Christian Man Asks Thirteen Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Pro-Traditional Marriage Cake

[Angel4Truth]

Exactly. If you really want to compare like to like, then it would be...

A black couple is refused a wedding cake because the owner is a racist. He is fined by the city for discriminatory business practices.

A KKK member calls a black bakery and asks for a cake with a racist slogan on it and is refused.

Does anyone here really think the black baker should be fined and punished the same as the racist baker?

I don't think either should be fined, or punished, i think the crybaby who is refused service, should find someone else to fill their request, or make it themselves.

PS - its funny to see an extreme liberal use the word punish, i thought you guys hated that word, i mean you dont believe violent criminals should be punished - just those who dont agree with you....hypocrisy all over the map

 

[Jose Fly]

False, Christians have a constitutional right to follow their religion.

And you think having cakes with "Gay marriage is wrong" on them is following the Christian faith?

Can you show me the gay law in the constitution that overrides freedom of religion and speech?

Legally this is pretty cut and dry. "People who oppose gay marriage" is not a protected class in anti-discrimination laws. Gays are. Therefore a baker can refuse to make a cake with "Gay marriage is wrong", but cannot refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding.

 

[Angel4Truth]

And you think having cakes with "Gay marriage is wrong" on them is following the Christian faith?


Legally this is pretty cut and dry. "People who oppose gay marriage" is not a protected class in anti-discrimination laws. Gays are. Therefore a baker can refuse to make a cake with "Gay marriage is wrong", but cannot refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding.

I asked you for the constitutional passage that says gay rights are there and trump religious rights and free speech rights. Whats wrong, cant you back your own claim?

Oh and to stop your usual bait and switch quickly, heres the context again to refresh your memory of what YOU claimed:

Forcing a christian to go against their own beliefs is religious discrimination. Its the same thing in reverse.

Again it's pretty simple. "People who are against gay marriage" is not a protected class in any anti-discrimination laws. Gays OTOH, are a protected class.

Therefore the two scenarios are not comparable.

False, Christians have a constitutional right to follow their religion.

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

Can you show me the gay law in the constitution that overrides freedom of religion and speech?

 

[Rusha]

Again it's pretty simple. "People who are against gay marriage" is not a protected class in any anti-discrimination laws.

Why?

Gays OTOH, are a protected class.

Why?

Therefore the two scenarios are not comparable.

The only people I am interested in making special laws to protect are those who cannot protect themselves. That would include unborn babies, the handicapped and senior citizens.

The very scenario presented in this thread is exactly why hate crime legislation is opposed. People cry for fairness and then in turn defend the right to be unfair.

 

[Angel4Truth]

And you think having cakes with "Gay marriage is wrong" on them is following the Christian faith?

Yes

Legally this is pretty cut and dry. "People who oppose gay marriage" is not a protected class in anti-discrimination laws. Gays are. Therefore a baker can refuse to make a cake with "Gay marriage is wrong", but cannot refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding.

False as ive already shown in the constitution, and you keep being unable to show your claim from it.

 

[rexlunae]

I don't think either should be fined, or punished, i think the crybaby who is refused service, should find someone else to fill their request, or make it themselves.

PS - its funny to see an extreme liberal use the word punish, i thought you guys hated that word, i mean you dont believe violent criminals should be punished - just those who dont agree with you....hypocrisy all over the map

Well, credit where credit is due, that's consistent, at least. But it also means that you're willing to relegate people to permanently and hopelessly unequal status, and I don't think any of us should be content with that. If not for the various civil rights act, especially the Civil Rights Act of 1968, a large portion of the country would likely still be segregated by race, with one portion largely marginalized and denied access to a lot of what most people experience on an everyday basis.

 

[Jose Fly]

I asked you for the constitutional passage that says gay rights are there and trump religious rights and free speech rights.

Before we even go there, you need to demonstrate that having cakes with "Gay marriage is wrong" is such an integral part of Christianity, that not making one constitutes denying Christians their right to practice their religion.

If you can't, then you haven't established that anyone's religious rights have been violated.

As far as free speech, I would be surprised if we actually had to debate whether a business owner has to make everything any customer requests, no matter what it is.

 

[musterion]

Side question.

If even one of them had agreed to bake him a cake, do you think he should have let anyone eat it? Be honest, now...

 

[Jose Fly]

Why?

Because AFAIK, no one has even proposed including "People who oppose gay marriage" in the list of protected classes in anti-discrimination laws.

Why?

Because gays have successfully made their case to be included in the list of protected classes.

The very scenario presented in this thread is exactly why hate crime legislation is opposed. People cry for fairness and then in turn defend the right to be unfair.

Except the two situations aren't equivalent.

 

[jeremysdemo]

Gays have forced christian tshirt and logo makers to create tshirts that support gay pride events and got their tails sued off and the gays won after the tshirt and print shops refused.

well that would have been appropriate, tit for tat

call up Westboro and have them order some shirts for their next gay funeral rally.

They openly admit they target christian business on purpose to "force equality" so if its really that they are after, then they need to be on the other end of those kinds of suits and be forced to support that which THEY do not agree with, or this nonsense needs to end.

Yes, but the Christians went for it.... wise as serpents hardly.

all they would have had to do is say "we don't have same sex figures, you'll have to add that yourself" and made a regular cake.

The Christians made their choices not to serve the people based on their faith and a bit of prejudice, and not because they were being asked to write something blasphemous against their faith, they could have made a plain cake and sold it to a gay, a thief, murderer, whatever without agreeing with them or their lifestyle, it is literally done every day.

I agree it needs to end, I'm just throwing some ideas out there that are my best for a resolution that will be good for all and I think we all have something to contribute there rather than waiting around for a legal solution.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Well, credit where credit is due, that's consistent, at least. But it also means that you're willing to relegate people to permanently and hopelessly unequal status, and I don't think any of us should be content with that.

False, unless you can show me how someone is actually injured because a store wont make them a cake, or print them a tshirt to support what the business owner wont.

"I dont like this and dont like how i feel" is not injury, when you can get it somewhere else, and when you are who targetted someone to force them to cater to you. These people were not denied service in general, they were denied a specific item.

Its not possible for a gay to find a gay baker or a non christian baker to make them a cake? They exist clearly as shown in the video of the op dont they?

But you bunch of whining hypocrites keep acting like you dont get it. Its makes you all look nuts because you cannot see your own flagrant hypocrisy. You scream discrimination and think the answer is discriminating against others to even the scale.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes

Wow. So according to you, having cakes with "Gay marriage is wrong" on them is such an essential aspect of Christianity, that denying such cakes constitutes denying Christians the ability to practice their faith.

Have fun making that argument in court.

False as ive already shown in the constitution, and you keep being unable to show your claim from it.

Not at all. Your only counter argument is the above, which is so patently absurd, it speaks for itself.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Wow. So according to you, having cakes with "Gay marriage is wrong" on them is such an essential aspect of Christianity, that denying such cakes constitutes denying Christians the ability to practice their faith.
Have fun making that argument in court.


Not at all. Your only counter argument is the above, which is so patently absurd, it speaks for itself.

You just twisted what i said completely. Forcing a christian to create a cake (or anything for that matter) to support something that is against their religion, is discrimination of their religious beliefs. Forcing a gay to create what is against their beliefs, is the same exact thing.

Neither should be happening but if the law wants to fine christians for refusing, the gays should be fined also, or the law needs to be clear that a business owner can refuse that which to which they do not agree or support.

Cant have it both ways.

now, no more responses for you, untill you actually back what you claimed before, and i have asked for repeatedly, show me the gay protected class clause of the constitution and that it trumps the first amendment.

 

[Jose Fly]

Forcing a christian to create a cake to support something that is against their religion, is discrimination of their religious beliefs.

Nobody's forcing them to do anything. But once you open a business to the public, you must abide by the same anti-discrimination laws as every other business. If conservative Christians can't abide by those laws, then they don't have to open businesses.

Forcing a gay to create what is against their beliefs, is the same exact thing.

No it's not. "People who oppose gay marriage" is not a protected class. Gays are. Not the same thing.

Neither should be happening but if the law wants to fine christians for refusing, the gays should be fined also, or the law needs to be clear that a business owner can refuse that which to which they do not agree or support.

Cant have it both ways.

You're basically making the argument I put forth earlier. Because a racist baker can't refuse to serve blacks, a black baker must therefore bake a cake with a racist slogan on it.

If that's where you want to plant your flag, be my guest.

now, no more responses for you, untill you actually back what you claimed before, and i have asked for repeatedly, show me the gay protected class clause of the constitution and that it trumps the first amendment.

The protected class aspect refers to the local anti-discrimination laws. I thought you knew that.

 

[rexlunae]

False, unless you can show me how someone is actually injured because a store wont make them a cake, or print them a tshirt to support what the business owner wont.

What if every store won't make you a cake? What if no one will let you stay in their hotel? What if no one will sell you a car? These were the reason for the Civil Rights Act of 1968.

"I dont like this and dont like how i feel" is not injury, when you can get it somewhere else, and when you are who targetted someone to force them to cater to you. These people were not denied service in general, they were denied a specific item.

If you can't see the injury in being forced to look around for a business that is willing to serve you regardless on your innate traits, then I can only say that you are blind and privileged.

Its not possible for a gay to find a gay baker or a non christian baker to make them a cake?

Not the issue, and you really should be able to see how this approach runs contrary to the goal of a genuinely pluralistic society.

But you bunch of whining hypocrites keep acting like you dont get it. Its makes you all look nuts because you cannot see your own flagrant hypocrisy. You scream discrimination and think the answer is discriminating against others to even the scale.

There's no hypocrisy in embracing genuine pluralism while rejecting fake pluralism.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Yall let me know when you are done throwing strawmen, and own up to your own hypocrisy that to discriminate against others, is doing what you claim to hate.

You are as bad as a man who attacks someone else (innocent victim) because of a wrong or perceived wrong done to them by someone completely different, but pretending its justified because of (race, sex, profession, etc..)

 

[jeremysdemo]

I'm done. lol

I've been telling people on here for years I am a hypocrite! lol

finally someone believes me.

 

[Jose Fly]

own up to your own hypocrisy that to discriminate against others, is doing what you claim to hate.

No one said all discrimination is wrong, all the time. If a pedophile asked a baker to make a cake with an obscene image, the baker can legally discriminate against him and I think we all would support that.

If a woman goes into a restaurant and starts shouting, the owner can legally discriminate against her and kick her out.

If a KKK member asks a t-shirt business to make a shirt with a racist image and slogan on it, the owner can legally discriminate against him.

Pedophiles, loud people, and racists are not protected classes in any anti-discrimination law. Neither are gay marriage opponents.

Gays OTOH are a protected class, and I think that's the real root issue you are struggling with.

 

[Rusha]

Because AFAIK, no one has even proposed including "People who oppose gay marriage" in the list of protected classes in anti-discrimination laws.

They are being discriminated against based on their religious beliefs.

Because gays have successfully made their case to be included in the list of protected classes.

That doesn't answer the question of WHY? Why do you believe they need protection? Are they not as smart? Good looking? Talented? Easy on the eyes? Are they mentally incompetent? What makes them so special that they need to receive preferential treatment and special laws to protect them?

Except the two situations aren't equivalent.

They absolutely are ... a patron is just that ... a person who comes in to buy or order something. He/she is in a situation where if the product were not available, they would just go elsewhere. Their life and well being does not depend on patronizing *that* particular business. All they are is a person walking into a business who may may or may not spend a few buck at the business.

OTOH, the business owners business is like their second home. It's their hard work that goes into making their business successful. They are not required to buy from any particular vendor. The perks of ownership should include running a business as the owner sees fit in accordance to their needs and beliefs.

No one in their right mind would go out of their way to have something as important as a wedding cake made at a shop that does not wish them well. It's about making a political statement.

 

[Angel4Truth]

No one said all discrimination is wrong, all the time.

now, no more responses for you, untill you actually back what you claimed before, and i have asked for repeatedly, show me the gay protected class clause of the constitution and that it trumps the first amendment.