Focus on the Family Sides With Colorado Baker Refused to Bake 'God Hates Gays' Cake

[shagster01]

Right, what rights of a gay couple were violated when a Christian refused to also not bake the cake?

It is a goose/gander pendulum swing and it HAS to swing back. That's the whole point between these two cases. A Christian, honoring his morals/values should be able to exercise those freedoms barring another's unalienable rights. A 'cake' bars nobody's unalienable rights. The gay baker, first shouldn't exist. That said, maybe they 'should' have to bake a cake that "God hates gay and all sin" :think: Well, it likely will never swing back to that position, even if one is right and the other is wrong, BUT this case is concerned with a business owner's rights. Even a gay business owner has the right to refuse, though it isn't against God's morals in this case.

If OJ taught us anything, it is if you can throw enough money at it, you too can change laws, whether they are moral or not. Justice hasn't been blind for a long time in this country. That's the problem with the current judiciary system from this century and most of the last: Justice can be purchased by the ACLU or the GL community. Well, at least it appears to be true. Jesus actually taught us this in Mathew, that if you keep waking up a man, he'll give you bread just to get some sleep. We need a lot more Christian nagging mothers going to court. :up:

(forgive my rambling, the first paragraph answers the question, I believe)

My problem with this guy though is that he is doing the same bad thing the gay suing parties did.

The rights being violated are the baker's rights. This idiot is basically claiming he should be able to violate the baker's rights the same as the gays did rather than standing up for them. Pathetic.

 

[Granite]

Bad days for aliens to visit our so-called civilization.

Yeeeeeeeeeeesh.

 

[Rusha]

The cake is a lie.

Regardless of whether it is or isn't a lie, it doesn't matter. At the end of the day, no one is going to become ill or die because someone refused to bake them a cake.

IF the biggest difficulty someone ever deals with in life is having a baker refuse to bake a cake as per their instructions, they are truly blessed.

 

[elohiym]

Thank for pointing out how complicated things are getting since homosexuality was decriminalized A4T.

Not like the good ol' days in NAZI Germany when you could easily get a cake decorated with "God hates gays" or "God hates Gypsies" or "God hates Jews." Why back then you could get all three sayings on a single cake, I'm sure.

 

[elohiym]

Bad days for aliens to visit our so-called civilization.

Comparable to going to the monkey house and seeing chimps flinging their poop at each other.

 

[GFR7]

Who did the right thing? Focus on the family?

Yes, Focus on the Family .

 

[GFR7]

Also, can we stop calling it "gay cake"? The implications are just horrid. Let's adopt the term gake. It still sounds disturbing and disgusting - like sanctified sodomy itself - but without the unwelcome mental visuals.

:think: ....... :chuckle:

 

[Lon]

My problem with this guy though is that he is doing the same bad thing the gay suing parties did.

The rights being violated are the baker's rights. This idiot is basically claiming he should be able to violate the baker's rights the same as the gays did rather than standing up for them. Pathetic.

Actually, I think he is wisely helping set precedence for equity. It is a court case that NEEDS to happen.

 

[Lon]

Bad days for aliens to visit our so-called civilization.

Yeeeeeeeeeeesh.

Yet, doing the same thing on TOL, you are right in the middle of the mix. If you were inclusive with yourself in the mix :up: Otherwise you are being your unthinking knee-jerk self.

 

[shagster01]

Actually, I think he is wisely helping set precedence for equity. It is a court case that NEEDS to happen.

At an innocent person's expense? He is violating the rights of the baker. How is that wise?

 

[Jose Fly]

The gay couple merely asked the Christian baker to bake a wedding cake. They didn't ask him to engage in any actual speech....just bake us a cake like you would for any other customer.

The Christian asked the baker (who is also a Christian) to not only bake a cake, but write a specific message on it as well ("God hates Gays"). IOW, he is specifically asking the baker to engage in speech.

That's why the two cases are different.

 

[Rusha]

The gay couple merely asked the Christian baker to bake a wedding cake. They didn't ask him to engage in any actual speech....just bake us a cake like you would for any other customer.

The Christian asked the baker (who is also a Christian) to not only bake a cake, but write a specific message on it as well ("God hates Gays"). IOW, he is specifically asking the baker to engage in speech.

That's why the two cases are different.

So the gay couple's wedding cake was only to be decorated with no written message?

 

[Jose Fly]

So the gay couple's wedding cake was only to be decorated with no written message?

That's my understanding of the cases that have been discussed here. The bakers were just asked to bake a wedding cake, not actually write anything on them.

 

[PureX]

Some additional info about Silva's attempt to accommodate the cake order:

But there appear to be some differences between the two cases. The civil rights division will have to decide, as many LGBT advocates are arguing, whether those differences are significant enough to warrant treating each case differently.

For one thing, Silva says that she offered to accommodate Jack’s request in a way that would not require her to write the words in question in her own hand. According to KDVR, Silva proposed that her bakery make the cake with a blank Bible page and provide Jack with the frosting and piping materials needed to write his anti-gay cake message on the dessert himself.

​

So it seems she didn't refuse service by refusing to bake the cake; she was willing to bake and frost it, except for the words.

And keep in mind that reasonableness is a strong criteria under the law. For the baker to have made a reasonable effort to accommodate the customer, should resolve the issue, legally.

 

[republicanchick]

My stance, neither baker should be sanctioned and business owners should have the right not to support causes or beliefs in which they do not agree and their freedom of speech and religion need not be checked at the door of their business.

this story substantiates my inclination to believe that women should not be judges...

Sorry to sound misogynistic but women are known for letting their emotions over-ride reason. No judge (it should go w/o saying) should rule without using a PROFOUND sense of REASON, logic and adherence to the LAW. Sorry, but women are NOT good at that...

(written by a female... who knows her own weaknesses. Also, I have seen cases where one party was CLEARLY in the right, had the law and the truth on said party's side, and yet FEMALE judges ruled against said person who was TOTALLY and legally in the right...


women should not be judges. Some are fair, but we just never know who will be the fair ones and who will not... until some claimant has suffered dreadfully...



+++
[/B]

 

[Rusha]

this story substantiates my inclination to believe that women should not be judges...

Sorry to sound misogynistic but women are known for letting their emotions over-ride reason. No judge (it should go w/o saying) should rule without using a PROFOUND sense of REASON, logic and adherence to the LAW. Sorry, but women are NOT good at that...

(written by a female... who knows her own weaknesses. Also, I have seen cases where one party was CLEARLY in the right, had the law and the truth on said party's side, and yet FEMALE judges ruled against said person who was TOTALLY and legally in the right...


women should not be judges. Some are fair, but we just never know who will be the fair ones and who will not... until some claimant has suffered dreadfully...

Indeed ... remember that wretched woman judge that resided over the OJ murder trials.

 

[Jose Fly]

women should not be judges.

The American Taliban speaks again.

 

[Angel4Truth]

And the other baker was all fine and well with making the gays a cake, just not decorating and creating it for a wedding, same problem.

Well no, there's a difference. The other baker refused to bake the requested cake.

Yes, he refused to create the requested cake (decorated for a wedding) but he did offer them alternatives. Better check the articles about it.

This is the same in reverse. It cant be both ways, either the business owner has the right to reject a request to create that which is against his own conscience or beliefs, or he doesnt.

That is the issue here and yes, its the same overall issue in both cases.

 

[Angel4Truth]

this story substantiates my inclination to believe that women should not be judges...

Sorry to sound misogynistic but women are known for letting their emotions over-ride reason. No judge (it should go w/o saying) should rule without using a PROFOUND sense of REASON, logic and adherence to the LAW. Sorry, but women are NOT good at that...

(written by a female... who knows her own weaknesses. Also, I have seen cases where one party was CLEARLY in the right, had the law and the truth on said party's side, and yet FEMALE judges ruled against said person who was TOTALLY and legally in the right...


women should not be judges. Some are fair, but we just never know who will be the fair ones and who will not... until some claimant has suffered dreadfully...



+++

Ok, ill crack this post that has nothing to do with anything, to be just another blather from your church teachings that ignore scripture.

God Himself appointed a female judge, her name was Deborah. Get our your bible and look her up if youve never been taught about her, and if you want to talk about this new issue (judges) please make a thread about that. Thanks.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Right, what rights of a gay couple were violated when a Christian refused to also not bake the cake?

It is a goose/gander pendulum swing and it HAS to swing back. That's the whole point between these two cases. A Christian, honoring his morals/values should be able to exercise those freedoms barring another's unalienable rights. A 'cake' bars nobody's unalienable rights. The gay baker, first shouldn't exist. That said, maybe they 'should' have to bake a cake that "God hates gay and all sin" :think: Well, it likely will never swing back to that position, even if one is right and the other is wrong, BUT this case is concerned with a business owner's rights. Even a gay business owner has the right to refuse, though it isn't against God's morals in this case.

If OJ taught us anything, it is if you can throw enough money at it, you too can change laws, whether they are moral or not. Justice hasn't been blind for a long time in this country. That's the problem with the current judiciary system from this century and most of the last: Justice can be purchased by the ACLU or the GL community. Well, at least it appears to be true. Jesus actually taught us this in Mathew, that if you keep waking up a man, he'll give you bread just to get some sleep. We need a lot more Christian nagging mothers going to court. :up:

(forgive my rambling, the first paragraph answers the question, I believe)

Well said!