View Full Version : No free speech in the Peoples Republic of Oregon
Clocker
07-03-2015, 10:33 AM
The SCOTUS ruling in the same sex marriage case stated that it would not affect the freedom of speech or religion to continue to advocate against same sex marriage. Apparently the Peoples Republic of Oregon feels that does not apply out there in the socialist utopia.
The final order in the case of the bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple was just released. The order affirms the initial fine of $135,000 for emotional damages, which is in line with the new SCOTUS discovery of the constitutional right to dignity. It also imposes a gag order on the owners of the bakery, ordering them to cease and desist publicly advocating against same sex marriage.
Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian finalized a preliminary ruling today ordering Aaron and Melissa Klein, the bakers who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, to pay $135,000 in emotional damages to the couple they denied service.
“This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage,” Avakian wrote. “It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.”
In the ruling, Avakian placed an effective gag order on the Kleins, ordering them to “cease and desist” from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs.
Lawyers for plaintiffs, Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer, argued that in making this statement, the Kleins violated an Oregon law banning people from acting on behalf of a place of public accommodation (in this case, the place would be the Kleins’ former bakery) to communicate anything to the effect that the place of public accommodation would discriminate.
http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/02/state-silences-bakers-who-refused-to-make-cake-for-lesbian-couple-fines-them-135k/
It also imposes a gag order on the owners of the bakery, ordering them to cease and desist publicly advocating against same sex marriage.
The Fourth Reich begins.
No one has the right to tell people what they cannot say.
Time to take action against the court and the justices.
We should file a complaint in the World Court against the Nine Traitors.
The world would love that.
GD the justices - everyone one of them.
LottaKash
07-03-2015, 12:51 PM
And you know, these days, I don't think that most Amerikans really give a shit about any of this....
We are too busy "Amusing" ourselves to death...
It's ok, we will twitter it a bunch, and then it will all go away... :eek:...not...
Clocker
07-03-2015, 01:10 PM
And you know, these days, I don't think that most Amerikans really give a shit about any of this....
But a lot of them who "think" about such things will approve, because obviously speaking out against something on religious grounds is hate speech.
classhandicapper
07-03-2015, 01:38 PM
It also imposes a gag order on the owners of the bakery, ordering them to cease and desist publicly advocating against same sex marriage.
I never in my wildest nightmares thought this day could come to America.
Even if you are pro gay marriage this should scare the bejesus out of you.
Clocker
07-03-2015, 01:54 PM
I never in my wildest nightmares thought this day could come to America.
Even if you are pro gay marriage this should scare the bejesus out of you.
To be clear, the gag order is not to stop anyone from expressing an opposition to gay marriage, it is to stop them from advocating a religious right to decide what services a business will or will not provide.
And that is all that they can do now is talk about it. They can't actually try to exercise any freedom of religion in operating their bakery, because the bakery went out of business as a result of all of this.
Robert Fischer
07-03-2015, 02:38 PM
This is interesting.
It is pretty clear that company isn't allowed to publicly protest same-sex marriage, but it becomes less clear when we talk of the owners as individuals.
The details here are not very clear. It's hard to know exactly what the owners were doing, in order to try to form an opinion.
I don't see enough information, so I will hold off on forming an opinion on this for now.
classhandicapper
07-03-2015, 03:04 PM
To be clear, the gag order is not to stop anyone from expressing an opposition to gay marriage, it is to stop them from advocating a religious right to decide what services a business will or will not provide.
That's only slightly less offensive to me. And I don't begrudge their belief that the ruling in some way moves them towards an intrinsically superior moral position. They should have whatever laws they think are appropriate in Oregon. I just don't want to live in the same state with them or in a country that agrees with that ruling. The law is the law, but I should still be able to express why I think any law is unjust and make my case.
Clocker
07-03-2015, 03:11 PM
It is pretty clear that company isn't allowed to publicly protest same-sex marriage, but it becomes less clear when we talk of the owners as individuals.
It appears that the law says that the company cannot talk about or advocate different treatment for different people based on things like sexual preference. Since the company no longer exists, the gag order was probably improperly issued and does not apply to individuals who no longer own a company serving the public. But the individuals probably still have to fight the order to show that it was improperly issued.
That said, there is still a law on the books in Oregon banning people from acting on behalf of a "place of public accommodation" to communicate anything to the effect that the place of public accommodation would discriminate.
This is interesting.
It is pretty clear that company isn't allowed to publicly protest same-sex marriage, but it becomes less clear when we talk of the owners as individuals.
The details here are not very clear. It's hard to know exactly what the owners were doing, in order to try to form an opinion.
I don't see enough information, so I will hold off on forming an opinion on this for now.
The government vs people.
No-brainer - the government is wrong.
No matter what they were planning.
We have 50 states, or 57, depending on how stupid you are, do we really need Oregon? Russia is close by and they seem to be far more communist than American. Dump Oregon!
Robert Goren
07-04-2015, 08:32 AM
A business does not have the right to hide behind "Christian" beliefs of its owner to discriminate against one of its want-to-be customers. This issue was settled in 1960s and 1970s when racists business owners attempted to continue their discrimination of Black customers by twisting passages from the Bible. Why are these anti-gay bigots of today and different from the anti-Black bigots of the 1960s? The answer is they aren't. And they certainly are not anymore "sincere" that the racists, if "sincere" is the right word when it comes to bigotry. I am also not buying into the foolishness that it is attack on "Christianity". The racists made the same claims. In fact, the racists could sue the anti-gay rights crowd for plagiarism because the text of their arguments are almost word for word the same. I guess that would be fair because the pro-gay rights crowd has done same with the words that were used by fighters of racism in the 1960s.
Robert Goren
07-04-2015, 08:36 AM
The government vs people.
No-brainer - the government is wrong.
No matter what they were planning.
We have 50 states, or 57, depending on how stupid you are, do we really need Oregon? Russia is close by and they seem to be far more communist than American. Dump Oregon! At least in Oregon, they don't have a judge asking "sympathy" for the family of a guy who killed 9 people in a church.
Nothing more repulsive than a judge - any judge, anywhere.
lamboguy
07-04-2015, 09:36 AM
doesn't it look like even though he is losing business with Macy's, NBC, and Nascar, he is gaining strength with regular people that are sick and tired of listening to all the bull shit artist's that we have in government these days.
if his longshot status gets him to the final show, he will get a lot of democrats to vote for him. i don't think Hilary can hang on to all of those votes against him, and i doubt that she can pick up that many republican crossover's to equal out what she will lose to Trump.
Trump is now ahead in the polls for the nomination for those that think he is a joke.
I hope President Trump fires all the democrats and sends them south before he builds the fence.
boxcar
07-04-2015, 01:42 PM
A business does not have the right to hide behind "Christian" beliefs of its owner to discriminate against one of its want-to-be customers. This issue was settled in 1960s and 1970s when racists business owners attempted to continue their discrimination of Black customers by twisting passages from the Bible. Why are these anti-gay bigots of today and different from the anti-Black bigots of the 1960s? The answer is they aren't. And they certainly are not anymore "sincere" that the racists, if "sincere" is the right word when it comes to bigotry. I am also not buying into the foolishness that it is attack on "Christianity". The racists made the same claims. In fact, the racists could sue the anti-gay rights crowd for plagiarism because the text of their arguments are almost word for word the same. I guess that would be fair because the pro-gay rights crowd has done same with the words that were used by fighters of racism in the 1960s.
So, in your world, any Christian who says that homosexual practices are condemned by God in both the OT and NT, is a bigot? That we must be twisting passages? Do you have any idea how many passages there are that condemn all forms of sexual immorality?
And just because racists twisted biblical passages out of their context means that everyone else does too? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Now, if you want to hear people twist passages beyond all recognition, you should listen to the religious homosexuals who claim to be Christians do that very thing! They put on quite a show!
TJDave
07-04-2015, 02:07 PM
So, in your world, any Christian who says that homosexual practices are condemned by God in both the OT and NT, is a bigot? That we must be twisting passages? Do you have any idea how many passages there are that condemn all forms of sexual immorality?
If they are truly condemned by God then I'm sure he's quite capable of dealing with it. Christian bakers should leave the condemnation to God, STFU and bake cakes.
It's a shame the gag order couldn't be extended to include you.
boxcar
07-04-2015, 02:38 PM
If they are truly condemned by God then I'm sure he's quite capable of dealing with it. Christian bakers should leave the condemnation to God, STFU and bake cakes.
It's a shame the gag order couldn't be extended to include you.
Well, you see, God in his infinite wisdom has saved fools like myself to become his ambassadors to warn sinners that unless they repent of their sins and believe in God's provision for their sin, they will be condemned to spend all eternity in the Lake of Fire.
And by the way, the Christian owners of that bakery never condemned the homosexual couple. All they did was stand on biblical principle, thereby exercising their religious freedom to not directly or indirectly participate in the sin of that "couple".. But I suspect that the term "principle", when not used in the context of monetary gain, would be a foreign word to you.
Christian bakers should leave the condemnation to God, STFU and bake cakes.
It's a shame the gag order couldn't be extended to include you.
Are there no un-Holy bakeries who would carter to this unnatural ritual?
May people liske you should be gagged for tryingto tell other people what is right for them.
You are not GODR after all.
Let HIMR deal with the bakers and you deal with whatever it is you deal with?
Saratoga_Mike
07-04-2015, 04:27 PM
A business does not have the right to hide behind "Christian" beliefs of its owner to discriminate against one of its want-to-be customers. This issue was settled in 1960s and 1970s when racists business owners attempted to continue their discrimination of Black customers by twisting passages from the Bible. .
Burwell v Hobby Lobby is on point here (granted it involved an employee), which would mean you're incorrect.
Robert Goren
07-04-2015, 05:24 PM
So, in your world, any Christian who says that homosexual practices are condemned by God in both the OT and NT, is a bigot? That we must be twisting passages? Do you have any idea how many passages there are that condemn all forms of sexual immorality?
And just because racists twisted biblical passages out of their context means that everyone else does too? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Now, if you want to hear people twist passages beyond all recognition, you should listen to the religious homosexuals who claim to be Christians do that very thing! They put on quite a show! First of all the Bible never said that you could not sell to a gay or that you should not do business with a gay. It would be interesting to see those bakers are following all of the passages in the Bible or are refusing to do business with those who don't. I suspect they have no trouble selling cakes to people who wear clothes of mixed fabrics or do not follow the dietary laws in the Bible or people who worship on the first day instead of the seventh. I could go on for pages. The bakers are bigots pure and simple. They judge somebody on the way they were created. That makes them a bigot, pure and simple, no matter how many Bible verses they can quote.
boxcar
07-04-2015, 05:44 PM
First of all the Bible never said that you could not sell to a gay or that you should not do business with a gay. It would be interesting to see those bakers are following all of the passages in the Bible or are refusing to do business with those who don't. I suspect they have no trouble selling cakes to people who wear clothes of mixed fabrics or do not follow the dietary laws in the Bible or people who worship on the first day instead of the seventh. I could go on for pages. The bakers are bigots pure and simple. They judge somebody on the way they were created. That makes them a bigot, pure and simple, no matter how many Bible verses they can quote.
Mixed fabrics? Dietary Laws? Sabbath days? Are you serious? We're not living in the Old Covenant Age. We're in the New Covenant era. And the New replaces the Old.
Secondly, you're operating on the assumption that homosexuals and lesbians were created that way. Chapter and verse, please. And furthermore, are fornicators, too, born that way? How 'bout adulterers? Have they identified the adultery gene?
Thirdly, there are biblical principles involved and I have discussed this previously. And broad, sweeping principles are a bear because they cover an awful lot of ground. So...when a baker or whoever refuses to give tacit approval to someone's sinful lifestyle (which that "someone" has chosen to make public!), by baking that someone a cake for the occasion, that Christian is well within the bounds of Christ's gospel to refuse service. To what should we liken such a scenario? Let's say a known alcoholic is out on the corner of a main drag panhandling money for food (so his sign says). Should I just toss in a few bills into his hat and believe that he's not going to use that money for wine or beer or booze? I just should just blindly take his sign's word for it? And if I did and then he turns around and buys a pint of MadDog with my money, would I not be contributing to his sinful behavior? Would I not unwittingly be putting my stamp of approval on it? You see...there are no biblical texts either that say we should only feed this kind of beggar or that kind of panhandler. But there are plenty of biblical principles involved by which Christians should make spiritual/moral judgments. Christians, after all, are supposed to be as wise as serpents, yet innocent as doves.
Clocker
07-04-2015, 05:54 PM
First of all the Bible never said that you could not sell to a gay or that you should not do business with a gay.
They are not refusing to sell to gays. They are refusing to create a gay-themed wedding cake. They view that as participation.
They are not objecting to a life style, they are objecting to being forced to do something themselves that they consider to be immoral.
A number of photographers have been sued for refusing to shoot gay weddings because they feel that doing so is participation, and immoral for them. Do you feel that refusing to shoot a gay wedding on that basis is discrimination? What if it was a nudist wedding? What if it was porn?
Robert Goren
07-04-2015, 06:02 PM
Burwell v Hobby Lobby is on point here (granted it involved an employee), which would mean you're incorrect.So now I can refuse to sell to a person because they are a Jew or a Catholic or a Baptist or Mormon or an atheist or agnostic or a Charismatic or a Born-Again Christian. It means I can refuse to sell to Black or White or Native American or Chinese American or someone of Mixed races..... I think not. I do not know how old you are, but I can remember when that was true. Those bigoted businessmen did not change because of the goodness of their hearts. They changed because law made them change. Anybody who thinks that it can not go back to the way it was 50 years ago, is a lot more of an optimist than I am. I see an awful lot of people who would like to go back. Remember it took a Supreme Court ruling to allow inter-racial marriage in some places just as it did to allow gay marriage in some places.
The Hobby Lobby ruling was not very well thought out and the justices did realize what is going to result from it. It short leap to reach the point where an employer can refuse to hire some one they consider to be "unsaved". At some point in the future, it will have to be revisited and overturned. Even before this ruling, religion in the work place was touchy problem for employers as any employer who had to deal with a person who thought it was their calling to "save" another employee and that "unsaved" employee did not like their harassment. That is the kind of thing that law suits are made of and give HR people nightmares.
Robert Goren
07-04-2015, 06:14 PM
They are not refusing to sell to gays. They are refusing to create a gay-themed wedding cake. They view that as participation.
They are not objecting to a life style, they are objecting to being forced to do something themselves that they consider to be immoral.
A number of photographers have been sued for refusing to shoot gay weddings because they feel that doing so is participation, and immoral for them. Do you feel that refusing to shoot a gay wedding on that basis is discrimination? What if it was a nudist wedding? What if it was porn? What if it was a Black wedding? or an inter-racial wedding? or Jewish wedding? or Catholic wedding? or a "rock" wedding for Wiccans? Tell me which ones do you get to refuse. If you say all, then what did Rosa Parks accomplish? Tell me why you can refuse one of them and still be forced by law to do the others?
Robert Goren
07-04-2015, 06:26 PM
Mixed fabrics? Dietary Laws? Sabbath days? Are you serious? We're not living in the Old Covenant Age. We're in the New Covenant era. And the New replaces the Old.
Secondly, you're operating on the assumption that homosexuals and lesbians were created that way. Chapter and verse, please. And furthermore, are fornicators, too, born that way? How 'bout adulterers? Have they identified the adultery gene?
Thirdly, there are biblical principles involved and I have discussed this previously. And broad, sweeping principles are a bear because they cover an awful lot of ground. So...when a baker or whoever refuses to give tacit approval to someone's sinful lifestyle (which that "someone" has chosen to make public!), by baking that someone a cake for the occasion, that Christian is well within the bounds of Christ's gospel to refuse service. To what should we liken such a scenario? Let's say a known alcoholic is out on the corner of a main drag panhandling money for food (so his sign says). Should I just toss in a few bills into his hat and believe that he's not going to use that money for wine or beer or booze? I just should just blindly take his sign's word for it? And if I did and then he turns around and buys a pint of MadDog with my money, would I not be contributing to his sinful behavior? Would I not unwittingly be putting my stamp of approval on it? You see...there are no biblical texts either that say we should only feed this kind of beggar or that kind of panhandler. But there are plenty of biblical principles involved by which Christians should make spiritual/moral judgments. Christians, after all, are supposed to be as wise as serpents, yet innocent as doves.So you get to pick what is sinful and act as a businessman accordingly. There is one thing I can tell from your posts, that if I acted that way as businessman, I could not do business with you or anyone who thinks like you. There is no doubt in my mind that you are going to Hell for perverting Christ's teaching. You are the false prophet that the Bible talks about. But that is neither here or there. As a businessman, I do not get to turn you away. If I have too much of a problem with the lifestyles of my customers, then I should quit the business and find a business where I don't have to deal with the "sinners".
Clocker
07-04-2015, 06:27 PM
What if it was a Black wedding? or an inter-racial wedding? or Jewish wedding? or Catholic wedding? or a "rock" wedding for Wiccans? Tell me which ones do you get to refuse. If you say all, then what did Rosa Parks accomplish? Tell me why you can refuse one of them and still be forced by law to do the others?
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake with a Confederate flag for a redneck wedding?
Robert Goren
07-04-2015, 06:28 PM
Mixed fabrics? Dietary Laws? Sabbath days? Are you serious? We're not living in the Old Covenant Age. We're in the New Covenant era. And the New replaces the Old.
Secondly, you're operating on the assumption that homosexuals and lesbians were created that way. Chapter and verse, please. And furthermore, are fornicators, too, born that way? How 'bout adulterers? Have they identified the adultery gene?
Thirdly, there are biblical principles involved and I have discussed this previously. And broad, sweeping principles are a bear because they cover an awful lot of ground. So...when a baker or whoever refuses to give tacit approval to someone's sinful lifestyle (which that "someone" has chosen to make public!), by baking that someone a cake for the occasion, that Christian is well within the bounds of Christ's gospel to refuse service. To what should we liken such a scenario? Let's say a known alcoholic is out on the corner of a main drag panhandling money for food (so his sign says). Should I just toss in a few bills into his hat and believe that he's not going to use that money for wine or beer or booze? I just should just blindly take his sign's word for it? And if I did and then he turns around and buys a pint of MadDog with my money, would I not be contributing to his sinful behavior? Would I not unwittingly be putting my stamp of approval on it? You see...there are no biblical texts either that say we should only feed this kind of beggar or that kind of panhandler. But there are plenty of biblical principles involved by which Christians should make spiritual/moral judgments. Christians, after all, are supposed to be as wise as serpents, yet innocent as doves.So you get to pick what is sinful and act as a businessman accordingly. There is one thing I can tell from your posts, that if I acted that way as businessman, I could not do business with you or anyone who thinks like you. There is no doubt in my mind that you are going to Hell for perverting Christ's teachings. You are the false prophet that the Bible talks about. But that is neither here or there. As a businessman, I do not get to turn you away. If I have too much of a problem with the lifestyles of my customers, then I should quit the business and find a business where I don't have to deal with the "sinners".
Mixed fabrics? Dietary Laws? Sabbath days? Are you serious?
Must have left his Ensure out of the fridge too long. :D
Should a black baker be forced to make a cake with a Confederate flag for a redneck wedding?
Or a KKK Kake that says Remember Sen. Byrd!
boxcar
07-04-2015, 06:34 PM
What if it was a Black wedding? or an inter-racial wedding? or Jewish wedding? or Catholic wedding? or a "rock" wedding for Wiccans? Tell me which ones do you get to refuse. If you say all, then what did Rosa Parks accomplish? Tell me why you can refuse one of them and still be forced by law to do the others?
I had no idea that Jewish, Black, Catholic had anything to do with behavior. I thought we were talking about people who engage in perverted sex acts getting married? :rolleyes:
boxcar
07-04-2015, 06:45 PM
So you get to pick what is sinful and act as a businessman accordingly. There is one thing I can tell from your posts, that if I acted that way as businessman, I could not do business with you or anyone who thinks like you. There is no doubt in my mind that you are going to Hell for perverting Christ's teachings. You are the false prophet that the Bible talks about. But that is neither here or there. As a businessman, I do not get to turn you away. If I have too much of a problem with the lifestyles of my customers, then I should quit the business and find a business where I don't have to deal with the "sinners".
I don't get to pick. The bible tells me what are sinful acts.
And you know what...if someone did not want to do business with me because I'm Christian, I'd be fine with that! I wouldn't whine and cry like like some spoiled rotten brat who thinks (s)he has the right to never be offended. I'd suck it in and move on. Life is too short. Plus there are too many other people out there just dying to give their approval to sin with whom homosexuals and lesbians can do business.
And what you conveniently overlook is that these same-sex perverts -- ADVERTISE their perversion. They make it public. So, if they going to boast about their perversion and make proud over it, then they should be prepared to meet with people who don't quite see eye-to-eye with them. Why would any homosexual or lesbian not think that they could be offending someone when they make their lifestyle public? Do these perverts think they alone have a mortal lock on "offensiveness"? :rolleyes:
boxcar
07-04-2015, 06:46 PM
He rambles a lot.
Incoherently to boot. Libs and analogies are like oil and water.
Robert Goren
07-04-2015, 06:49 PM
I had no idea that Jewish, Black, Catholic had anything to do with behavior. I thought we were talking about people who engage in perverted sex acts getting married? :rolleyes: So being a Catholic or a Jew is not a choice?
Has nothing to do with sexual preferences.
Your argument is without merit.
horses4courses
07-04-2015, 07:16 PM
we were talking about people who engage in perverted sex acts getting married? :rolleyes:
Your pathetic, narrow, little mind might regard it as such.
The facts are that it is a legal act between consulting adults.
Perversion only applies in the thinking of those who are
self-righteous and judgmental.
You should try minding your own business for a change.
People who do you no harm whatsoever, and have no impact
on your daily life, deserve to be treated with more respect.
Try it,
It's really not that difficult.
Clocker
07-04-2015, 07:27 PM
I had no idea that Jewish, Black, Catholic had anything to do with behavior. I thought we were talking about people who engage in perverted sex acts getting married? :rolleyes:
No, we were talking about someone being forced to provide a product or service that he or she finds offensive or immoral. And about the freedom of speech to express your opinion about such.
You should try minding your own business for a change.
But is ok for them to intrude on the business of other people who do not agree with their choices? BS.
Works both ways.
Do what you want, but leave me out of it. Bake your own GD cake.
horses4courses
07-04-2015, 07:39 PM
But is ok for them to intrude on the business of other people who do not agree with their choices? BS.
Works both ways.
Do what you want, but leave me out of it. Bake your own GD cake.
I wasn't talking about baking cakes.
Neither was he.
boxcar
07-04-2015, 07:53 PM
No, we were talking about someone being forced to provide a product or service that he or she finds offensive or immoral. And about the freedom of speech to express your opinion about such.
So...the baking of a cake is offensive or immoral? That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about anyone being forced to compromise their religious convictions by providing a service to someone who they believe is engaging in sexually immoral acts.
boxcar
07-04-2015, 07:59 PM
Your pathetic, narrow, little mind might regard it as such.
The facts are that it is a legal act between consulting adults.
Perversion only applies in the thinking of those who are
self-righteous and judgmental.
You should try minding your own business for a change.
People who do you no harm whatsoever, and have no impact
on your daily life, deserve to be treated with more respect.
Try it,
It's really not that difficult.
No, perversion applies when God's people are in hearty agreement with what His Word teaches on the subject of sexual immorality.
Maybe the perverts should have minded their own business instead of making public their sexually depraved acts.
Oh...try to wrap your mind around this: Just because morally depraved generation says that something is legal doesn't necessarily make it moral. I bet Sodom and Gomorrah probably had very liberal sex laws on their books, too, and we see where that got those pervs. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
horses4courses
07-04-2015, 08:02 PM
No, perversion applies when God's people are in hearty agreement with what His Word teaches on the subject of sexual immorality.
Maybe the perverts should have minded their own business instead of making public their sexually depraved acts.
Oh...try to wrap your mind around this: Just because morally depraved generation says that something is legal doesn't necessarily make it moral. I bet Sodom and Gomorrah probably had very liberal sex laws on their books, too, and we see where that got those pervs. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
You live in a fantasy world.
You cuddle up to what you want to, we will cuddle up to what we want to.
Clocker
07-04-2015, 08:30 PM
I'm talking about anyone being forced to compromise their religious convictions by providing a service to someone who they believe is engaging in sexually immoral acts.
So if you own a bakery and some guy in drag minces in and wants to buy some cupcakes out of your display case, you want to refuse to sell them to him?
How about a black baker that doesn't want to make a cake with a Confederate flag on it for Robert E. Lee's birthday? There is no indication that the good old boy is going to engage in sexually immoral acts, so the baker has to make the cake, right?
boxcar
07-04-2015, 09:14 PM
So if you own a bakery and some guy in drag minces in and wants to buy some cupcakes out of your display case, you want to refuse to sell them to him?
No, why would I? Selling cupcakes is hardly participating in a wedding celebration of sex perverts. Heck...if I perceive has a real sweet tooth, I might try to sell him other bake goods, as well.
How about a black baker that doesn't want to make a cake with a Confederate flag on it for Robert E. Lee's birthday?
I don't think scripture addresses anything about the Confederate flag. Plus I'm not black.
There is no indication that the good old boy is going to engage in sexually immoral acts, so the baker has to make the cake, right?
It's not about what a baker thinks someone is going to do. It's about the statement the perverts choose to make about themselves and about the baker's religious freedom to choose to not participate directly or indirectly its celebration or give any kind of tacit approval to their self-declared lifestyle. I'm sure the baker has had more than a few adulterers patronize his shop. But chances are many the adulterers don't advertise their sexual immorality or request that the baker bake a cake that celebrates it.
horses4courses
07-04-2015, 09:43 PM
No, why would I? Selling cupcakes is hardly participating in a wedding celebration of sex perverts. Heck...if I perceive has a real sweet tooth, I might try to sell him other bake goods, as well.
I don't think scripture addresses anything about the Confederate flag. Plus I'm not black.
It's not about what a baker thinks someone is going to do. It's about the statement the perverts choose to make about themselves and about the baker's religious freedom to choose to not participate directly or indirectly its celebration or give any kind of tacit approval to their self-declared lifestyle. I'm sure the baker has had more than a few adulterers patronize his shop. But chances are many the adulterers don't advertise their sexual immorality or request that the baker bake a cake that celebrates it.
I'm proud that we live in an era of heightened tolerance.
During my lifetime, at least, there will always be those opposed to homosexuals.
It's gradually changing for the better, though, as people
realize that they are humans, like ourselves, who live and love as others do.
For far too long, gays have had to keep a low profile.
Happily, those days are behind us.
As a straight person, I don't care to know, or watch, intimate details
of gay relationships. That's their business, not mine.
However, they have every right to live their lives as we do.
If that includes laws against merchants refusing to deal with them,
then so be it. It was a similar situation when people were refused
service due to their race. That's illegal, and discriminating against
gays should be, also. Stating religious grounds is merely a shield for bigotry.
Robert Goren
07-05-2015, 09:05 AM
So if you own a bakery and some guy in drag minces in and wants to buy some cupcakes out of your display case, you want to refuse to sell them to him?
How about a black baker that doesn't want to make a cake with a Confederate flag on it for Robert E. Lee's birthday? There is no indication that the good old boy is going to engage in sexually immoral acts, so the baker has to make the cake, right? He has to make it in my opinion. If you are in business, you do not get to pick you customers. The Black baker probably understands that all to well. If he has live through a time where people picked their customers, his father or his grandfather did. He knows at one time not very long ago, people like him were not to buy from certain businesses. Often entire areas of commerce were denied to people who other people considered not worthy either by the color of their skin or the religion they belonged to. It was often done in the name of firmly held religious beliefs that today we find laughable. It was not laughable to the people who had to endure them however.
He has to make it in my opinion. If you are in business, you do not get to pick you customers.
That is not the case. The baker is picking the products he sells.
I'm sure he would the queens a cupcake. :D
Clocker
07-05-2015, 10:50 AM
I'm proud that we live in an era of heightened tolerance.
A cease and desist order forbidding an Oregon couple to discuss religious freedom is tolerance?
Ebay banning the sale of the Confederate flag is tolerance?
The administration persecuting the Little Sisters of the Poor for refusing to pay for contraception is tolerance?
horses4courses
07-05-2015, 10:56 AM
A cease and desist order forbidding an Oregon couple to discuss religious freedom is tolerance?
Ebay banning the sale of the Confederate flag is tolerance?
The administration persecuting the Little Sisters of the Poor for refusing to pay for contraception is tolerance?
To me, and millions of others, yes it is.
For far too long, the other way of thinking has had the upper hand.
Small acts, as we go along, are helping to make a difference.
Still a long way to go, though.
Clocker
07-05-2015, 10:58 AM
He has to make it in my opinion. If you are in business, you do not get to pick you customers.
They aren't trying to pick their customers, they are trying to pick the products that they make.
A man in Denver went to 3 different bakeries and asked for a cake shaped like the Bible with Biblical verses against homosexuality. All 3 refused. When he charged the bakeries with discrimination against him as a Christian, Colorado’s Civil Rights Division ruled that the bakeries' refusal was not discrimination because of their freedom of speech.
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2015/04/07/cakes-bake-tension-between-gay-rights-religious-objections/
Clocker
07-05-2015, 11:06 AM
To me, and millions of others, yes it is.
A gag order on expression of religious belief is tolerance. This message has been brought to you by the Ministry of Truth.
War is peace.
Ignorance is strength.
Freedom is slavery.
Robert Fischer
07-05-2015, 11:08 AM
Seems like the people who rule our country, and the people who influence our economy get to decide what is "good" and "politically correct" and they make it clear in our media broadcast.
All we have to do is go with the flow and not go against that system.
Sometimes it means stuff we don't love, like making a wedding cake for 2 men, but overall it's pretty simple.
boxcar
07-05-2015, 11:33 AM
I'm proud that we live in an era of heightened tolerance.
During my lifetime, at least, there will always be those opposed to homosexuals.
It's gradually changing for the better, though, as people
realize that they are humans, like ourselves, who live and love as others do.
And it also makes them sinners just like ourselves. Remember Mr. Horsey: They put their sin out there for everyone to see and now they expect everyone to joyfully accept or validate their perverted sex life.
But now you can begin to see why totalitarian regimes throughout the world persecute Christians. These kinds of governments do not want to compete with the King whom Christians worship and obey. Christians' first allegiance is to their King of kings and Lord of lords -- not to any state. This latest decision by the SC is a very serious blow to religious freedom which consists of far more than just choosing what house of worship one attends or what denomination one will join, etc. It consists of allowing believers to practice their religious faith in everyday life. Religious Faith at its very core consists of orthodoxy and orthopraxy. So, while this blow to religious freedom (but specifically aimed at Evangelical Christianity)
is bad news, there is some very good news in form of that proverbial silver lining behind a dark cloud. The good news is that Christ will soon judge the world for all its wickedness. And how Christians can know this because God gives hardened, reprobate sinners over to sexual perversions (see Romans 1). In other words, God's purpose is surely being worked out in the world. And Christians not only eagerly await the return of their King but eagerly anticipate his righteous judgment upon all the godless people in this world since true Christians hate everything that is evil.
For far too long, gays have had to keep a low profile.
Happily, those days are behind us.
Your happiness and the world's will soon to turn to sorrow. The world has no idea that it soon will be drinking from the cup of God's wrath!
boxcar
07-05-2015, 11:36 AM
They aren't trying to pick their customers, they are trying to pick the products that they make.
A man in Denver went to 3 different bakeries and asked for a cake shaped like the Bible with Biblical verses against homosexuality. All 3 refused. When he charged the bakeries with discrimination against him as a Christian, Colorado’s Civil Rights Division ruled that the bakeries' refusal was not discrimination because of their freedom of speech.
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2015/04/07/cakes-bake-tension-between-gay-rights-religious-objections/
Hmm...Can anyone spell DOUBLE STANDARD? So, non-believers have freedom of speech, but not Evangelical Christians. How surprising is this? :rolleyes:
boxcar
07-05-2015, 11:39 AM
To me, and millions of others, yes it is.
You just admitted to being a hypocrite. Congratulations! Your hatred for all that is good and decent runs so deeply in your veins that you don't even mind 'fessing up to having a double standard -- one for "your side" and one for the other.
horses4courses
07-05-2015, 11:44 AM
You just admitted to being a hypocrite. Congratulations! Your hatred for all that is good and decent runs so deeply in your veins that you don't even mind 'fessing up to having a double standard -- one for "your side" and one for the other.
No.
You are the oppressor, sir.
The only perversion comes from within your viewpoint.
Robert Fischer
07-05-2015, 11:52 AM
I've never run a religious organization, but it seems they have a pretty good thing going.
Lots of followers to be had. Apparently tax free. Lots of opportunity to take in revenue.
Yes, you have to yield to the people who run our economy on certain issues, but overall it seems you are on the gravy train.
boxcar
07-05-2015, 01:07 PM
I've never run a religious organization, but it seems they have a pretty good thing going.
Lots of followers to be had. Apparently tax free. Lots of opportunity to take in revenue.
Yes, you have to yield to the people who run our economy on certain issues, but overall it seems you are on the gravy train.
No, Christians do not have to yield. And this is what will make the coming train wreck between state and church inevitable. Again, this is precisely why communists hate Christians.
By the way, a "religious organization" doesn't have a thing over the revenue-generating opportunities accorded to governments.
boxcar
07-05-2015, 01:11 PM
No.
You are the oppressor, sir.
The only perversion comes from within your viewpoint.
You see, you are so blinded by your hatred for righteousness and your bigotry against Christians that you can't see that you and your ilk are oppressing Christians by wanting to remove our freedom for religious expression. You do the very thing to Christians that you falsely condemn us for doing to sexual perverts. Can't you spell HYPOCRISY?
To me, and millions of others, yes it is.
You cats planning a rally at Nuremberg this fall to celebrate?
The parade grounds might still be there.
Do we have to goose-step if we are over 60?
Seems like the people who rule our country, and the people who influence our economy get to decide what is "good" and "politically correct" and they make it clear in our media broadcast.
All we have to do is go with the flow and not go against that system.
Sometimes it means stuff we don't love, like making a wedding cake for 2 men, but overall it's pretty simple.
Yes, and in the 1930's, it started as no meat on Sunday.
At what point do you stand up and say stop?
We have a good idea when it is too late.
NO government has the right to assume it has the power to rule anyone.
You are the oppressor, sir.
The only perversion comes from within your viewpoint.
Me, and millions of others disagree.
Your viewpoint is warped.
TJDave
07-05-2015, 01:32 PM
Me, and millions of others disagree.
You and your millions no longer count.
So sayeth the Supremes.
Your true colors are showing, TJ.
I can't wait until abortion and gay marriage make your kind extinct.
Remember, no meat today.
horses4courses
07-05-2015, 01:48 PM
you falsely condemn us for doing to sexual perverts
I object to you calling gays perverts.
You are far more perverted than most gays.
I object to you calling gays perverts.
You just don't like any of the amendments, do you? :D
Here, let me cheer you up with a photo of your commandant enjoying his holiday.
Clocker
07-05-2015, 02:06 PM
You are far more perverted than most gays.
That's not very tolerant of you. :p
LottaKash
07-05-2015, 02:07 PM
To me, and millions of others, yes it is.
For far too long, the other way of thinking has had the upper hand.
Small acts, as we go along, are helping to make a difference.
Still a long way to go, though.
It is pretty clear to Bible believers that there is a Good & Evil that has been going on, with great push & pull, since Man's creation...
So, if the Bible says that something is an Abomination to Him, meaning God, as He is the Epitome of GOOD vs. the "other one", and then you say, "For far too long, the other way of Thinking has had the upper hand", what in essence are you saying ?
What is your/the other way ?...I think I know, but I would like you to say it, even so...Just for the record...Your record..
"No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Luke 16:13
horses4courses
07-05-2015, 02:13 PM
That's not very tolerant of you. :p
No, it's not. :)
I'll ballpark 95% of gay people as being better adjusted
members of society than old bible bashing Willie.
boxcar
07-05-2015, 03:41 PM
I object to you calling gays perverts.
You are far more perverted than most gays.
On what grounds do you object? Have you ever thought to thank your parents for not being sexual perverts, which accounts for your very existence?
boxcar
07-05-2015, 03:46 PM
It is pretty clear to Bible believers that there is a Good & Evil that has been going on, with great push & pull, since Man's creation...
So, if the Bible says that something is an Abomination to Him, meaning God, as He is the Epitome of GOOD vs. the "other one", and then you say, "For far too long, the other way of Thinking has had the upper hand", what in essence are you saying ?
What is your/the other way ?...I think I know, but I would like you to say it, even so...Just for the record...Your record..
"No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Luke 16:13
He's saying that he loves evil and hates God. That's what he is saying. See Ps 97:10.
Robert Goren
07-06-2015, 09:20 AM
They aren't trying to pick their customers, they are trying to pick the products that they make.
A man in Denver went to 3 different bakeries and asked for a cake shaped like the Bible with Biblical verses against homosexuality. All 3 refused. When he charged the bakeries with discrimination against him as a Christian, Colorado’s Civil Rights Division ruled that the bakeries' refusal was not discrimination because of their freedom of speech.
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2015/04/07/cakes-bake-tension-between-gay-rights-religious-objections/Colorado was wrong!
Go to McDonald's and order something not on the menu.
See how far you get, even thought the could make it for you.
That is not even close to them telling you can't buy anything there.
I agree they should have to make any product they are not comfortable with selling, be in Gay wedding cakes or religious cakes.
horses4courses
07-06-2015, 09:45 AM
On what grounds do you object? Have you ever thought to thank your parents for not being sexual perverts, which accounts for your very existence?
My parents are none of your business.
Let's keep it that way.
Not everyone is the same.
People should respect that.
You don't. That's your loss.
Any number of gay couples can raise children in loving households.
They often are the foster parents to children of heterosexuals who
are unable to raise them for umpteen reasons.
Drugs, poverty, domestic violence - you name it.
Being heterosexual pretty obviously does not make a person a good parent.
Being gay does not disqualify someone from doing a good job raising kids.
Clocker
07-06-2015, 10:22 AM
Colorado was wrong!
Obviously. They ruled for the bakers that didn't want to decorate a cake with bible verses and against the baker that didn't want to decorate a cake for a gay wedding. Pure political correctness without regard to any legal standard. Which is to say, hypocrisy.
PaceAdvantage
07-06-2015, 11:50 AM
I'm proud that we live in an era of heightened tolerance.
During my lifetime, at least, there will always be those opposed to homosexuals.
It's gradually changing for the better, though, as people
realize that they are humans, like ourselves, who live and love as others do.
For far too long, gays have had to keep a low profile.
Happily, those days are behind us.
As a straight person, I don't care to know, or watch, intimate details
of gay relationships. That's their business, not mine.
However, they have every right to live their lives as we do.
If that includes laws against merchants refusing to deal with them,
then so be it. It was a similar situation when people were refused
service due to their race. That's illegal, and discriminating against
gays should be, also. Stating religious grounds is merely a shield for bigotry.So...there have been court rulings that have allowed parents to DENY medical care to their DYING children based on religious beliefs, but God-forbid we rule that a baker can refuse to bake a certain cake based on religious beliefs because God-forbid that might offend someone?
Really?
How do you reconcile this?
PaceAdvantage
07-06-2015, 11:53 AM
On what grounds do you object? Have you ever thought to thank your parents for not being sexual perverts, which accounts for your very existence?This was odd...even for you
That's their business, not mine.
However, they have every right to live their lives as we do.
Not when that right costs me money.
They can now file jointly on tax returns which means someone will have to make up the difference. Why should ANYONE get a tax break for being married? I am not being treated equally under the law - the 14th amendment is not protecting me.
tRwYQgk05DY
classhandicapper
07-06-2015, 12:15 PM
Obviously. They ruled for the bakers that didn't want to decorate a cake with bible verses and against the baker that didn't want to decorate a cake for a gay wedding. Pure political correctness without regard to any legal standard. Which is to say, hypocrisy.
It's a difference in political philosophy.
Libertarian = There must be a consistent underlying principle guiding all decision making even in those cases where we personally disagree or are offended.
Liberal = The guiding principle in all decision making will be what we think is right without any regard for consistency or what other parts of the population might want or think
boxcar
07-06-2015, 12:37 PM
This was odd...even for you
I think it's odd that you found my remarks to be so. To the best of my knowledge no kid has ever been born to a same-sex couple. I could be wrong but I think this could account for the fact why so many same-sex desire to adopt. Just a wild, crazy guess of course... :rolleyes:
horses4courses
07-06-2015, 01:12 PM
So...there have been court rulings that have allowed parents to DENY medical care to their DYING children based on religious beliefs, but God-forbid we rule that a baker can refuse to bake a certain cake based on religious beliefs because God-forbid that might offend someone?
Really?
How do you reconcile this?
I believe that denying medical treatment to a dying child
should not be allowed under any circumstances.
I would question a parent's sanity in that instance.
I've never subscribed to giving "religious beliefs" a wide berth.
That included those who objected to serving their country when drafted.
Look, if a gay couple comes up against a baker who won't serve them,
they should quickly find one who will. What should happen to the baker
who refuses? A fine on first offense OR a mandatory large sign on the
front of their business "This business refuses to serve gay people"
That should really help their business..... :rolleyes:
boxcar
07-06-2015, 01:21 PM
I believe that denying medical treatment to a dying child
should not be allowed under any circumstances.
I would question a parent's sanity in that instance.
I've never subscribed to giving "religious beliefs" a wide berth.
That included those who objected to serving their country when drafted.
Look, if a gay couple comes up against a baker who won't serve them,
they should quickly find one who will. What should happen to the baker
who refuses? A fine on first offense OR a mandatory large sign on the
front of their business "This business refuses to serve gay people"
That should really help their business..... :rolleyes:
Why should the baker be fined for practicing his biblical beliefs? Can you explain that? You see, the baker in no way, shape or form interfered with the same-sex couple's right to practice sodomy or whatever, did he? All the baker did was refuse to put his stamp of approval upon that practice by selling them a marriage cake. So, what gives the same-sex couple the right (other than the leftist SC of course) to interfere with the practice of the baker's biblical beliefs? You see not only is the couple hypocritical, but so is the Court! In fact more so, since the court actually disallowed the baker to practice his beliefs all because he wouldn't bake the couple a cake.
Did the baker refuse to serve the people or the product they wanted?
Big difference.
So now you are against free speech, the right to bear arm, and religious freedom. What's your stance on quartering soldiers? :rolleyes:
Clocker
07-06-2015, 01:27 PM
Did the baker refuse to serve the people or the product they wanted?
Big difference.
In a number of these cases that made the media, the gay couples were regular patrons of the bakeries. But when asked to make a cake designed for a gay wedding, the bakeries refused.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.