, especially if it involves people of faith or women. This is not an excuse on my part, but rather a reason for the language used.
Regarding the Church: The Church is eternal, as are its teachings. It isn’t going to change because you or I or my friend up the street want it to. It’s strict. It’s full of rules and sanctions and mystery and hope and Salvation. The sooner the homosexual lobby accepts this, the better for all. I cannot tell you how horrified I was when ACT-UP desecrated the host at St. Patrick’s Cathedral. As if by acting in the most egregious manner possible and mocking the worship of God all would suddenly have a change of heart. I submit the exact opposite happened and persons who felt compassion for those who were suffering, hardened their hearts. It is terrible actions like these that remain with people. Nothing was gained and much was lost.
My original point remains the same regarding the bakers. They were put between a rock and a hard place by people with an agenda. Those chose to do as they believe and not to honor the request for a “wedding cake”. And in keeping their word to the Lord and their faith, they lost their business.
“I can’t change a Christian’s point of view about homosexuality. Gays are here, have always been here, and probably always will be. We can either accept them(us) into society as equal partners or continue to demonize them. The reason Christian’s oppose gays always seems to be in the end about the evil gays represent. Many gays live peaceful, contributing, productive lives and don’t understand why they are seen as evil.”
Wrong. Most Christians don’t see individual homo’s as evil, just sinning if they practice homosexuality. Same as fornication, drunkenness, sloth, lying, etc.
Where you run into trouble is when you declare practicing homosexuality ISN’T a sin at all, and the Christian MUST approve of your lifestyle. Sinning isn’t evil, we are all sinners, falling short of the glory of God. What is evil is denying the sin is a sin at all. Like trying to convince me lying is not a bad thing, aka ‘the ends justify the means” (as an aside for illustration, I’m not saying you have done that).
See, you freely admit you have had a long term partner, adopted a child, and lived mostly in peace with your fellow Americans. No one was denying you equal access more than any other person involved in a sexual relationship outside marriage.
But now, you are demanding the world change what marriage has been for all of human history, the union of man and woman, for the procreation and future of the human species, in order to force Christians to accept your lifestyle as other than sin. Plus, you are using methods that are anti-social, undemocratic, and unconstitutional.
Until prop 8, I was very much a live and let live type when it came to gay people. Now I’m increasingly regarding them as my enemy, because they are demanding things of me against my conscience, with thug tactics, instead of being satisfied with my tolerance.
So fine, you are making me choose, don’t be surprised when I don’t choose sin.
nicely said LBascom
What is evil is denying the sin isn’t a sin at all.
That’s about right, Lee.
“Tolerance” has become “Embracing and Celebrating—or else.”
I guess someone in the Gay Mafia finally figured out that you don’t tolerate what you actually enjoy, you only tolerate what you don’t like but cannot do anything about.
You don’t tolerate a birthday party surrounded by loved ones. You don’t tolerate a mind-blowing orgasm.
You tolerate having to go to the dentist twice a year. You tolerate traffic jams.
leigh, I leave your comments to be taken as they were posted.
As the the Church. I was a born-again Christian fundamentalist, til I wasn’t anymore. There was a time when I held Scripture as holy word. Now….there is great wisdom to be learned, used and revered in Scripture, but it is based on a people’s knowledge of a universe they knew so very little about. I know there are Scriptures that point out ‘man’s knowledge’ compared to God’s and calling human wisdom folly compared to the wisdom of the Creator. But, I’m not there anymore.
As of the ACT-UP event – it was vile and disgusting. I was surprised that in the end they didn’t end up bloody and unconscious on the steps…I guess being disgusted was the greatest effort possible by those in attendance. I wish that I could say that I would have stood up against them at the time, but I don’t know. I didn’t leave the pew when the Priest called all white people racists because we were white. I did note my disapproval in private later…but it should have been called out in public at the time. Too many heads were nodding then.
I believe the bakers said what they said before, no thanks. No issue of it was made prior, I doubt they thought anything would happen this time. Gays quietly accepted their refusal in the past, they were happy to show some faith in their life. Only later did it become a rock and hard place and outsiders got involved.
Neither of us know what happened that day and no one on the other side is likely to believe any story now.
I was surprised that in the end they didn’t end up bloody and unconscious on the steps
Yeah, because those Christers are such violent types, aren’t they? Fuckin’ h8rs, burning gays and destroying their stuff just because they can get away with it…
Right? Two feet bad, four feet good!
Drumwaster clarifies that HE won’t defend a church from desecration.
No wonder you keep making obvious mistakes. You read simple English and manage to distort it into the rawest of gobbledegook in mere seconds. Is it a gift, or do you have friends there helping you be that stupid?
Drumwaster, Well we know I am the reigning expert on inferences and suppositions…
the average person can read a sentence with no vowels and understand it, and we have shown you are not the average person…
Very true. I have never in my life been called “average”. Normal, yes; average, not on my worst day.
the average person can read a sentence with no vowels and understand it
That is turning gobbledegook into English, just the opposite of what you have been doing
Y’all have now officially spent more time arguing about this than the Supreme Court spent deciding Citizens United.
He who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Well, that’s depressing McGehee.
All because a couple wanted to celebrate a marriage. What fine supporters of marriage you all are.
No, a couple wanted to call something a marriage and the bakers didn’t agree with that definition. So that was used as an excuse to crush them for their “insolence” or whatever. It’s easier to do that than convince people to change their minds, after all.
Don’t be surprised if that leads to unintended consequences.
Though if you’re going to quote me, perhaps you should have quoted:
I check the pro-gay marriage side and I find nothing but “shut up, h8r” or similar and the presumption that anyone opposed to it was like newrouter. This convinced me that the movement is not trying to push a civil right. It’s making the claim to one, but that’s just a fancy mask to use as an excuse to crush people who were considered a threat by progressives. Oh and for morlocks like grieferfeet to scree, make disgusting remarks, and pretend they were enlightened for doing so. Dicentra has it right: This isn’t about a civil right, it’s a weapon to use against their enemies while pretending to have the moral high ground by claiming it’s a civil rights issue. Because, shut up h8r!
Though I guess the bolded part kind of was something you’d want to ignore. No one likes having comments from someone who looks at your Nobly Vested Cause and sees ugly nakedness instead.
There is another circumstance, however, that considerably
complicates matters. For many decades, the power ruling society in
the Soviet bloc has used the label ‘opposition’ as the blackest of
indictments, as synonymous with the word ‘enemy’. To brand
someone ‘a member of the opposition’ is tantamount to saying he or
she is trying to overthrow the government and put an end to
socialism (naturally in the pay of the imperialists). There have been
times when this labelled straight to the gallows, and of course this
does not encourage people to apply the same label to themselves.
Moreover, it is only a word, and what is actually done is more
important than how it is labelled.
The final reason why many reject such a term is because there is
something negative about the notion of an ‘opposition’. People who
so define themselves do so in relation to a prior ‘position’. In other
words, they relate themselves specifically to the power that rules
society and through it, define themselves, deriving their own ‘position’
from the position of the regime. For people who have simply
decided to live within the truth, to say aloud what they think, to
express their solidarity with their fellow citizens, to create as they
want and simply to live in harmony with their better ‘self’, it is
naturally disagreeable to feel required to define their own, original
and positive ‘position’ negatively, in terms of something else, and to
think of themselves primarily as people who are against something,
not simply as people who are what they are.
Obviously, the only way to avoid misunderstanding not simply as people who are what they are.
tracycole commie bedwetter eff you
Actually I was trying to keep the quotes to a single line so as to not get overly long. However, if you want to provide additional support for my position that ‘threads such as these degenerate into Christian bashing’ because the default position of Christians is that gay = evil, bad, degenerate, deviant, unnatural, corrupting and that anyone that in any way defends gays is therefore also, a brownshirt, a pinkshirt, a progtard, evil, bad, degenerate, deviant, unnatural….etc.
For this discussion the default seems to be that the OR bakers were set up and destroyed on purpose because….the entire gayista conspiracy heard a ripe and vulnerable target was available….because destroying a local baker somehow advances the movement nationally.
Any alternate hypothesis is, willfully obtuse, juvenile, advancing the gay agenda, supporting religious persecution and destructive of the Constitution, Christianity and society…
Who knew I had that kind of influence….
My mother is a Unitarian Universalist. She tells me that she used to be a Christian, but she has moved on. I tell her in reply that I used to be a nonChristian, but I too have moved on.
“I’m not there anymore” doesn’t signify anything innately superior. It could, rather, signify an adoption of a new belief system because the old one won’t validate you.
Not intended to be zingy as much as thought-provoking.
newrouter is looking less like an adult than our pikachu.
“Who knew I had that kind of influence….”
eff you commie ahole and axeldude.
“newrouter is looking less like an adult than our pikachu.”
don’t engage communist asshole no mo’ slart
the tracycoles of the world will tell you what to do.
If you said that sober, maybe you should consider taking up drinking heavily. Because then you’d at least have an excuse for bad behavior.
Slartibartfast, yep.
The pre-1968 totalitarian regime in Czechoslovakia demanded
that everyone act in conformity with aims it laid down itself. Nonparticipation
was an expression of disagreement that weakened the
totality because it prevented it from achieving its mission, whiclrwas
to embrace everything, bring everyone together, represent a single
will, in short, to be total. The totalitarianism of today has given up
its former goal, and now demands precisely the opposite: a total
vacuum of civic will, a perpetuum silentium, passivity and quiescence.
Quiet disagreement is no longer considered an act of civic
resistance and has corne to be generally accepted by the regime.
There is no forum in which to express one’s discontent, and silen
disagreement is one of the pillars of totalitarian power.
Charter 77 is a response to this development. It encourages people
to act legally and, at the same time, appeals to the legal code already
in force, refusing to .acknowledge the fact that the regime treats i
only as a stage prop a la Potemkin.
” Because then you’d at least have an excuse for bad behavior.”
eff the pervert “culture” they be “anti darwin” the lbgtyf crowd are posers clown .
” maybe you should consider taking up drinking heavily”
too much stupid >MIGHT< cause dat
because destroying a local baker somehow advances the movement nationally
Well, the next baker who hears about this might not want to have to deal with being rehabilitated of his dearly held religious beliefs, and might decide to just give in and give the Gay Mafia what they want, in the hopes of being left alone.
“Nice place ya got here, mister, be a shame if anyfing were to, uh, you know, happen to it or anyfing… Lots of glass that could accidentally shatter if, say, a brick were frown by a playful youth…”
Napoleon referred to it as “pour encourages les autres“, and the Romans, when conquering new territory, used to grab the first few guys they saw and crucify them. Worked like a charm.
But, hey, eggs/omelets, right?
I also suggest you look up the problem with Danegeld.
>Because then you’d at least have an excuse for bad behavior.<
@gaysters be shaking down a joint?
i like how “you are not allowed to attack the girl” on this thread. eff her and her commie thoughts.
I was far more discriminating in my use of pinkshirts than you were in your characterization of the default Christian position.
And you damn well know it, having acknowledged that there is a militant subset within the larger set called homosexual.
I also love the implicit assumption that unless one supports the Gay Mafia in all their actions, one is, ipso facto, a homophobe or a Bible Thumper. Or both.
I miss the days when all they wanted was to be left alone.
oh tracy: it is horrible but word of the day: mendacious !!11!!
shake it
kafkasumthing
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Also offered in the same spirit.
That’s an interesting quote, by the way. Who’s it from?
I also love the implicit assumption that unless one opposes the Gay Mafia in all their actions, one is, ipso facto, a brownshirt or a progtard. Or both.
Works both ways. Tell me the default Christian position on homosexuality in society if I’ve mischaracterized it. Because there is no gray area in this thread – anything supportive of the gay couple is supportive of religious persecution, anti-First Amendment, and supportive of liberalism.
Yea, there IS a militant gay side to things – and of course ALL gays are part of it if they support anything gay. I have argued that the militancy has much more to do with liberalism than any minority ‘right’ effort – it is about promoting the liberal agenda – in this case, gays are just the props.
There is no two sides to this story: the left says it is all about discrimination and the right says its all about religious persecution. Forbid anyone should walk somewhere in the middle elsewise:
‘I know they works, that thou are neither cold nor hot; I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.”
Ernst, are you asking who the speaker in Scripture was?
I still get the feeling that tracy doesn’t understand the distinction between people and their behavior.
The couple was not being discriminated against. They were being denied something that no one else would have been able to get, either. Discrimination requires being able to prove that you are being treated differently than everyone else, not just that you aren’t being given everything you want. You don’t get to force Burger King to make you a Big Mac because of your personal proclivities.
That’s all you.
And newrouter too I suppose.
No, I’m asking Slart who he quoted.
My error in not making it clear.
So, where is this fabled middle ground you speak of? The one where the Christian baker doesn’t have to compromise his principles, and the two ladies in question get their cake for their commitment ceremony?
“Worked like a charm.”
Well yeah,until they decided to grab a chunk of outer Persia.
Drumwaster, you keep beating that drum, but it don’t hunt. They asked for a wedding cake, they were denied a wedding cake. The bakers said they would not make a wedding cake for a same sex wedding. There was nothing Big Mac or Burger King about it.
Sorry I don’t accept the premise that you can love the sinner but hate the sin. I reject it when the Left tries it with : we support the troops…except when they do all that trooping stuff.
Ernst, are you talking about this:
“There was a time when I held Scripture as holy word. Now….there is great wisdom to be learned, used and revered in Scripture, but it is based on a people’s knowledge of a universe they knew so very little about. I know there are Scriptures that point out ‘man’s knowledge’ compared to God’s and calling human wisdom folly compared to the wisdom of the Creator. But, I’m not there anymore.”
I said it.
As for the middle ground: my comment that the bakers probably said they would not make a cake for a same sex wedding, that they had said it before without issue and that they expected there would be none this time. That the gay couple, having been customers before including buyers of a wedding cake, that there would be no issue. That the gay couple was caught off guard, that the baker probably, as a clarifying point said they objected to same sex marriages and would not provide any products for such a celebration – that it probably came off not as a statement of principle but as a personal condemnation – which it was. It blew up because some activist type heard about it and rallied their troops. The Christian community saw that a religious principle was in play(being attacked) and rallied their troops. The ensuing battle has spilled over to here. I OPPOSE any threats or intimidation however support a community calling for a boycott of the business and their supporters. I support the bakers desire to not make a cake for a same sex wedding – I support ANY business that refuses service for anyone at any time for any reason. However, there are laws. Those laws were not put into place to persecute Christians and they have been in place for decades.
Not really the same thing, since the Left doesn’t really support the troops. And I can still love my, let’s say alchoholic, mother and hate her alcoholism.
Or do I have to buy her Victory Gin to prove my love?
I don’t blame the bakers for refusing to bake a Wedding Cake for a ‘couple’ whose activities they’ve decided are primal, animalistic, disgusting and immoral, and who throw mockery on all their Christian beliefs and principles; and whose lawyers had just overturned centuries of moral and natural behavior, for reasons still not well explained or understood. I certainly would not bake for them a Wedding Cake.
And if I was forced to bake for them a Wedding Cake, against my will, you’d better not eat it.
I apologize for missing that. I meant it when I said that was an interesting remark.
I still think it’s gnostic though.
Ernst, re gnostic. It assumes there is a spiritual aspect to my belief systems (I do believe in an afterlife) but it is more scientific than religious.. The point I was making is that Scripture is still valuable and useful even if you are not supportive of it’s religious teachings.
Neither did the gnostics –broadly speaking, of course.
That’s just what the gnostics thought.
My only point being, as per Eric Voegelin, gnosticim is the modern heresy (or “belief system,” if you prefer) par excellance.
Obviously I read “do believe…” as “don’t believe…,” so disregard the first part.
Or better yet, change it to read, gnosis has more in common with scientia than it does with religio.
time to call it a day.
Squid says September 6, 2013 at 10:56 am
It amazes me that those who would rail against the State’s interference in diet and medicine and education would beg for the State’s interference in other areas of behavior.
Where did I say anything about the State interfering? I suppose one could infer it from my previous comment, but that was merely to point out that there is no great stretch to compare illegal behavior to behavior that was illegal, at least in some places, less than 10 years ago.
That’s a filthy lie, and you should know better.
I see this as a matter of moral culture rot, and consequently most people who have no moral or religious grounding won’t bother to speak against it. I don’t see any great controversy in saying that.
I didn’t call you stupid, but if that’s what your root cause analysis turned up…
They asked for a wedding cake, they were denied a wedding cake. The bakers said they would not make a wedding cake for a same sex wedding. There was nothing Big Mac or Burger King about it
And yet, amazingly enough, none of the non-same-sex wedding cakes you happened to show – from the baker’s own website – would simply not do. What was it about their order that could not have been filled by anything else the baker offered? Was it the “special sauce”? The “two all-beef patties”? The source of the sesame seeds for the bun?
They weren’t asking for merely a wedding cake. They were asking for a “lesbian wedding cake”, which flies in the face of both State Law and this baker’s personal religious beliefs. And were told that the baker didn’t offer those kinds of cakes, regardless of whatever minor differences might be required to turn a real wedding cake into a lesbian model. To anyone, which means there is no discrimination, just as Burger King would not be discriminating to tell you that the Big Mac is to be found on the next block.
And let’s make no mistake about it, they would not have been willing to go and get the cake from someone else who would be happy to sell it to them without any icky religious qualms, because no one would have been “rehabilitated” into the Proper Group Think that way. One does not need to teach lessons to those who support the Official Narrative.
that it probably came off not as a statement of principle but as a personal condemnation
So “Sorry, we don’t make those kinds of cakes, would you like to look at the catalog?” (or similar) was heard as “You’re gonna burn in hell, you deviants!”? Is this something that comes standard with homosexuality? The shaved-monkey touchiness that causes every refusal to kowtow to be seen as a moral attack? Explains your own not infrequent mistranslations, it seems…
I recently read an autobiography of a former nun of the Catholic Church who left her Order some time after the Second Vatican Council. While she did not become a lesbian, she did become kind of a slut and a Unitarian when she finally married.
She too spoke of The Universe. It’s as if acknowledging a God is too much to ask and she chose to rely on a feel good approach to a “universal” faith. Additionally, she also embraced “science” (scare quotes intentional) for it’s rationality and painted the Church as irrational. She has merely swapped one faith for another and like the gnostics, rather makes the rest up as she goes along.
One of the passages of the Rite of Baptism in the Catholic Church is to “Resist the glamour of evil”. Those in attendance are asked this by the priest as he prepares to baptize the child. Glamour may be seen as the trappings of the worldly. Worldly things that turn one away from God’s grace and they are enumerated in the Seven Deadly Sins. Lust is one of those sins and sins are the temptation of Satan who is evil. Interpreted very loosely the less erudite may indeed insist that gays = evil. It is not the sinner, it is the sin that we are to hate/resist. We love the sinner because he or she is a child of God and we pray that s/he will return to God’s Grace.
Pope Frances has urged his flock to pray for homosexuals and to accept that they are children of God. Pope Frances is a Jesuit. Jesuits are suspect by other orders as smug bastards who think they know everything when the truth (in my experience as a student of theirs) is that they are scholars of the Church.
So, there you have the Vicar of Christ on Earth urging acceptance of the very group who loves to say terrible things about us and calls us Christianists. There is a terrific antipathy for Catholics among gays even when we are holding out an olive branch. It still doesn’t mean you’re getting a Catholic wedding and it never will.
Rather than ask once again evidentiary support,
767th!
What’s a lesbian wedding cake? Does it look different from a more conventional wedding cake?
Damnit, make that 768th.
Leigh and I, our timing is always wrong.
hello it’s my privilege to present you with this cake I made it for you even though you’re a gay lesbian cause of even if I don’t agree with your wedding, cause of you’re gay, I think if you’re gonna go ahead and do it anyway you might as well do it right
really though it’s the darnedest thing – two women getting married to each other my goodness this world is going to hell in a handbasket
– no offense darlin
it’s just how I was raised up women married men and men married women
but you know it takes all kinds
alright baby lemme help you get that sucker tucked in back the subaru
What’s a lesbian wedding cake? Does it look different from a more conventional wedding cake?
You would have to ask the lesbians that turned down all of the regular wedding cakes – as well as any of the custom variants available – as not to their liking. There was something they were demanding that the baker refused to provide, and it couldn’t have been merely baked goods, as the couple had shopped there without a problem in the past.
There was something about the cakes offered to them that were not lesbian enough to satisfy their request, and the baker simply could not meet their whims. The fact that the baker is not required to meet every whim of every customer (nor is ANY shopkeeper), and could determine what goods and services he can and would offer to the general public, should have gone without saying in a grown-up society, with the customer always free to seek elsewhere for someone who would supply whatever missing bits were needed.
But that wouldn’t punish anyone, that would be too grown up for the “rehabilitation good!” crowd, so it was never an option.
I do not need to know what it was to know that there had to be something missing, and whatever that something was was sufficient to become a bone of contention, Primal Cause to all that followed.
Leigh and I, our timing is always wrong.
Heh, Slarti.
That happened? Did I miss that, somehow? Cite, please.
As far as I am aware, that something is “cake”.
We are like two ships that pass in the night, unawares.
I don’t know how anybody ever gets a wink of sleep on a ship unless maybe they just nap in the daytime
Not getting any sleep is a keen inducement to slumber.
As far as I am aware, that something is “cake”.
If it was just cake, no problem, but you ignore the two descriptive words.
That happened? Did I miss that, somehow? Cite, please
I’m not sure what was different about the cake, either, but it seems clear that what the baker had available was insufficient, and that the baker would not change his business practices on a whim. Nor would he help others to commit what he perceived as a sin.
Were there no other bakeries that would do gay marriage cakes? No one they could turn to after departing the offensive store with a “Gosh, what an asshole” on their lips?
But that wasn’t the point of rehabilitation. (The original article cited by Jeff speaks of numerous other examples of religious shopkeepers being targeted for their faith, and being punished because gay rights somehow trump religious rights in this country.)
(For now.)
http://tinyurl.com/b36tmu6
You don’t get it Drumwaster, the OR baker would produce NO cake for the wedding – even the most benign, general, drab, no decoration plain cake already in his case. They weren’t asking for something special – just a cake for the same sex wedding – he would produce NO cake for the same sex wedding – regardless of what was on it. He refused to make ANY cake for them for the purpose of the same sex wedding. You assume they had to ask for something SPECIAL because no business man in his right mind would turn down making a plain cake for $250 – except HE DID. He refused to make ANY cake for their occasion. He refused to participate. He didn’t want to provide ANYTHING for their celebration. He said he turned down doing cakes for other same sex couples in the past. Everyone else on your side gets that he refused to produce a cake on the principle that ANY cake was tantamount to support.
Edited for clarity.
My objection is not that you have this opinion that’s not connected with what’s known. My objection is more that you are using this opinion in argument as if it’s factual.
Which it might be, but not that I have seen.
Good thing he couldn’t count on the Constitution to back up that refusal, isn’t it? I means, since the right to gay marriage is right there in black and white, while all those icky religious things should be shunned by any right thinking people. Rehabilitation? Fuck it, CRUCIFY THEM. It’s all they deserve for not kowtowing, right?
The lesbian couple had purchased stuff from them in the past. There was no discrimination against the couple. The couple then asked for something that the baker refused to provide to anyone. There was no discrimination against the couple, because they were treated exactly the same as everyone else, straight, gay, or tutti-frutti. The reasons behind WHY the baker refused to provide that something is beyond the complaints of anyone else, unless you can prove that the baker made gay marriage cakes for straight couples, and only excluded this couple because they might actually want it.
It is not discrimination to refuse to provide something you know will be used to violate State Law, either. Gun stores can refuse to sell weapons to anyone they know will use the weapon to break the law, and their favorite ice cream flavor is irrelevant. Bartenders can be held responsible for serving an alcoholic beverage to someone they even SUSPECT might drink and drive, even though the actual vending of the beverage might be done to a gay person.
I will ask again, why wouldn’t the lesbian couple just go down the road to another bakery? Are the personal beliefs of this baker so reprehensible (even though the State holds the exact same beliefs, as did Obama until a few months ago) that rehabilitation and tantrum-throwing is the only rational response?
And it isn’t the supplying of cake that is the problem, as I showed with the quote above. It was the intent held by the couple that they get what they demanded, and if the baker refuses, it must be because they don’t like dangly bits on their bedmates, and not because the baker might have a different view on things (a view supported, I will once AGAIN note, by State Law).
Rehabilitation. Punishment. Pour encourages les autres.
I expect to see you supporting Christian fanatics when they start driving gays out of business, of course. Wouldn’t want you to be thought of as a self-serving hypocrite or anything.
I think what the baker did was decline to provide his services, which in this case I think he should have had a right to do, since his service would involve him in something he found morally repellant.
I might feel differently if it was the Wal-Mart of Albertson’s of Safeway bakery.
Still waiting to hear what the middle ground here is supposed to be.
John Byng.
Voltaire’s “Candide”, c’est ca?
Ernst, I offered my middle ground. If it was too ‘nuanced’….
When the OR baker wife only made cakes out of her home, that means people had to come to her, she could refuse anyone at any time for any reason anything. But when she opened the doors to the public by creating a storefront, she was saying to the public, come one, come all, I am here, then her ability to refuse to produce a wedding cake for a couple hinged on why. Drumwaster continues to think that producing a wedding cake for gays is illegal if gays can’t get married. Duh. It was not illegal for gays to get married 30 years ago, it simply wasn’t legal for them to do so. Illegality suggests there was a rule that punished people for doing so when in fact, there was no capacity in the past. NOW, places like WI actually do make it illegal for gay residents to get married.
then her ability to refuse to produce a wedding cake for a couple hinged on why
Should Chik-Fil-A be forced to open on Sundays? Why or why not?
Should restaurants such as Outback be forced to provide kosher meals? Why or why not?
Should Catholic hospitals be forced to provide abortions on demand? Why or why not?
Not whether they might or might not provide it, but whether they should be forced to do so. Let me emphasize the word “forced” here, because it is your contention that the State should be able to force people to violate their religious principles if they happen to disagree with your secular ones.
And this is not merely a case of extralegality here (something that hasn’t yet been addressed by the legislature or criminal courts because no one has ever tried it before). This is an issue that has been pushed into the forefront of political debate for a generation by now, and the State of Oregon has decided upon its position. Simply because they do not have a criminal penalty on the books for it does not make it a legal act, merely one that does not involve jail time.
And, let me remind you – AGAIN – that it is not discrimination to refuse to provide a service that you provide to no one else.
If there happened to be a gay baker that ONLY provided cakes for gay marriages, it would not be discrimination for him or her to refuse to provide man and wife wedding cakes, no matter what the sexual preferences of the one asking. It would be bloody stupid, but people are still allowed to be so in this country without legal hazard. (Lucky for you, eh? Verb sap)
Depending on her locale, a lot of municipalities require a home occupation license, so unless she trades cakes for donations, i’m thinking she is subject to the same rules and regulations as a storefront.
Drumwaster:
1. Chick-fil-A can set whatever hours it wants for its stores to be open. In some states, certain businesses are required to be CLOSED on Sundays (in WI car dealerships are one).
2. Any restaurant can decide what it wants on it’s menu. Just like a kosher deli can choose not to serve ham.
3. I’ll come back to this one….
A straight couple walks into a cake shoppe followed by a gay couple. The Baker sits with the straight couple first (first come, first served) and the gay couple waits quietly seated nearby. The straight couple picks out a beautiful cake for their wedding. The Baker writes up the order and they leave. He sits down with the gay couple and they say, “that is a beautiful cake you are going to make for them, we’d love the same cake for our wedding.” The Baker says sorry, I don’t believe in gay marriage, it is a sin, and I will not make a cake for you. The cake was on the ‘menu’, he would make the cake. If Outback made a steak for a customer and he brought it home and fed it to his dog, Outback did not make dogfood, dogfood was not on it’s menu. But the steak was – what the customer did with it was irrelevant.
Now, to your #3.
No hospital is required to perform elective surgery. However, IF it provides tummy tucks for one patient, it should have to provide it for another similar patient. A hospital that provides trauma services faced with the imminent death of a mother without an abortion that refuses to do the abortion is in violation of law and oath. My position on abortion is ‘on demand prior to 20 weeks’, and that means it is elective surgery and a hospital can’t be REQUIRED to provide it. Abortion after 24 weeks should be illegal EXCEPT in the case of immediate danger to the mother and every effort should be made to save the child (C-section in the case of a mother in medical danger likely will increase the danger). Because we can’t date a child’s conception well, the 20-24 week period should be doctor/patient decision.
I said if there is no penalty on the books, the act is not ILLEGAL. I didn’t say that it was legal.
That’s not a middle ground. You’re telling the baker and his wife to check their religious beliefs at the storefront door -no Christians need apply for a business license.
The “why” in this case is the baker’s objection to becoming involved with something contrary to his/her beliefs, i. e. a sham (from the baker’s pov) marriage. The fact that the baker had previously sold baked goods to the couple demonstrates that the objection wasn’t to homosexuals ashomosexuals.
What if the straight couple wants to buy the gay couple’s wedding cake for them and vice versa? Who get’s to sue the baker because they’re offended by the baker’s beliefs?
What if it’s a double wedding and one couple is buying both cakes? Does the baker bake two cakes if the straight couple puts the cash on the barrel head? Does she refuse their business if it’s the gay couple ponying up for the cakes?
Ernst, much earlier (last night) this was my middle ground:
I OPPOSE any threats or intimidation however support a community calling for a boycott of the business and their supporters. I support the bakers desire to not make a cake for a same sex wedding – I support ANY business that refuses service for anyone at any time for any reason. However, there are laws. Those laws were not put into place to persecute Christians and they have been in place for decades.
If they make wedding cakes, then refusing to make a wedding cake runs afoul of OR law – they pay a fine or some compensation. The OR bakers still get their religious freedom, but no one said such freedom was without cost. Obviously the community (and specifically Christian) has refused to support them/their position. People having weddings could have specifically sought out the OR bakers (obviously locals), it wouldn’t matter if their referral sources refused to refer them – then venues might have been put in the position of refusing a wedding party’s choice of cake baker.
Obviously the community (and specifically Christian) has refused to support them/their position.
“We had to let people go so we could try to save money,” she said. “It was a gradual thing that led us to say, ‘This is getting too hard’ — and our community where we live is not the most conservative. We didn’t get a lot of support from our fellow community people that lived in Gresham.”
You know, we a bakery in my town. We’re business friendly here in the bible belt, too.
*need a bakery*
Still not a middle ground. You’re telling the Christians to suck it because lesbians are a protected group and Christians aren’t.
What is the middle ground where the baker gets to abide by his religious convictions regarding same-sex marriage, and the lesbians get a wedding cake?
What is the middle ground where the baker gets to abide by his religious convictions regarding same-sex marriage, and the lesbians get a wedding cake?
That would involve the lesbians being grown up enough to choose a different bakery, but the Christers don’t get taught a lesson that way.
FOR THE REHABILITATION!
Ernst, assume there was NO legal issues with the bakers refusing to sell a cake to a same sex couple. What if there were no legal consequences – just the community protesting and boycotting and refusing to support them?
OH WAIT, there hasn’t been any legal issues YET. The State Dept of Justice refused to do anything and turned it over to the licensing people who are STILL reviewing the matter…..but in the mean time, the community has let them down.
The gay couple DOESN’T get its cake from them. I have repeatedly said the bakers can’t be made to make the cake – nor should they have to if they don’t want to. But there are consequences to that choice. They are dealing with the only consequence to date: the community not supporting their position.
As for support from the community, Christian or otherwise, “support” is only legitimizing when might makes right.
We didn’t get a lot of support from our fellow community people that lived in Gresham.
After hearing “If you support them, we’re coming after you next!” from the teacher’s pets of the political class, and the many stories of the State punishing its enemies with (say) audits and “rehabilitation”, is it any wonder?
I suppose we should be thankful it isn’t Room 101, because we all know what’s in Room 101…
Leper, Outcast, Unclean, Religious
My 3:58 is in response to your 3:32. Nice to know, though, that you’re down with mob justice as long as it’s not your ox getting gored. All your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
No. The gay couple doesn’t get their cake from them. But the gay couple wasn’t content to simply get their cake from somewhere else, were they? Why do you suppose that is? It wouldn’t have anything to do with a carefully cultivated sense of victimhood base upon an equally carefully cultivated socio-political grievance now, would it?
The State Dept of Justice refused to do anything
That this is still true despite the numerous illegal acts involving threats (They would tell our vendors, ‘If you don’t stop doing business with Sweet Cakes By Melissa, we will shut you down.’) is despicable, yet you keep defending those actions as right and proper.
And I am going to take a shot in the dark and suggest that you have never run a business of your own, have you? Because being “under investigation” carries its own penalties, even if nothing illegal was done, especially in the face of public threats by elected officials. And all it costs the complainer is a phone call.
The proper action in this case would have been to let the free market work it out, but then the Christers wouldn’t get taught their lesson, would they? And the gay people wouldn’t get to claim that their feelings were hurt because they were told “no”.
“Live and let live” not enough any more? Full-throated affirmation on pain of government sanction and penalties.
You know what? I’ll just go ahead and join Jeff as a freely declared citizen of paranioa-stan.
I bet the only reason the couple bought the wedding cake for whomever the hell they bought the wedding cake for is so they could set up this little farce in the first place.
Really? So back in February when the story first broke and business was BOOMING in support of the bakers, that was …illegitimate?
From the comments of the couple: it was the businesses that referred business to them that were being ‘intimidated’. That didn’t stop people that needed a wedding cake from seeking them out. They didn’t say it was vendors/suppliers that were being targeted – though it could have been them too – not withstanding dicentra’s ‘small businesses rely on credit from suppliers’. I’ve been in three small businesses and none of them were ever offered credit BECAUSE they were small businesses. And if their business was significantly wedding cakes – those are ‘made to order’, usually with down payments.
Drumwaster: gay = leper, outcast, unclean…..right?
We a bakery. Resist we much.
:) Fundamental Transformation in progress! Obamaphones and free health care with extra tingles for all my identity grievance units. Except the clingy crossy ones.
I’ve changed my mind. Drumwaster was right and I was wrong.
the point is if you run a bakery and someone asks you to make a cake you should say ok what kind of cake would you like?
It’s very arrogant to posit that the furnishing of your humble baked goods constitute an endorsement of the occasion for which the baked goods are being purchased.
It’s like if Food Stamp custom-ordered a special cake to serve at the signing of some stupid law and you made a cake and took it over and sent him an invoice. Would that mean you’re a filthy redistributionistic socialist who sucks Soros cock?
No. No it would not.
What if Herman Cain custom-ordered a special cake and asked you to deliver it to the Hampton Inn where he is staying? Does that mean you’re endorsing whatever sketchy activities are going on in that hotel room?
No. No it does not.
What if a Lutheran church orders a cake to celebrate the blessing ceremony it’s having next Sunday for its brand new sprinkler system? Does this mean you’re endorsing Lutheran precepts and heresies?
No of course not. You’re just making a cake.
These hicks in Oregon have an extremely bloated sense of self importance.
I’m not the one suggesting the moral worth of the baker is determined by public support for the baker’s stated views based on sales. You are.
Done. No, really. I am closing this window and ‘moving on’.
“Nice to know, though, that you’re down with mob justice… All your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.”
All my comments are meaningless because you believe what you believe about me, not what I say.
V was a sole practioner, just the two of us running her practice for 12 years. I ran a Burger King franchise for a year. Prior to working with Victoria, I worked for businesses with 12 employees, 18 employees and 9 employees. My first job, 3 years, I worked in a family owned/operated pizza place. I have my own business now – been doing this for 7 going on 8 years.
Mass protests against Ford for supporting gays, JCPenney for hiring Ellen, protests and boycotts of advertisers that advertised on the Ellen show when she came out. All of this is fine.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/gay-owners-sick-of-insults-200996541.html
http://forward.com/articles/2433/gay-barbecuers-say-missouri-mayor-wants-to-run-the/
Know what happens when two groups with conflicting principles become the dominant forces in a country and they refuse to figure a way to get along? Gettysburg.
Hicks, eh? Took you long enough to get there.
Portland is full of hipsters and confused people with crazy ideas leftover from the 60s. In fact, most of the state is full of hipsters and tree-huggers. Did you now that the city of Ashland is ground zero for being completely wiped out by disease since there is next to no one there who is vaccinated?
It must be the weather. Mossy brained citizens abound.
Hang on . . . I thought Gettysburg is what happens when a substantial force believes incorrectly that it’s sufficient to bear the weight of its own mistakes, and over-reaches in consequence, never to recover?
V was a sole practioner, just the two of us running her practice for 12 years… I have my own business now – been doing this for 7 going on 8 years
And you would be down with straights harassing your suppliers, clients and referral partnership companies, since you are okay with gays doing it, right? Any ox in a storm, after all…
What amazes me is that the Oregon lacked the resources to deal with Dr. Demento until she screwed with an elected type, yet they’ve got time for some bullshit like this.
If anyone in Oregon needs rehabilitation it’s our favorite batshit crazy lesbian decision scientist, not a godbothering baker couple.
only 106 shopping days til christmas chop chop
> til christmas chop chop<
leave out the xtian stuff h8ter
Really. It’s Winter Holiday, comrade.
Drumwaster wrote:
Actually, it’s looks more like a standard progressive tactic: Making up crap and pretending it’s an “interepretation” of what their opponents meant.
Remember when JeffG suggested that if insurgents in Iraq were using holy places like mosques as fighting positions then maybe we should fire on them and various progs screeched “he wants to carpet-bomb whole villages!1!! Eleventy!!!” in faux outrage? Same sort of thing.
http://weknowgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/bugs-bunny-on-toilet-gif.gif
Bake it a cake, or you’ll regret it bigot.
That’s a very disturbing .GIF, palaeomerus.
Fixed.
Hoist the black flag and let’s get it on, then. This Republic might could use a good swordfight.
I have a resident artillery officer with extensive field experience.
Contact me through Jeff for details.
everyone should get vaccinated I think
I can’t take a smallpox vaccine though cause of I’m at risk of having a horrifying reaction to that one
But the point is there is no logical line to be drawn between baking baked goods and endorsing the worldview of the people what are going to have a slice or two of those baked goods.
Gettysburg is what happens when half the country defriends the other half of the country and the other half which is further south needs help transitioning from an economy based on slavery and the other half is like that’s totally not our problem and the other half is like we’re gonna have a hard time selling this and the other half is all like guess what still not our problem
I been in many storms but never to where I was like hey we need an ox.
Lucky for you smallpox has been eradicated through vaccination and exists only as a bio-weapon.
“in many storms but never to where I was like hey we need an ox.”
You’ve never been in a monsoon, then.
Lucky for you smallpox has been eradicated through vaccination and exists only as a bio-weapon.
Yes I avoid monsoons for reasons that are personal to me. I like Jamaican food though and they serve a lot of ox-tail but unfortunately the Jamaican peoples tend to serve a lot of starchy foods.
They also have this tasty peabnut bubber drink I try to avoid as scrupulously as I avoid the monsoons.
Oxen = Viet Nam in my mind. I know they are actually water buffalo there, but what the hell. There are also a lot of oxen in Amish country and Michigan. I don’t like a lot of the drinks that are popular with my Vietnamese pals. Bubble tea? No thanks.
I’m not a fan of peanut butter, either so I’ll give this Jamaican thing a pass, too.
I like bubble tea a lot but I cannot have. On the odd occasion when I do drink it it’s for sure not an endorsement of Vietnam’s human rights record.
Almost all I drink anymore is yerba mate but I bought some of that blackberry moonshine from Gatlinburg this week and I been serving that with squooshed up concord-style grabs from south korea, which is a peninsular little country much like Vietnam and which coincidentally is on the same continent. The moonshine is a lil sweet for me so next time I’m a buy a jar of the original to cut the flavored-up ones with.
The baker feels differently, butl, I suppose it’s a step in the right direction that you find the baker’s position illogical rather than prejudiced and/or bigoted.
Can the Big, devout Greek Orthodox, Greek family with the big Greek family restaurant and banquet hall decline to rent the hall out to the Devil’s Disciples motorcycle club or a LGBT organization during college students celebrate fornication week because they don’t want either the devout Greek Orthodox family or their Greek family restaurant associated with either of those organizations or their activities?
Or is that illogical?
Because hall renters rent halls (and thus it isn’t an endorsement of either worldview if the one or both of those organizations want the facility to provide a live goat as part of the rental.
if an organization of LGBT people asked me to donate mozarella cheese for their banquet I’d first check with the banquet hall to see if outside donations are ok but then I’d say ok here is some tasty mozarella cheese
and He will come again to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom shall have no end
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”
sounds like hungry work I’m a make you a little caprese plate and there’s some sourdough bread around here somewhere I think
May we consider him sane at, say, $200, red?
south korea, which is a peninsular little country much like Vietnam
It knows as much about geography as it knows about anything else.
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
huh
blew thelink I guess
don’t worry peewazzles i’ll stick you up
*stick up for you*
Happy is a Pharisee, Ernst. Check him out wailing and keening and peeking around to see who is watching. A sure give away.
Which sometimes doesn’t work out too well.
Didn’t Dan Brown let the cat out of the bag about what really goes on in those Masonic
lodgesTemples?I read about a guy getting shot at a Masonic Lodge during an initiation.
That must have been one tough lodge.
“from south korea, which is a peninsular little country much like Vietnam and which coincidentally is on the same continent. ”
Sure, kind of like Delaware and Florida are peninsulas on the same continent? Or maybe more like the Yucatan and Delaware?
yeah except for in Delaware it’s probably harder to find boba
Delaware would be the Korea counterpart though it is not quite as mountainous or large.
Boba is from Taiwan. Unless you mean the guy with the jet pack and helmet who fell into a sandy tentacles butthole monster in that one famous movie. You can find a place that serves bubble tea near practically any college campus. Probably even Texas A&M. And they usually also do froyo and stuffed grape leaves and what passes for a doner kebab or a boneless chicken wyng served in a waffle as a taco sort of thing.
they have boba across the street at the donut shop but my whole life I never got none there
I could go right now if I wanted to
But I won’t cause of it’s too much sugar and I’m afraid I will crash and get sleepy and fall into a sandy tentacles butthole monster
You can get it in Joplin. Obviously it’s time to move on to something hipper.
KeVita?
“guinspen says September 10, 2013 at 11:56 am no business man in his right mind would turn down making a plain cake for $250 May we consider him sane at, say, $200, red? –
Twasnt me guins. I tired of this thread long ago. Tracy and radioactive rat won’t accept the fact that tolerance is not celebration.
What happens if a gay couple trickers a Christian Bakery Family into making a cake by pretending to be straight? Can the Christian Bakery Family sue them for fraud?
You would think so, cause of the sneaky deceitful homos were being tricksy on purpose.
But to be honest I have no idea.
Well damn. This thread has shown me one thing. Queers are like proggs and Islamists. They only leave you two choices…submit or die.
Actually there is a third choice, but it might be unwise to be too candid in 2013 USA…
Happyfeet sees peninsular people.
I am putting this here, long after the thread is gone. Jeff, I assume you will see it. Objections to gay marriage: am I missing any? I want to work on it….
1. Tradition – it has been this way for thousands of years
2. Family structure – it diminishes the strength of the institution
3. Religious objections
4. Anti-conservative
5. The children….
6. Institutional destruction
7. First Amendment – freedom of religion
8. Thirteenth Amendment – slavery is not just working without pay, but doing what you don’t want to
9. The ‘definition’ being changed
10. Abnormal = normal
11. Not governments business
12. ?
tracy
how about the continued blurring of the sexes; the assertion that men and women are interchangeable, therefore, mothers & fathers are irrelevant.
Ok….that might be part of the issue with #5, that the children lack appropriate role models…I’ll mark it as separate issue to start with.
…or that gender is malleable?
Tracy
There are those, like the notorious Dr. Money, who believe that gender is not fixed.
Leaving wrecked lives and dead bodies along the way.
And it isn’t about “role models” per se … it is about having one of each of two fundamentally different sexes as the most important people in your life as you are raised.
Not all kids of single parents will grow up dysfunctional, but the vast majority of dysfunctional adults grew up with a single parent.
A few minor points, just to be clear:
#1: Tradition isn’t a good enough reason to keep doing something, if there is something better that has come along. We lived in caves for hundreds of thousands of years, but something better came along, and now we have custom-designed smart homes. Show us that you actually have something better, and we’ll talk. Until then, you have no business interfering with what you do not understand, just like Chesterton’s gate.
#8: the 13th Amendment isn’t just about slavery, and by using that term, you misrepresent the argument. It is involuntary servitude that was under discussion – being forced to do something you do not wish to do, on pain of “rehabilitation” – and the amount being offered as payment is irrelevant. If people will sell their religious beliefs for money, they aren’t all that religious, are they? (Quite the pot of message there…)
#9 – if they didn’t want to destroy the definition, then why the insistence upon using the word? There was an offer for “civil commitments”, with all the rights and privileges accorded to hetero marriages, but that wasn’t good enough. If it isn’t the redefining of the word into inconsequentiality, then why demand to use the word to mean things it has NEVER meant, in all of recorded history?
#12 – Why should gay rights (granted by – and licensed through – the State) trump religious rights (granted by the Creator)? Whatever happened to the “live and let live” mentality that was being demanded by gays for the last few decades? Is that not good enough any more?
#13 – the sheer hypocrisy on display… Boycott? Fine. Protest? As long as no one is abused, physically or verbally (just like at abortion clinics and government offices), and respecting the private property rights of the business owner at all times.
But threats? Extortion? State agency action? Because their feelings got hurt? Grow the fuck up. If someone didn’t want MY money because I wear glasses, fuck them, and I will shop where my money is accepted. As will all of my family and friends. And their friends. The market will decide whether we make enough of an impact to force the two-eyed freak to change his ways.
Ok, please, PLEASE, I am trying to be as open and questioning : ‘two fundamentally different sexes’ are important because ….? if not as role models of how to act, appropriate action, how different sexes interact, then…what? Just having two sexes seems ….’because…’, if the best is to have two sexes, what? why? each has to provide something the other can’t…right? I don’t disagree that having mom and dad is extremely important. I’ve seen the alternative played out too many times not to notice. So….if not role models, what purpose? Learning how to act with member of the opposite sex in non-sexual ways? Sons and moms, daughters and dads?
Drumwaster, tell me if there is ANYTHING you disagree with here: http://aconservativeplatform.org/
What happens when you reverse the question tracy, and ask “a gender neutral society is important because . . . ?”
Because Simon de Beauvoir wants one? Nah, that won’t do. Surely there’s a better suggestion.
Tracy
“role models” just smacks of an over-used and, therefore, easily dismissed phrase. Fathers and mothers do more than just model, they engage with their offspring. A child learns how to interact, in an emotionally intimate way, with both a member of the child’s own sex and a member of the opposite sex.
‘two fundamentally different sexes’ are important because ….?
See also Freshman biology, re “procreation”, or “Why the Emperor Penguin who is actually sheltering a rock shouldn’t expect a baby penguin come spring”. You need both the dangly bits and the hollow bits to = “baby”.
I don’t disagree that having mom and dad is extremely important.
You just don’t think that having mom and dad is all that important and need to have it explained to you. We get it. Too bad you don’t seem to.
Darleen, I think that is where I am going with it….yes ‘role model’ is maybe over used because the interactions between parents and between parents and child and between sibs is as complex as any in society…learning to navigate those waters well is vitally important.
Fuck Drumwaster, you are sooo stuck in your fucking mindset you can’t see shit.
Please don’t get me started about the fallacies of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”. Heinlein did it so much better that I would be sorely tempted to simply cut and paste, much like that web page did.
I haven’t even pointed out that if homosexuality were considered genetic in nature, it would be considered a lethal mutation. (People who don’t understand what that means tend to look at me funny, even though that is the plain truth.)
Lethal doesn’t mean it kills you by itself, but that it kills you before you are able to pass along your genetic material to your offspring. Try to argue that, and you will end up proving that it is a behavioral issue, rather than a genetic one.
Exeunt omnes, laughing.
Malleable as fungible
Not so much malleable as fungible.
My sister-in-law’s husband is both the youngest child and his parent’s only son, so his mannerism from time to time can be pretty effeminate. But you’d never mistake him for a woman.
>irony tag< especially when he’s in the middle of that pack of hockey moms he hangs out with >/irony tag<
What makes same-sex marriage so much better than the status quo that we should rewrite the bedrock of civilization just to please the lethal mutations?
Take your time. Be specific. Show your work.
the interactions between parents and between parents and child and between sibs is as complex as any in society
And we have thousands of years of experimentation and have edited it down to a basic relationship that works best … mom and dad, married to each other, raising their children.
While individuals involved may vary the outcomes in individual cases, generally the mom/dad/kids family structure is the ideal.
sdferr, I think a gender neutral society is impossible and attempts to try it are not only going to result in failure but serious destruction of other aspects. But, as an argument to support opposition to gay marriage….I think it falls under #6, institutional destruction.
I THINK, not sure how it will turn out with more thought, that there is no reason why gay marriage is GOOD for society…..(I can think of benefits)….
in other words, if gay marriage never existed in anyone’s mind and someone said ” I think society would be improved if we created ‘gay marriage’ and promoted it”, I can’t see any argument to support it or how it could benefit society.
Ernst
Of all the men I’ve known who happen to be gay, not one of them has identified as female gender. Their expression of masculinity may range from having one say “Gay? You’re kidding.” to pegging one’s gaydar, but they still are male.
A gay man and a straight man are vastly more alike than either one of them is to a woman.
Darleen, I agree. V was a divorce attorney for 30 years. The amount of destruction in children’s lives by parents splitting makes Hiroshima look like patty-cake. I think the optimum should be encouraged, honored, respected, supported. What do you do as a society when it is not possible? Ban divorces? Shotgun weddings for pregnant women? 70% of black children are born out of wedlock.
CJ got lucky. She was found. She was adopted. Orphanages are commonplace in China.
70% of black children are born out of wedlock.
I think that the lack of shame caused by the Sexual Revolution of the 60s and 70s, combined with the unstinting financial support of Unca “Great Society” Sugar, has a lot more to do with this than same sex marriage.
And “staying together for the sake of the children” has fallen to the wayside, but every single intrusion into family and private life by the State has been “for the children”, so it must be a pretty good cause after all…
About the “gender neutral” thing: It’s another obfuscation
Words have a gender; human beings have a sex.
It is possible. We had it as the norm just half a century ago. Then the sexual revolutionaries won…a dysfunctional society.
Interesting And since it goes to my point about malleability, I’ll even accept the argument.
“. . . I think a gender neutral society is impossible and attempts to try it are not only going to result in failure but serious destruction of other aspects.”
If I may, this isn’t the question, I think, whether you and I might agree to the possibility or impossibility of attainment of such a thing or not. The question is, rather, what motivates the now decades long attempt to institute just this object in our society, come what may? It doesn’t look as though the effort is directed at some conformity with what we used to term natural conditions (to say nothing of natural right or natural law — ha! as if those things were real!). On the other hand, pleas for justice, together with assertions of injustice, look both to be bound to the impetus in the first instance.
But what becomes, you and I may say, of the role of nature in questions of justice? Why, it’s shocking the manner in which nature is simply eliminated there! That won’t work! (We say.)
“Wanna bet?” say the neutralizers as they press on in power.
Tracy
Drum beat me to it; but when Government makes Life of Julia the new normal, then you’re putting a really big thumb on culture.
And when The State demands that religion get out of the public square and pushes the meme that the religious are stupid & dangerous, then that also goes a long way to destroying all the support systems designed to help couples get and stay married.
Certainly “no-fault” divorce has contributed.
But when private institutions and relationships are destroyed, it makes for a dependency class enthrall to The State.
Divorce, unwed parents … feature, not bug.
sdferr, I think it can be encapsulated by the refrain: “if women were in charge there’d be no war”. So, women, of the liberal persuasion, if they can’t be in charge, will make men (their sons first, then other children in school) to be more like women. Dave Ramsey calls it the security effect – women first want security. I don’t know that I believe it totally, but it has an element of truth in it as to how many women act. (My sister reacted to ‘no one else will ever want to marry you’ argument from my brother in law, shit that he has always been, and nothing anyone else could say would get her to think he was right). The whole metrosexual stupidity just seems to be part of the process of eliminating masculinity. I think I can see that as a foundation to almost all of the ‘liberalism’ pushes of the last 60 years. I’d have to give it more thought.
(so it is less a gender neutral thing than a make the female gender ‘tendencies’ dominant throughout society and institutions) ?
Quite, Ernst. It’s more jargonization of the language so that the speaker can feel more sophisticated than the listener.
“Sophistication” was a practice that was outlawed in the Middle Ages in the brewing of beer, btw. It was the addition of ingredients/adulterants that could be lethal to the unsuspecting drinker.
Fun fact: Dolce and Gabbana, Italian designers extraordinaire, are horrified by the idea of gay marriage. This, in spite of the fact that they were a couple for many years and continue to work together in their business.
Darleen, and when the left argues all cultures are equal, and ‘therefore’ all religions are, the barbarianism of Islam becomes something useful to tar Christianity and Christians with also.
Aspects of the Catholic Church didn’t help in matters either. Cover-ups instead of public purges. The Protestants haven’t helped either with their embrace of liberal government efforts to supplant charities…and social justice (SPIT)…..
if women were in charge there’d be no war
No, just more assassinations, poisonings, cruelty and sabotage.
“. . . if women were in charge . . . ”
Heh, it wouldn’t do to suggest women have already always been in charge, manipulating their puppets according to their desires all these long eons of human existence, I guess? Ah well, another tack then perhaps.
(so it is less a gender neutral thing than a make the female gender ‘tendencies’ dominant throughout society and institutions) ?
I’m not certain, but I think we can trace the origin relatively simply, thus:
The Second Sex (we’re oppressed!) > We should be on top for a change! > Oh, wait, no, that won’t work either: that’s just a recreation of the situation we’re already complaining about, just with the roles being flipped, so to speak! > Ah, We have it! Let there be NO sex on top! Let’s have no discernible sexes! We’ll have Gender Neutrality!
World without end. Amen.
That and the death of shame.
Pablo, are you suggesting going back to ‘fault’ divorces and shotgun weddings?
Darleen, re gay and straight men being more alike then gay men and women. I’d hedge that just a bit….Many gay men have been so molded by aspects of the culture that their affectations and thought processes are not masculine at all. Not saying all or most, but a significant percentage. As for lesbians….V and I came to the conclusion that most of them are stark raving lunatics, rabid leftists and virulently anti-ANYTHING that even suggests ‘male’. I know a couple of lesbians that used to go out at night to find effeminate gay males to beat up. They didn’t like V or I because we associated with men (you know…clients, friends, neighbors…). Their own power trips ignored for the similarity with male dominance fights….
leigh, NONE of the long term gay/lesbian couples we know have sought out marriage. V opposed it until her last year (her stroke caused a subtle personality shift that wasn’t so subtle at first but even after some recovery never returned her to a previous state).
sdferr, let everyone be special? make everyone so ‘equal’ that no one is ‘more equal’ (except those in charge of course)? the only part of the Declaration I don’t like: “…that all men are created equal”…..just some more so than others? so abused is that statement….
That looks the gist, tracy, save that we must not speak (for propriety’s sake) of “those in charge”, who, after all, do not exist!
Poke up not thy head, O nail, lest thou receive another hammering.
kinda want to get back to my list…..is there other arguments than those listed? I will try to refrain from what Vox says is ‘addressing arguments by noting they exist then ignoring them’.
tracy, none of the gay couples I have known have sought marriage, either. So why the big push now?
It can’t be all about control, can it? Or can it?
Pablo, are you suggesting going back to ‘fault’ divorces and shotgun weddings?
Let’s take these one at a time:
No-fault divorce. Yes, get rid of it. Even Ronald Reagan regretted his decision to institute NF in CA. All contracts have a penalty of some sort when one party or other breaks it. No-fault has become where one person can unilaterally leave. If two people come to an agreed upon dissolution, fine. Otherwise, the one wanting out will have to negotiate exit terms.
“shotgun” weddings. There’s no implied contract, even when one party gets pregnant, so the State should not get involved in forcing marriage.
HOWEVER. What the state does do, is either create incentives or negatives to behavior.
I bet women and men might be more careful with the birth control thing if they
Unwed mom = no child support
unwed dad = no parental rights (visitation, etc).
BTW Drumwaster, you haven’t answered – was there something in that platform you disagreed with? (Diverging my own request to get back to the topic at hand)
If you knew more about Catholic theology, you’d understand why they don’t do purges.
Or divorces, for that matter.
Leigh, none of our friends are supportive of gay marriage personally – they don’t oppose it – but they are making no particular effort for it. Like V and I, they managed to become part of communities that accept them as ‘couples’ and to the extent necessary, have established lives. (of the 6 long term couples, we were the only couple with a child).
If you go into the gay community, people that have been leading political fights for decades generally OPPOSE gay marriage as TOO normative.
Right. There’s is no marriage contract and thus marriages are entered into and departed from with little to no concern for consequences.
As for the notion of shotgun weddings, that falls under the resurrection of shame. First, you’d need to have a Daddy present and giving a shit when some young buck knocks his daughter up. Having cleared that bar, I’d leave it up to him and his daughter.
Ernst, I was raised Roman Catholic – that in itself doesn’t mean I know shit about Catholic theology, but Scripture DOES say, ‘avoid all appearances of evil’, and covering up was pretty much an appearance of evil.
Darleen: I bet women and men might be more careful with the birth control thing if they
Unwed mom = no child support
unwed dad = no parental rights (visitation, etc).
I agree that carrots and sticks are useful, but isn’t it the children that will do the most suffering in your suggestion?
Pablo…..I started and deleted a comment about the father being somewhat to blame if his daughter got ‘knocked up’, then got into the Palin’s…but….if the goal is to apply blame (that is the purpose of shame), doesn’t the family share some of it? Or is it all on the teen BOY?
Tracy
My proposal is harsh, but it removes The State from, both, incentivizing single moms (whoopee! baby = child support) and being a cash cow FOR the State (whoopee! child support from guys who never wanted to be fathers).
It will also decimate the family law courts — there will be no custody disputes between unwed parents and most custody issues for divorcing parents will be resolved either 1)mutual agreement 2) what the injured party wants
oh!
also, if unwed sperm donor has NO parental rights, then we avoid the idiocy of unwed sperm donor showing up a few years later to screw over mom or adoptive parents.
also unwed mom will have a better chance of actually getting married in the future if prospective husband knows he doesn’t have to worry about having sperm donor involved in their family life.
Darleen, it certainly can’t be any worse than the current state of divorce/custody. States are now party to every custody fight in court. Women use child support laws to punish men (yes, some men do it too). War stories from the front…I could offer horror stories for days.
I don’t oppose a return to ‘fault’ divorces. Shotgun weddings I have a problem with.
It’s on him to help raise the child he created. The reason so many men walk away is because there’s no shame in doing it anymore. It’s because they can. Back when that wasn’t acceptable it wasn’t common. Back when actions had consequences.
Darleen, one of V’s reasons for a China adoption was to avoid a situation where a bio-parent shows up in some court demanding their child be given to them to ‘take the child from an abusive situation that a gay lifestyle imposes on a child’s future’…..and winning.
Tracy
Lots of straight couples run the risk of bio-dad showing up. It doesn’t matter WHAT the lifestyle of the couple. Look at the little girl who is like 1/1000th “Indian” being yanked when sperm-donor signed off on her long before.
BTW Drumwaster, you haven’t answered
Reading things that were never written so often, I shouldn’t be surprised when you ignore the answer you requested. Try again, except engage your brain first. e.g., “There are none so blind…”.
I would also add into the condemnation of NF divorces my own personal contempt for “palimony” (even those not under contract will be made to perform).
Drumwaster: “Please don’t get me started about the fallacies of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”. Heinlein did it so much better that I would be sorely tempted to simply cut and paste, much like that web page did.”
That was your answer to ‘is there anything there you disagree with?’
With the exception of the first quote from the Declaration, I wrote 100% of that. It was not cut from anywhere else, not pasted in. Guess it is your way, just mock as a response and call it ‘engaged’.
So if your very first comment, straight off the top, is utter nonsense (even though impressive poetry), I should really pay attention to the rest?
If I start out by reading that “Fire cannot melt steel” and “we’re just asking questions”, should I dig deeper for those nuggets of wisdom you assert are present?
There is nothing there to engage. Like fighting fog.
“Ah yes, [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness]… Life? What ‘right’ to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What ‘right’ to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of ‘right’? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man’s right is ‘unalienable’? And is it ‘right’? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost. The third ‘right’?—the ‘pursuit of happiness’? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can ‘pursue happiness’ as long as my brain lives—but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can ensure that I will catch it.”
Whose “right” in the case at issue actually won? The right to worship freely or the right to force your fellow citizen to support your lifestyle? And if EVERYTHING you have been saying in this thread contradicts so much on that page, why should I believe that you wrote it? Just because Anton Lavey uses the word “verily” and “thou” doesn’t make him a Biblical scholar…
Darleen
Yes, many people that adopt have potential issues but what scared V, and many others was:
Mary Ward, a divorced gay woman, lost custody of her pre-teen daughter, Cassey, in 1995 when a Pensacola judge declared the girl should “live in a nonlesbian world.” Judge Joseph Q. Tarbuck ruled Cassey’s father would make a better parent — even though John Ward had pleaded guilty to murdering his first wife in a rage over custody of their daughter, who years later said he tried to sexually abuse her. In 1996, a Florida appeals court upheld Tarbuck’s decision and an anguished Mary Ward, 47, died of a heart attack soon after.
She was the bio-mom…..
Darleen,
That case of “Indian” dad is being handled by the offices of one the women I know from church. She’s all down with bio-dad keeping the kid. She and I have had numerous fights about “family rights”.
When I brought up the FACT that bio-dad’s claim to Tribal heritage doesn’t fit the bill of the TRIBE, she quit talking to me about it.
Drumwaster. I find your analysis of that quote from the Declaration of Independence to be quite enlightening…..
Not mine. As I mentioned up thread.
If you had actually read it.
If you could only read.
Alas.
I quote others to support a point, or to highlight a point I want to dispute. Obviously you quote others to add words to the size of your post.
“Whose “right” in the case at issue actually won? The right to worship freely or the right to force your fellow citizen to support your lifestyle? ”
The OR bakers, I assume as no one has suggested otherwise, still worship freely. And as no State organization has ‘forced’ anyone to do anything, I gather the answer to your question is the OR bakers.
Nothing I have said contradicts what I wrote in that platform.
still worship freely
Really? No, they worship only in a state-approved way.
Similar to having all the privacy the State defines as necessary.
And as no State organization has ‘forced’ anyone to do anything
No, they are “investigating” them, with an eye to “rehabilitation”, an issue you have yet to address.
What kind of “rehabilitation” was being contemplated as a response to the butthurt couple’s complaint to the State? It was specifically referenced, and you have dodged the question repeatedly. For that matter, why did the couple feel that they needed to make the official complaint, rather than simply acting like an adult? Did their rights to something the State does not authorize outrank that which the State specifically protects?
Keep trying. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, but you’re like a broken sundial…
Darleen, I fully accept that a person’s religious calling can be to serve in many different ways, and that baking cakes can certainly be a calling to serve in a community. But ‘worship’?
Drumwaster. Since it seems so important to you, why not offer YOUR assumption of what ‘rehabilitation’ means in the context of a government body facing a complaint about an organization it ‘regulates’? Because here is MY interpretation: a business licensed by the state is expected to follow state laws, and in the event that a business fails to do that, RATHER than revoke the license, they would rather have the business ‘correct’ a business practice into conformity with the law.
You can make other assumptions than those I have, but given the State has done nothing to this point, arguing they have been ‘forced’ to do anything is specious.
Darleen, the argument I believe being made is that the OR baker’s religious beliefs prevent them from being supportive or encouraging what they consider to be a sin, or a violation of the tenents of their religion. That, despite their business of making cakes, making a cake for a specific purpose they find sinful would constitute infringement upon their free exercise of their religion.
Drumwaster, so, you don’t disagree with anything on the platform, you just don’t think I wrote it.
why not offer YOUR assumption of what ‘rehabilitation’ means in the context of a government body facing a complaint about an organization it ‘regulates’?
I’m not the one defending it, and if it involves anything more than having to sign for certified delivery of a written apology, it is an unConstitutional infringement on the baker’s freedom of religious expression. Touchy-feely classes, paperwork, fines, whatever you think, it is beyond their authority and illegal on its face.
a business licensed by the state is expected to follow state laws
Except for the laws involving same-sex marriage or religious protections, of course. Those fall before the Might That Is GAY RIGHTS.
QED
I love the fact that you switch sides so often that you don’t even know which side you are arguing…
“they would rather have the business ‘correct’ a business practice into conformity with the law” vs “making a cake for a specific purpose they find sinful would constitute infringement upon their free exercise of their religion”.
So you would support the State using coercive force in order to get the business owner to ‘correct’ their business practice into what would constitute infringement upon their free exercise of their religion? Got it.
Care to add anything to that concession?
(And you say you have run a business? I can only assume that “right into the ground” was your target all along. The State doesn’t issue “gee, it would be really cool if you could rethink your position” letters.)
Drumwaster, so, you don’t disagree with anything on the platform
You could have just written “I don’t bother to read anything you write, it’s too confusing”, and it would be just as accurate, and a whole lot more honest, yanno…
Being forced to act in a manner that runs contrary to your faith is being forced to act contrary to your faith. It’s coerced anti-worship.
“Sure, Doc, you can pray however you like, but we’ve still got abortions you need to do, or else. Chop chop.”
This is not how the free exercise of religion works. You’ll note that the Framers didn’t codify a right to worship, yes?
It’s times like these that I don’t regret the Incorporation Clause of the 14th Amendment, because the obvious response would be “hey, it isn’t Congress that is forcing the baker to violate his relgious precepts!”
Drumwaster: I say A so…..IT MUST MEAN Z.
“So you would support the State using coercive force in order to get the business owner to ‘correct’ their business practice into what would constitute infringement upon their free exercise of their religion? Got it.”
Coercive force? If the state said you have to make cakes for same sex couples or lose your license, is THAT coercive force? Then, I guess so. If they send someone to sit in the bakery to make sure they do so, I’d say that was coercive. If they demanded every customer served and NOT served fill out a form, I’d say that was coercive. If the state had someone stand in the bakery while they made a cake for the couple (that already had their celebration), I’d say that was coercive force. If they made the couple pay a fine, or promise to serve same sex couples in the future, I can see that might be coercive, but force?
As to the last point, baking a cake …”constitute[s] infringement upon their free exercise of their religion”, I don’t agree with. I don’t think it infringes upon the free exercise of their religion. I can not see how selling the couple cookies, cakes and other goodies is ok, but a cake for a wedding is not. BUT MY opinion doesn’t matter. The OR baker couple’s DOES.
If I said the sky was blue, Drumwaster would assume I mean that everyone has to agree with me or face reeducation camps….
If the state said you have to make cakes for same sex couples or lose your license, is THAT coercive force?
If it was a choice between violating my religious beliefs or losing my livelihood, you mean? The State says I have to choose one or the other, and you don’t call that “coercive”?
And as for the “force” part of the equation, just exactly what do YOU think will happen if the baker were to refuse to choose either? What caliber pistol will the policemen be wearing? If the baker refuses to leave his property after having been shut down by the State, and tries to continue selling to the public, what then? Still no force involved? No one getting arrested?
Are you truly that STUPID?
Oh, wait.
Baking a cake doesn’t. Being forced to bake a cake in support of something that goes against their religion does. There are many other bakers. Find another and get a cake. It should be just that easy. But no, Feelings were hurt. By their stupid, stupid religious beliefs. And that must be punished. Investigated, at the very least, with an eye toward rehabilitation.
Everything the government says you have to do is ultimately enforced at gunpoint. To the extent that what you have to do is NOT harm your fellow citizen, that’s fine. Everything else is coercion.
Would tracy be quite so upset if the cake were for (say) the arranged marriage of an 11yo girl and 30yo man? Would the baker still be justified in refusing? Why or Why not?
all hail proggtardia
NFL Commish: ‘If One Person Is Offended’ by Redskins, We’ll Listen
tracy a very proud proggtard
Ok…..I can see this is going where the previous discussion went, and I specifically waited til everything quieted down and I could ask some specific questions. Newrouter has shown up which means the name calling starts again.
Drumwaster, I am not going into ANOTHER hypothetical when the ACTUAL reveals clearly that any requirement that the OR bakers do ANYTHING is an infringement upon their religious freedom. Got it. You have all made your point. The OR couple can refuse to serve a gay couple product for their celebration.
A pair of hippies can have a fruit market and the state can’t do anything if it is full of cockroaches and rats as long as the hippies say that their religion opposes the killing of any living thing. Got it. Religious beliefs trump laws.
If anyone wants to offer any other items for my list, feel free.
No, you can’t sell roach infested food because your religion loves roaches. You can refuse to sell roach based food, though. They can have their rats and roaches, but not in a business that feeds the public because that would harm the public. Failing to sell them rat turd laden goodies doesn’t.
For your premise to work here, their religion would require them to sell polluted food. That would be at odds with the law.
A pair of hippies can have a fruit market and the state can’t do anything if it is full of cockroaches and rats as long as the hippies say that their religion opposes the killing of any living thing.
Does that mean I get to start bringing up all the health related issues involved in homosexuality? Because homosexuals are EXACTLY like maggoty and infested foodstuffs, right?
If the baker were being shut down because they had rotten food being vended, that is one thing. (If the hippies had an alternative to ONLY offering rotten food, just like if the lesbians had to get their cake from ONLY that particular baker… If only, eh?) Instead, they are being shut down because some lesbians got all butthurt. And they chose to punish through State action.
You’re not advancing your case when you try STUPID analogies like that. Not that I’m complaining, but you could at least make it a challenge…
Newrouter has shown up which means the name calling starts again.
yes too stupid it be proggtarded clown.
Newrouter has shown up which means the name calling starts again.
i effin’ discriminate like dat
nr
please cease & desist. I want to engage Tracy in an honest manner as I do not believe she is debating in bad faith.
Clarity before agreement. I think our problem is separating the EVENT from the participants.
Tracy
It is the event, not the gayness of the customers. That is not speculation, but all evidence demonstrates that this bakery served/sold all manner of baked goods regardless of orientation, even to the complaining couple.
The bakery refrains from participating in the event of a same-sex marriage.
As you may know, no state issued marriage license demands that the couple applying declare their sexual orientation. It only allows one of each sex to apply. There is one ex-radio host in the LA area – gay – who married a female friend for medical benefits. No one stopped them.
That’s why I don’t call ssm “gay marriage”. Orientation really has little to do with it.
And the bakery, or photographer, have the absolute right to refuse to participate in a polyamorous event, too.
> I want to engage Tracy in an honest manner as I do not believe she is debating in bad faith.<
i do believe it is idiotic. don't waste your time on idiotic. otherwise carry on.
I think our problem is separating the EVENT from the participants.
I said it earlier, distinguishing between the sinner(s) and the sin. The baker had no problem dealing with the sinners (because we are all sinners, after all), but refused to help them commit what was seen as a further sin (I can’t agree that a fresh blueberry muffin is actually sinful, it only tastes that way).
at this point eff trolls and drones. i luv the smell of republics crashing and burning and salt it where possible.
I think our problem is separating the EVENT from the participants.
you know the proggtards are big on the birmingham al bombings? they got the bush rice to attend. where’s the mention of the demonrat kkk bombing of the black peeps?
A person that is for same sex marriage cannot be against polygamy and remain intellectually honest. In fact, if you think gay marriage is good, you have no argument against any domestic arrangement of any combination of people.
If you are going to be consistent in your reasoning.
Thing is, marriage isn’t what SSM advocates pretend it is. So they can force it on society. So they can make a joke out of Christianity.
‘Cuz that’s how the anti-Christ’s roll…
you have no argument against calling any domestic arrangement of any combination of people “marriage“
“I want to engage Tracy in an honest manner as I do not believe she is debating in bad faith.”
You are fooling yourself.
Darleen, correct, as I have been saying. It didn’t matter WHAT the couple ordered, the OR bakers would not have sold them ANYTHING for the wedding celebration. Not even already prepared items in a case.
“There is one ex-radio host in the LA area – gay – who married a female friend for medical benefits. No one stopped them. ”
Because the ‘government’ wouldn’t go after them, despite the fact that if you marry someone for a green card it is considered fraud. I don’t find the idea of committing fraud to be an appropriate solution to things….ya know…the law, and all….kinda my thing.
Darleen, is there a point where it makes sense? I can absolutely see not participating in a ceremony (and being the photographer AT the ceremony does qualify). But considering all the things associated, chairs, tables, decorations, dresses, flowers, shoes!, drink vendors, are all these businesses, if run by Christians, violating their faith/beliefs? Does someone that agrees to babysit kids for couples going to a gay wedding ‘support’ the wedding? It REALLY doesn’t matter, because in the end, it is the person that decides what crosses the line for them. And I see that as arbitrary. Opposition to gay marriage = gay couples = gay lifestyle = gays. I think most people are willing to let gays alone, to live their lives any way they choose as long as it doesn’t involve them….
“That’s why I don’t call ssm “gay marriage”. Orientation really has little to do with it.”
A distinction without a difference from my point of view.
“And the bakery, or photographer, have the absolute right to refuse to participate in a polyamorous event, too.”
I’ve never suggested that the baker or photographer lacked the right to refuse. I strongly agree they had the right to say no.
I’m not sure how I missed this whole part of the conversation.
I have 2 daughters that my wife and I have adopted from China. Yes, there are a shitload of orphanages there, and there’s no possibility of them farming out all of their kids because they have limits on foreign adoptions that are orders of magnitude higher than the abandonment rate.
Most kids in orphanages are abandoned, on account of it’s illegal to give your kid up for adoption. Parents abandon their kids for reasons I won’t get into here, but usually (these days, anyway) do so in a place that is busy and the kid is nearly guaranteed to be found quickly. Both of mine were abandoned in highly public places.
My oldest is 17, and the younger one is 12. It’s been a trip.
Interesting connection there, even if you weren’t part of the original adoption. China, it should be pointed out, does not adopt out to professed homosexuals, and rarely adopts out to single men or women.
Anyway. Carry on.
. It didn’t matter WHAT the couple ordered, the OR bakers would not have sold them ANYTHING for the wedding celebration. Not even already prepared items in a case.
lying liars what lie chop chop
This thread is a Mobius Loop.
. It didn’t matter WHAT the couple ordered,
so full of proggtard bs
nr should stop commenting drunk, I think.
tracy be an a hole for future reference
>nr should stop commenting drunk, I think.<
stupid is happening
Even if so, probably best not to be one yourself.
>nr should stop commenting drunk, I think.<
yo tracy do the same and slart you be big dummy
> probably best not to be one yourself.<
tracy and darleen don't be effin stupid like clown bart
You like wound me, dude. I mean, totally.
bart is a clown i hear along with the progg tracy. stupid is their goal for proggtard domination. go serious you guys!!11!!
>You like wound me, dude. I mean, totally.<
yea because tracy is such a effin "nobel prize winner". you go grrl
It’s always a good idea to try and insult the intelligence of others while commenting in phonetext. It’s guaranteed effective!
gay marriage is good for America I don’t see a problem with it really
y’all need to just chill out and focus on for reals problems I think
Slartibartfast, V traveled to China alone, I stayed home and got things ready. We were one of three lesbian couples in the group that traveled in 1995. No one hid anything, and all three couples had homestudies and background checks as members of the household.
CJ and V have been part of a long study of girls and the families that adopted them. Last update was about 15 months ago (after V had passed away).
CJ was left in an abandoned building ‘known’ for abandoned girls…it was checked regularly (at least that was the story). CJ is clearly from north/central China but was found in Southeastern China. If you can rely on types.
Congrats on the two daughters. Thank you for helping to save some of those abandoned.
leigh, I was trying to go somewhere else with it today….
gay marriage is good for America I don’t see a problem with it really
beside anti darwinist loser!!11!! faggots don’t do it(create children)!!11!!
> Thank you for helping to save some of those abandoned.<
you effin went to a one party state looking for what exactly? and your opinion is needed here now? go away proggtard.
if run by Christians, violating their faith/beliefs?
Bottom line, Tracy, is that the State, per Constitution, does not get to decide what is/isn’t “appropriate” religious belief.
Indeed, “religious accommodation” is incumbent upon the State and its representatives.
Thus public schools are not allowed to stifle the religious expression of the students … something they regularly do until people put up a fuss.
gay marriage is good for America I don’t see a problem with it really Pure emotion with absolutely no historical or contemporary evidence to support it.
Kinda like the “scientist” who cried that the Arctic ice would be totally gone by now, yet Gaia disappointed him by growing the ice 60% this year.
I had thought I was plumbing the depths of rationality with the 11yo/30yo example above…
How about 8 and 40?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/child-bride-dies-wedding-night-yemen-article-1.1450874
There is another circumstance, however, that considerably
complicates matters. For many decades, the power ruling society in
the Soviet bloc has used the label ‘opposition’ as the blackest of
indictments, as synonymous with the word ‘enemy’. To brand
someone ‘a member of the opposition’ is tantamount to saying he or
she is trying to overthrow the government and put an end to
socialism (naturally in the pay of the imperialists). There have been
times when this labelled straight to the gallows, and of course this
does not encourage people to apply the same label to themselves.
Moreover, it is only a word, and what is actually done is more
important than how it is labelled.
The final reason why many reject such a term is because there is
something negative about the notion of an ‘opposition’. People who
so define themselves do so in relation to a prior ‘position’. In other
words, they relate themselves specifically to the power that rules
society and through it, define themselves, deriving their own ‘position’
from the position of the regime. For people who have simply
decided to live within the truth, to say aloud what they think, to
express their solidarity with their fellow citizens, to create as they
want and simply to live in harmony with their better ‘self’, it is
naturally disagreeable to feel required to define their own, original
and positive ‘position’ negatively, in terms of something else, and to
think of themselves primarily as people who are against something,
not simply as people who are what they are.
“Bottom line, Tracy, is that the State, per Constitution, does not get to decide what is or isn’t “appropriate” religious belief.”
This seems entirely correct about the United States. But the United States is an outlier (the “new” world) — an extraordinary polity and a peculiar regime in this respect in the history of nations or city-states and the political-religious arrangements of those. Pretty much all of human history had or has been otherwise, and, I think, not necessarily to the better for it, so far as we can tell. Still, I think it must be notable that we fight against the current of the flood in this regard. And it’s possible that the causes of those formerly common circumstances of the unity of religion and regime had some component in human nature which will arise again now and then here in America, so if it does occasionally happen that way, it could be we shouldn’t be surprised.
Darleen, I stated it didn’t make a difference, that each person gets to make the decision as to what constitutes ‘appropriate’. I won’t go into all the legal opinions on the topic, no one here accepts any legal argument that limits religious expression in commercial enterprises. Hard for me to suggest a legal argument when no legal authority is recognized. So, I will work on addressing in other ways as I go about the process of dealing with the list of objections laid out above.
Darleen, no right is absolute where it comes into contact with other people. What is appropriate should be worked out by those involved – as had happened in previous cases where the OR bakers refused service. Unfortunately, not everyone is an adult and our system increasingly treats people as children.
(Returning after many hours and many comments)
Admit it Drumwaster, you stepped in it with that one.
I’m guessing the bag was on fire, right?
tracy i shoot you dead clown. leave me eff alone
>Darleen, no right is absolute where it comes into contact with other people. <
Darleen, no right is absolute where it comes into contact with other people
Then you’re not understanding even the basic concept of rights.
The right of any individual does not confer a positive obligation on the part of another individual. If it does, it is not a “right.”
Hence, my right of free speech does not confer upon you the obligation to provide me a microphone.
or the right to keep and bear arms does not confer an obligation on others to provide said arms
i have lots and lots of evidence Darleen
I show you later I promise
I would say it’s more like that in this instance no one here thinks butthurt is a compelling state interest.
Darleen, not that it matters much, I did write a book on Rights, and your right of free speech does not require me to provide you with a microphone nor does your right allow you to yell in my ear, at the foot of my driveway at 3am or to hurl obscenities at passersby on the street. Nor does your right to keep and bear arms give you the freedom to shoot bear on my property, bottles in a National Park or 30 rounds into the sky on New Years Eve. And while I do believe people have the right to smoke whatever they want, I’m not interested in getting a contact high from my apartment’s neighbor sitting on his patio toking away.
Ernst, it would seem to me that the position here is that there can be NO compelling state interest that curtails the freedom of religious expression.
There can be no compelling state interest in curtailing religious expression that harms no one else. The state has a compelling interest in curtailing jihad, for example.
Admit it Drumwaster, you stepped in it with that one.
Not quite sure how, especially given that “worship” includes the expression of that worship, as the example above set forth…
“Gee, Doc, no one is stopping you from going to church on Sundays. We just need you to perform abortions the rest of the week.”
Going to church once a week doesn’t make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car. It’s what you do the rest of the time that counts. And it’s the idiots who will offer the “right hand of fellowship” in the pews while ready to run you over in the parking lot if you delay them getting home for kickoff that give everyone the bad ideas about the rest of Christianity.
your right of free speech does not require me to provide you with a microphone
Any more than the “right” to free health care does not require us to actually provide you with a medical staff and hospital bed. Nor does your alleged “right” to same sex marriage require anyone to supply anything for the ceremony that their beliefs forbid, and the State gets to sit on its hands. Any action or required outcome at ALL by the State equals coercion.
And while I do believe people have the right to smoke whatever they want, I’m not interested in getting a contact high from my apartment’s neighbor sitting on his patio toking away.
And so does your “disinterest” override the right you have just condescended to allow him? You don’t want to have to go through something, so you will curtail the behavior of your neighbor? I sense a pattern here…
“Freedom of Worship,” Like “Freedom of Belief” is how the Statists and the Leftists (yeah, yeah, same thing) try to crowd Free Exercise out of the public sphere.
e.g., you’re free to worship at a church where they believe in a God who loves unviable tissue masses, but as a pharmacist you’d damn well better be stocking RU-486 if you know what’s good for you.
or
e.g. your hospital is free to affiliate with a church the believes abortion is murder and anyone having anything to do with murder will suffer the eternal flames of perdition, but you damn well better provide the service if you want some of that sweet sweet
ObamaBoehnercash.Really? Because it doesn’t seem that way to me at all.
I think we’d all agree with Pablo’s example for instance.
The problem is that harm has been abused over the years to come to include things like a cross that’s been on a hill for fifty or sixty years, or some steel girders shaped like a cross in a memorial musueam, because my eyes! /sarc. And at the same time, when believers get offended about something like a cross in a jar of urine, or elephant shit on a picture of the Mother of God, and they try the my eyes! gambit, they get told to suck it.
You really can’t have it both ways and remain a society that respects the rule of law.
And by “you” I don’t mean you personally, even if you think I do.
So they are for Freedom of Speech, so long as those with opposing opinions don’t actually say anything… ;)
Political Correctness
Hate Speech
“Free Speech Zones”
Nope, no coercive force here…
if I knew you were coming I’d a baked a cake! But you have to promise you’re straight please to fill out this form and once you get that notarized we can begin discussions about the cake kthxbye
praise Him
Oh look, Happyfeet changed the capsule of the situation again because the real one isn’t as easy to shit out a chirpy answer for. It’s not much different from ignoring the whole beating Zimmerman’s head on the ground in favor of crying out” But he was shot just for buying skittles and tea! Profiling!”
Ernst, Pablo. Nice example, useless, but nice. The situation is not how religious expression can harm others, but how religious expression can be applied to avoid adhering to legal requirements. The OR bakers refuse to serve someone because of their religious beliefs. I stated, and I think it is consistent with the arguments offered, that there can be no compelling state interest that overrides someones refusal to serve someone else because of their religious beliefs. By serve, I mean operate their business as it is established to do: a photographer taking photos, a baker baking, a printer printing, an attorney advising, a restaurant serving food, a pharmacist dispensing drugs, a doctor performing surgery…
What LIMIT can the State impose on claims of freedom of expression of religion? If I ask, “can someone say that they were expressing a religious belief as a reason for not following the speed limit” or is that just ‘stupid? Can someone say they were expressing a religious belief as a reason for not serving a woman NOT IN a burqa because that violates a religious belief?
The anti-religious that demand ALL religious expression be removed from ‘the public sphere’: how much different are they from people that see a gay couple holding hands or kissing each other goodbye at a train station demanding that ‘they don’t shove their perverted lifestyle down our throats’? Because one is using the legal system to impose their demands, they are bad, the others are just expressing a position, not trying to use the legal system?
Public displays of displeasure, shaming someone, doesn’t have much force unless it carries some stigma or cost to the objects of that shaming/display of displeasure, right? How much shame is there to: “Bill, divorcing your wife is bad, it sets the wrong examples, you need to work out your issues. You going to be on time for our tee time on Saturday? Got time for a beer?”
No, we were discussing what constitutes a compelling state interest. Religious expression doesn’t need to adhere to “legal requirements” barring those instances in which such expression harms others. Constitutionally speaking, that is. Proggy mileage may vary.
What LIMIT can the State impose on claims of freedom of expression of religion?
Anything that involves physical safety of a third party, perhaps? No human sacrifice to the volcano gods or violent jihad (as mentioned above), no plundering of virgins (unless the virgins really want to be plundered, of course), etc.
Mere butthurt-edness doesn’t rise to that level. But that requires being emotionally adult. Something I have yet to see among those whose main argument is “H8RHOMOPHOBEFASCIST”…
Shame is when you refuse to associate with Bill.
Pablo: “No, we were discussing what constitutes a compelling state interest”
….to force a business to perform the activities normally associated with that business….
Pablo: “Shame is when you refuse to associate with Bill.”
Right, shame has consequences to the target, it takes an action on the part of those seeking to ‘shame’ someone. Withholding fellowship, exposing to ridicule (pointing out the person to others), demands for signs of remorse, contrition, restitution or compensation, outward signs of contempt, disfavor, revulsion. In extreme cases, ex-communication (rejection from normal civic affairs).
….to force a business to perform the activities normally associated with that business….
…. to force the person running the business to violate his/her personal beliefs if they might offend someone in a politically-favored class….
The business doesn’t have religious beliefs. It’s just a building with equipment and product in it. It’s the baker (real person what does the actual work) we are discussing.
Still wondering why tracy keeps avoiding the question of why the couple didn’t just go elsewhere… What kind of lesson did they want to give in this case? (I’m guessing it wasn’t “Watch us behave like grown adults, and take our business elsewhere”…)
….to force a business to perform the activities normally associated with that business… As defined by whom?
Again, if writers write, tell me how The State can compel a writer to produce something against his/her principles just because someone else is willing to pay for it?
Why is Ace of Cakes a “public accommodation” and Stephen King not?
What this country really needs is a ” Son of ‘All your choice and all your labor are belong to us (or some identity group of our choosing’ post” post.
Darleen, because Ace of Cakes puts up a store front and says, ‘hey, if you need cakes, come here, we make cakes’….but then doesn’t make cakes for some people and does for others. Your position, THAT I DON’T DISAGREE WITH, is that Ace of Cakes should be free to NOT make cakes if for any reason doing so is an affront to their religious principles. Stephen King writes a book and then seeks to sell copies of that book. If he were refusing to sell a copy of his book to someone because of a religious objection to that person or what that person might do with the book later – such as burn it a bonfire rejecting all books about the evil supernatural things – THEN it would be a comparable situation.
Drumwaster, you accuse me of not reading things when you clearly don’t bother either. The couple SAID that the baker personally condemned them, calling them an abomination – now, I am willing to dismiss that as hyperbole, there is no evidence that the baker has such a personality – BUT, he might have if they called him on a simple, “sorry, we don’t do make cakes for same sex weddings”, demanding a specific reason and he was more specific and forceful.
How many times has a conversation descended into name calling HERE? Reasonable people calling gays unnatural, perverted, deviants? Reasonable people calling Christians hateful, arrogant, self-righteous, bigots?
So, unlike previous times when the OR baker couple said, sorry, we don’t do that and the couples accepting the rebuke meekly and leaving, having been shamed for their inappropriate behavior, this couple refused the rebuke. Wanted clarification of the meaning for the refusal.
People are suggesting that, ‘we don’t serve that kind of perversion’, might evoke a different response than ‘ok, thank you’.
Or perhaps the lesbian couple did exactly what you are doing here, mishearing the words into the message you really needed to hear.
After all, simply walking away doesn’t teach those godclingers the right lesson, now, does it? “The lesbian couple filed a discrimination with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries.”
You might want to check out a few of the other stories Jeff has posted here today. All about the State not coercing anyone into anything…
(I mean, it’s not like teachers and judges have any power or authority to control behavior, right?)
and because people sue doesn’t mean they have any case. Speaking of mishearing, I’ve been dealing with that from the first comment….actually, I’ve been accused of speaking out of both sides of my mouth, falsely representing myself and the argument… exactly why do you think people WANT to hear they are an abomination before the Lord and perverted sinners? Just so they can point those people out as bigots? Certainly cheers my Saturdays….
Simply walking away when you are called perverted seems to suggest that you believe the accusation was correct….
990th!
The only compelling interest the state has in a bakery is in making sure the baked goods won’t kill the customer. The state ought not have the slightest interest in the reason the baker chooses to not engage in commerce.
Unless, of course, one happens to believe that the state has a compelling interest in preventing crimethink.
Doubleplusungood that
Ernst, and that the business will not encroach on other business properties, and that it’s operations will not put other property or first responders at risk, that it will not contribute to health hazards by mishandling by by-products and waste, that it will contribute to the value of the community by maintaining physical structures and public appearances….
There are a lot of regulations upon businesses designed to benefit both the immediate neighborhood and the larger community that are applied equally to all businesses regardless of their product or service. Also included are things like allowable services, hours and signage. People like regulations when they support the purpose and oppose them when they don’t…..otherwise they’d be libertarians…
So which one of those is the rubric under which thou shalt bake the nice lesbian ladies a cake, irrespective of the fact that your religious beliefs which you are free to exercise so long as you’re not on the clock?
And is
“I’m sorry, I can’t help you. My faith teaches me that homosexuality/homosexual marriage is an abomination before the Lord. It’s perverted and sinful. And I can’t be a part of it.”
The same as saying
“Get out my Bakery you sinners and perverts! You’re an abomination unto the Lord!”
Compelling interests:
http://triblive.com/news/westmoreland/3369194-74/bookstore-adult-protest
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&dat=19970513&id=fOo0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=PQ4EAAAAIBAJ&pg=4028,4679739
http://www.sanclementetimes.com/blog/2013/07/24/letter-to-the-editor-threat-of-new-sex-store-in-san-clemente/
From the last story: “Adult-oriented businesses are highly controlled and regulated, with an entire section of the Municipal Code allocated to restricting the location and operation of such businesses.”
Community standards are not established and enforced via shame, but by the force of law and State power….
exactly why do you think people WANT to hear they are an abomination before the Lord and perverted sinners? Just so they can point those people out as bigots?
It was, perhaps, to allow the Righteous Tears Of Butthurtedness to be seen more clearly in the Light Of Public Investigation And Rehabilitation.
Who knows why they wouldn’t have gone somewhere else when told that they wouldn’t be sold what they asked for? (They do, of course, but self-serving statements tend to be questionable.)
Too bad all the hypotheticals you refuse to answer tend to show you up as the hypocrite you are…
I’m sorry, I was responding to your point that the ONLY compelling state interest is in that the bakers don’t kill someone with their goods.
No, the two comments are not the same – one is dripping with disdain and the other is spewing hatred.
But for the OR bakers, they were accused of the second but claimed to be offering the first, well, with this ‘minor’ variation:
““I’m sorry. My faith teaches me that homosexuality/homosexual marriage is an abomination before the Lord. It’s perverted and sinful. And I can’t be a part of it. Would you like to take one of our muffins to go?”
I can hate you all I like and the state has no business in the matter unless and until I cause you harm. Your feelings being bruised doesn’t count.
Oh, and 997th!
“one is dripping with disdain and the other is spewing hatred.”
Well at least they weren’t fulminating with otherworldly malice or simply crimethink.
Are there no penumbrae or emanations cast yet ?
One caveat, Pablo. You cannot urge others to act on your (hypothetical) hatred. That falls under “incitement”. You can only persuade others to agree with you.
998…
Might as well round out the 1,000
Yes, youtube Mohammed parody movies regularly sink foreign policies.
people with 5 kids what throw their livelihood in the trash cause they hate gay people are bad parents
now they be food stampin
Pikachus who suffer from a diarrhea of words and a constipation of thought shouldn’t blog drunk…
chop, chop i hear
damn 1003
“throw their livelihood in the trash” = being targeted by a mob of self appointed thought police
someone left the cake out in the rain and I don’t think that I can take it cause it took so long to bake it and I’ll never have that recipe again
it’s all so fucking tragic
i hope it wasn’t orange cake too much oh-8 in dat
Pablo, it has never been my position that your beliefs or hatred or condemnation or tolerance have any bearing on my positions. People are free to offer (or not) whatever justification for their actions (or inactions) they choose. That freedom is inherent in each of us. The State may demand it’s pound of flesh, but I have considerably more than that to give.
The reason for not accepting change is that for 10,000 years the status quo has worked fine. It takes a truly encompassing mind to consider the past to be a virtue, a beacon and guide to the future. Animals rut and procreate because it is in their nature to do so. It is their only purpose, live, bear offspring, die. I think we can do more than that.
” The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.”
The world speaks with one language again. 0 1
Cakes are for closers
The reason for not accepting change
proggtarded
The reason for not accepting change is that for 10,000 years the status quo has worked fine.
go newton and einstein you bloody nincompoop
The reason for not accepting change is that for 10,000 years the status quo has worked fine.
You ignore the second part of that. You need to show why the alternative you are suggesting is better, not just different.
There is a reason why marriage has lasted 10,000 years, while living in caves has not.
“There is a reason why marriage has lasted 10,000 years, while living in caves has not.”
Answered. But, pretend I didn’t anyway…
My fault then for not expressing that differently then.
I hesitate to comment, since I don’t understand your point here.
Oh, would you please point out where you showed that same sex marriage is a better alternative? Because I think even YOU missed it.
Millennia of trial and error across countless cultures, versus something that has never existed anywhere on the planet, but hey, maybe Daddy will notice you if you kick your heels loud enough…
Drumwaster, I keep saying A and you keep saying AH HA! Z!
I never said same sex marriage is ‘better’, or that ‘traditional marriage’ is ‘worse, or bad, or needs killing off. In 1000 messages you haven’t gotten ONE thing I said right. But hey, you showed me!
Ernst, don’t bother with it. Perspective is based on the place you are looking from.
I never said same sex marriage is ‘better’
Good. We agree. If it isn’t better, then why should anything be changed? Merely because it’s “different”?
But hey, you showed me!
You have ignored question after question about the reasons behind it, and you demand to be taken seriously? You have shown yourself to be no more grown up than the whiny-ass couple that thought their right to not be butthurt by random strangers overrides the Constitution. And don’t even start trying to play the victim card, either, STUPID.
No Drumwaster, I haven’t ignored your questions, you just don’t accept the answers I choose to offer. I haven’t DEMANDED anything. WTF….victim card? Really? Amazing…..and people call ME obtuse….
Because love! Feelings, you see. Emotion uber alles. That works every fucking time.
No. Let’s bother with it. I would like to know what you mean by that bit of Genesis you’ve bracketed (as Jeff would say) there.
You have refused to answer several questions, including at least one from Darleen. You have ignored several unpleasant facts. You have kept trying to rephrase the argument while ignoring reality, ignoring the facts, and ignoring the law. You have admitted that nothing you have to offer is a better alternative, but defended the actions of the pinkshirts.
Why exactly do you think anyone should take you seriously?
“I haven’t DEMANDED anything”
Got ya there drumwaster.
Passive aggressive is the name of this game…
the greatest of these is love
Charity, actually.
Ernst, did you read the paragraph BEFORE the Scripture? Even the last TWO lines of it? Even the LAST line of it?
the last one from Darleen: “….to force a business to perform the activities normally associated with that business… As defined by whom?”
My statement, a response to Pablo, that she quoted only a part of was:
Pablo: “No, we were discussing what constitutes a compelling state interest”
….to force a business to perform the activities normally associated with that business….
Her demand to know who decided what activities normally associated with that business was answered by:
“I mean operate their business as it is established to do: a photographer taking photos, a baker baking, a printer printing, an attorney advising, a restaurant serving food, a pharmacist dispensing drugs, a doctor performing surgery…”
I understand a comment thread can be confusing with multiple thoughts going on at one time, but try and keep up…
LBascom: “Passive aggressive is the name of this game…”
Actually, I’ve tried to refrain from tit-for-tat name calling….
“I mean operate their business as it is established to do: a photographer taking photos, a baker baking, a printer printing, an attorney advising, a restaurant serving food, a pharmacist dispensing drugs, a doctor performing surgery…”
Scroll up to the mention of Stephen King. I’ll wait. (Waiters gonna Wait.)
You can then start scrolling upward from there and answering the ones you “missed” the first through the hundredth times.
Love has never been a requirement for marriage.
Nor has lust, for that matter.
“I’ve tried to refrain from tit-for-tat name calling”
Is that what passive aggressive behavior is to you?
“try and keep up…”
You GOT to be kidding me? Drumwaster, here ya go….maybe you should try the scroll bar….
“Stephen King writes a book and then seeks to sell copies of that book. If he were refusing to sell a copy of his book to someone because of a religious objection to that person or what that person might do with the book later – such as burn it a bonfire rejecting all books about the evil supernatural things – THEN it would be a comparable situation.”
Specifically offered to Darleen: https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=50840#comment-1017075
Amusingly enough, that didn’t answer the question that was asked. Almost as though it were intentional.
You are confusing “selling” a book with “writing” a book.
As in, should King be made to write a book about the life of Jesus when clearly he don’t wanna do no such thing.
(I’m guessing you thought no one would notice.)
(Wrong.)
Sure LBascom, I am sure you have a more useful and accepted definition, like: “indirect expression of hostility,” Given that I am comfortable calling idiots and morons, idiots and morons, the lack of doing so, which I assume you imply is indirect hostility towards people I don’t call idiots and morons, is evidence of passive-agressiveness. Which means you think you know what is going on in my head…..and that the words I write are just carriers without their own meaning.
Or it could be that I don’t really CARE enough to have any particular hostility towards people I don’t know….
See? LBascom got it. Why can’t you?
Drumwaster:
Actually it did, I just didn’t accept the premise offered, noting the “THEN it would be a comparable situation.”
LBascom, I wasn’t confused by it at all. Two DIFFERENT situations, I noted the differences and addressed the question without the implied premise.
sunny day sweeping the clouds away
i’m on my way to where the air is sweet
please to tell me how to get
how to get to Sweet Cakes by Melissa!
me and her we gonna hate on some homos and lick the bowl
I just didn’t accept the premise offered
You didn’t answer the question that was asked, choosing instead to toss out a few straw men, then torch them. Nice bright light, too, but it illuminated things you would probably rather have kept hidden.
Meanwhile, back in reality, the question remains unanswered.
“I am sure you have a more useful and accepted definition, like: “indirect expression of hostility,”
Did you google?
Nah, I don’t really know the official definition. It’s kinda like [an] art, I just know it when I see it.
Funny though, the other big SSM promoter here (happyfeet) is also prone to passive aggressive behavior.
Must be a queer thang…
Yeah. I did. Four times now. And I thought I would be polite and ask you to clarify what you were trying to say instead of assuming that were trying to lawyer Scripture.
And by that I mean, the text doesn’t mean what it’s author says it means. It means what I can convince a judge, jury, public opinion, whatever the audience is I need to convince, that it means.
So instead of trying to engage with you, I’ll preach at you instead. That way we can both feel good about ourselves. /sarc
There’s that gnosticism thing again. You do know that gnosticism is Utopian, don’t you, and that all Utopian schemes, however well intended, are bound to end in misery and failure? Would you like to know why?
Thats what happens when people don’t accept the premise offered by a question, IT doesn’t get answered directly.
My answer to Darleen’s question would be: what does Stephen King have to do with it? Which doesn’t really move the conversation along at all….
LBascom….did someone ask Stephen King to write a book about Jesus that he refused to?
LBascom…oh, sorry, didn’t mean for a fact to get in the way of your artful interpretation…
Going with this iteration of an oft-repeated argument Tracy’s made here because it was the first one I could find by scrolling up:
That’s a conversation ender, not a conversation starter.
And yet, there’s always a “but…” after it.
I’m still amused that the First Amendment is apparently meaningless, because the arguments being advanced are hilarious when couched in “I get to define the premise” terms…
The State’s zoning regulations, business and professions codes, and health laws apparently get to serve as a backdoor to the Establishment Clause, in that they can apparently force people to believe and conduct themselves as though they believed something that many religions are diametrically opposed to. That forces a religious belief using the coercive force of the State. They also override the Free Exercise Clause in that they can apparently force someone to overcome their religious beliefs if they wish to earn a livelihood within the State.
Tenth Amendment and all, though, no doubt.
what does Stephen King have to do with it?
Pick your own author, since you choose deliberate obtuseness. Should they be forced to write something they do not wish to, no matter how much money was offered?
“Actually it did, I just didn’t accept the premise offered, noting the “THEN it would be a comparable situation.”
That is where you are wrong. It is the difference between the creative process, where a part of the creator is invested in the process, and the marketing of the creation, which is something all together different, and often (as was the case in this bakers experiance) totally immaterial to the artist, ie. the creator.
Ernst, so….saying I believe that we can be more than just procreating, and noting that God says nothing is impossible, is an attempt to lawyer Scripture.
As to the gnosticism…nope. Never bothered with it beyond a quick take of a general definition to try and understand the use. I tend to believe that Uptopian ideas are kinda like Monday quarterbacking, delusions of ideals.
Certainly not in the direction you wish to take it.
Ernst gets it, too.
I’m betting you get the point, too, or else you wouldn’t be twisting so hard to try and avoid the obviously unpleasant conclusion.
It is in when you fail to note God didn’t say that approvingly. As what happens next demonstrates. The moral of the story is that we are creatures. Extraordinary ones, to be sure, but creatures nonetheless. While we can will the impossible it is not in our nature to achieve all that we would will.
Drumwaster: “what does Stephen King have to do with it? Pick your own author, since you choose deliberate obtuseness. Should they be forced to write something they do not wish to, no matter how much money was offered?”
Premise: writer refuses to write something they don’t wish to because money was offered is THE SAME as baker offering to bake cakes but then refusing to bake a cake.
It’s not the same. No matter what writer is involved. No, a writer should not be forced to write something they don’t want to write. How is THAT different than anything else I have said? A baker should not be forced to bake something they don’t WANT to bake. So, a baker of COOKIES shouldn’t be forced to bake CAKES. A baker of CUPCAKES shouldn’t be forced to bake muffins. What ‘force’ is being applied to a baker of cakes being asked to bake cakes? What FORCE is being used in OR?
tracy
King doesn’t sell direct to the public. He has a contract with a publisher. Now, said publisher may take whatever King is willing to write, but writers are still *hired* to produce a product.
Take any non-big name writer out there that is a sole business. Most do not sell retail, they write at the pleasure of a publisher —
Can a writer refuse to contract with a publisher that they have done previous business with based on the content the publisher wants to see them produce?
Here’s something … there are a lot of retail items you will NOT see in certain stores because the manufacturer limits who they will sell to.
Based on image e.g.
You will not see Coach purses in Walmart.
Why is Coach allowed to discriminate?
It’s not the same.
Except that the premise is exactly the same.
Professional artist is asked to produce something that violates their conscience. Professional artist is offered money to do so, and argument is made, “Hey, it’s just doing what you do anyway”.
Should professional artist be forced to perform the function they carry out, even though they know the act will violate their conscience?
You can trader any number of occupations in where I have typed “Professional artist”: baker, author, prostitute, doctor, whatever…
Still unanswered. Still unsurprised.
Ernst, Whether God was approving or disapproving doesn’t detract from the statement. We are not God, we will never be able to do all that we can envision, but that is not reason to not try.
“did someone ask Stephen King to write a book about Jesus that he refused to? ”
Does someone actually have to ask before the parallel is relevant?
I see you are trying to move from passive aggressive to aggressively ignorant.
Not much of an improvement IMO…
LBascom, you can restate the premise and you can say that I am wrong, but I still reject the premise.
Oh, here’s something you see in Hollywood a lot
a studio will make a deal with a producer — producer gets to make the movie HE wants if he makes one that the studio wants first.
IIRC that’s how Schindler’s list got made. Spielberg had to make Jurassic Park first.
Spielberg is like a cinnamon for quality if not genius he wrote the screenplay for Goonies
Tracy
the point is, every transaction between people should be as voluntary as possible and free of coercion, especially State coercion.
The State’s compelling interest is health & safety and not much more.
And certainly The State has no compelling interest to violate the Free Exercise of one person for something so trivial as hurt feelings.
Or ideation of delusions.
That’s my fault for not doing more than name-dropping Voegelin. Modern gnosticism, neo-gnosticim, refers to ideological thinking that posits an explaination or theory capable of unlocking all the secrets and mysteries of the human experience, thus enabling man to transcend the limits of that experience.. The most obvious one is Marx’s material dialectic.
But… but… but… ZONING LAWS!!!111!eleventy!
“So, a baker of COOKIES shouldn’t be forced to bake CAKES. A baker of CUPCAKES shouldn’t be forced to bake muffins. What ‘force’ is being applied to a baker of cakes being asked to bake cakes?”
Good grief, you have no more idea of what it is to create a wedding cake than what it is to make a marriage.
If you think it is comparable to whipping up a Betty Crocker box cake , why did’t the lesbo’s just whip up their own cake the morning of the wedding?
Probably coulda saved themselves hundreds of dollars.
Darleen: “King doesn’t sell direct to the public. He has a contract with a publisher. Now, said publisher may take whatever King is willing to write, but writers are still *hired* to produce a product.”
Which means they were PAID to produce a product. Refusing to then produce the product would be a breach of contract. The Bakers were not PAID to produce a cake which they then refused to do. They refused the ‘contract’ to produce anything. They were not asked to produce something they never produce – they make cakes, they were asked for a cake.
“Can a writer refuse to contract with a publisher that they have done previous business with based on the content the publisher wants to see them produce?”
Sure.
“Here’s something … there are a lot of retail items you will NOT see in certain stores because the manufacturer limits who they will sell to.”
Therefore, if the certain store you go to doesn’t have the item, they can’t be forced to provide it. Kinda like a kosher deli not having ham can’t be forced to sell ham.
“Why is Coach allowed to discriminate?”
Is the lack of Coach in Walmart evidence of discrimination? or an inability of a buyer and seller to reach an agreement?
So, that I am not accused of refusing to answer the question: Why not? Have they offered to sell their product to anyone that asks? Has someone asked to purchase Coach products for resale but demanded a lower price than Coach set? Has Walmart complained that Coach sells to Target but not to them? Does Coach do that?
Drumwaster: “Should professional artist be forced to perform the function they carry out, even though they know the act will violate their conscience?”
No.
Ok, next scenario. Should a baker be forced to bake a cake? no. Should a photographer be forced to take a photo? no. Should a printer be force to print something? no.
Same answer I have given in 200(?) comments.
Show me the baker that has been forced to bake a cake. Show me the photographer that has been forced to take a photo.
That’s just what Lenin thought.
And Hitler.
Trotsky
Stalin
Mao
Pol Pot
Three generations of Kims
Jim Jones.
Those Raellian (sp?) freaks with their comet fetish
The New Dealers, the New Frontiersmen, the Great Society socialites.
And anyone and everyone else who ever had a Vision (or suscribed to on) that they thought made them worthy of Annointment.
(The last is Thomas Sowell reference, by the way.)
they make cakes, they were asked for a cake.
King writes books, he is asked for a book. Nope, nothing alike here. At. All.
(Does it hurt to be that stupid?)
Tracy
Coach will not sell to Walmart regardless of how much Walmart is will to pay.
This is pretty darn standard in retail. Levi used to refuse to have any of its products in ‘discount’ stores. Even when selling buckets.
It has to do with IMAGE.
Drumwaster: “Should professional artist be forced to perform the function they carry out, even though they know the act will violate their conscience?”
No.
Unless it’s for something that a gay couple demands. FOR THE TOLERANCE.
Tracy
When a photographer is fined or driven out of business because they refuse to do the State’s bidding, it is equivalent of being forced to take that picture.
Lbascom: “Good grief, you have no more idea of what it is to create a wedding cake than what it is to make a marriage.”
No comment….just noting that I saw your comment.
Darleen, she ignored that point above. Please don’t force her to ignore it again. ;)
Darleen: “Coach will not sell to Walmart regardless of how much Walmart is will to pay. This is pretty darn standard in retail. Levi used to refuse to have any of its products in ‘discount’ stores. Even when selling buckets. It has to do with IMAGE.”
Ok. I doubt Coach is relying on religious beliefs, so I am unsure of the relevance…..
Five-letter word. Starts with ‘I’. Synonym for “picture”, although that wasn’t the definition used.
Tracy
Don’t you see, Coach gets to discriminate among its clients and no one says “boo”. And the reason is trivial since, allegedly, every one’s dollar is the same.
However, we have businesses JUST as creative as Coach being driven out of business and their reason for refusing clients is Constitutionally protected Exercise of religion.
Why can Coach (or Levi) refuse to sell, but a photographer cannot?
“(Does it hurt to be that stupid?)”
I think there’s an old saw that applies here.
-You will never reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.
Glad we got that settled.
So if a baker refuses to bake you a cake, should you be able to sue him? Should the Baker be subjected to an investigation by the Bureau of Labor and Industries?
Darleen: “When a photographer is fined or driven out of business because they refuse to do the State’s bidding, it is equivalent of being forced to take that picture.”
No it is not. It is a choice. Just like slavery is a choice. the photographer can have a license from the state and follow it’s rules or the photographer can say, I don’t want to follow your rules and the state can say, fine, no license. Coach and Walmart. Buyers and sellers. State wants photographers, offers licenses to photographers to do business. Photographers want license to do business. State says ‘do this’ for license, photographer says no. No meeting of the minds, no agreement between buyer and seller, no contract. All choice.
You don’t like the terms the State sets…we have a process to change that. I’ve said I oppose the Civil Rights Act, I oppose anti-discrimination laws. I am in the very distinct minority. Even if I got everyone that agrees with me to sign a petition, there probably isn’t enough to get it on any ballots (where allowed). Certainly not enough votes to get it passed. No one else here has suggested their position on it.
Another (from Twain, I think): “Man is not a rational creature. Man is a rationalizing creature.”
Just like slavery is a choice. the photographer can have a license from the state and follow it’s rules or the photographer can say, I don’t want to follow your rules and the state can say, fine, no license
So much for the First Amendment. Redux.
“Surrender your conscience or your livelihood”. Nope, no coercion there…
Tracy
Sorry, but no. The State is to secure the photographer’s Constitutional rights. The State is acting illegally in requiring the surrender of Constitutional rights as a condition of livelihood.
State says ‘do this’ for license
Which is actually kind of amusing, in that the State itself says “don’t do this” when it comes to same sex marriage, but who needs the laws when you have a lesson to teach, right?
Tracy
See “Poll Tax”
Darleen: “Don’t you see, Coach gets to discriminate among its clients and no one says “boo”. And the reason is trivial since, allegedly, every one’s dollar is the same.”
WHY is Coach discriminating? Is it doing so because of religious beliefs? Businesses, even OR cake baking shops, get to discriminate. It is the REASON they are discriminating. It is a BUSINESS issue to say we don’t want our product sold below $x – they don’t discriminate against Walmart, they discriminate against ANY business that wants to sell their product below $x. YOU said it, it is a business function, to maintain an IMAGE, one that has value, actual $ value that can be shown to be impacted by the selling of their product below $x.
The OR bakers can say, no shirt, no shoes, no service. The bakers can say, no coming in the store with your pet. They can say no to an offer of $20 for a $200 cake. They can say ‘get out of our store’ to someone covered in feces and reaking of booze. The OR bakers are saying no to a customer with the money required, asking for a product they produce, because the purpose to which the product will be used is a violation of their religious beliefs. Stephen King isn’t refusing because of his religious beliefs, Coach isn’t refusing because of his religious beliefs. Maybe Stephen King hasn’t got a clue who Jesus is and can’t therefore write about Jesus. Ignoring the whole ‘mythical’ versus non-fictional issue….
Ernst: “So if a baker refuses to bake you a cake, should you be able to sue him?”
We allow anyone to sue anyone for just about any reason. Some huge percentage of lawsuits are dismissed before ever going to trial. Should I be able to WIN the lawsuit? Different question, lots of qualifiers, lots of variables, no way to answer.
Is it doing so because of religious beliefs?
And there we have it. It’s perfectly okay to discriminate against poor people and those in the inner cities, but if you claim that it’s religious instead of financial, you’re evil.
Still haven’t answered her original question, either. Color me shocked.
Except, y’know, not.
That only works when you get to refuse to accept the premise that the photographer wouldn’t photograph a gay marriage even when the paying client was straight either.
.
Darleen: “Sorry, but no. The State is to secure the photographer’s Constitutional rights. The State is acting illegally in requiring the surrender of Constitutional rights as a condition of livelihood.”
That is ONE purpose of the State. And while no one here seems to like it, a State doesn’t set laws arbitrarily. Those laws are voted into place. When they apply to every business equally, the Supreme Court has generally done what the Constitution says: stay out of it, let the States handle it. (commerce clause bullshit notwithstanding). Generally, courts have held that a business doesn’t have Constitutional protections, individuals do. Which is why I said businesses like Hobby Lobby will likely lose it’s fight against Obamacare provisions on the basis of religious freedom.
Darleen: “See “Poll Tax”” not sure the intent/purpose/meaning/application….
Drumwaster, I keep asking you if a person needs a wedding license to be able to buy a wedding cake. I think you answered, no. So, bringing up that ssm isn’t legal in OR doesn’t actually matter.
Although, it was noted in one analysis of the AZ case that the state was requiring the photographer to acknowledge a ssm when the state itself was not doing so. So, your position Drumwaster is being noted….and ignored…..
Ernst, I don’t think so. Terms of the agreement are more than just WHO the buyer and seller are.
“me and her we gonna hate on some homos and lick the bowl”
The angry fascist demonization process advocated by Happyfeet
Not baking you a cake = hate => mandatory acquisition by the decared thought criminal of a subhuman “fair game” status making any form of reprisal by slander, intimidation, boycott, whispering campaign, guilt by association tactics or whatever a means a form of activist piety
If you don’t bake someone a cake then you obviously hate them and hate is hate. Thus any two acts of hatred are the same. Burning your house down and not baking you a cake are the same thing. They are hate. Hate must be punished and rooted out and destroyed. So charge the bakery with arson and attempted first degree murder.
The consequences of the act and the act itself are immaterial. Outputs are irrelevant. Only forbidden logical operators are relevant.We must regulate the intent or the effort is merely palliative rather than therapeutic.
Ernst, since Drumwaster is on this kick that I don’t answer questions,
“Should the Baker be subjected to an investigation by the Bureau of Labor and Industries?”
Do you mean, should a business, that a consumer complains about, be subject to that complaint being investigated? Sure. V’s practice was subject to investigations whenever a former client complained (4 times in 30 years), and each of those investigations resulted in a finding of ‘no cause’. So, yes. If a consumer complains, then they are subject to investigation. We don’t know what the result is in OR because it has not been concluded. It might be, ‘no cause’.
That is ONE purpose of the State
sorry, but it is the ONLY purpose of the State under our Constitution.
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
That is the only function of government as the Founders intended – to protect (“secure” ) the rights granted by our Creator. The Bill of Rights limits the Government (which includes the Business Licensing Division) from infringing upon those rights more explicitly.
So, bringing up that ssm isn’t legal in OR doesn’t actually matter.
It matters a great deal if you are trying to justify the State agents trying to force a Professional Artist to not only violate his own conscience, but to support something that the State explicitly disavows. And why would support of SSM be required for one license mandated by the State, but specifically repudiated for another license also mandated by the State?
Oh, right, logic isn’t familiar territory for you…
a State doesn’t set laws arbitrarily. Those laws are voted into place.
Tell it to the citizens of California that voted to define marriage. Twice. Tell it to the State of Oregon that also voted against recognizing SSM. Those laws apparently don’t count, because feelings. Or something.
I’ve figured out the Problem.
Darleen, Lee, Drumwaster, Pablo and myself are approaching this from the perspective of justice and injustice.
Tracy wants to talk about legal and illegal.
Which kinda puts her on the same team as Bull Connor, metaphorically speaking, does it not?
“Tell it to the citizens of California that voted to define marriage. Twice. Tell it to the State of Oregon that also voted against recognizing SSM. Those laws apparently don’t count, because feelings. Or something”
Something.
Drumwaster: “sorry, but it is the ONLY purpose of the State under our Constitution.
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..”
Wasn’t it you that had an issue with my quoting the Declaration? So, you making a statement about the Constitution and then quoting the Declaration is…??
I call your attention to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution for a list of purposes of the FEDERAL government. The States have much broader latitude in what they can and can’t do.
OK. Let me try to make the point I was trying to get at, and failed differently.
As the saying goes, Who do I have to fuck to get to abuse the law in order to punish people who don’t aggree with me?
Oh. I think we do know:
I’m not so sure of that Ernst. I have a feeling tracy believes what happened to the bakers was justice. ‘Cuz of the bigotry and discrimination.
I know she’s argued from a legal standpoint, but not consistently so.
Another way of describing the source of disagreement is the moral dimension of the law versus the social utility of the law.
“The States have much broader latitude in what they can and can’t do.”
I think you need to google “inalienable”…
Ernst: “Darleen, Lee, Drumwaster, Pablo and myself are approaching this from the perspective of justice and injustice. Tracy wants to talk about legal and illegal.”
I can accept that…. except I do acknowledge the ‘justice/injustice’. I agree that businesses can’t be forced to do something. Everyone else seems to want to stop there. AH HA, the business is being forced and everyone agrees that is wrong. Except….it is not being ‘forced’. I kinda accept the ‘coerced’ point of view – but it is still not the state doing it (at this point in OR). Even in NM, the photographer was not ‘forced’ or even coerced. She was forced to pay the attorney fees of the complaintant (btw, had this been a civil suit that the photographer lost, that would have been the least outcome), there was no fine or loss of license.
If the OR couple loses, they are free to ‘sue’ the State stating it violated their Constitutionally protected freedoms.
I keep hearing that we are a nation of laws, not men. Fine. There are PLENTY of bad laws, unjust laws, corrupt laws, even unconstitutional laws, but as long as they are on the books, people ignore them at a potential cost.
Ernst: “As the saying goes, Who do I have to fuck to get to abuse the law in order to punish people who don’t aggree with me?”
Newrouter?
Abuse or use? Because I am only hearing that people object to the complaint being made, not that it exceeds any particular limit…
“Oh. I think we do know:”
More than likely….given the comments, they will be told, ‘BAD PEOPLE, don’t do that again. or else….we will take your license away’.
Tracy’s argument is confused because she’s invested in the idea that there are vulnerable social groups who’ve been victimized by society as a whole, and thus needing government provided redress and protection, while also trying to maintain she supports individual rights.
Or so it seems to me.
“the moral dimension of the law versus the social utility of the law. ”
Yeah, that may be closer to the rub.
Personally, I think tracy would make marching in the international gay pride parade mandatory for every man woman and child in the world if she had the power. For the tolerance.
It’s an abuse. The lesbian couple weren’t harmed in any meaningful way. And neither is society.
.
FTFY, as they say. But hey, choice right?
Further improvement…
LBascom: “I’m not so sure of that Ernst. I have a feeling tracy believes what happened to the bakers was justice. ‘Cuz of the bigotry and discrimination. I know she’s argued from a legal standpoint, but not consistently so.”
My points:
1. The OR bakers have the freedom to refuse to serve anyone for any reason.
2. The intimidation and threats made against the businesses and persons were likely criminal and should be treated as such.
2. The community has the freedom to support a business, directly or indirectly. It also has the freedom to NOT support a business, directly or indirectly. The OR bakers saw a significant boost in business when the story first broke, but in the long run, their business suffered.
3. NO ONE ever has the right or freedom to threaten a person or property(business) with violence.
4. A person can offer products and services from their home with few requirements (usually zoning and taxation), but when they open a public business, generally localities have licensing requirements – businesses that wish to operate/sell to the public at large, have to conform to the laws and regulations that govern businesses licensed to operate.
5. A business is free to discriminate. A business is free to discriminate without consequence if such discrimination conforms to the aforementioned laws and regulations.
6. Many bad laws exist. I think anti-discrimination laws are bad. Very few people agree with me.
7. Refusing to follow a law, for whatever reason, is likely to result in consequences.
Some of those points are legal, some are justice, some are ‘I don’t get how selling cookies, cupcakes and cakes to a customer is ok, but a wedding cake is not’. Because it is clear that the OR bakers would not have sold ANYTHING to the gay couple if the purpose was to be used in a celebration of their ssm, but would have sold them anything to eat for dessert at dinner that night.
Is it the same as saying ‘stealing is bad’ but when stealing from a thief it is ok? Maybe not.
Ernst: “Tracy’s argument is confused because she’s invested in the idea that there are vulnerable social groups who’ve been victimized by society as a whole, and thus needing government provided redress and protection, while also trying to maintain she supports individual rights. Or so it seems to me.”
Hmmm, nope. I oppose the Civil Rights Act. I oppose anti-discrimination laws, I oppose affirmative action programs of any kind. I note that those laws exist however, and that ignoring them has consequences. I support civil disobedience – I speed all the time. I don’t complain (much) when I get a speeding ticket. Ignore/violate the law at your own peril. I get people want to complain about bad laws. I do too.
She wouldn’t make it mandatory.
You’d have the choice of going to rehab instead.
/sarc
The point being that I think Tracy has confused the right to enter into or not to enter into commerce on an individual basis with the right to either engage in commerce, any commerce, or no commerce whatsoever.
That’s kindergartener morality. Candy for everyone, or nobody gets candy.
“I don’t get how selling cookies, cupcakes and cakes to a customer is ok, but a wedding cake is not’ ”
After some 1100 comments, I get that you don’t get it.
There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.
Ernst: “It’s an abuse. The lesbian couple weren’t harmed in any meaningful way. And neither is society.”
No one is harmed by my going 50 in a 45 zone, but it is illegal. No one is harmed by someone smoking a little grass in their living room, but it is illegal. No one is harmed if you report $100 in charitable giving on your taxes but really only gave $10, but it is illegal.
“I get people want to complain about bad laws. I do too.”
That is such horseshit. The people lost their business because a mob of pervs threatened the lives of anyone that patronized the store, and their children too. The law had nothing to do with it.
LBascom: ““I don’t get how selling cookies, cupcakes and cakes to a customer is ok, but a wedding cake is not’ ” After some 1100 comments, I get that you don’t get it. There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.”
I see it. I understand the position of the bakers. I assume, that if the couple came in and asked for 3 dozen cookies to put in little wedding gifts on the dinner plates, the bakers would refuse to do that also. It is still unclear whether the couple actually got married (outside OR) or whether they were just having a ‘wedding’ to celebrate their relationship with friends and family. If the former, then the position of the OR bakers makes sense in that, as Darleen(?) pointed out, marriage is a community thing, but if it were the later, then the celebration had no meaning except to the couple and their friends/family.
I guess all that is irrelevant…..I don’t understand how you can call the marriage an abomination without calling the relationship one, and if the relationship is, how the participants in that relationship are not. It is accepting a little abomination and refusing a larger one.
What’s clear is that is an assertion on your part. The counter-assertion on my part is the two lesbians could have gone into the bakery, bought a cake or brownies or whatever off the shelf and left again with the baker none the wiser as to the use they intended for the brownies. But by ordering a cake for their gay wedding, they forced the baker to choose between commerce and his conscience.
Which, according to you, he’s free to do, and you support his freedom to do so, so long as he doesn’t mind losing his livlihood if he chooses his conscience instead of commerce.
That’s the new social morality of collective coercion, not the old, classically liberal morality of inividual action.
That’s it for me.
LBascom: “That is such horseshit. The people lost their business because a mob of pervs threatened the lives of anyone that patronized the store, and their children too. The law had nothing to do with it.”
Evidence? Mob of pervs (perverts?). Threatened the LIVES of the bakers, their customers and their children? EVIDENCE? Police reports? Oh, and they closed the storefront, THEY said they were still in business.
Yep….choices have consequences.
….maybe Drumwaster will answer the question I posed but no one would answer: is it ok for a Muslim shopkeeper to refuse to sell to a woman not covered by a burqa? a simple yes or no.
yea Ernst, part of the ‘render unto Cesar’, part of that ‘being part of the world’….that ‘one foot in, one foot out’ pragmatism. The OR baker didn’t mind ignoring the rules as long as he got away with it. The law was in place before he got his license. Kinda hard to claim being a CO after joining the all volunteer Army.
Ernst’s assertion – if they just kept quiet, if they hid their celebration, then everything would have been ok. If however anyone suggested the bakers just hide that they made a cake, or if they just kept their beliefs to themselves, well, DAMN. Totally different.
Marriage is among the things that are God’s, not Caesar’s. And the phrase is in the world, not of the world, and there’s nothing pragmatic about it.
So you’re right, in spite of your sarcasm. Totally different.
Also, my assertion was intended as a demonstration of yours, not as an argument.
And thank you for proving my earlier point.
Several of them, actually, but I’m too tired to run down the links. Suffice it to say, the only choice the baker has is to choose between freely exercising his religion in the private sphere, or engaging in commerce in the public. He can’t do both. So there was never any middle ground, was there?
“choices have consequences”
So sayeth every mob seeking license to punish those they dislike.
It is THOUGHTCRIME!
Ernst, from your point of view, no.
The middle ground is, I hide who I am and conform to religious beliefs, or you don’t get an absolute right to your religious freedom.
My liberties get dictated by your religious freedom or your religious freedom is limited by my liberties.
I concede your religious freedom to choose whom you do business with and when. I expect no such concession on your part. (My liberty is an affront to your beliefs).
Just remember religious persecution was/is not just persecution OF the religious but persecution BY the religious.
Well, the bakery has now been slut-shamed out of existence, so STILL no wedding cake for the gay wedding. Nothing has been accomplished, other than the legitimization of slut-shaming.
But they were asking for it, what with that sexy dress and all.
…which doesn’t even begin to address the damage done to “a woman’s right to choose”.
Unless said right was all about making the RIGHT choices from the get-go.
The State, evidently, has the right to regulate everything. Other than voter registration, I mean.
My liberties get dictated by your religious freedom or your religious freedom is limited by my liberties
You’re getting your God all over my homosexuality!
Yet ANOTHER question that tracy has been dodging rears its ugly head: Why didn’t the couple simply go to a baker that would sell them what they want? There would have been no conflict of opposing values that way, and society would stumble onwards…
I know why (you can’t teach those godclingers the proper lesson that way), but I want to hear why YOU think they refused to simply act like adults…
And I would love to get a head count on who thinks that the baker would have been taken at all seriously if he were to report the lesbian couple to the State for attempting to violate his religious beliefs…
I mean, it’s not like the State of Oregon specifically mentions religion as a protected class or anything…
http://www.leg.state.or.us/orcons/orcons.html
But who needs laws when you have FEELINGS. Or something.
My middle ground is the baker declines the commission and the lesbians go to a different bakery for their wedding cake.
Unless you really think you’re <free to make me bake you a wedding cake for a wedding I want nothing to do with because I want. Which you say you don’t. Except that you do. Because you don’t just want a cake from any old bakery, you want my cake.
Because liberty?
pUH-shaw drumwaster
That just means the state can’t break down the door to your bedroom in order to catch you in the act of
sodomyprayer.‘Wedding Cake Entitlement’, just the latest entitlement ‘right’ that self-centered, self-serving ‘Americans’ decide they just can’t live without. How long can this ‘entitlement craze’ phase last?
Until the make-believe funds we’re running on run out, or the Gods of the Copybook Headings make their appearance. Or until our creation of new, enforced ‘enlightenments’ outstrips our ability to create new inequitables, and nirvana is achieved. On Earth as it is in Heaven. Or something.
I wouldn’t bet on the earthly nirvana thing happening anytime soon, if I were you.
Look at it this way: in Maslow’s (in)famous Hierarchy of Needs, exactly where do ‘Wedding CAKE, NOW!’ people rank? Certainly frivolous wedding cakes are not an important Need, a need that a well-adjusted person can’t live without.
I’m visualizing a subset of vacuous individuals who are demanding these Gay Wedding Cakes (the same-sex wannabe ‘marrieds’, and those who support their cry for CAAAAAAKE!!) as having pole-vaulted past the lower sections of Maslow’s hierarchy. By having had these early, basic, should-be-difficult-to-attain-and-hard-to-learn ‘needs’ given to them by whomever satisfies early needs (doting parents, government, whatever), they’ve failed to properly realize their handicaps. These CAKE! demanders have lost sight of what’s really important, what are real needs, and instead are fixated on bullshit.
If the lower rungs of their ‘satisfied-by-proxy needs’ ever collapse, how will these Demand our Wedding Cake! sorts cope? Not very well I’m guessing.
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2013/09/14/#007098
Drumwaster: “Yet ANOTHER question that tracy has been dodging rears its ugly head: Why didn’t the couple simply go to a baker that would sell them what they want? There would have been no conflict of opposing values that way, and society would stumble onwards… ”
Because they were insulted, they were yelled at, because they were called names. Because people don’t get verbally slapped and just say THANKS. Because ‘being all butt hurt’ means they were verbally FUCKED IN THE ASS and they didn’t like it. And while mean soup guy is real funny on Seinfeld, abusive clerks and business owners are not. So, while your question is premised on the wonderment of ‘why didn’t they just “SHUT THE FUCK UP PERVERTS AND GET OUT”, my wonderment is why you think that is perfectly fine behavior?
Since I have assumed that everything the OR bakers has said is true and the gay couple was lying about the entire affair hasn’t gotten me anywhere except to be called a liar and deceitful, I will henceforth assume everything the OR bakers said is a pack of shit and the gay couple were completely true and proceed from there.
Most reasonable people don’t believe a corporation is a ‘person’. The legal fiction that a corporation is a person is useful for many things, but generally we are not about to give a corporation it’s own identity for the full range of human liberties. First, it ISN’T a person, it is a collection of persons. And while that collection of persons do each individually have the full range of liberties, that corporation doesn’t. A corporation doesn’t have a freedom of religion, it is a FICTITIOUS entity. It is bound by the rules that create it. Now I don’t know the business form used by the OR baker, but the NM photographer was incorporated and the business does not have the liberty it’s employee does – so, the employee is able to walk away from any obligation to act against their religious belief, the business IS NOT. IT is obligated to provide services it offers to the public to anyone that has the means to pay for it.
Ernst: “Unless you really think you’re <free to make me bake you a wedding cake for a wedding I want nothing to do with because I want. Which you say you don’t. Except that you do. Because you don’t just want a cake from any old bakery, you want my cake."
Yea, because after a year or so of being served as customers, they determine that 1) the bakers make really good stuff and 2) they want to support their local business. And after all, their money was just fine when it suited the bakers, but now their money is not 'equal', it is filthy, unnatural, unclean abominations. Of course the responsible adult thing is to just tuck tail and run. So that those evil perverts can "be slut-shamed out of existence" and good honest god-fearin' folk don't have that perversion shoved down their throats.
Drumwaster: "but I want to hear why YOU think they refused to simply act like adults…"
Because being called filthy abominations and told they were unworthy to be sold a cake wasn't 'simply acting like adults'. "We don't serve your kind of perversion" tends to be taken as a humiliation, a rebuke, an accusation that they are behaving inappropriately for polite society. So, I gather the premise you insist on stating is, acting like adults = acting like whipped dogs, tuck tail and slink away.
Which of course will be waved away as being 'butt hurt', awwwww, poor hurt feelings, well, if they can't stand a little disagreement about their lifestyle….
Yea…that's all it was….
Because they were insulted, they were yelled at, because they were called names.
The baker denies this. So does logic (the baker had served them several times in the past with no problems, and would be unlikely IN THE EXTREME to start ranting at the mere mention of same-sex weddings). Self-serving. Hearsay. Inadmissible (as I’m sure you know).
my wonderment is why you think that is perfectly fine behavior?
I reject the premise of your libel. Why do you think it was okay for the lesbian couple to strip down and start having fun with each other on the floor of the bakery, to physically demonstrate to the baker the kind of relationship that would be going on? I mean, if I say that it happened that way, you have to respond, right?
Because being called filthy abominations and told they were unworthy to be sold a cake wasn’t ‘simply acting like adults’
But rolling around the floor in a pool of Crisco is? (I mean, if we are going to stereotype, let’s be equal…)
And while that collection of persons do each individually have the full range of liberties, that corporation doesn’t.
The corporation also cannot make the cake. As I AM SURE YOU KNOW, some people – especially small business people – incorporate for any number of reasons, but still maintain sole ownership. I did it myself when I ran my construction company. It is tricky to maintain the corporate wall between personal and corporate finances, but worthwhile (as well I know).
But it was never the corporation that went out to fix the plumbing or replace the roof, and nothing in the law could force the corporation to do that which the actual workers found religiously offensive. Because the corporation cannot do ANYTHING involving actual customer requests. That requires human hands. And human sensibilities. (You should try them someday.)
You have lost on the justice. You have lost on the law (both State and Federal Constitutions). You have lost on the facts.
Give it up…
You’re up against a single issue group that very literally cares about nothing else.
Drunk, corrupt, criminal, stupid, no problem. Just vote the “right way” on our one issue and you will get reelected by hook or by crook. This is the politics of BAMN and once adopted by one side of an issue the other side is reduced to choosing between abject surrender or becoming, hopefully at least temporarily, BAMN themselves.
This can work but one thing that the organizers pushing BAMN methods gain, no matter the outcome of a particular issue, is the erosion of our republican form of governance. That is what those activist community organizers are interested in, their end. The particular issue is just the means which is touted as an end to provide a fig leaf to cover the destructiveness of BAMN.
Drumwaster: “The baker denies this”
What, that isn’t self serving? Often formal documents, such as law suits, complaints and such have perjury statements as part of the signature. So, I don’t know the form, but it is likely that something along the line ‘the foregoing is a true and accurate description of the event(s)’. So, their statement carries that weight. YOUR pathetic little scenario has no such basis – there were no police reports, no witnesses to substantiate it. BTW, it is not hearsay to state what YOU heard.
Drumwaster: “The corporation also cannot make the cake.”
Yea, it can.
Drumwaster: “some people – especially small business people – incorporate for any number of reasons, but still maintain sole ownership. I did it myself when I ran my construction company. It is tricky to maintain the corporate wall between personal and corporate finances, but worthwhile (as well I know).”
It is also to limit liability, to leave liabilities with the corporation. To leave the obligations of the business, with the business. Including the obligation to adhere to state laws and regulations.
Drumwaster: ” nothing in the law could force the corporation to do that which the actual workers found religiously offensive” Wrong. While the pathetic notion of ‘forcing them’ is repeated over and over, no one is being ‘forced’ to do anything. There are fines for having FAILED to do something required. With the understand that 1) fines can be increased for repeated failures, 2) licensing can be withdrawn.
YES, businesses are being told they have a choice: adhere to the law or don’t receive a license to operate from the state.
Yea, it can.
No, it cannot. You can’t get a corporation to pour in the ingredients or put it into the oven or add the icing. Those are physical actions by a human being who has rights protected by the State and Federal Constitutions. As you point out, corporations are a legal fiction. A useful one, but they are incapable of physically performing any action. Even the issuance of a check requires human action at some point. Is that too basic for you?
adhere to the law
Please show me where Oregon Law states that people have to support same sex marriage ceremonies. Be specific, because you are going to have to outrank the State Constitution. Merely not discriminating, because we have repeatedly shown that no one could have purchased a cake for same sex weddings, no matter who they were or what they believed.
And “I swearsies” is not sufficient in a he-said/she-said case. They are alleging a highly unusual event took place, in the face of a specific denial. Both sides would be willing to swear under oath that their version of events are true, but only one side gets to make the complaint. Try looking up “burden of proof” for some chuckles. This doesn’t even rise to the level of “you’re shitting me, right?”…
“He… he *sob* called me an abomination!”
“Tsk, tsk, you poor misunderstood fragile flower… *patpat* Now, which arm was broken because he said that?”
(See also “actual harm”, while you’re looking up all the reasons why you are wrong.)
Already answered
Not as to why it’s perfectly fine behavior, but as to why such behavior, no matter how unsocial it may be, ought not be considered uncivil by the state and subject to remediation.
Or, perhaps to try to put it more clearly, the only way it makes moral sense that the baker be punished with the loss of his livlihood, or the rehabilition of his anti-social mindthoughts is if one believes that one has the right to go through life without having to experience pain or want, and that governments are instituted amongst men to make sure we all get to be sated and content.
That, of course, is only possible if we all want, or can be made to want the exact same things in the exact same way. And I hope we all know how that ends.
Name drop Huxley and Orwell, then insert oft-repeated C.S. Lewis and Tocquevill quotes that we all recognize here
All the churches of every denomination in the United States refute that assertion.
At least they do until the gendarmes stand behind the celebrant being compelled to perform a gay marriage ceremony in spite of religious objections because I WANT and SOCIAL JUSTICE.
Drumwaster: “Those are physical actions by a human being who has rights protected by the State and Federal Constitutions.”
Contracted by a corporation to provide. (agreement to follow the laws and regulations of the state as a condition of the ‘legal’ creation of the corporation and license to do business). The ‘corporation’ has to find PEOPLE that will fulfill it’s obligations. That your corporation consists of only one employee doesn’t absolve the corporation of its obligations.
Drumwaster: “Please show me where Oregon Law states that people have to support same sex marriage ceremonies”
No where. But is its YOUR belief that providing a cake, or chairs, or flowers, or invitations, or soda for a ssm ceremony constitutes ‘support’. I disagree. If I were providing the celebrant, or the license for a ssm ceremony, I might consider THAT constitutes support….but providing party favors? No. You can say it is religious freedom and I can call it horseshit excuse.
You see the right to religious freedom as absolute in any and all cases decided by you. I say that no right is absolute. That there ARE limitations. You can not free yourself of all laws by claiming a right to religious expression. There IS a limit. Where that limit is, is subject to continuing analysis. In NM, the court said that the corporation does NOT have religious freedom. You can disagree with it, you can object to it. But in a nation of laws, that is what the law is.
Someone brought up Prop 8. The SCOTUS held that marriage is a fundamental right. Writing into the state Constitution a law that denies that right violates the Constitutional protections. Allowing ssm doesn’t deny traditional marriage. My ability to get married doesn’t prevent you from getting married.
You want to pick and choose who you do business with, fine. If however you hold yourself out to the public, then it is the public you will serve. I am willing to change the law to ensure that freedom – YOU ARE NOT.
BTW, emotional distress is considered ‘actual harm’. Whether damages occurred, or are recoverable is a matter of findings.
Again, of course being called names, humilation is just ….sooooo sad.
Drumwaster: “And “I swearsies” is not sufficient in a he-said/she-said case.” Which is probably why the situation hasn’t been addressed by agency in months. Which is why so many lawsuits get dismissed. But a recounting of events, one sworn to, one not, does weigh differently.
Conspiracy is sooo much easier to explain than belligerence.
Corporations can have policies on social and religious issues, just as Wal-Mart allows RU-486, while the corner pharmacist who owns the place while his wife runs the register might not, and both are legal.
If a Wal-Mart pharmacy employee decided that his conscience couldn’t live with the corporate policy, then he has options. But the corner pharmacist gets to determine his own policy, and if the one needing to be protected from their own folly doesn’t like it, they can go to Wal-Mart.
Which brings us back to the privately owned bakery, owned and operated by an individual with religious beliefs. If he (as sole stockholder and Chairman Of The Board) doesn’t wish offer certain products associated with practices the corporation does not wish to be associated with, FOR WHATEVER REASON (and, as you have argued, even financial reasons such as “not enough of a profit margin” would be sufficient), that is the corporate policy of his bakery, and if the part-time kid on the register doesn’t like it, there are other jobs. Everyone gets to act within their own consciences, stockholders have their rights respected, no one gets discriminated against, and we are STILL left with two butthurt lesbians who feel that their “I want” outranks Constitutional protections.
You can not free yourself of all laws by claiming a right to religious expression. There IS a limit.
And that comes at the point where another’s safety or well-being is threatened. One cannot, in the name of religion, commit human sacrifice. One cannot blow up someone else’s property. One cannot commit a crime in the name of religion.
But we are talking about inaction here, not action. The baker simply chose not to violate his conscience. And, assumpta arguendo, the lesbians were insulted by his refusal, but not actually harmed. (And if I DON’T accept the claims of your argument, then they were not even insulted, merely refused.)
Except in this one particular instance. The baker didn’t want their commercial support. NOt because their money was impure, but because accepting that moeny required him to compromise his religious principles by lending support to conduct he objects to on religious grounds. Which you say he has a right to do. Except that you don’t really believe that when it’s inconvenient. So now the can either participate in a ceremony he objects to by baking the wedding cake, which, from his p.o.v., amounts to a tacit endorsement of behavior he believes to be mortal sin, or run the risk of two-minute hates and the Ministry of Love looking to cure his mind.
Because the right of the lesbian couple to not be inconvenienced trumps Free Exercise.
I believe the bakers are free, and should be free, to refuse anyone service at any time for any reason….
the law doesn’t give them that freedom….
Because I bring up the second, I must be lying about the first. I’m going to watch Star Trek Into Darkness now.
the law doesn’t give them that freedom….
The Constitutions (both State and Federal) DO. Please show me the Law you keep referring to that trumps either of those, never mind both.
Hold the phone. SLAVERY is a choice?
For the slavemaster. For the slave, not so much.
I’ll go back to just reading now.
In the brave new wold of social justice and candy for all or candy for none, saying “no,” or “I can’t/won’t,” or “I’m not allowed” is a threat to someone’s well-being.
That is the asinine kind reasoning that results in unisex bathrooms because we all pee and my ability to pee standing up doesn’t prevent you from sitting down..
My ability to get married doesn’t prevent you from getting married
The baker’s ability to refuse to bake a cake doesn’t prevent the lesbians from going elsewhere to get a cake.
But official investigation and pinkshirt thug tactics. FOR THE TOLERANCE!
When you bring up the second, the context is always that the law is right to deny them that freedom. And while you say you support changing the law, your advocacy for the lesbian couples right to be served trumping the right of the baker to refuse service suggests otherwise.
And should you wish to object that your not advocating, that your just giving full expression to both sides of the debate, eleven days and eleven hundred (plus) comment is also suggestive.
Enjoy Star Trek.
Let us see who is intellectually honest and consistent, and who is not.
Me? For consistency, I’m on the side of the pervs on this one.
What say you tracy?
“Someone brought up Prop 8. The SCOTUS held that marriage is a fundamental right. Writing into the state Constitution a law that denies that right violates the Constitutional protections. ”
Are you imagining the Framers of the constitution thought denying SSM was unconstitutional?
Here, let me give you a hint that that someone so aggressively ignorant should be ashamed to need.
Any gay man can marry any lesbian woman.
It’s like I been telling you. Marriage ain’t about contemporary notions of “love”, or living arraignments, or even sex. It is about the union of the male with the female to create a whole new being. That you don’t understand that makes you look stupid, shallow, dishonest and self centered.
Personally I don’t know if ALL that is true, but I do think your self-centeredness has made you aggressively ignorant.
Writing into the state Constitution a law that denies that right violates the Constitutional protections.
I didn’t notice this the first time it went by, but this is – again – misstating the facts.
Californians didn’t write a law, they AMENDED THE CONSTITUTION to have a definition that applies to all Californians, regardless of their personal preferences. “One man, one woman” = marriage, while two men or two women = “civil union”, with all of the rights, privileges, and authorities offered by marriage, AND THAT WASN’T GOOD ENOUGH.
It was the use of the word. The only thing they have ever been legally denied.
In the sense that “awful” used to mean “awe-inspiring”, SSM proponents wish to completely reverse the meaning of what has been the very bedrock of civilization – in the sense of “civilizing” – since before the invention of the plow. Because H8RHOMOPHOBECHRISTERS.
Or something.
Of course not. But you don’t sound as though you’d be happy being married, what with the man and all.
Frankly, I wish I was watching Star Trek. I have to figure out how much popcorn I need to order so I can sell enough to raise the funds I need to keep my Pack going for the next twelve month. And I don’t have any baseline to work with.
Tolerance Enforcement Commissioner Brad Avakian
We live in Bizarro World.
Leigh, of course slavery is a choice. It might not be a great choice,
““For whenever he finds the hardship of his slavery outweigh the value of his life, it is in his power, by resisting the will of his master, to draw down on himself the death he desires.”
Locke, On Man
But Patrick Henry had the right take: Give me liberty, or give me death.
Ernst: “your advocacy for the lesbian couples right to be served trumping the right of the baker to refuse service suggests otherwise.”
That is a lie. Or at least an attempt to mis-state my position.
LBascom, I’d say you were a fucking idiot. “Oregon Ministry of Human Rights”? Amazing how ‘urban legends’ start.
Not only is the story bullshit, it is OBVIOUS bullshit: Avakian is Commissioner of the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries
So you were arguing in favor of the baker to refuse to serve the lesbian couple? In the face of the Law That Trumps The Constitution? (to paraphrase, “I support his right to say no, BUT THE LAW SAYS OTHERWISE” while ignoring the Constitution)
Bullshit bromide boiler-plate disarming technique…..BUT…real argument –> shut up and comply bigot because justice!
Yeah, I’ve always said that “but” is verbal shorthand for “ignore everything I have said up until now, because now I am going to tell you what I really think”…
That’s a lovely dress, but…
Your children are wonderful, but…
This is a great job, but…
I have yet to find a valid counter-example.
Were you able to make your position clear, this thread would have expired peacefully eight or nine hundred comments ago.
Somebody is going to have to be accomodated here. Whom is it going to be? The baker or the nice lesbians?
Perry Mason – season 7 – episode 31: The Case of the Hater Baker
Ernst, the couple was not accommodated, they left without a cake. The State has taken no action against them.
Nothing I have said has changed anything. The original outrage continues: the gays ‘conspired’ to destroy a Christian business, the State is moving to shut down religious freedom, and society is kowtowing to some butt-hurt pervs.
Jeff: “The libertarian in me says that when you own a business, you should have the right to refuse service based on your beliefs. If those beliefs are noxious to others, the market will eventually close you down. Having the state step in to demand you bake cakes for functions that go against your religious beliefs replaces your religious liberty with the State’s demands over your labor and time.”
And so the market has done so. The State has not stepped in. Jeff’s libertarianism wins.
Dear God please to forgive your unworthy pikachu for I have sinned. Today I baked a cake for these two abominable lesbians what are gonna serve it at their wedding to all of their family and friends. There will also be an ice sculpture involved but I just did the cake. I worked hard on it – it is a very good cake what I made and I sold it to the lesbians in exchange for money I turned around and gave to lil Bobo’s orthodontist. Them braces is coming off next week but he needs a retainer now so his teeth don’t go back how they was.
Anyway I’m real sorry and every time I look at my lil boy’s smile I’m a be haunted by my sin with respect to the lesbians and the cake and I will keep to the righteous path henceforth I promise. Anyway sorry again Amen
But the discussion doesn’t end there because the market never ends. The Gay Mafia has decided to destroy these bakers for their Thoughtcrime. They’ve brought market forces and government resources to bear to make that so. The former is fine. That latter is unconstitutional.
‘feets, work on explaining the dick you’re sucking. Keep it pithy and on point. God must be a pretty busy dude.
Dear god please to forgive Pablo too he can’t help it he so mean
Pablo: “But the discussion doesn’t end there because the market never ends. The Gay Mafia has decided to destroy these bakers for their Thoughtcrime. They’ve brought market forces and government resources to bear to make that so. The former is fine. That latter is unconstitutional.”
Gay Mafia? Oh, yes the reputed threats on the lives of the children of vendors…
Thoughtcrime? Actually, they put their ‘thought’ into action, but hardly a crime….
Government resources? Where, what? the State has done NOTHING.
Unconstitutional? Who acted unconstitutionally? The Federal Government which is not involved? The State which has done nothing but accept a complaint?
But keep up the meme…the longer it’s told, the more it becomes the ‘truth’.
Someone needs to photoshop feets’ icon, and give the pikachu a little pink shirt…
The State which has done nothing but accept a complaint?
If the State so much as spends a penny of taxpayer money on actually processing that complaint, it becomes unConstitutional, prima facie. They do not have the authority to investigate why a person believes what they do.
Next question?
Drumwaster: “If the State so much as spends a penny of taxpayer money on actually processing that complaint, it becomes unConstitutional, prima facie”
I don’t think you know what prima facie means….but, maybe you do. And given that the State has a budget, and that budget is ‘constitutional’ as far as Oregon is concerned – the Constitution has nothing to say about a State and its budget…spending the money allocated by that budget is neither constitutional nor unconstitutional.
Go back to stating the gay couple wanted vaginas or something on the cake, at least the rest of the idiots jumped on that as fast as they did “gays forced to serve westboro baptist haters” bullshit….
And the state announcing it’s launched an investigation isn’t the state meddling in the market.
Because you’re free to engage in regulated commerce or not.
That’s the meaning of free market.
You don’t say, he drawled.
The couple left without cake. Either they went elsewhere and got cake, or they didn’t. Presumably they did, but we don’t know that. What we do know is that they filed a complaint, and directly or indirectly launched a boycott. That boycott in turn resulted not only in the disruption of the baker’s business, but in death threats against the baker and his family as well. Oh, yeah, business associates of the baker were threatened with like action if they continued to due business with the bakery. The result of all that negative attention from the protestors was a loss of business and a heightened interest by the state in investigating the purity of the baker’s thoughts. Increased attention from the state led to further loss of business. The end result was the baker lost his livelihood.
So tell me, whom suffered the greater injustice?
But as long as “the State [took] no action against them,” it’s all good right? Just
natural selectionthe business cycle weeding out the unfit.Let me make it even clearer. The INSTANT that said lesbian couple appeared in front of a State official and alleged that they had been offended by someone else’s religious beliefs, they should have been quietly escorted from the building. I quote again from Sections 3 and 4 of the Oregon State Constitution:
They have no law that can be used “in any case” to interfere with someone’s rights of conscience. If they cannot interfere, they cannot legally investigate (why bother investigating something that cannot be changed?). If they cannot investigate, they cannot even so much as print forms asking for such an investigation to begin. (See also “waste, fraud and abuse”.)
And if they DO investigate, they are in violation of attempted coercion under color of authority if they so much as even hint at preferring any outcome. But since they can’t change anything even if they DO investigate, what’s the point?
http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/163.275
(That’s 5 years, or $125,000 in fines, or both.)
And to be even clearer, even so much as “take a few hours off work to come down and answer some questions/fill out these forms explaining what happened” is an adverse effect.
Here, this.
Success here not being measured in terms of sales but by adherence to an arbitrary standard of political correctness.
If only somebody had told the complainants. They could have saved themselves the trouble of filling out whatever form(s) they filled out.
To say nothing of the LGBT community.
Drumwaster, you just had to torpedo, dive-bomb and then nuke –just to be sure!– that contention before I could get a word in, didn’t you?
There is no kill like overkill. ;)
“Go back to stating the gay couple wanted vaginas or something on the cake, at least the rest of the idiots jumped on that as fast as they did “gays forced to serve westboro baptist haters” bullshit…. –
Speaking of utter bullshit…
…and idiots…
Bravo, Drumwaster!
I await a spirited “yabbut” from tracy.
“LBascom, I’d say you were a fucking idiot. “Oregon Ministry of Human Rights”? Amazing how ‘urban legends’ start. Not only is the story bullshit, it is OBVIOUS bullshit: Avakian is Commissioner of the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries”
Hey, that story is as real as a “marriage” between two women!
Still, lets pretend it’s real. Do you think the bakers should be forced to bake “God hates fags” cupcakes?
And for happy, think they would be dumb not to do it, for the children (and their braces)?
By the way, I’m sure you are uncannily brilliant sniffing out that “Not only is the story bullshit, it is OBVIOUS bullshit” and everything, but really, the first two words in the title of the story kinda gave away the game.
Aggressively ignorant, I tells ya…
I think the time is ripe for another inquiry into the racist tendencies of one Robert Stacy McCain.
I mean, this positively echoes that, no?
Now, quiet. I have sluts to shame.
yabbut….
Drumwaster: “Section 3. Freedom of religious opinion. No law shall in any case whatever control the free exercise, and enjoyment of religeous [sic] opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.
659A.006 Declaration of policy against unlawful discrimination; opportunity to obtain employment without unlawful discrimination recognized as a civil right; exception of religious group. (1) It is declared to be the public policy of Oregon that practices of unlawful discrimination against any of its inhabitants because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, age, disability or familial status are a matter of state concern and that this discrimination not only threatens the rights and privileges of its inhabitants but menaces the institutions and foundation of a free democratic state.
Starting here. Drumwaster assumes the complaint was against the free exercise of religion. Given they were not in a house of worship but in fact a business, it might be equally assumed that the couple filed a complaint in violation for this statute. Which, just because Sec 3 exists, doesn’t preclude 659A.006. YOU might believe that EVERY act of a Christian is inherently an exercise of their religion, but the law makes no such presumption.
There is an specific exemption :
(3) It is not an unlawful practice for a bona fide church or other religious institution to take any action with respect to housing or the use of facilities based on a bona fide religious belief about sexual orientation as long as the housing or the use of facilities is closely connected with or related to the primary purposes of the church or institution and is not connected with a commercial or business activity that has no necessary relationship to the church or institution.
659A.400 Place of public accommodation defined. (1) A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusion in subsection (2) of this section, means any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements or otherwise.
659A.403 Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section does not prohibit:
(a) The enforcement of laws governing the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors and the frequenting by minors of places of public accommodation where alcoholic beverages are served; or
(b) The offering of special rates or services to persons 50 years of age or older.
(3) It is an unlawful practice for any person to deny full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation in violation of this section. [Formerly 30.670; 2003 c.521 §1; 2005 c.131 §1; 2007 c.100 §5]
Given that legislation is generally assumed in keeping with the constitution if it is passed and signed into law. This section of law was amended in 2003, 2005, and 2007.
As to the criminal statute on coercion, legislative acts are not considered coercion, and public employees that apply the law as written are not engaged in coercion. Certainly we have many examples of public employees using their power to coerce (IRS anyone?), but that abuse is not the law, but the acts of the employee.
When legislation creates conflicts, it is up to those affected (with standing) to bring it to the court for determination. Unfortunately, there are no OR Supreme Court decisions on point.
Section 3 codifies a personal right. As I have said before, no right is absolute. If one person claims the freedom to act by means of religious expression that interferes in the freedom to act by means of religious expression of another, BOTH will have to limit their expression. Such a case is not in violation of the OR constitution.
>BOTH will have to limit their expression.<
why state goddess? please tells us! clown
>Section 3 codifies a personal right.<
eff lawyers and lackeys like you clown
A single bakery refused to sell me a cake as for my event doesn’t really sound like standing. Or is “harm” good enough to pass master as a substitute for harm now?
“As to the criminal statute on coercion, legislative acts are not considered coercion, and public employees that apply the law as written are not engaged in coercion. Certainly we have many examples of public employees using their power to coerce
(IRS anyone?)labor unions idiot“Given that legislation is generally assumed in keeping with the constitution if it is passed and signed into law”
NOPE.
tracycole too stupid by far. hey trace kos kidz luv you. feel fine there
>, legislative acts are not considered coercion,<
really idiot?
> Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited. (1) Except <
for someone to act so stupid like traceycole because she needs a mulligan like baracky chop, chop
Tracy, I would seriously give newrouter’s you-big-stupidhead rebuttals a read.
palaemerus, the gay couple doesn’t have standing, but if the bakers are sanctioned in any way, they would have standing.
Slartibartfast, I try not to cast pearls….
>give newrouter’s you-big-stupidhead rebuttals a read.<
tracy sh@thead. got sumthing loser or just more big gov't.?
” legislative acts are not considered coercion”
eff u and obamacare tracy
” legislative acts are not considered coercion”
eff u an dodd/frank tracy
tracy you suck big gov’t
That was me, Tracy, on FB.
tracy how about !!11!! limited fed gov’t!!11!! like the losers @ 1791?
>palaemerus, the gay couple doesn’t have standing, but if the bakers are sanctioned in any way, they would have standing. <
your "rule of law" is clowns like you determining what "rule of law" is. eff u
slartibartfast, I saw the picture of your daughter! What a button!!!
>palaemerus, the gay couple doesn’t have standing, but if the bakers are sanctioned in any way, they would have standing.<
effin' penumbras all the way down
Which, just because Sec 3 exists, doesn’t preclude 659A.006.
Which, yeah, it does. What do you think “no law” and “in any case whatever” mean?
Constitution trumps regulation EVERY TIME. No ifs, ands or (ahem) buts.
There are two of them :)
Both pretty buttonish.
I would say how bout this. I’m a make you folks some cupcakes and you guys can write whatever you want on em sound like a plan? ok what I’ll do is make you up some frosting to write with and that’ll be free and I can let you have a piping gun with that for $5
okeydoke you guys for sure these puppies’ll be ready tuesday afternoon but I give you a holler if I finish em up early
> What a button!!!<
go for distraction 'cause most of what you got is proggtardian stupidity.
Whereas nr’s brand of stupidity is, dare I say it: special.
Guess what Drumwaster, your ignorance on the topic gives great comfort to many.
“the gay couple doesn’t have standing”
Then court has no reason to hear anything.
“Guess what Drumwaster, your ignorance on the topic gives great comfort to many.”
Table pounding crap.
>
Whereas nr’s brand of stupidity is, dare I say it: special.<
dude tell me where i'm wrong and cite it where possible? go for it cupcake? chop chop
“I would say how bout this. I’m a make you folks some cupcakes….early. ”
Dandelions are so dandy it should be against the law and I’m not lion. HURR HURRR HURRRRR
Happyfeet, the Nasty christers would loudly object to your plan where they decorate the cupcakes, because that’s what they hired you to do.
Then they would picket your store and threaten anyone doing business with you.
Plus sick the brownshirt regulatory cops on you.
What ya gunna do now? Those braces done pay for themselves.
Guess what Drumwaster, your ignorance on the topic gives great comfort to many.
When you can’t win the argument (and I would love to see the judge that would say “Gee, I’m sorry… I wish I could uphold your Constitutionally-protected rights, but there’s this regulation, see…” ), ad hominem wins the day, right?
gimme gas for my ford keep me truckin for the lord gimme gas for my ford I praaaaayyy
HALLELUJAH
oh hi lesbians I was just singing a praise song to myself as I often do when I’m alone in my christian family bakery how can i help you?
A wedding cake!??!?
My gosh that’s a new one on me I don’t know how I feel about that given how i always thunk marriage was between one man and one woman, but I can see you guys are awful fond of each other. And it ain’t like you don’t need a cake cause if you gonna get married you for sure should have a cake.
What kinda cake you have in mind something traditional or you wanna have a little fun with it?
Well come on over here I got a book to give you some ideas but how I like to do it is we start with flavors and colors and then we can pick a suitable style depending on where you guys decide to go. Now our number one flavor is vanilla cake with a sort of unremarkable boring old icing – and I don’t mind doing that but look at these cake/icing combos here. The ones at the bottom is a little extra – but I can do those on just one tier if you want or make a smaller side cake if you wanna mix it up a little – you just tell your trusty christian family baker here what you want and we’ll make it fit your budget and make sure you get yourself a damn fine cake. Even if you is lesbians. Cake is how you say it? Cake is very highly ecumenical.
>Cake is very highly ecumenical.<
nah cake is immaterial dude chop chop
Another quote rather on point:
“The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government – even the Third Branch of Government – the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.” — Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the 5-4 majority in District of Columbia, et al., v. Heller (2008)
Isn’t more of a “get all your fashionably irate friends together and fuck over a Christer bakery for being so Hater Christy” cake when all is said and done? Noncompliance invites boot stamps.
Whitney Houston was always a little resentful cause of she never got the recognition she felt she deserved for her gospel recordings. So bitch smoked some crack and drowned her fat ass in a bathtub.
It’s a parable.
No Drumwaster, because I am not going to spend 2 hours writing a brief and then condensing down to something viable for this thread when even the basic concept that laws interact with each other depending on the circumstances of cases and THERE IS NO absolute right and prohibitions on the actions of government are NOT the same as prohibitions in individuals. Law is the boundary between the limits of our individual rights. When two sets of rights conflict, it is never an absolute which ‘wins’.
Here is a commentary on the NM case:
Finally, the plaintiff made a religious argument, invoking both the First Amendment and state law, and suggesting that the photographer’s religion prohibits her from supporting a same-sex union by performing photography services celebrating such a union. The court rejected the First Amendment religious argument, on the ground that the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause simply requires the evenhanded application of neutral laws, rather than any affirmative accommodation of religious injunctions. Even if providing photographs of the defendant’s ceremony would violate the religious obligations of the plaintiff, in other words, the plaintiff would not be entitled to an exemption from a neutral law of general application, which the New Mexico Human Rights Act prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is. The court further noted a distinction between the business itself and the co-owner of the business, who is also its chief photographer: The actual plaintiff was the business, a limited liability company that might not even have Free Exercise rights. Nonetheless, the court assumed that it would have such rights for the sake of deciding this case.
The court further rejected the plaintiff’s state law argument under the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act (NMRFRA) for affirmative accommodation of religious prohibitions. The court held that NMRFRA applies only to a suit against a government agency, not to litigation between private parties.
—
You can ignore MY point of view, I’m not an attorney, I’ve only been in 500 federal court hearings, written briefs for the federal court and shepherded maybe another 500 laws, but at least I have SOME foundation for that POV.
Drumwaster: “Another quote rather on point:”
Actually not. Our Constitution prevents GOVERNMENT from interfering in certain rights, but even Heller noted that SOME regulation of the right is appropriate. NO RIGHT IS ABSOLUTE.
Yeah junkies that die are HILARIOUS. Ignorant Christers have so much to learn from their betters about right and wrong and kindness and tolerance and not ever being mean.
Regulation is the government.
My gosh that’s a new one on me I don’t know how I feel about that given how i always thunk marriage was between one man and one woman, but I can see you guys are awful fond of each other. […]
Unfortunately we don’t do same sex ceremony cakes, sorry you’re in prison file cakes, or those nasty carrot cakes because carrots shouldn’t be in cakes and are an abomination unto the Lord.
But if you walk across the street to the big chain store Cakes R Us, I bet they have what you’re looking for though. Good luck and God bless!
>. NO RIGHT IS ABSOLUTE.<
eff you statist! or communist!
>Heller noted that SOME regulation of the right is appropriate. <
eff 9 losers too clown
you believe such stuff makes you an a’hole:
> The court rejected the First Amendment religious argument, on the ground that the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause simply requires the evenhanded application of neutral laws, rather than any affirmative accommodation of religious injunctions<
do it loser
exactly Mr. pal I got some shine from gatlinburg what I found in a little liquor slash meat store over in Sherman Oaks. I got the blackberry kind and what we’ll do is cut it with some vodka otherwise it’s too sweet. I’m a get some for NG if her pregnancy test next week is a dry hole. For sure the blackberry one for her. They also have plain, apple pie, and peach. Plus they have a jar of cherries what are just soaking up the plain stuff. Can you say yum? Yeah you can. BUT – if she knocked it out of the park and is all baby on board next week I’m a take her for turkey bolognese at Mo’s. They do an amazing job of it where the parmesan on top is a wee bit slightly crispy and she’s never had it before her whole life.
>3) Restoring the Judiciary to its proper role: The Judiciary was never meant to be an all-powerful institution in which five men in robes have the final say over every major policy battle in the country. In order to end judicial tyranny, Levin proposes limiting service to one 12-year term, and granting both Congress and the state legislatures the authority to overturn court decisions with the vote of three-fifths of both houses of Congress or state legislative bodies.<
hi tracy
prohibitions on the actions of government are NOT the same as prohibitions in individuals
When the individual is a government official, they are.
When two sets of rights conflict, it is never an absolute which ‘wins’.
Except when one (the right of religious conscience) is specifically protected, and the other (the “right” to get a same sex wedding cake presupposes a same sex wedding, even under your logic) is not even recognized by the State under current law.
“Specifically protected” vs “not recognized”. Gee, I wonder which wins.
And the application of the law is NOT neutral in this case, because enforcement of your regulation would require the baker to perform specific physical acts that violate his religious beliefs, against his will, and there we are with the 13th Amendment again.
In all of those court cases you assert as your CV and credibility, did you EVER see a judge overrule the Constitution because a regulation ran contradictory to it? This isn’t interpretation, it’s black letter. (That NMSC case also runs afoul of SCOTUS precedent, so it won’t last.)
Mr. Lee my momma made an exquisite carrot cake and next time I run back to Texas I’m a look and see if I can’t find the recipe. She’d make it just for me special and it was just the best damn thing ever.
I don’t really want to eat no cake of late but there’d be some peace of mind just knowing I had the recipe.
“Unfortunately we don’t do same sex ceremony cakes,”
Oh wow. That pegged at 1750 Hate Herz on my hateometer. That’s well in the ‘Dangerous but Rehabilitatable Christer’ range. 1.75 Kilohate Hz. Sheesh! How can you hate something 1,750 a second? Sicko.
Our Constitution prevents GOVERNMENT from interfering in certain rights
Are you seriously arguing that a government official, acting under virtue of his official Government Title of Office (Commissioner of Dealing with Butthurt Lesbians and Left-Handed Pole-Vaulters), doesn’t qualify as a Government Agent? Or is it that the lower levels of bureaucracy can get away with violating the rights of citizens, because the upper muckamucks will straighten things out eventually? Seriously?
why are arguing with the tracy wench? too stupid.
Drumwaster, there is no indication the NM case is going to the SCOTUS.
Drumwaster: “In all of those court cases you assert as your CV and credibility, did you EVER see a judge overrule the Constitution because a regulation ran contradictory to it?”
Yea. Obamacare. Kelo. Those are the big ones. I watched a federal court judge rule the IRS had failed to meet statutory deadlines, and then ruled in the IRS favor because it didn’t ‘harm’ the plaintiffs. I’ve seen a judge rule against a federal trustee because he demanded an indian tribe turn over property one of it’s members owed to the trustee. The tribe by the way had told the trustee, and the judge they could stick their court case where the sun don’t shine.
This has long since devolved to just throwing all the stuff at the wall to see what might stick and trying to get away with various terminology adjustments along the way. It’s just brute force POE solving with no real strategy or sense or principle to it. No “can we get from A to B ?” and lot’s of “We want to get to B so we throw out all the conditions where A can’t get to B and then start trying to solve by adjust values of A and B until we get SOMETHING no matter how mutant and gossamer it might turn out to be”. Discontinuity? No problem? Contradiction? Pfft ! Look over there, is that a puffin? It’s not even an attempt at putting lipstick on a pig but more like trying to put lipstick on a fog bank and then counting a line from a red laser pointer as a form of lipstick. The motivation seems to be to bootstrap something into a powerful axiom ex nihilo or at least give an approximate appearance of having done such.
I mean fog could theoretically look like a pig from certain angles and under certain conditions…
Drumwaster, no I am not. But you misunderstand virtually everything else I write, so this is no different….
Judicial fiat and activism is like totally justice and the like constitution can’t like do anything about it. So like eat your peas bitterclingers.
Spencer’s Home Depot Marriage Proposal It’s a puffin!
You can;t like understand me because like I’m so meta. I’m like on both sides of the fence and straddling the fence and inside the fence and under it and I like surround the fence and stuff. I’m like a shrodinger electron thing y’know? You live in a stupid patriarchal world of fences and stuff. You don’t get me. I’m like ineffable. Protean. And my tongue speaks with many voices and like truth is a wave man.
I am the fence.
The court rejected the First Amendment religious argument, on the ground that the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause simply requires the evenhanded application of neutral laws,
So, say, the People’s republic of blue-state MA evenly says all people who become ob-gyns must provide abortions through 3rd trimester upon demand of patient, that doesn’t violate 1st amendment Free Exercise because said doctor can still freely think in her/his brain the religious principle and can go to church on Sunday?
Don’t you see how Soviet the NM ruling is?
Wishes = horses.
Beggars still not riding much though. Women and children hardest hit. Sources close to the Whitehouse blame Bush and deregulation for the lack of riding beggars and global warming. Theory still sound experts say.
Yea. Nothing said here is going to change my position. Unless some new FACT comes out, my position is established. Anyone that doesn’t support the OR bakers 100% without ANY hesitation or question, is a progtard, butt-hurt, apologist for violence and religious persecution. The answer to any point I might put forward is “religious expression trumps all, so don’t bother with your ‘nuance'”
The OR bakers got a big bump in business when this broke in February and they are getting another big bump over the last couple weeks with the news that their community isn’t supporting them (they are closing the storefront shop). They are STILL in business. The State still hasn’t done anything except acknowledge opening an investigation. The consensus is that the lesbians are just ‘butt hurt’ children throwing a temper tantrum. I guess that is kinda the consensus around here about me. whatever.
FACT is better than facts. SCIENCE! is better than science. Nuance is Kerry’s favorite brand of reality lubricant that lets him pee in the corner of the round room by complicating the round room in his head until a penumbra and/or emanation resolves into something he can call a CORNER which is much better than a stupid old obsolete “classical” corner anyway. And none of those checks will ever bounce because they were written to draw the account of the right side of history.
The pea is under whichever cup it needs to be under at a teachable moment even if it is under all of them. You just need to train the dumb asses to see the pea when they are told by a designated expert it must be there.
“This has long since devolved to just throwing all the stuff at the wall to see what might stick and trying to get away with various terminology adjustments along the way”
Yeah, but…
1250th!!!11!
Or I could have just said “‘Tis but yet more sophistry.”
Darleen: “Don’t you see how Soviet the NM ruling is?”
No, I see people that believe their religious freedom allows them to ignore laws everyone else has to follow. We can’t question that claim, we can’t inquire in any way about it. It is the ‘trump’ card. Your religion says that homosexuality is a sin and no one, nor any law can interfere with your expression of that status or how you react to it.
The Pilgrims sought to escape religious doctrine that left them no recourse.
We are a Christian nation, the only reason ‘anti-Christian’ legislation exists is because Christians abdicated their responsibility for the society they live in. I was a member of a religious group in the early 80s when ‘render under Cesar’ was practically a clarion call to ignore ‘the world’. It was corrupt and dying and the focus should be on the future life. Maybe that was local to SoCal, but I don’t think so. The Right recoiled from the world. The corruption spread to ‘Christian’ institutions and the Left gain dominance – but never a majority.
I will remain a conservative, a “putative “classical liberal” because it is the right place to be. I’m pretty much a purist, ‘the individual is sovereign’. For you, the individual has no rights when it is ‘sin’, so government can be used to restrict people….for society, or for the children; All law is morality with the force of government.
No, it is not the Soviet Union….
It’s clear to me where the OR baker went wrong was in not getting himself ordained so he could hold a worship service on Wednesday and two on Sunday inside his house of worship and bakery before he applied for a business license.
I bet that would have flummoxed ’em.
As for the oft-repeated claim that no right is absolute, no one has claimed otherwise.
What has been claimed, or rather, attempted to be claimed –because when Tracy doesn’t like the claim Tracy either
rejects ignores the premise or retreats into lawyerese didn’t say the proper words in the proper way so themagiclegal ritual doesn’t count! is that the harm done to the lesbians whose commission the baker declined to take for religious reasons didn’t, and doesn’t, rise to the level that would compel the state to curtail the baker’s religious liberty irrespective of what certain state officials think or rather, having replaced legislative intent with their own, imagine regulatory law requires them to do,On the other hand, requiring the baker to make a Hobson’s choice –violate the dictates of your conscience or give up your livlihood –you’re free to choose which– results in a real harm. Or at least comparatively more so than the harm done to the lesbians, it being easier to go somewhere else to buy a cake than it is to go somewhere else and start a new business.
So maybe it is too bad that the state didn’t get to carry through with it’s investigation. If nothing else, it would have been a clarifying moment. Because the only way the baker is in the wrong here is if social justice requires the government to protect so-called vulnerable groups from the free exchange of ideas that groups not designated as such, like Christians, have to confront every day. And if we’re not the individuals capable of moral agency like the classical liberals of the eighteenth and nineteenth century claimed we were, then what are we? Subjects.
But alas, the
JerusalemPortland crowd will have it’s sport, won’t it?It has the slightest whiff of the abortion debate (not that there is ever such here). People argue for the child’s rights, dismissing the mothers. (of course the Left argues for the mother’s rights while dismissing the childs). Nothing said about the mother’s rights matter. The child’s rights trump everything else.
Nothing about the gay couple matters, all that matters is the OR bakers religious freedom. Absolute. Nothing else matters. Push it too hard and it is persecution.
Gays can be fired because the business is expressing it’s religious beliefs; landlords can evict because they are expressing their religious beliefs, businesses can refuse to serve because they are expressing their religious beliefs. Gays can always find another job, another apartment, another baker to bake their cake, just be adult about it and shut up and go away. It is just ‘butt hurt’ whining….
Ernst: “As for the oft-repeated claim that no right is absolute, no one has claimed otherwise.”
I recommend a review of Drumwaster’s comments.
Le bullshit.
“Gays can be fired because the business is expressing it’s religious beliefs; landlords can evict because they are expressing their religious beliefs, businesses can refuse to serve because they are expressing their religious beliefs. Gays can always find another job, another apartment, another baker to bake their cake, just be adult about it and shut up and go away. It is just ‘butt hurt’ whining…. ‘
Yes, all hate is the the same and all noncompliance is hate. Thoughtcrime. Crimethink. No cake = unjust termination = unjust eviction = concompliance = hate = crimethink.
The preferred victim class sets all the rules by fiat. QED. So sayeth the self appointed fence. because FACTS.
Fucking Gremlins! Microwave the lot of ’em I say!
It’s clear to me where the OR baker went wrong was in not getting himself ordained so he could hold a worship service on Wednesday and two on Sunday inside his house of worship and bakery before he applied for a business license.
I bet that would have flummoxed ’em.
As for the oft-repeated claim that no right is absolute, no one has claimed otherwise.
What has been claimed, or rather, attempted to be claimed –because when Tracy doesn’t like the claim Tracy either
rejectsignores the premise or retreats into lawyerese didn’t say the proper words in the proper way so themagiclegal ritual doesn’t count! is that the harm done to the lesbians whose commission the baker declined to take for religious reasons didn’t, and doesn’t, rise to the level that would compel the state to curtail the baker’s religious liberty irrespective of what certain state officials think or rather, having replaced legislative intent with their own, imagine regulatory law requires them to do.On the other hand, requiring the baker to make a Hobson’s choice –violate the dictates of your conscience or give up your livlihood –you’re free to choose which– results in a real harm. Or at least comparatively more so than the harm done to the lesbians, it being easier to go somewhere else to buy a cake than it is to go somewhere else and start a new business.
So maybe it is too bad that the state didn’t get to carry through with it’s investigation. If nothing else, it would have been a clarifying moment. Because the only way the baker is in the wrong here is if social justice requires the government to protect so-called vulnerable groups from the free exchange of ideas that groups not designated as such, like Christians, have to confront every day. And if we’re not the individuals capable of moral agency like the classical liberals of the eighteenth and nineteenth century claimed we were, then what are we? Subjects.
But alas, the
JerusalemPortland crowd will have it’s sport, won’t it?(sorry about that)
Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 US 872 – Supreme Court 1990
“We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Gobitis, 310 U. S. 586, 594-595 (1940): “Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities (footnote omitted).” We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. “Laws,” we said, “are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” Id., at 166-167.
Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a “valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).” United States v. Lee, 455 U. S. 252, 263, n. 3 (1982) (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment); see Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Gobitis, supra, at 595 (collecting cases).”
Drumwaster, toast.
Oh, just for a little jam on that toast:
“JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court.”
So…there ya go.
In point of fact, the Pilgrims, aka Puritans, were fleeing political persecution. It seems they caused the Anglican hierarchy an enormous case of butthurt because the Anglican Church wasn’t hardcore. So the butthurt Anglican clerisy sicced the dogs of the state on ’em. That is to say, they didn’t come here to escape religious doctrine, but to establish it.
In other words, we are no longer a Christian nation.
The Latin for that is vae victus!
I suspect that enough gratuitous kicking of Christers for thoughtcrime will scare off some chaff and then the rest, of a more hard core stripe, will end up uniting into an activist political movement (yet again) and then we’ll hear a lot of winging about the approach of the awful theocracy again as they start to get their preferred judges and politicians elected and start throwing lobbying money around again. The swing of the great pendulum is often shifted by zealous over reach. After all, tolerance is a two way street, and once the aggressive smaller entity runs out of force multipliers, sees reduced importance to the grievance mongers, and the larger entity sees that appeasement is fruitless or impossible…well… the momentum shifts.
“compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. ”
As is presumed merely by passage and signature? Lol.
“Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a “valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).”
Bake me a cake. It’s the neutral and valid law of general applicability not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs that embodies the relevant concerns of a political society. Unless it ain’t. Because FACT y’all.
Ernst: “In other words, we are no longer a Christian nation.”
I used ARE because I believe we still are.
The scrooby’s were flat out separatists though weren’t they. Most of the Puritans were still considered Anglicans if a reformist faction within the church. Still pretty similar in many respects.
Interesting analogy. If it weren’t for the fact that the baker is saying, in effect, ”
I don’t want to have sex with you, I’m not in the mood,” I’d almost buy it.
Kind of puts you in the position of arguing for a patriarchal right to conjugal relations, doesn’t it?
(By the way, I know you’re trying to equate the baker’s choice to engage in commerce with the choice to have sex –and all the consequences that come with it ( e. g. if you didn’t want to bake wedding cakes for homosexuals, you shouldn’t have spread your doors).
But I don’t accept your premise.)
Like this one, perhaps?
Just because Drumwaster won’t limit Free Exercise where you think it should be limited doesn’t mean that he views Free Exercise as unlimited.
Finally, thank you for running down that case. I’ve been trying to remember that one for a couple of years now. You wouldn’t mind running down the case where the Supreme Court said no communing with the spirit world through Peyote would you? I think that one is a Scalia opinion as well.
But I do have to point out an irony: It’s the practice of homosexuality that is generally objected to on religious grounds. And those objections are also rooted in law.
Anyways, do you suppose Reynoldswill be overturned or otherwise limited when somebody tries to use it to force a Catholic docteor at a Catholic hospital (a place of public accomodation) to perform an abortion? Or will it take an attempt to force a Priest to preside over a gay “marriage” (they’ve recieved the sacraments of Baptism, Reconciliation, Communion and Confirmation, so why shouldn’t they expect to recieve the Sacrament of Marriage as well? It’s not like you can deny them the one after letting them have the others, right?) to get the Court to revisit Reynolds?
You don’t suppose the Court would find the 1st Amendment unconstitutional do you?
Everything you’ve said about choices having consequences led me to conclude otherwise.
There is no fence. There is only agitprop.
If eleven days and 1200+ comments later you don’t understand what that term refers to then this conversation is just as pointless as predicted.
RTFA. “To make matters worse, the Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries announced last month they had launched a formal discrimination investigation against the Christian family.”
That would be something other than nothing.
The process is the punishment.
First you’d have to assume that the practice of religion stops at the doors of the church, like the Obama administration does. But that would be stupid because all evidence suggests otherwise. See Lobby, Hobby. Or perhaps Cantwell v. State Of Connecticut.
That’s why we don’t have an appellate process.
This? Does not describe Thjoughtcrime.
Ernst, no, I was thinking this one:
“They have no law that can be used “in any case” to interfere with someone’s rights of conscience. If they cannot interfere, they cannot legally investigate (why bother investigating something that cannot be changed?). If they cannot investigate, they cannot even so much as print forms asking for such an investigation to begin. (See also “waste, fraud and abuse”.) And if they DO investigate, they are in violation of attempted coercion under color of authority if they so much as even hint at preferring any outcome. But since they can’t change anything even if they DO investigate, what’s the point?”
“Interesting analogy.”
I wasn’t offering it as such. And I spelled out what I thought the similarities were. Absolutist positions that ignored clear issues on the other side. The gay couple has no claim, no issue, they are just butt hurt, the bakers on the other hand are bearing all the burden. I don’t suggest that both sides have equal issues/burdens – I think you noted that.
“Finally, thank you for running down that case. I’ve been trying to remember that one for a couple of years now. You wouldn’t mind running down the case where the Supreme Court said no communing with the spirit world through Peyote would you? I think that one is a Scalia opinion as well.”
It is the same case. Shepherding the law.
“It’s the practice of homosexuality that is generally objected to on religious grounds. And those objections are also rooted in law.”
And the law is often rooted in the prejudices of the majority at the time. It is my opinion that Adam’s comment: “Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.” noted that our Constitution was not designed to establish or enforce morality, it had to be already present in the people.
re Reynolds. Couple of things….I think abortion is a procedure of choice, unlike removing a ruptured appendix. Also, I think a hospital can provide a list of surgeries available there and not having the necessary expertise could not be forced to provide what it can’t. If it is a trauma center hospital, then I think it is screwed for the same reason the bakers are – it is open to all comers and there are times when an abortion is necessary and immediate so a trauma center would have the expertise and it would be on it’s list of things it does. As to the Priest, a religion determines the nature of it’s sacraments and when and to whom they are bestowed. That’s why many churches do not allow marriages in their buildings of people not members of that church. The RC Church I grew up in required a family member (at a minimum) to be an active member of the church – it preferred that at least one of the couple be a member. Attendance was not membership. Those churches and priests that will marry anyone that brings a license and pays a stipend will be considered ‘public accommodations’ and treated accordingly.
“You don’t suppose the Court would find the 1st Amendment unconstitutional do you?”
After Roberts and ACA, I don’t know. Is it possible at some point some makeup of the Court could rule that a spoken opinion did not constitute speech and therefore was not protected? Sure. And it’d be just as wrong as the ACA and Kelo decisions were.
Where competing rights meet will always be subject to opinion and debate, neither side is ‘wrong’, and just because a decision is 5/4 doesn’t mean that one side was more right, only that for that given set of circumstances, the boundary was given more room on one side than the other.
The individual is sovereign. ALL individuals are sovereign.
come with me lesbian puffin caw caw caw!
The gay couple has no claim, no issue, they are just butt hurt, the bakers on the other hand are bearing all the burden. I don’t suggest that both sides have equal issues/burdens – I think you noted that.
The gay couple has also shown no actual harm, while the baker would suffer incalculable harm if forced to violate his religious beliefs. The gay couple has other bakers to go to to get their cake (that isn’t recognized by the State), while the baker would suffer incalculable financial harm by being forced to shut down his business for holding certain religious beliefs that others might hold as unpleasant or unpopular.
There is no actual harm suffered by the gay couple if forced to take their business to a baker that will bake them anything they want, no questions asked.
But if the baker is forced to imperil his immortal soul at the command of the State, then the State is overriding his religious beliefs with its own, which also violates the Establishment Clause (the part you keep ignoring). Either that, or would be forced to undergo great cost and hardship to move his family and livelihood to a State where he will actually have his rights protected. That, too, counts as “harm”.
So we have no harm on one side (other than “butthurt”, of course), and unmeasurable harm with multiple Constitutional protections violated on the other.
Nope, no way to determine which way to vote there…
Good thing we have zoning regulations to help us override the basic agreement defining the relationship between government and citizen…
And just to correct your LIE above, neither Kelo nor ACA overrode the Constitution. Kelo was about the definition of “public taking” (with “for the benefit of the community” being the rational test) and ACA was left standing because CJ Roberts argued that Congress can use the power of the tax to compel behavior. That complaint wasn’t about the Constitutionality of the taxing power of the government, it was that the court called it a tax when even its author asserted otherwise.
In neither case was the Constitution’s black letter overridden by a local statute. But you can’t finesse “no law” and “in no case whatever” that way.
Roaches, encroaching. Out of the darkness, given credence by strange old men and women in robes who fear for their own legacy, not the legacy of constitutional law.
Robert Valente, 2004:
Now see, that’s an example of what I jokingly referred to as botching the ritual by not getting the words exactly right.
And anyways, how is this: “They have no law that can be used “in any case” to interfere with someone’s rights of conscience.
inconsistent with “But we are talking about inaction here, not action. The baker simply chose not to violate his conscience.”?
It seems to me drumwaster is saying that state doesn’t have sufficient interest in governing action here ( e.g. not taking a commission to bake a cake as opposed to taking a fourteenth wife, or reporting to the draft board when summoned).
And just to have some fun:
And from whence does that morality Adam’s mentioned derive? The same source of law that those objections to homosexual action (had to get my dig at Reynolds in there) come from, perhaps?
Fixed that for me
What we have here is the gay subsidiary of Leftism instituting jizya on observant Christians & Jews.
Pretty much, Darleen.
Drumwaster: “if the baker is forced to imperil his immortal soul at the command of the State”
You spent considerable effort yesterday to establish ‘law’ supports your position. It doesn’t. Lament away.
serr8d: (not actually your quote, but Valentes, but I assume you posted it because you agree with it or think it makes an important point in support of some aspect of your position) “Justice Scalia’s vigorous dissent notes that if morality is ultimately a matter of individual choice, then the rule of law is superfluous.”
Morality IS ultimately a matter of choice. The choice to follow God, to follow some religious dictates, to hold a standard, to violate a standard. BECAUSE it is a choice, the rule of law is necessary. Your choices of right and wrong are YOUR choices, but the law establishes what the rest of us think is the limit of those choices.
“It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error;”
“The assault on marriage is the “Shock and Awe” strategy of forces determined to turn civilization on its head.”
Yes, because of course 100,000,000 straight marriages will crumple because 100,000 gay MARRIAGES occur. The society of 320 million will be fractured and rendered disfunctional because 1 million participate in an institution. Better to say to 10 million, ‘you outcasts, you peverts, you can never be part of our society’ because THAT will keep the ramparts solid.
“Appealing to “self-evident” truths as the basis for law will come to be viewed as political extremism at its worst”
If they were self-evident there would be no need to codify them. Back in 1776, I’d argue that ‘self-evident’ reflected the full and complete awareness of just one man, but in having pointed out what he saw as ‘self-evident’ others agreed. Many, many others disagreed.
Does anyone else here think the individual is sovereign?
“The issue is not that people of the same sex might love each other; the issue is whether society as a whole should be required to declare by law or through the imprimatur of marriage that homoerotic behavior is a necessary aspect of that love”
The issue was should society be deciding what is appropriate behavior in the bed?
” The question, therefore, is not one of civil rights, but whether we will indoctrinate America’s children with the philosophy that marrying the same sex is equivalent to marrying the opposite sex — and catapult ourselves toward becoming a people unwilling to discern left from right.”
Instead becoming a people that decides right and wrong for everyone. To establish one specific morality not as a function of free will, but as a compulsion at the point of a gun.
Kinda telling that premise that society is free to indoctrinate our children, the only question is with which philosophy…
“The answer is clearly a matter of common sense, but it appears that common sense is about to be tossed into the dustbin of history”
Common sense isn’t.
“Those who believe their cause is just, will justify anything in its pursuit.”
Darleen: “What we have here is the gay subsidiary of Leftism instituting jizya on observant Christians & Jews.”
Funny you should use the term jizya. Because not all religious expression is Christian, and if
“Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”
then Sharia becomes just as valid a justification for excusing one’s actions….
You spent considerable effort yesterday to establish ‘law’ supports your position. It doesn’t. Lament away.
Of course the Law you assert doesn’t. Here’s the problem. I haven’t been using “the Law”. I HAVE BEEN USING THE CONSTITUTION. Both State and Federal. “Law of the Land” and all that.
The Constitution TRUMPS Law. Every time. You cannot show a single case where any part of any Constitution has been declared illegal, but there are innumerable cases of a law being unConstitutional. I will leave it as an exercise for the student why this is so.
“It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error;”
The second part of that sentence says “It is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.” (The Speaker was Associate Justice Robert Jackson, by the way, not that you thought anyone would notice. Not that you actually think.)
Pointing out where the Commissioner will be abusing his position is just such a case. He has no authority to force anyone to violate their religious precepts. Period. He has no authority to punish someone for refusing to act, especially given the alternative, and the fact that the so-called offended party suffered no actual harm, other than to their feelings. Period.
There are alternatives for the couple – getting other cakes, going to other bakers, deciding to do without, et alia – but the only alternative for the baker is to violate his religious conscience.
The issue was should society be deciding what is appropriate behavior in the bed?
And no one is judging their behavior in the bedroom, only their behavior in public.
Kinda telling that premise that society is free to indoctrinate our children, the only question is with which philosophy…
Good thing the pink shirts have tossed “live and let live” onto that dustheap.
then Sharia becomes just as valid a justification for excusing one’s actions….
Right up until the point where the safety or well-being of another is threatened. Honor killings, suicide bombers, sawing off the heads of Jews and pulling walls down on top of homosexuals – all cause harm to others in the name of Sharia.
But not baking a cake? CRUCIFY THE H8RS!
Kinda telling that premise that society is free to indoctrinate our children, the only question is with which philosophy…
Some political philosophers have contended that society, as political society, is anything but free in these matters, but is, on the contrary, compelled to do so. Just making a political order means making choices as to what is just and what is not, and sustaining those choices as sustaining that political order means educating. But what did they know? They’ve been dead for centuries, if not eons.
Yes, because of course 100,000,000 straight marriages will crumple because 100,000 gay MARRIAGES occur.
Oh please. Don’t be insulting. No one has ever said that.
It’s really along the line from The Incredibles “When everyone is special, no one will be.”
If every relationship is equally marriage, marriage ceases to be marriage.
And people stop getting married and the break between marriage and parenthood is nearly complete.
I have always been an advocate for civil unions. I believe homosexuals should be allowed a contract status that has default positions covering property, insurance and inheritance. And I think civil unions should be available to any two people who need such protections … say two elderly maiden sisters or friends just looking out for each other.
But it isn’t marriage and should not go by that label.
Darleen, I pointed out above that civil unions had been offered here in California, right around the time Prop 8 was being discussed (as the alternative to the failed first effort), with all of the bells and whistles, aimed at addressing every single one of the “all of the things we have been denied by not being married” concerns that had ever been raised, and enough leeway to cover future possibilities, and it wasn’t good enough. They wanted the word.
Nothing less.
We totally need to change the nature and construction of the institution so that we can have 1/1,000,000th more of them. Then we need to change hamburgers to vegetables…
Darleen: “I have always been an advocate for civil unions. I believe homosexuals should be allowed a contract status that has default positions covering property, insurance and inheritance. And I think civil unions should be available to any two people who need such protections … say two elderly maiden sisters”
So, you believe that there is no difference between my relationship with V and two sisters living under one roof.
No, you didn’t say that. You say that the law should be such that it doesn’t recognize any difference.
Drumwaster, yes, because ‘separate but equal’ is just fine.
If beef becomes a vegetable, does it change your rutabaga? Nay, I say!
Did your relationship rest on legal recognitions? Do you need the government to tell you what your relationships are? Is CJ your daughter or not?
“Gays can be fired because the business is expressing it’s religious beliefs; landlords can evict because they are expressing their religious beliefs, businesses can refuse to serve because they are expressing their religious beliefs. Gays can always find another job, another apartment, another baker to bake their cake, just be adult about it and shut up and go away. It is just ‘butt hurt’ whining….”
Gays could also make an honest attempt to keep another mans penis out of his anus. Kinda like we expect a pedophile to avoid fondling little kids.
Discrimination laws are to protect discrimination against what people ARE. Black, female, Muslim, handicapped. EVERYONE discriminates against people that chose a particular behavior. Parents don’t want their kids playing with drug addicts. Banks don’t want to hire thieves. Sports teams don’t recruit fat people.
When discrimination against behavior is criminalized, law and order will cease to exist. We will all be criminals.
“So, you believe that there is no difference between my relationship with V and two sisters living under one roof.?”
No, the difference (presumably) is the two sisters don’t fondle each other naughty bits. Are you implying fondling naughty bits is the foundation for marriage?
yes, because ‘separate but equal’ is just fine.
And we’re back to unisex bathrooms. Homosexuals are not being discriminated against be being asked to define whether they are male or female. Their actions, their personal beliefs, their predilections, all irrelevant to the only basic fact of human existence, one that can be identified as a newborn babe, and the very first question asked, even before counting fingers and toes.
Just like a license to drive, practice medicine, open a business or go hunting, the State gets to define what basic requirements must be met before the issuing of a license, and the more specific the activity, the more stringent the requirements can be without being considered “burdensome”.
I am sure you will agree that marriage is as basic as it gets, but the State still gets to decide which conditions must be met before it sanctions a marriage. Many states identify multiple characteristics – age, mental health, physical health, consent, degree of consanguinity, ensuring no parties are already married, etc.
But NO State inquires into whether the persons entering into the marriage actually wants to get married, only whether they are willing. They do not inquire into the religion of the parties, nor whether they would rather be schtupping the pool boy instead (for either party).
As has been pointed out, a gay man can legally marry a lesbian woman, because the only question the state asks in that regard is “one man and one woman”, with none of the information in any of those “protected categories” being inquired into, merely that most basic characteristic, determined before any other.
And the Law allows men to be treated differently than women in this regard. The Law doesn’t even care whether they started out that way. There have been several cases where someone has undergone sexual reassignment surgery, and been allowed to marry someone of the opposite gender to their current one.
I agree somewhat with Darleen as to civil unions, and in one regard, I go further than that: if a same-sex couple wants to get married, then let them go out and find a minister acceptable to both parties to consecrate the union, cater a party, hire the hall, invite the guests, and go on a honeymoon to the resort of their choice, and even wear rings if they wish. Just don’t ask the State to acknowledge the act in any legal sense. (That is what “extralegal” means.)
No, the difference (presumably) is the two sisters don’t fondle each other naughty bits
Well, there was this one time at band camp…
Pablo: “Did your relationship rest on legal recognitions? Do you need the government to tell you what your relationships are? Is CJ your daughter or not?”
I shared this before, maybe you’ve never seen it. When CJ was growing up, I had no legal right regarding her. If V had left, I could not even petition for visitation. Regardless of ‘guardianship’ or ‘relationship contracts’, the Court only recognized V as the sole and only parent. Courts have refused to acknowledge, let alone enforce ‘written contracts’ between same sex parents. When one woman provides the egg and another gives birth, only the one giving birth is presumptively the parent – the other must be legally established. My relationship with V was a marriage. It may not have had the legal support, but (having been in both same sex and opposite sex relationships), it was a marriage.
LBascom:”Are you implying fondling naughty bits is the foundation for marriage?”
Aren’t you?
It may not have had the legal support, but (having been in both same sex and opposite sex relationships), it was a marriage.
And here we have the problem. If you didn’t have the legal recognition, it was NOT a marriage, it was only a relationship. You might know this as “assumes facts not in evidence”.
I asked because I was pretty sure I already knew the answer. So you don’t need the government to tell you what it is. You’d just like to be able to have the familial rights codified.
I think just about everyone here is perfectly fine with that. The Gay Mafia, however, is not. They have to have the term.
Me, I think you’re confusing marriage with loving partnership. Marriage is not necessarily that. It is necessarily the union of a man and a woman.
Drumwaster: “As has been pointed out, a gay man can legally marry a lesbian woman,”
Nice answer. Stupid, ignorant, mindless, but it fits on a bumper sticker and is dismissive.
Nice answer. Stupid, ignorant, mindless, but it fits on a bumper sticker and is dismissive.
And if that is all you get out of that level of nuance, then that is all you deserve to get, and I condemn you to live in that skull for the rest of your days.
Drumwaster: “If you didn’t have the legal recognition, it was NOT a marriage”
Ah, so you are saying that a man and woman, pronounced husband and wife in a church, or in a garden, aren’t married UNTIL the state grants its recognition.
And the state gets to grant that recognition, why?
And the state gets to grant that recognition, why?
Asked and answered, you stupid bint.
So, you believe that there is no difference between my relationship with V and two sisters living under one roof.
In that it is a supportive relationship that is NOT marriage, yes, I’m saying that.
Stupid, ignorant, mindless, but it fits on a bumper sticker and is dismissive‘
No, it is descriptive of every flippin’ marriage statute in the United States prior to all the SSM nonsense.
Absolutely no agency issuing a marriage license ever inquired about the sexual orientation of the parties involved.
Never, ever.
Drumwaster: “And if that is all you get out of that level of nuance, then that is all you deserve to get, and I condemn you to live in that skull for the rest of your days.”
“As has been pointed out, a gay man can legally marry a lesbian woman,” is nuance?
Spend 5 minutes and consider the implications of two gay men marrying two lesbians, say in the State of California, with regard to : children, child support, health benefits, property, inheritance, custody, parental rights, taxation, access to finances, legal indemnification, contracts, paternity, fraud statutes, standing….
And the state gets to grant that recognition, why?
because it is a public institution, kinda like the military.
You can dress in camo and run around with a rifle in the woods; that doesn’t make you a member of the armed forces of the US.
tracy redefines wrongness.
Wrong on the logic.
Wrong on the law.
Wrong on the facts.
Nothing like arguing a one-issue debater…
Because H8RHOMOPHOBECHRISTER, that’s why.
consider the implications of two gay men marrying two lesbians
Well, that’s why the definition also limits it to one of each. And then they get treated just like every other married couple in the country.
pend 5 minutes and consider the implications of two gay men marrying two lesbians, say in the State of California, with regard to : children, child support, health benefits, property, inheritance, custody, parental rights, taxation, access to finances, legal indemnification, contracts, paternity, fraud statutes, standing –
Unless you are describing a polygamous arrangement … then you’re talking two married couples who engage in extra-marital gay affairs within the group
a Gay Harrad Experiment per se
Sounds like rainbows, unicorns and people in black talking about “the best interest of the child…”
It would probably be a whole lot different in, say, Oklahoma.
then you’re talking two married couples who engage in extra-marital gay affairs within the group
I think they made a movie about that once…
Drumwaster: “And the state gets to grant that recognition, why?” Asked and answered, you stupid bint.
Tell me why the state gets to determine why same sex couples should not get the same legal recognition? THE STATE’S interest…..
Just to state my response to that:
“Therefore, with respect to the subject and purposes of Iowa’s marriage laws, we find that the plaintiffs are similarly situated compared to heterosexual persons. Plaintiffs are in committed and loving relationships, many raising families, just like heterosexual couples. Moreover, official
recognition of their status provides an institutional basis for defining their fundamental relational rights and responsibilities, just as it does for heterosexual couples. Society benefits, for example, from providing same sex couples a stable framework within which to raise their children and the power to make health care and end-of-life decisions for loved ones, just as it
does when that framework is provided for opposite-sex couples.
In short, for purposes of Iowa’s marriage laws, which are designed to bring a sense of order to the legal relationships of committed couples and their families in myriad ways, plaintiffs are similarly situated in every important respect, but for their sexual orientation. As indicated above, this distinction cannot defeat the application of equal protection analysis through the application of the similarly situated concept because, under this circular approach, all distinctions would evade equal protection review. Therefore, with respect to the government’s purpose of “providing an institutional basis for defining the fundamental relational rights and responsibilities of
persons,” same–sex couples are similarly situated to opposite–sex couples.”
Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009),
“Aren’t you?”
No
Darleen: “No, it is descriptive of every flippin’ marriage statute in the United States prior to all the SSM nonsense.”
And because it has always been, it should always be.
Darleen: “then you’re talking two married couples who engage in extra-marital gay affairs within the group”
I sorta recall
Darleen: “HOWEVER. What the state does do, is either create incentives or negatives to behavior. ”
in a discussion about divorce, and the decline of marriage that you were all for strengthening the institution rather than promoting ‘loop-holes’ for making it a farce…
Plaintiffs are in committed and loving relationships, many raising families, just like heterosexual couples
Herein lies the difference. A married couple can produce those children without special medical intervention, and raise them. They are, by definition, self-perpetuating relationships, sometimes going back several generations. They do not require third parties be involved to do so.
A same sex couple cannot produce children without any of that aid, or requiring an outside party, though widowhood or adoption or the like. “One man + one woman” does not guarantee children, only that it VASTLY increases the likelihood over those couplings that utterly cannot create the next generation.
No one is allowed to ask about the religion, but they are allowed to ask age. They cannot ask political affiliation, but they can check for citizenship (even if for only statistical purposes). No one is allowed to ask sexual preference, but they can require one of each gender. Only one, to prevent bigamy/polygamy, and the man and woman, as I explained above, because it vastly increases the probability that the State will survive to the next generation. The personal preferences of the man and woman are irrelevant. The State has a rational basis for the requirement, especially when there are legally-recognized relationships offered that give same sex couples everything they want, except for the word.
But that’s not good enough, is it?
LBascom: ” It is about the union of the male with the female to create a whole new being”
So, the State has an interest in promoting marriage for the purpose of procreation. Does it determine if the couple is fertile? Does it have an interest in the number of ‘whole new beings’ created? Why would the state sanction couples that can NOT have children?
And because it has always been, it should always be.
Until something BETTER comes along, yeah. Again, there is a reason marriage has lasted 10,000 years, while living in caves has not.
Tell me why the state gets to determine why same sex couples should not get the same legal recognition
It’s called domestic partnership or civil union.
It is in society’s interest to distinguish between marriage and all other relationships.
Actually, they’re doing just that these days. But the old answer is “Because they’re not the same thing. Different is different. That’s why it isn’t the same.”
Laws are based on generalities, not outliers. Or, they used to be before we had to tailor them to adhere to politically correct notions of normalizing deviance.
See, an man and woman can unite and create a sum greater than the parts. Spiritually and biologically. Two people of the same sex, no matter how they try or redefine terms, will never become greater than the parts.
Sometimes life just isn’t fair. Mature people, those that grow to see a perspective beyond their own existence, accept that. Self centered immature fags have a little problem wrapping their heads around it…
Laws are based on generalities, not outliers.
This.
Why would the state sanction couples that can NOT have children?
another hoary old red herring. ::::sigh:::
BUT WHAT IF THEY CAN’T?????!!!!! HUH??????? That’s like fraud or something. Except that no one asked them any questions about that….
What do you mean that’s a “rule” when there are all these exceptions because of unusual conditions? What are ya, nuts? It can’t be a rule if a single exception exists.
{/sarc}
Rule? The hell you say.
Yep, the rule exists. But who is society to make rules? Is society your Mom? Huh?
The Christers being poked with sticks right now won’t suck it up forever. They’ll get their shit together, channel their political donations, put feet on the ground, build bridges, and vote the hate-callers out and push the mighty walls of the sandcastle over and be condemned as Jesus Ogres for it. And odds are amazingly high that they’ll do it nonviolently. They folks who tried to shut the doors of polite society on the Christers will suddenly realize that they are on the wrong side of those doors. People who once demanded deference and celebration from the Christers will suddenly understand the great value of the tolerance they recently discarded as a mere steeping stone to mainstream dominance.
I apologize. I think I changed the topic from the OR bakers to ssm and we can spend another 1200 messages fighting THAT topic to exactly the same position.
Gays are going to be allowed to marry in all 50 states. It might take several more decades, but it will happen (unless the economic collapse takes the ‘united states’ down with it). Religious expression will not be allowed to justify exemptions to civil laws. It may take decades for every state Supreme Court to agree. Efforts like those in Kansas will appear to resolve the issue, but it won’t. Anti-homosexuality will become much like every other anti-minority. No institutional bias, but pockets of people here and there because their ‘anti-‘ has no impact on society.
There are lots of reasons society is failing, political and financial corruption are lauded, celebrated and rewarded. Personal corruption is winked at: cheating on spouses, school work, employers. The culture celebrates debauchery (Woodstock wasn’t gay), Miley… Leadership (or what passes for it) is non-existent or equally corrupt (church pastors, community leaders).
Whether families are dysfunctional because of society at large, or society at large is dysfunctional because the family is, really doesn’t make a difference. After a dozen years in family court I’ve learned, the dysfunction has been going on for GENERATIONS.
In the meantime, gays should just shut up and grow up and Christians are victims of a grand conspiracy to put them in a closet.
Not gays. per se’ but “gay-rights” grievance activists who claim that a Christer baker not baking them a cake is the same as a Christer kicking them out of their apartment just for being gay and expecting to be taken seriously.
get the fuck out of my store you sick lesbian = christer tolerance
I no wannna buy your hate cupcakes thanks anyway I go buy these ones instead = mainstream thinking
A lot of gays think gay marriage is a stupid fucking idea and are rather disgusted by the tactics of gay activists who claim to speak fore them. Nor are Christers monolithic on much but they don’t like being picked on when they can do something about it. A society that won’t leave them alone to do as they see fit because feelings and because a small advocacy group demands it is a threat to them and it will be dealt with.
tracy
This is beyond insulting: Anti-homosexuality will become much like every other anti-minority
Name ONE person on this thread that has been anti-homosexual.
What a DISHONEST way to treat this issue.
and
Religious expression will not be allowed to justify exemptions to civil laws
Is blatantly anti-American. I guess you have no problem with doctors & nurses forced to participate in abortions.
feh.
get the fuck out of my store you sick lesbian = christer tolerance
grieferfeet is the author of the Protocols of the Elders of Christianism.
“get the fuck out of my store you sick lesbian = christer tolerance”
No that = Happyfeet thinking like a nine year old on a school playground, going for the burn at all costs, and thus making himself look like a dishonest immature little fool again.
Tracy
You utterly fail to distinguish between the micro and the macro
hf, the neo-authoritarian, is just dialing it in.
it is what it is Mr. Pal the lesson from Oregon is if you act like a bigot you’re not gonna be in business very long cause people won’t buy your stuff
too bad so sad for the bigots but for normal people it’s just a matter finding people they feel good about giving their monies too, which is a more or less effortless endeavor since it’s how people make shopping choices anyways
Also the idea of hate-chicken is pretty infantile. It’s all “HOW DARE YOUR OWNER GO AND THE RADIO AND ADMIT THAT HE DOES NOT THINK AS I COMMAND ALL HUMANS TO THINK! I AM MAINSTREAM! I WILL TAKE AWAY YOUR CHICKEN STORE! FEAR ME! BWAAAAGHH!!”
After a few years of that the hate detectors just look like bossy wusses who can’t shut up or accept that they are a whole lot less mainstream than they want to think.
giving their monies *to* I mean
like how after this I have to go to the Smart n Final and get the bottled water which I feel good about cause of is non-union
Funny
Not one bit of evidence of any christer engaging in hatey-hate behavior
yet the gay mafia harassed, intimated and got fired any number of people who dared to put a couple of bucks toward Prop8
The projection is off the chart
i buy hate chicken but mostly just in Texas cause of the franchisers there where I come from are good people but I still cringe when the hate chicken twats tell me to “have a blessed day” but I don’t say nothing rude cause they’re just little kids but I don;t say you too or nothing like that either cause i figure they already well on their way to having a super blessed day with or without my complicity so I just turn away and go snag a few of their purell wet nap things for my car
hf
when thugs threaten your customers, it doesn’t have anything to do with how well you make the product
Yellow Mogen Davids and street beatings are not in your databanks, eh?
Anti-homosexuality will become much like every other anti-minority
This is what it always boils down to. If you don’t support them, you’re just a H8RHOMOPHOBECHRISTER, because tolerance.
“Liberals seem to assume that, if you don’t believe in their particular political solutions, then you don’t really care about the people that they claim to want to help.” — Dr. Thomas Sowell
(I’ll bet he’s a racist, too!)
“it is what it is Mr. Pal the lesson from Oregon is if you act like a bigot you’re not gonna be in business very long cause people won’t buy your stuff”
The lesson of OR is that little thugs will try to run your life if you let them, and if you don’t, they will make up some cartoonish abusive dialogue aimed at the low information voter mindset to magically dress up ‘not selling someone a cake’ into a dangerous thoughtcrime by HATERS.
It is a lesson of fear and stupidity.
““have a blessed day”’
I have never heard that at a Chic Fil A. I sense le bullshit.
there were no customers threatened here in Oregon Darleen not a single customer came forward and said hey I was threatened I call bullshit on threatened customers
I still cringe when [people I consider non-humans] tell me to “have a blessed day
What a sad, pathetic life you lead. Seek help.
Fred Phelps is a registered democrat who tried to gain political office BTW in case anyone forgets. Christers (or at least people who consider themselves Christers) are not monolithic. But if you keep giving them something to get monolithic around…a big issue. Well, good luck with that. The future belongs to no one and momentum changes. Actions have reactions. Consequences if you will. Christer pushing leads to being pushed by Christers eventually. And there are a whole lot of them.
hf
“The LGBT protestors then turned on other wedding vendors around the community. They threatened to boycott any florists,” Fox News reported, “wedding planners or other vendors that did business with Sweet Cakes By Melissa.”
“That tipped the scales,” Aaron Klein told Fox News. “The LGBT activists inundated them with phone calls and threatened them. They would tell our vendors, ‘If you don’t stop doing business with Sweet Cakes by Melissa, we will shut you down.’”
thugs
I call bullshit on “get the fuck out of my store you sick lesbian = christer tolerance”.
‘Have a blessed day’ sounds like new agers and neo-pagans to me and then only to people they already know. In a restaurant it sounds like some made up shit.
i’m not a super big fan of fast food chicken sammiches what come with weirdo religious baggage I just like to go in and get my sammiches and leave without having to reflect on anything
it reminders me of growing up there and how you always had to be super-nice to the ignant christers cause of their big-ass non-denominational white trash jesus freak church was in my dad’s district
in Los Angeles though you can just go in and buy your sammiches usually
only one time did I ever get foozle with a freaky socio-political context and that was at my soul food place after trayvon got shot and the cook was wearing a very angry shirt what said something like how…. I can’t remember it didn’t really scan – it was a black shirt with white letters and it said something about how “my boss’s kid is black don’t shoot him” or something – I guessed the boss had given it to him? Whatever.
I went there just one more time after that and now I never go no mores
I think Aaron Klein is probably exaggerating Darleen
a good reporter would have a more better source for that allegation
it’s “have a bless-ed day” where bless-ed has two syllables Mr. pal
Cool story bro.
Darleen: “Name ONE person on this thread that has been anti-homosexual.”
Gee, I don’t take newrouter seriously, but I shouldn’t take his comments as animus?
LBascom: “The fags shoulda boycotted. ”
leigh: “Surely those dykes could have found another to bake their cake”
leigh: “Fuck trouble-making shitheads like these persons who can’t buy a goddamn wedding cake at Walmart like the white trash they are.”
Now leigh suggested her choice of words were not animus specifically…
LBascom: “Queers are not only an abominations unto the lord, but an abomination to good hygiene and a perversion of nature.”
I don’t think people excluding people from their daily lives is wrong, bad, or anything other than ‘normal’. But I don’t think attempting to exclude people from aspects of society (full participation) shows welcoming arms.
Darleen: “What a DISHONEST way to treat this issue.”
Well, that is consistent. I’ve been called dishonest all along. the point is that the STATE has to have a compelling interest in applying laws to specific people or exempting specific people from laws. There is NO compelling STATE interest in denying gays the right to marry.
I can’t question your definition of ‘religious expression’ but you can question my definition of marriage? Because for 3000 years homosexuality has been a stoning offense, the lack of gay marriage in history is telling…of what? “oh it was tried and failed”. Or was it because homosexuals were killed if caught. Which, BTW, is still happening under the egis of religious doctrine TODAY…fortunately not in any ‘sufficiently socially corrupt culture’ like the US or Europe. And yes, Christians are dying TODAY for being Christian in exactly the same religious cultures. Isn’t it just peachy that choice of religion and choice of sexual partner have the same level of regard?
Darleen: “Religious expression will not be allowed to justify exemptions to civil laws’ Is blatantly anti-American. ”
No, it’s not. Your religious freedom is explicitly protected, and preventing the State from getting into the religious business is also. Those are fundamental. But your ACTIONS are not so protected. That has been the status quo for our country’s existence.
‘Have a blessed day’ sounds like new agers and neo-pagans to me and then only to people they already know. In a restaurant it sounds like some made up shit.
here Mr. pal is some documentation of the “have a blessed day” phenomenon it’s right there on the jesus chicken website
There is NO compelling STATE interest in denying gays the right to marry.
Except for the fact that we have both already explained why the State has an OVERRIDING interest in defining marriage as one man, one woman. (Generalities, not exceptions.) No one is denying the gay couples the right to engage in a loving relationship with all of the rights and privileges accorded to married folk, but it won’t be defined as marriage, as long as the State has the right to decide what marriage will be defined as and issue a license granting State recognition of same. See also Amendment X.
Why is the word so important?
But your ACTIONS are not so protected. That has been the status quo for our country’s existence.
But it is inaction we are discussing. There is a legal distinction here that I think you fail to grasp. You are saying that the State can force activity based on its own version of religion over the express objections of the ones being forced, and that is an explicit violation of both parts of the religious protections – free expression and establishment.
I have never had that happen even once Happy and visit around four stores in two cities as a semi-regular customer. I go to the Braker Lane location, the Loop 1 and Parmer location, the One in Kyle on the Interstate across from the HEB plus, and the one in San Marcus on the Interstate.
I think the ‘online customer care testimonial’ story called ‘Charging my batteries’ that you linked to is probably bunk. Or it’s one person. And I think you repeated it merely because someone showed it to you probably in a blog making fun of the hatey Christers. I hear ‘Welcome to Chick Fil A and how may I serve you? ‘ typically.
If the baker had accepted the commission, only to arrive at the reception with a cake bearing the legend “This event is an abomination”, then the baker will have committed an action that is discriminatory.
Even if I were to accept the assumption that the claims were diametrically opposed and the harms were even remotely equal (they’re not, but let’s pretend tracy is capable of learning anything and suppose), the courts will support inaction over action as causing the lesser harm.
I have never had that happen even once Happy and visit around four stores in two cities as a semi-regular customer.
Here is more documentations of the “have a blessed day” phenomenon Mr. pal
The idea put forward will be that not baking someone a cake is denying them their right to have you bake them a cake. Principle is irrelevant because opportunism demands transformation of the interpretation of the facts until a path to a preferred outcome is bootstrapped into existence.
It’s like a professed materialist atheist (like say Michael Weinstein) claiming that a Christian trying to convert him to christianity is a form of spiritual rape. He explicitly doesn’t believe in spirits and has not been seized or coerced into sexual acts and yet he uses the phrase spiritual rape because people hate rape and he wants people who hear him to assume that irritating him is just like raping someone. He wants the person irritating him to be hated like a rapist so he makes up a convoluted transformation by which “Bothering me talking about Jesus” = ” Raping me”.
What you mean to say is that marriage will be fundamentally transformed in all 50 states. What that means is a whole lot of state constitutions being amended thusly. And if California went against the notion….
Well, Oregon did too. So, back to the commitment ceremony cake or lack thereof….
“Here is more documentations”
A blog in St. Augustine Florida?
This is the typical “talk shit about Chickfil-a ” link I see from the usual suspects.
http://www.misanthropytoday.com/chick-fil-a-sucks/
anyway I think in America everyone should be able to go into a store and buy a cake without being treated like shit but there shouldn’t really be a role for the state in this
what happened in oregon is exactly what should happen – people just decide to shop elsewhere
It’s the free market at work and I think it’s neat. Yay capitalism say I.
I think “treated like shit” is very much in question.
“people just decide to shop elsewhere”
That is NOT what happened.
‘feets calmly misses all the hateful gay people who gathered together and, hatefully, like a pack of swine, tore at the flesh of that poor Oregon baker fellow like what happened in Hannibal.
Drumwaster: “Why is the word so important?”
If there was no difference between civil union and marriage, then why have a different word? The ‘overriding’ interest is not compromised by letting others participate….not just my opinion.
Drumwaster: “But it is inaction we are discussing”
No it is not. The Baker didn’t stand there staring at the couple, they refused to provide their product.
ah geeessh
Drumwaster: “If the baker had accepted the commission, only to arrive at the reception with a cake bearing the legend “This event is an abomination”, then the baker will have committed an action that is discriminatory”
No, it would have been ‘breach of contract’…
Drumwaster: “the courts will support inaction over action as causing the lesser harm.”
And if the courts said they were unable to quantify or even acknowledge ‘harm to the immortal soul’, and that given the bakers made cakes for weddings, making a cake for a wedding was not harm, but ‘forcing’ the couple to seek out other, maybe further away, bakers caused what was a quantifiable, even if ‘miniscule’ harm…
Drumwaster: (I typed dreamcaster first…weird…) “There is a legal distinction here that I think you fail to grasp. You are saying that the State can force activity based on its own version of religion over the express objections of the ones being forced, and that is an explicit violation of both parts of the religious protections – free expression and establishment.”
The state is not forcing the bakers to do anything they are not already doing, BAKING CAKES. The law is you can’t bake cakes for some people and not bake cakes for other people based on WHO the people are.
If someone bought a pie from them (I saw the sign in their store, they made pies too), took it to a rally and threw it at someone, would the bakers be responsible? Would the bakers upon learning of the event, go and throw themselves at the mercy of the court for making the pie? Would they compensate the person for ‘damages’? If their cake was bought, walked outside and thrown at a moving car, were they responsible? Could they be held accountable? If the wedding couple took the cake and smashed it into each others’ faces and then the whole wedding party got into it and cake was flying everywhere, were the bakers responsible? Could they be held accountable?
The bakers are holding themselves accountable for the use of something they produced. Should gun manufactures hold themselves accountable for crimes committed by people using their products? Should car manufacturers (or beer/wine producers) be held accountable for dui accidents?
no. I am required to accept without further ado, that baking a cake will damn the souls of the bakers, an irreparable , incalculable harm to people whose business is to bake cakes.
The ‘overriding’ interest is not compromised by letting others participate…
Shorter: My interest overrides the State.
Yeah, it actually, is, because you are insisting that your definition comes from an even higher interest, and there is no interest overriding ongoing survival.
If there was no difference between civil union and marriage, then why have a different word?
Because there IS a difference between civil unions and marriage. One is granted to any two people who ask for it, the other is limited to one man and one woman. Everything else is exactly the same, with rights of survivorship and inheritance, property and consanguinity, taxation and regulation. Even the dissolution of the agreements are exactly the same, following the same legal process.
But that wasn’t good enough. It was in San Francisco, fercrissake, but not good enough.
bakers caused what was a quantifiable, even if ‘miniscule’ harm…
I imagine the 75 cents in gas to go to the next baker down the street or the twenty-three cents worth of electricity and phone time it would take to call and ask before driving anywhere is sufficient harm in your universe. How much would the baker suffer in lost time and productivity with the investigation into the baker’s religious beliefs? (I used to charge $350/hr for my professional time, but don’t know what the baker would charge.) See also “coercion”, as mentioned above.
The baker has the right to refuse to violate his own religious convictions, and the State cannot force him to act. The State CAN limit his potential actions if those convictions involve potential harm to others or their property, but they cannot interfere otherwise, nor can they demand that he act in a religious manner contradictory to his own beliefs.
If he believes that his religion forbids him from killing insects, the State cannot force him to do so, even if there are several businesses who do nothing but.
palaeomerus: “I think “treated like shit” is very much in question. That is NOT what happened.”
Are you saying people can’t decide for themselves if they were treated like shit or not?
Are you saying that Happyfeet is who gets to decide that not being sold a cake and treated like shit are one in the same? Or is it you?
The law is you can’t bake cakes for some people and not bake cakes for other people based on WHO the people are.
Once more, the lesbians were not denied the cake. They had been sold several things on earlier occasions without any mention of the word “abomination”. It was WHY they wanted the cake. It wasn’t who they were, it was what they were planning to do, and that is the distinction you fail to grasp. The difference between the actor and the action. The sinner and the sin.
A doctor can spend her days cutting tumors out of people, yet still refuse to perform an abortion. “Hey, it’s just cutting some cells out, it’s what you do every day!”
No, it isn’t the same, there is a vast gulf between the two things and if you still don’t see a distinction, then it is deliberate, and you aren’t worth trying to teach.
Should gun manufactures hold themselves accountable for crimes committed by people using their products?
If it were God holding them responsible? Absolutely. Should they be forced to sell a gun they believed would be used in an act that would cost them their immortal soul?
Drumwaster: “The ‘overriding’ interest is not compromised by letting others participate…Shorter: My interest overrides the State.”
As an individual you have no interest(legal standing) in whether the state grants me a wedding license or not.
Hey. I admit right out front I’m anti-gay.
I’m also an admitted anti-gossip, anti-lying, anti-stealing, anti-adultery, anti-abortion, anti-elder abuse, anti-pedophile, and a bunch of other anti’s.
Fuck y’all if you don’t like it.
Are you saying that the condition of ‘ treated like shit’ is NOT in question or that one can claim to have been treated like shit when one has not?
Is it a universal FACT that If someone doesn’t take your money to bake you a cake you were treated like shit? Or is it hyperbole designed to demonize the one who refused?
Happyfeet thinks his mythical “have a blessed day” phenomenon is an example of being treated like shit but that his calling Sarah Palin a lifeydoodle who spews retard babies is not an example of treating anyone like shit.
You also ran my two quotes together as if they were one quote without the intervening bit that the 2nd part was a response to. I will correct that below.
—————————–
palaeomerus says September 15, 2013 at 4:57 pm
I think “treated like shit(HF)” is very much in question.
“people just decide to shop elsewhere”(HF)
That is NOT what happened.
————————
Drumwaster: “Yeah, it actually, is, because you are insisting that your definition comes from an even higher interest, and there is no interest overriding ongoing survival.”
Your ongoing survival, your ability to procreate, your choice to get married, is not compromised by me getting married. Therefore there is no compelling reason for the State to prevent me from marrying.
Drumwaster: “Because there IS a difference between civil unions and marriage”
Ah, because you created a distinction, the distinction proves the difference.
Drumwaster: “The baker has the right to refuse to violate his own religious convictions, and the State cannot force him to act. The State CAN limit his potential actions if those convictions involve potential harm to others or their property, but they cannot interfere otherwise, nor can they demand that he act in a religious manner contradictory to his own beliefs.”
You keep saying that, but the law disagrees.
Drumwaster: “If he believes that his religion forbids him from killing insects”
Then he probably should not own a pest control business….
As an individual you have no interest(legal standing) in whether the state grants me a wedding license or not.
I never claimed to have standing. But the State DOES have standing to determine the requirements for any license it has the authority to issue, and the overriding interest in making sure (generalities, not exceptions) there is a next generation to populate the State in years to come. Simply allowing the possibility of exceptions and making accommodations for them using other words should be sufficient, but just because people who don’t meet the definitions used by the State won’t qualify for the license they are requesting is NOT sufficient to dilute the institution through altering the definitions used.
As you pointed out above, if you want the license, you do what the State wants. It can’t even be claimed that marriage is still a favored institution here in California, because civil unions were treated exactly the same in every instance where marriage and the State might conceivably interact, but it always goes back to “But I want to tell Daddy I really CAN get married for realsies!”
And so the rest of us have to cope with our political will being ignored, our elected officials being told by the unelected officials that they no longer have to worry about the hoi polloi getting all uppity and demanding that they actually uphold the laws they swore to uphold, because they lack standing, and people like you claiming that people can be forced by the State to commit a sin.
Then he probably should not own a pest control business…
And when you learn that his control methods do not involve killing any of them? Can the State still force him to kill?
Ah, because you created a distinction, the distinction proves the difference.
I’m not the one who created the distinction. “Male and female created He them.”
You keep saying that, but the law disagrees.
Except that I’m not the one saying it. The Constitution says it, and the Constitution overrides the law. Any law. ANY law. Do you not get that yet?
palaeomerus: “Are you saying that the condition of ‘ treated like shit’ is NOT in question or that one can claim to have been treated like shit when one has not? ”
I am asking if you think other people get to decide whether someone who says they were treated like shit, in fact were treated like shit.
And let me also add, just because I think tracy is a liar, I DON’T think she should be stoned or anything. I will just note tracy is a liar that lies and it ain’t a good thing. There is no reason to have a liar pride parade and pretend a few liars fucking in an apartment rented under both the liars alias’s are “married”.
Feel free to pretend your alternate reality is real though…
Ah, because you created a distinction, the distinction proves the difference.
One other thing. There is a difference, and it is the only distinction between the two conditions.
THE NAME.
One is called ‘marriage’ (between one man and one woman) and the other is called ‘civil union’ (all other two-being combinations). Nothing else.
Not good enough.
Drumcaster: “Should they be forced to sell a gun they believed would be used in an act that would cost them their immortal soul?”
I think I have been consistent: a believe a business should be free to refuse to sell/provide a service, at any time to any person for any reason. The law however is not that accepting.
THAT is a distinction YOU continual refuse to accept/acknowledge. I disagree with the law, no one else here does. YOU say you don’t need to change the law, it is already on your side. Except it is not. Ruling in NM, the SCOTUS already say you are wrong. I am willing to change the law. No one else here is.
YOU say you don’t need to change the law, it is already on your side.
No, I said, I have the Constitution on my side, and it overrides any law you care to mention. proteinwisdom.com/?p=50840#comment-1014539
You keep saying that your Law overrides the Constitution. Prove it.
No one else here is.
I see why LBascom calls you a liar.
Drumwaster: ” The Constitution says it, and the Constitution overrides the law. Any law. ANY law. Do you not get that yet?”
I’m not a big fan of the SCOTUS nowadays (not that I ever was), but THEY say, you’re wrong. And unless you can get some state, or other entity to enforce/defend/support/fight for YOUR position, then THEIR position is that, you’re wrong. Not that the Constitution is the final say, only that your application of it to a specific circumstance is. (do note, that in many cases, the Constitution’s final say is that it has nothing to say on the matter….states can regulate businesses for instance).
Since I am personally never getting married (to anyone, of either sex) again, it really doesn’t matter to me. CJ is planning on a husband and three kids eventually (maybe four), so it doesn’t matter to me which side prevails (she obviously supports ssm – well, maybe not obviously, she opposes abortion and welfare…)
I have voted for Reagan, Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush, and Bush. I have supported Republicans and conservatives at every opportunity EXCEPT McCain and Romney. I ALMOST supported McCain after he picked Palin…but in the end, he was the top of the ticket. Had I lived in CA at the time however, I would have voted AGAINST Prop 8. That was just a big FU to gays. Christians and conservatives could get a one man/one woman amendment passed but not an anti-abortion amendment. Kinda proved where the priorities were.
I left the GOP in 2005 over Bankruptcy Reform legislation…that was the last straw for me.
Drumwaster: “You keep saying that your Law overrides the Constitution. Prove it.”
No I don’t. YOU say the Constitution overrides the law. Except, when tested in court, the law prevails – meaning the Constitution DOESN’T over ride the law, the law comports with the Constitution. YOUR position is that the Constitution trumps, and apparently I assume comprehension when none exists, except that when presented with an opportunity to use the Constitution to end the law, it doesn’t. The law stands. Which doesn’t mean the law trumps the Constitution, only that it doesn’t violate the Constitution. YOUR position that the law violates the Constitution has been tested and it failed. Several times.
Show me where SCOTUS says people can be forced to perform acts that violate their religious convictions, because I can’t find anything, and I am not going to do your homework for you. The US Constitution specifically and explicitly says that neither Congress nor any State can do what you keep blithely insisting they have already done. (Amendments I, X, XIII & XIV) The Oregon Constitution specifically and explicitly says that no law in any case whatever can be used to interfere in someone’s rights of conscience, and it is a Class ‘C’ felony – 5 years/$125k fine – to attempt to force someone to commit any act they have the legal right to refuse.
But … feelings, right?
I was right….lack of comprehension.
“I am asking if you think other people get to decide whether someone who says they were treated like shit, in fact were treated like shit. ”
Because YOU are the fence, right Tracy?
Which doesn’t mean the law trumps the Constitution, only that it doesn’t violate the Constitution.
Amusingly enough, you are now arguing against the position you took earlier, because it is exactly what I replied above. You are now paraphrasing what I said in an attempt to disprove what I said.
Bravo.
I agree that Congress has the right to influence behavior through the power to tax. But as I mentioned above (and you failed to follow), the problem people had was that the Chief called it a “tax”, when even the government’s lawyers refused to claim such. It is that reason it was a bad decision (SCOTUS isn’t supposed to rewrite the legislation and then rule on how it would be after those editorial changes), not because of the decision they reached.
Another nuance you fail to grasp, I see.
I guess even lawyers need someone to fetch coffee and carry file cases during those long court sessions…
“I was right….lack of comprehension.”
Goalposts on roller skates ahoy! Activate the ‘No true scotsmans’ shields! All ahead flank speed!
“I am asking if you think other people get to decide whether someone who says they were treated like shit, in fact were treated like shit. ”
So you think the truth of an assertion is unilaterally determined by the claimant? You think treated like shit is this nebulous floating protean condition that can be true if you squint and false if you don’t ? Is it a matter of consensus? is there a spec? Should I unconditionally trust that someone was treated like shit because they feel they were or say they were? Is such an assertion really beyond question? Is not being sold a cake being treated like shit merely because the person not sold a cake says it is?
Is it possible to question that not selling someone a cake is treating them like shit? Because I question the fuck out of it and don’t much care if someone thinks that’s cheating or unfair in the heat of their dumb argument.
palaeomerus: “Should I unconditionally trust that someone was treated like shit because they feel they were or say they were?”
Should I unconditionally trust that someone’s immortal soul is in danger because they said baking a cake would put them in that jeopardy?
Why yes, I should, and it says so in the Constitution.
No, I think if someone says they were treated like shit, I’d like to hear more. I don’t accept it as gospel or anything. I have watched people say thank you and the recipitant turn to me and say ‘did you hear that shit?”
I think people HEAR what they want to hear all the time. I think people say ‘no thanks’ and it is taken as FUCK YOU all the time. So, no, I want to hear more about how someone was ‘treated like shit’ before I give an ounce of weight to it. But I am not going to dismiss it either. Because I’ve read a transcript of someone saying something that sounds perfectly fine but having actually heard the person say it with such hatred, contempt and disdain, know that just the words isn’t always the whole story. A story we often never get to hear the truth of.
I am asking if you think other people get to decide whether someone who says they were treated like shit, in fact were treated like shit.
Yep. See: Crystal Magnum & Duke Lacrosse
Drumwaster: “Amusingly enough, you are now arguing against the position you took earlier, because it is exactly what I replied above. You are now paraphrasing what I said in an attempt to disprove what I said.”
Pot calling out kettle….
My position has not changed. BUT, I will concede that you made a general statement: Constitution trumps all laws, to which I replied “no it doesn’t trump THIS Oregon law [because the law comports with the Constitution]. so the specific: It doesn’t trump the NM law either….to the general but in a fight between a law and the Constitution, the Constitution wins every time.
So, when you say, the Constitution trumps laws that affect religious expression (the general), so this OR law is wrong (the specific), your position is wrong. While the specific OR law may not have had it’s day in court, other laws just like it have (as in NM) and they have found to be consistent with the Constitution.
[because the law comports with the Constitution]
Except that we have shown in this case that it does not. There is a conflict wherein one person claims that performing an act will violate his Constitutionally-guaranteed religious principles, and the other claims that if she doesn’t get cake from this particular baker, her feelings will be hurt.
QED
Drumwaster: “Except that we have shown in this case that it does not”
No, you haven’t shown it. In THIS specific case, the assertion that the law violates the Constitution does not prove that it does. In SIMILAR cases, the assertion that the law violates the Constitution has been refuted. In NM, FOR NM, the ruling was unanimous. The SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that such laws are Constitutional. If the OR law or the NM decision goes to the SCOTUS, there is little chance they will be ruled unConstitutional.
“Should I unconditionally trust that someone’s immortal soul is in danger because they said baking a cake would put them in that jeopardy?”
Is that actually an answer to either my question OR yours? Nope. Just some lame lazy sophistry trying to pass for pith. And it’s all dressed up in the same stupid and disingenuously acute drama that “transforms “won’t sell someone a cake” into ” was treated like shit”.
The constitution is not forbidding government restrictions on matters of religion in order to preserve souls from hellfire but to preserve people from having their religion and its teachings subject to definition, regulation, and refvision from on high by government, especially in order to attempt to redress such pitiful and trivial alleged injuries as “would not sell someone a cake” merely because that refusal to act can be reinterpreted into a vague but highly inflammatory chimera as “treated someone like shit”.
Wait until the government tells gays what gay is and punishes gays who don’t comport to that determination.
“SIMILAR cases,”
LOL!
the assertion that the law violates the Constitution does not prove that it does.
Your assertion that the State can force someone to violate their religious beliefs (with the unspoken corollary that the force can include armed agents) is sufficient as well. Either way you look at it, you have one person who refuses to do a thing for religious reasons, and another who insists that if he isn’t forced by the State to do so anyway, someone’s feelings will be hurt.
No matter how you look at it, it is the lesbian couple’s butthurt versus the baker religious beliefs.
palaeomerus: “Is that actually an answer to either my question OR yours? Nope. Just some lame lazy sophistry trying to pass for pith.”
So, you read the first line and then just ignored the rest. So much easier to pass off some little insult and move on to characterizing positions suitable for a similar treatment.
Drumwaster: “No matter how you look at it, it is the lesbian couple’s butthurt versus the baker religious beliefs.”
tracycoyle: “In the meantime, gays should just shut up and grow up and Christians are victims of a grand conspiracy to put them in a closet.”
I didn’t ignore the rest. Not that it was particularly worthy of a response.
“No, I think if someone says they were treated like shit, I’d like to hear more. I don’t accept it as gospel or anything. ”
Well great because what I originally said was: “I think “treated like shit” is very much in question. ”
What was PREVIOUSLY said by you was :
———————–
palaeomerus: “Are you saying that the condition of ‘ treated like shit’ is NOT in question or that one can claim to have been treated like shit when one has not? ”
I am asking if you think other people get to decide whether someone who says they were treated like shit, in fact were treated like shit. –
———————–
Which was your snarky fusilade against your truncation of :
———————–
palaeomerus says September 15, 2013 at 4:57 pm
I think “treated like shit” is very much in question.
“people just decide to shop elsewhere”
That is NOT what happened.
————————————-
THAT was offered in response to happyfeet:
———————————–
happyfeet says September 15, 2013 at 4:56 pm
anyway I think in America everyone should be able to go into a store and buy a cake without being treated like shit but there shouldn’t really be a role for the state in this
what happened in oregon is exactly what should happen – people just decide to shop elsewhere
It’s the free market at work and I think it’s neat. Yay capitalism say I.
—————————
“In the meantime, gays should just shut up and grow up and Christians are victims of a grand conspiracy to put them in a closet.”
I’ll shoot the first MFer tells me I gotta bake’em a cake. I swear it.
Slavery is a choice, remember?
Note that the activities of a movement that has been explicit in its intent is being hidden away casually behind the cartoonish “a grand conspiracy”.
st. “trayvon”: phony gayster scam
No H8? — Bombshell Book: Matthew Shepard Tortured, Murdered by Gay Lover
See how a state rep fits into that statement tracy?
Be careful where you force the people to choose.
Newrouter, you’re a day late and a dollar short.
Be careful where you force the people to choose.
The People did. Twice. And were told that their efforts were in vain by an unelected social engineer. They can’t even sue to force the elected government to support and defend the constitution.
Soap box.
Ballot box.
Jury box.
Ammo box.
Be careful which choices you take away…
possibly a brain too!
“social engineer” -> utopian dialectic aligned pseudo-pragmatic social experimentalist
Engineers generally know what they are doing and why and what it will cost and what will result.
Well, a <working brain…
:-D
In the end, all my liberal friends have exactly the same question/premise everyone here has: how can a gay be a conservative?
In the meantime, gays should just shut up and grow up
In the sense that everyone else has – that we can’t always get everything we want, because other people might not want to cater to every whim. Most people learn that before they hit junior high.
The lesbians learned that there are some bakers that don’t want to support their every whim, and anyone else would have gone on to the next one in the Yellow Pages. But the H8RHOMOPHOBECHRISTERS would not be taught the proper lesson.
I do not have the slightest doubt that their victim in this case was selected very carefully. Just like in New Mexico. No one can seriously argue that there were no other photographers in the State of New Mexico or bakers in Oregon. I could find several with a single Google search. But the H8RHOMOPHOBECHRISTERS would not be taught the proper lesson.
The lesson you are trying to teach may not be the lesson you’re actually teaching. You have taken an “ends justify the means” stance, and I shall not shed a tear when you see it used against you.
“the same question/premise everyone here has: how can a gay be a conservative?”
If they are honest, intelligent, and true Americans, they will trust in the premise of equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Like everyone else.
Once you give up on the entitlement mentality, you are free to be all you can be.
Huh! My comment is awaiting moderation!
This can’t be good…
I roll my eyes when my liberal friends tell me about the cartoon they are watching over and over again so they can be deemed better than everyone else.
Oh good lord, why am I being moderated ?
Was it all the dashes I used as separators when quoting? Buy awesome majestic chinese purses y’all!
>how can a gay be a conservative?<
how can a lesbo be an idiot?
new pw feature?:
>Your comment is awaiting moderation.<
Umm, NSA person…I didn’t mean it. I was playing. I drank a little too much. My medications are clashing. I haven’t been getting enough sleep. My dog died. My aunt died. My dreams died. I’m not working steady like I used to. I’m a victim of fast food advertisements and obesity, causing depression, and the heartbreak of psoriasis . My friends are influencing me. The GOP! BUSH! I CAN’T HELP MYSELF! AARGGHH!!!1!1!
Drumwaster: “some bakers [of cake] that don’t want to support their every whim”
by like, baking a cake
Link
what we had in Oregon were a couple of silly bigoted hicks who refused to do business with people whose religious views were contrary to their own
and people were very put off by that
It’s cause that sort of behavior is as fundamentally unamerican as anything people are ever likely to encounter.
Just flat out unamerican. We don’t pick who we do business with in this country based on people’s religious views.
It would be very sad if that were to change.
Test
“what we had in Oregon were a couple of silly bigoted hicks who refused to do business with people whose religious views were contrary to their own – See more at: https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=50840#comments”
Nope
” and people were very put off by that”
Activist thugs are people too.
“It’s cause that sort of behavior is as fundamentally unamerican as anything people are ever likely to encounter. ”
Not baking someone a cake is unamerican. In unamerica.
“It would be very sad if that were to change.”
Thugs must be obeyed.
What is un-American is trying to force someone to violate their own conscience.
And I thought gay people were fabulous!. WTF are they doing trying to force hicks into decorating their cake?!
>Just flat out unamerican. We don’t pick who we do business with in this country based on people’s religious views.<
the gaysters do dude. get over it bigot.
Sure we do. “psst, i can get that for you wholesale”
And I thought gay people were fabulous!. WTF are they doing trying to force hicks into decorating their cake?!
If they wanted true hicks to bake their cake, I had the solution a thousand comments ago: get it at WalMart.
You must be joking. WalMart? In Portland? They probably spent all the year before protesting to keep WalMart out of their neighborhood.
They don’t want to associate with them types…
Types with jobs that don’t involve “following their bliss”? Them types?
Yeah, what was I thinking? WalMart isn’t even union and you have to, like show up on time and punch a clock and other fascist shit like that. *shudder*
Walmart is against the progg religion. They don’t want to do business with them.
No unions, a good selection, low pricing, convenient…it must die.
What with all the excitement of the Hawks mauling the 49ers it’s been hard to keep up with this thread (as it is I got a late start and I’m only halfway through it) but I thought of what might be a better analogy than some of the ones already put forth.
If the problem for the bakers is not the customer (having already been a repeat customer) and not the requested product (being generic) but the EVENT which they want no part of, wouldn’t that be like the following:
A tourist gift shop sells, among other things, American flags and related paraphrenalia. Customer walks in, wants to buy a flag. Store owner (a Don’t Tread On Me / Molon Labe sign in his window – he didn’t read Havel) is all set to ring up the purchase when he overhears customer telling his friend about the protest rally coming up at which he plans to burn said flag.
Assuming flag-burning, while reprehensible, is not illegal, can / should the store owner refuse to sell the flag to the customer? Is the store owner a bigot? Is he engaging in discrimination? Does the customer have the right to claim politically-based discrimination? To boycott the store? To threaten the store owner’s suppliers with shutdown?
Thoughts?
Yay! Another dead thread posting!
I like it Yackums.
Bottom line, I think, is conservatives believe a private citizen should be able to sell (or not) to anyone for any reason, and let natural market forces work.
Proggs, as always, think people need to be forced to sell (or not) only approved items to whom they tell private citizens they must (or must not) sell to, depending on the political agenda being pushed at the moment.
In other words, the right basically are live and let live types, the left live, and we’ll tell you how to live types.
So, we will continue being pushed, as is natural when the tolerant meet the tyrannical…right up to the point where we won’t be pushed anymore. That is the part the left doesn’t get. They get to thinking they can push forever.
They are in for one hell of a shock.