Lesbian Couple May Sue Christian Baker Who Refused to Make Their Wedding Cake

[red states rule]

I will not be shocked if some liberal Judge allows this silly case to see a single day in court


<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JZ0qJSSrxz4" frameBorder=0 width=560 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

[cadet]

I can't believe she'd even TRY to sue the baker for that. If i was that idiot, I'd try to realize that some people have standards, and would find a new baker!

[Jess]

Doesn't any privately owned business have the right to refuse service to any customer of their choosing, based on their own criteria?

[Shadow]

Here we go again with another story of .."if I don't get my way... stop the presses... I'm going to alert the media". What is with todays society and their self centered views on every single thing under the sun. Why don't you just do what everyone else does when they get crappy service...FIND ANOTHER BAKERY. It really ain't that hard...ya damn attention whores.

[cadet]

Here we go again with another story of .."if I don't get my way... stop the presses... I'm going to alert the media". What is with todays society and their self centered views on every single thing under the sun. Why don't you just do what everyone else does when they get crappy service...FIND ANOTHER BAKERY. It really ain't that hard...ya damn attention whores.

What? But, everyone needs to hear about how I've been absolutely mistreated! This is just a terrible thing! My wedding (which goes against christian faith...) is oh so more important then your christian beliefs, and you should be shunned for having standards! how dare you people be good!

(sarcasm on)

[logroller]

I'm sure there's a pun to be had here-- some play on having your cake and eating it too.

[Jess]

I'm sure there's a pun to be had here-- some play on having your cake and eating it too.

Edith. You can't have your cake and Edith too. ;)

[Jess]

Here we go again with another story of .."if I don't get my way... stop the presses... I'm going to alert the media". What is with todays society and their self centered views on every single thing under the sun. Why don't you just do what everyone else does when they get crappy service...FIND ANOTHER BAKERY. It really ain't that hard...ya damn attention whores.

Agreed.

[fj1200]

Doesn't any privately owned business have the right to refuse service to any customer of their choosing, based on their own criteria?

No --> Civil Rights Act

Sexual orientation is not a protected class however.

[ConHog]

Doesn't any privately owned business have the right to refuse service to any customer of their choosing, based on their own criteria?

They should but they do not. This is why I believe that parts of the Civil Rights Act are unconstitutional. If I own a business I should be able hire and or serve whomever I would like. PERIOD.

And why would a lesbian want to give money to someone who disapproves of their lifestyle? I don't get that at all.

[Shadow]

What? But, everyone needs to hear about how I've been absolutely mistreated! This is just a terrible thing! My wedding (which goes against christian faith...) is oh so more important then your christian beliefs, and you should be shunned for having standards! how dare you people be good!

(sarcasm on)

I know. Our society is over run by a bunch of thin skinned whiny cry babies...and it's getting pretty old.

They think they need to not only control their own surroundings...but everyone elses too. Reminds me of a bunch of snotty nosed Jr high kids. "wahhhh...if I don't like them...you can't either...wahhh".

[Shadow]

They should but they do not. This is why I believe that parts of the Civil Rights Act are unconstitutional. If I own a business I should be able hire and or serve whomever I would like. PERIOD.

And why would a lesbian want to give money to someone who disapproves of their lifestyle? I don't get that at all.


It's about revenge AND control. Not only are they going to try and MAKE you bend to their will...if you won't they are going to try and take you down instead.

[Monkeybone]

This is where you just say ok, and then charge an absurd amount.

[revelarts]

This is where you just say ok, and then charge an absurd amount.

Or you make the cake with this verse on it

"For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one..."
Romans 1:26

or maybe just

"For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”

not so harsh and a bit hopeful..

[ConHog]

This is where you just say ok, and then charge an absurd amount.



That would have seemed the simplest course. Okay that would cost $5K for the cake you want. Problem solved.

[Psychoblues]

No lawsuit has ever been alluded. All parties involved indicate a welcome and thankfulness for the open and honesty of the proposed transaction. Just more fearmongering from the right.

Psychoblues

[Gunny]

It's about revenge AND control. Not only are they going to try and MAKE you bend to their will...if you won't they are going to try and take you down instead.

Heh ... good. I prefer playing THAT game.

[Gunny]

No lawsuit has ever been alluded. All parties involved indicate a welcome and thankfulness for the open and honesty of the proposed transaction. Just more fearmongering from the right.

Psychoblues

Might try reading/watching the OP prior to hitting the submit button.

[Jess]

That would have seemed the simplest course. Okay that would cost $5K for the cake you want. Problem solved.

Then they will cry even more. Nope.

Last I knew, I decided who I work for. Perhaps they can find a lesbian baker. Or just find somebody else. Get over it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kslHr7_9Zac

[Gunny]

Then they will cry even more. Nope.

Last I knew, I decided who I work for. Perhaps they can find a lesbian baker. Or just find somebody else. Get over it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kslHr7_9Zac

Screw e'm. I'm sure 7-11 will sell them a box of Little Debbies.

If *I* own the business, I don't have to serve anyone S*ht.

[Psychoblues]

Might try reading/watching the OP prior to hitting the submit button.

I did that and still every word I said remains absolutely true. Amazing, isn't it?

Psychoblues

[Gunny]

I did that and still every word I said remains absolutely true. Amazing, isn't it?

Psychoblues

The only thing amazing to me is how you live in such a dreamworld of denial.

[Psychoblues]

The only thing amazing to me is how you live in such a dreamworld of denial.

Your denial is no fault of mine. The lesbian couple has never filed nor threatened any "lawsuit". And still more fearmongering from the right.

Psychoblues

[Gunny]

Your denial is no fault of mine. The lesbian couple has never filed nor threatened any "lawsuit". And still more fearmongering from the right.

Psychoblues

Tell you what, douche noodle. You sit here and argue with yourself, huh? You made some promises and I suggest you keep them. I don't need to "fear monger". The truth from idiots like you on the left is scay enough. Either way, you don't have many proponents. Since I'd as suoon rip your head off as look at you, I'd suggest you stick to those people who don't think you're a waste of bandwidth.

[Psychoblues]

Tell you what, douche noodle. You sit here and argue with yourself, huh? You made some promises and I suggest you keep them. I don't need to "fear monger". The truth from idiots like you on the left is scay enough. Either way, you don't have many proponents. Since I'd as suoon rip your head off as look at you, I'd suggest you stick to those people who don't think you;re a waste of bandwidth.

So,,,,,,I'm right and you continue to have a mouth full of shit. Got it.

Psychoblues

[ConHog]

Tell you what, douche noodle. You sit here and argue with yourself, huh? You made some promises and I suggest you keep them. I don't need to "fear monger". The truth from idiots like you on the left is scay enough. Either way, you don't have many proponents. Since I'd as suoon rip your head off as look at you, I'd suggest you stick to those people who don't think you're a waste of bandwidth.

Who exactly would that be? :laugh2:

[ConHog]

So,,,,,,I'm right and you continue to have a mouth full of shit. Got it.

Psychoblues

Are you in fact suggesting that no gay has ever sued over something so asinine and never would?

[red states rule]

No lawsuit has ever been alluded. All parties involved indicate a welcome and thankfulness for the open and honesty of the proposed transaction. Just more fearmongering from the right.

Psychoblues

Since you had trouble watching the video, try reading the newspaper account of the story

Or you may continue to ignore the facts and caryy on being a troll

Your choice




Lesbian couple mulls action against Christian wedding cake bakerDES MOINES, Iowa, November 15, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com (http://www.lifesitenews.com/)) - An Iowa baker who politely declined to provide a wedding cake for two lesbians based on her Christian values may face legal action from the couple.

Same-sex “marriage” was legalized in Iowa in 2009 by the state Supreme Court, and a 2007 state civil rights act disallows discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in matters of employment, education, housing, and public accommodation.

On Tuesday KCCI 8 Des Moines interviewed (http://www.nomblog.com/15724/) Trina Vodraska and Janelle Sievers, who said they were “shocked” when a local wedding cake business owner declined to provide the confection for their ceremony.

“It was degrading, you know, it was like she chastised us for wanting to do business with her,” said Vodraska.

Victoria Childress, who runs the business from her home, said she told the couple that she was unable to give them a cake based on her Christian convictions. Both she and the couple say the conversation was cordial.

“I didn’t do the cake because of my convictions for their lifestyle. It is my right as a business owner. It is my right, and it’s not to discriminate against them,” said Childress.

“It’s not so much to do with them, as it’s to do with me, and my walk with God and what I will answer (to) him for,” she added.

“They thanked me for being honest with them. They were very pleasant. I did not belittle them, I did not speak rudely to them. There were no condescending remarks made, nothing.”

The news station reports that the couple is unsure whether to file a civil rights complaint with the state. However, the couple has since reportedly released (http://lezgetreal.com/2011/11/homophobic-iowa-baker-facing-boycott/) a statement calling Childress a “bigot,” and the baker says she has been deluged with hate mail that she has stopped reading.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/lesbian-couple-mulls-action-against-christian-wedding-cake-baker

[Psychoblues]

Are you in fact suggesting that no gay has ever sued over something so asinine and never would?

Why are you suggesting that I am suggesting that? That is not the point of the OP and I am not in any way addressing anything beyond the OP. This lesbian couple has not and is not threatening any lawsuit. But, they could if they wanted and they would probably win. You see, in 2007 the state of Nebraska included sexual orientation as criterion for discrimination considerations so the law is on the side of the lesbo's. That said, so far all we have is a journalist yelling about "may face legal action" and other nonsense mumbo jumbo designed only to stir up the rightwingers and other homophobes. Until further notice I maintain my position.

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

Why are you suggesting that I am suggesting that? That is not the point of the OP and I am not in any way addressing anything beyond the OP. This lesbian couple has not and is not threatening any lawsuit. But, they could if they wanted and they would probably win. You see, in 2007 the state of Nebraska included sexual orientation as criterion for discrimination considerations so the law is on the side of the lesbo's. That said, so far all we have is a journalist yelling about "may face legal action" and other nonsense mumbo jumbo designed only to stir up the rightwingers and other homophobes. Until further notice I maintain my position.

Psychoblues

Then you need to use some Q-tips and clean the wax out of your ears, clean your glasses to read the newspaper article, or stop being an idiot and ignoring what the lesbos are actually saying

[Psychoblues]

Since you had trouble watching the video, try reading the newspaper account of the story

Or you may continue to ignore the facts and caryy on being a troll

Your choice

I watched the video, read the newspaper and the girls have not and are still not threatening any lawsuit. They could I suppose and probably win but they seemed very amicable and understanding in the video, which apparently you didn't watch. Why is it that always the rightwingers resort to name calling and insults whenever the facts are not on their side? You're about the worst, rsr. Are you somehow proud of that?

Psychoblues

[Noir]

I don't see why or how they could sue, seem idiotic to me

However, this is no less idiotic-
Or you make the cake with this verse on it
"For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one..."
Romans 1:26

if you start looking to the bible for your morality you're up to your knees in balls.

[red states rule]

I watched the video, read the newspaper and the girls have not and are still not threatening any lawsuit. They could I suppose and probably win but they seemed very amicable and understanding in the video, which apparently you didn't watch. Why is it that always the rightwingers resort to name calling and insults whenever the facts are not on their side? You're about the worst, rsr. Are you somehow proud of that?

Psychoblues

Lesbian couple mulls action against Christian wedding cake baker

What part of the headline and their comments do you not understand PB?

It is not my fault you refuse to admit the truth about what the lesbos are saying. It is just you being you

[Psychoblues]

Lesbian couple mulls action against Christian wedding cake baker

What part of the headline and their comments do you not understand PB?

It is not my fault you refuse to admit the truth about what the lesbos are saying. It is just you being you

Those are the words of an ambitious journalist, dumbo. And your shit is still your shit. The girls are not mulling action of any kind at this time by their own words which are in the damned video. Did you not notice how amicable the lesbo's and the baker were towards each other? Why do you and other homophobes try to make so much out of nothing, shaking in your tiny crap filled boots and looking like you really need a diaper change and a hug?

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

Those are the words of an ambitious journalist, dumbo. And your shit is still your shit. The girls are not mulling action of any kind at this time by their own words which are in the damned video. Did you not notice how amicable the lesbo's and the baker were towards each other? Why do you and other homophobes try to make so much out of nothing, shaking in your tiny crap filled boots and looking like you really need a diaper change and a hug?

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Psychoblues


I see that new leaf you turned lasted about 36 hours PB

You continue to have a very short fuse with anyone who stands up to your constant denials, lies, spin

[Psychoblues]

I see that new leaf you turned lasted about 36 hours PB

You continue to have a very short fuse with anyone who stands up to your constant denials, lies, spin

You lie. Demonstrate anything beyond the words of a journalist, I will accept a direct quote, that the girls intend or even consider a lawsuit and I will apologize and shut up about it. Thus far, the girls have not indicated in ANY way they are considering any legal action or even any equal opportunity denial of service complaint. It was you that started the crap, rsr. I can still hold my own, can't I? Just ain't much to you.

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

You lie. Demonstrate anything beyond the words of a journalist, I will accept a direct quote, that the girls intend or even consider a lawsuit and I will apologize and shut up about it. Thus far, the girls have not indicated in ANY way they are considering any legal action or even any equal opportunity denial of service complaint. It was you that started the crap, rsr. I can still hold my own, can't I? Just ain't much to you.

Psychoblues

Again PB, the lesbos say they may take the baker to court. I am not waiting for any apology to come from you - only more incoming BS




The news station reports that the couple is unsure whether to file a civil rights complaint with the state. However, the couple has since reportedly released (http://lezgetreal.com/2011/11/homophobic-iowa-baker-facing-boycott/) a statement calling Childress a “bigot,” and the baker says she has been deluged with hate mail that she has stopped reading.

“It’s really hard to read things like that,” she told FOX News (http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/christian-baker-faces-boycott-for-refusing-to-make-lesbian-cake.html). “I’m a pretty quiet, soft-spoken person. But when I stand up for my convictions against things, I’m very strong when it comes to that.”

Christian businesses in America, including reception site owners (http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vermont-inn-sued-by-aclu-after-refusing-lesbian-wedding-reception/) and photographers (http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/jan/08013004) declining to service homosexual couples, have routinely been targeted for lawsuits and harrassment in states that have legalized same-sex “marriage” or civil unions. Often the complaints spread through media, particularly gay blogs, where gay rights supporters are encouraged to keep up pressure on the offenders.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/lesbian-couple-mulls-action-against-christian-wedding-cake-baker

[Psychoblues]

Again PB, the lesbos say they may take the baker to court. I am not waiting for any apology to come from you - only more incoming BS?

Oh, the "news station reports?" Just what are the lesbo's saying? That would be real beneficial about now, wouldn't it? I can tell you what they haven't said or done. They haven't threatened any lawsuit or equal opportunity denial of service complaint and they certainly have not filed any lawsuit. That said, I bet you plenty of lawyers are talking with them chomping at the bits to get a piece of that low hanging fruit. And, you're still lying as you are so prone to do.

You said something earlier about me having a "short fuse". I think you're correct but that certainly doesn't give you any excuse to call me an idiot and worse and especially when I am doing my best to remain civil and on topic. I responded in a funny way, even put the minstrels in to indicate the unseriousness of my comments but you missed that, negged me and somehow think you weren't deserving of a little playfulness. Whenever you see me cajoling or even being downright hateful, rsr, take a good look in the mirror and think just a little about what you're looking at.

No facts from you. No apologies will be forthcoming from me.

Psychoblues

[logroller]

I dont see how the market can't correct this. If I refuse to make gay cakes, I refuse business and that hurts my bottom line and compromises my leverage against those who would/do. I'm sure some baker will make their cake, just not this baker? I don't see why it matters. In business, money talks. If I wanted a baker to make a nazi cake, I could understand why a Jewish baker would say no-- furthermore, I don't know why a nazi would want a jew making their cake. Same thing IMO.

[trobinett]

Doesn't any privately owned business have the right to refuse service to any customer of their choosing, based on their own criteria?

Use to be that way, not so sure anymore.:dunno:

[Jess]

Use to be that way, not so sure anymore.:dunno:

Apparently it only works in privately-owned businesses and such anymore. I've seen it happen in bars though.

[red states rule]

I dont see how the market can't correct this. If I refuse to make gay cakes, I refuse business and that hurts my bottom line and compromises my leverage against those who would/do. I'm sure some baker will make their cake, just not this baker? I don't see why it matters. In business, money talks. If I wanted a baker to make a nazi cake, I could understand why a Jewish baker would say no-- furthermore, I don't know why a nazi would want a jew making their cake. Same thing IMO.

So you are shocked a business owner has morals and personal convictions?

[red states rule]

?

Oh, the "news station reports?" Just what are the lesbo's saying? That would be real beneficial about now, wouldn't it? I can tell you what they haven't said or done. They haven't threatened any lawsuit or equal opportunity denial of service complaint and they certainly have not filed any lawsuit. That said, I bet you plenty of lawyers are talking with them chomping at the bits to get a piece of that low hanging fruit. And, you're still lying as you are so prone to do.

You said something earlier about me having a "short fuse". I think you're correct but that certainly doesn't give you any excuse to call me an idiot and worse and especially when I am doing my best to remain civil and on topic. I responded in a funny way, even put the minstrels in to indicate the unseriousness of my comments but you missed that, negged me and somehow think you weren't deserving of a little playfulness. Whenever you see me cajoling or even being downright hateful, rsr, take a good look in the mirror and think just a little about what you're looking at.

No facts from you. No apologies will be forthcoming from me.

Psychoblues

So now any story that has "according to news reports" is no longer valid in your book? PB you are a sad case and you keep slipping further south everyday

[Psychoblues]

So now any story that has "according to news reports" is no longer valid in your book? PB you are a sad case and you keep slipping further south everyday

That's not what I said, but in this case you have supplied a video that completely refutes any claim that the girls are contemplating legal action or even a simple complaint. In fact, they demonstrate quite the opposite. Only a homophobe could think differently.

Psychoblues

[ConHog]

I dont see how the market can't correct this. If I refuse to make gay cakes, I refuse business and that hurts my bottom line and compromises my leverage against those who would/do. I'm sure some baker will make their cake, just not this baker? I don't see why it matters. In business, money talks. If I wanted a baker to make a nazi cake, I could understand why a Jewish baker would say no-- furthermore, I don't know why a nazi would want a jew making their cake. Same thing IMO.

That's what I'm saying. If I own a business and want to make a decision to turn down money that should be my choice. And I'm with you, who would want to do business with someone who doesn't want to do business with them?

[Psychoblues]

That's what I'm saying. If I own a business and want to make a decision to turn down money that should be my choice. And I'm with you, who would want to do business with someone who doesn't want to do business with them?

Especially about something I intend to eat or drink!!!!!!!!! Not smart at all. Good shot, ConHog

Psychoblues

[logroller]

So you are shocked a business owner has morals and personal convictions?

What? What I said was the supply and demand for cakes drives the business, not morals and personal convictions. What if it were a mortgage company RSR, turning down a mortgage to gay couple-- do morals and principles drive that exchange, or is it just numbers? I'm not saying they should be forced to sell them a cake, only that they're fools not to from a business standpoint. It is a business, right?

[ConHog]

What? What I said was the supply and demand for cakes drives the business, not morals and personal convictions. What if it were a mortgage company RSR, turning down a mortgage to gay couple-- do morals and principles drive that exchange, or is it just numbers? I'm not saying they should be forced to sell them a cake, only that they're fools not to from a business standpoint. It is a business, right?

But you agree that is there business and if they wish to be fools and turn down money based on a peson's sexual orientation, they have (or should have) that right. Correct?

[Psychoblues]

But you agree that is there business and if they wish to be fools and turn down money based on a peson's sexual orientation, they have (or should have) that right. Correct?

According to Nebraska law the baker doesn't have that right but I agree with what you said earlier about not desiring to do business with someone that doesn't want to do business with me. All involved here seemed to understand and accept the positions of the other. Very cordial interchange of information, IMHO, as the video clearly depicts.

Psychoblues

[Shadow]

If it was so cordial...why did they take it to the media? And then whine that they felt they were being degraded and then make it a point to say that they KNEW god loved them...they didn't need the shop owners opinion?

I will give you one thing. The baker felt it was cordial...I didn't get that at all from the other two.

[ConHog]

According to Nebraska law the baker doesn't have that right but I agree with what you said earlier about not desiring to do business with someone that doesn't want to do business with me. All involved here seemed to understand and accept the positions of the other. Very cordial interchange of information, IMHO, as the video clearly depicts.

Psychoblues

If it were so cordial it would have been a non story. Man comes into my dad's business and demands service even though my dad doesn't want to do business with him and then he cries to the media, I don't consider that to be cordial of the guy at all.

[Abbey Marie]

According to Nebraska law the baker doesn't have that right but I agree with what you said earlier about not desiring to do business with someone that doesn't want to do business with me. All involved here seemed to understand and accept the positions of the other. Very cordial interchange of information, IMHO, as the video clearly depicts.

Psychoblues

You think it is cordial to call someone a bigot?!

[ConHog]

You think it is cordial to call someone a bigot?!



Of course he doesn't really consider that to be cordial.

[logroller]

But you agree that is there business and if they wish to be fools and turn down money based on a peson's sexual orientation, they have (or should have) that right. Correct?

Correct. If they wanted to frost every cake blue, that's their freedom; but they're fools to turn down a paying customer.

[ConHog]

Correct. If they wanted to frost every cake blue, that's their freedom; but they're fools to turn down a paying customer.

Not necessarily. Sometimes customers and or jobs aren't worth taking on. And we have a right to be a fool if we want to anyway.

[logroller]

Not necessarily. Sometimes customers and or jobs aren't worth taking on. And we have a right to be a fool if we want to anyway.

It would depend on their mission statement; but, in general, a business should let cost/benefit analysis (ie profit) dictate what's worth taking on. If they made their decision because, for example, they don't want to have their cake at a gay wedding b/c it could damage their reputation and future business, that's not foolish-- but I doubt anyone would know-- so, business-wise, that's foolish. Being foolish is a right, of course, but the market usually closes such businesses. I know somebody who owned a cake business and a great majority of their business was making cakes that looked like boobs and dicks. I've no doubt they would have been justified in refusing such requests based on principle, but that sort of business kept them open for 35 years. I don't think anyone who bought their cakes, myself included, we're concerned with for whom they had made cakes. It's not as though me eating the cake from the same ovens that made a gay cake are gonna make my cake gay. Or somehow the cake has some influence over the integrity of wedded bliss. It's a cake for crying out loud, not a manifesto.

[Psychoblues]

If it were so cordial it would have been a non story. Man comes into my dad's business and demands service even though my dad doesn't want to do business with him and then he cries to the media, I don't consider that to be cordial of the guy at all.

The video indicated a cordial relationship excepting the gay couple were not going to be doing any business in that bakery. The video doesn't indicate just who went to the media. I would suspect it was someone that just couldn't mind their own business and were scared shitless of the queer ladies. Sometimes the homophobes get all uptight about nothing and start yelling and telling lies to justify their own unsubstantiated fears. None of the ladies involved demonstrated anything like a propensity for media attention, lawsuits or all the uproar this seems to be causing.

Psychoblues

[Psychoblues]

You think it is cordial to call someone a bigot?!

I don't see a single thing wrong with calling a bigot a bigot. And, that can be done politely and I believe any of these ladies would find that nice way of expressing their observations of the other.

Psychoblues

[DragonStryk72]

That would have seemed the simplest course. Okay that would cost $5K for the cake you want. Problem solved.

Wow, CH, you clearly haven't seen some of the asanine costs of wedding cakes these days. $5k is almost reasonable.




While the lady is definitely lacking in the "Judge not, be judged not" department, what good is a lawsuit going to do? Far more effective would have been a boycott of the business, and simply getting the word out without involving the courts. Any time you bring the courts in, it only takes longer to effect change, and will cost a great deal for both parties.

[revelarts]

It would depend on their mission statement; but, in general, a business should let cost/benefit analysis (ie profit) dictate what's worth taking on. If they made their decision because, for example, they don't want to have their cake at a gay wedding b/c it could damage their reputation and future business, that's not foolish-- but I doubt anyone would know-- so, business-wise, that's foolish. Being foolish is a right, of course, but the market usually closes such businesses. I know somebody who owned a cake business and a great majority of their business was making cakes that looked like boobs and dicks. I've no doubt they would have been justified in refusing such requests based on principle, but that sort of business kept them open for 35 years. I don't think anyone who bought their cakes, myself included, we're concerned with for whom they had made cakes. It's not as though me eating the cake from the same ovens that made a gay cake are gonna make my cake gay. Or somehow the cake has some influence over the integrity of wedded bliss. It's a cake for crying out loud, not a manifesto.

here's the problem, You seem to assume that money is the highest goal of lifes goals. Your statement implies that life -Work-Play-Learning can be taken OUTSIDE of a moral context or that morals and convictions DO NOT apply in Biz situations, BECAUSE THE HIGHEST GOOD there is to make money. That the Profit motive is the final arrbitor of wheather a biz decission is to be made. And it is foolish to do otherwise. Sorry, that should never be the final standard, it's ultimately hollow and soul draining. A biz should have some moral base and values base that it works from, Intrigity being primary and universal, beyond that those values that are part of the owers convictions. Within that context money would be made to it's fullest but beyond that your compromising your convictions for money.

You know the old Joke, a famous Billionaire walked up to a beautiful woman in a bar and said.
"Hi, would you have sex with me for a million dollars?"
the women smiled and after a moments thought said Yes.
the Billion then said "Ok great, would you have sex with me for $20 dollars then?"
the woman outraged said "NO, what kind of women do you think I am?"
the Billionaire replied, "We've already established that, now we are just haggling over the price."

[Gunny]

I don't see a single thing wrong with calling a bigot a bigot. And, that can be done politely and I believe any of these ladies would find that nice way of expressing their observations of the other.

Psychoblues

Really. Look in the mirror much? A bigot is not solely what the PC left claims it is. It's ANYONE who discriminates. And if you don't discriminate, you are incapable of making a decision. I've not any fear-mongering and hate-filled rhetoric that rivals the left's toward anything that isn't left. They're the worst bigots around.

Throwing that word around doesn't mean squat. It's just calling the kettle black, hypocrite.

[Abbey Marie]

It would depend on their mission statement; but, in general, a business should let cost/benefit analysis (ie profit) dictate what's worth taking on. If they made their decision because, for example, they don't want to have their cake at a gay wedding b/c it could damage their reputation and future business, that's not foolish-- but I doubt anyone would know-- so, business-wise, that's foolish. Being foolish is a right, of course, but the market usually closes such businesses. I know somebody who owned a cake business and a great majority of their business was making cakes that looked like boobs and dicks. I've no doubt they would have been justified in refusing such requests based on principle, but that sort of business kept them open for 35 years. I don't think anyone who bought their cakes, myself included, we're concerned with for whom they had made cakes. It's not as though me eating the cake from the same ovens that made a gay cake are gonna make my cake gay. Or somehow the cake has some influence over the integrity of wedded bliss. It's a cake for crying out loud, not a manifesto.

Your definition of foolish is yours. Theirs is theirs.
You do not appear to understand their moral convictions. To a devout Christian, it is foolish (and shortsighted) to go against your beliefs to earn a few bucks.

[ConHog]

It would depend on their mission statement; but, in general, a business should let cost/benefit analysis (ie profit) dictate what's worth taking on. If they made their decision because, for example, they don't want to have their cake at a gay wedding b/c it could damage their reputation and future business, that's not foolish-- but I doubt anyone would know-- so, business-wise, that's foolish. Being foolish is a right, of course, but the market usually closes such businesses. I know somebody who owned a cake business and a great majority of their business was making cakes that looked like boobs and dicks. I've no doubt they would have been justified in refusing such requests based on principle, but that sort of business kept them open for 35 years. I don't think anyone who bought their cakes, myself included, we're concerned with for whom they had made cakes. It's not as though me eating the cake from the same ovens that made a gay cake are gonna make my cake gay. Or somehow the cake has some influence over the integrity of wedded bliss. It's a cake for crying out loud, not a manifesto.

Right, that's what I've been saying all along. We don't need laws dictating business owners don't be stupid, bigoted businesses. The market will take care of them itself. If for for example , a mechanic shop started advertising that it didn't serve blacks how long before most of their customer base told them via dollars that they aren't goinna tolerate that? Not long.

[ConHog]

Really. Look in the mirror much? A bigot is not solely what the PC left claims it is. It's ANYONE who discriminates. And if you don't discriminate, you are incapable of making a decision. I've not any fear-mongering and hate-filled rhetoric that rivals the left's toward anything that isn't left. They're the worst bigots around.

Throwing that word around doesn't mean squat. It's just calling the kettle black, hypocrite.

Now you know just as well as I do that if PB didn't have hypocrisy, he wouldn't have anything. So why you gonna try to take away his only possession? :laugh2:

[LuvRPgrl]

Wow, CH, you clearly haven't seen some of the asanine costs of wedding cakes these days. $5k is almost reasonable.




While the lady is definitely lacking in the "Judge not, be judged not" department, what good is a lawsuit going to do? Far more effective would have been a boycott of the business, and simply getting the word out without involving the courts. Any time you bring the courts in, it only takes longer to effect change, and will cost a great deal for both parties.


although I disagree with your biblical quote, you are on the money with the boycott idea. In fact, the lawsuit is just good free publicity for the bakery.

[logroller]

here's the problem, You seem to assume that money is the highest goal of lifes goals. Your statement implies that life -Work-Play-Learning can be taken OUTSIDE of a moral context or that morals and convictions DO NOT apply in Biz situations, BECAUSE THE HIGHEST GOOD there is to make money. That the Profit motive is the final arrbitor of wheather a biz decission is to be made. And it is foolish to do otherwise. Sorry, that should never be the final standard, it's ultimately hollow and soul draining. A biz should have some moral base and values base that it works from, Intrigity being primary and universal, beyond that those values that are part of the owers convictions. Within that context money would be made to it's fullest but beyond that your compromising your convictions for money.


I made no assumption about life's goals, only business goals. This is a discussion about a cake BUSINESS right? I qualified my statement by what the mission of the business likelystates--to seek profit. That's a pretty fair assumption too, because a business, by definition, seeks profits. If that mission said, 'promote Christian ethics and morals in the cake trade'-- then the decision was sound, i have no problem with that. That doesn't fit the profit motive; and thus is not a business mission, but rather a non-profit mission-- which I completely support BTW, but that is a different context from which to base a decision. To say that every decision we make in life has one and only purpose, to serve God, is a fair one-- but to say that seeking profits is contrary to that purpose is a false one.


Your definition of foolish is yours. Theirs is theirs.
You do not appear to understand their moral convictions. To a devout Christian, it is foolish (and shortsighted) to go against your beliefs to earn a few bucks.

Well sure, we can have any opinion we want; my opinion describes the profit motive, which defines business-- that's not an opinion Abbey-- that's a fact! If you want to argue morals and ethics, that's fine; but that is not the primary role of a business.

As to what I understand of their moral convictions; cake lady disagrees with gays getting married and feels selling a wedding cake would be tacitly supporting gay marriage-- so they abstain. Sound about right?

Do you think that by refusing them a cake, that there isn't some other baker that'll sell them a cake; and if not, they won't get married cake-less and cease being gay? What mission does not selling them a cake serve?

You say I'm short-sighted, but consider this---

What if they were to not discriminate. Instead, they sell their cakes to whomever and funnel 10% of their profits to the church, (as that's what devout Christians do); and through their church, a non-profit religious institution, they can further the 'devoutly Christian' mission of reinforcing traditional husband-wife marriage. Wouldn't that allow them to do more because they have more resources--thanks in part from selling cakes to gays?

Service to God isn't about boasting on how you stood up for ideals and morals; its about sacrifice for the greater good. Lots of ways to do it, some better than others. Capitalism just seems to work better than anything else. It's foolish to abandon what works when you can use it to your advantage.

[red states rule]

What? What I said was the supply and demand for cakes drives the business, not morals and personal convictions. What if it were a mortgage company RSR, turning down a mortgage to gay couple-- do morals and principles drive that exchange, or is it just numbers? I'm not saying they should be forced to sell them a cake, only that they're fools not to from a business standpoint. It is a business, right?

Federal law governs mortgage laws Logroller - as far as I know there are no federal laws governing the order for wedding cakes

[logroller]

Federal law governs mortgage laws Logroller - as far as I know there are no federal laws governing the order for wedding cakes

So a mortgage company can't refuse to do business with gays, but a cake company can?

That's not out of proportion at all./sarcasm

Discriminant behavior like this is why we have nanny state laws. If people just said, I don't agree with what you do, but I'll take you money anyways and spend it trying to convince others not to do the things I disagree with-- we'd all be better off-- that's all I'm saying.

[red states rule]

So a mortgage company can't refuse to do business with gays, but a cake company can?

That's not out of proportion at all./sarcasm

Discriminant behavior like this is why we have nanny state laws. If people just said, I don't agree with what you do, but I'll take you money anyways and spend it trying to convince others not to do the things I disagree with-- we'd all be better off-- that's all I'm saying.

If you wanted to buy my car, I can refuse the offer for any reason

If you came into my office and wanted to apply for a loan, I must take the application and review it as I would any other application

[logroller]

If you wanted to buy my car, I can refuse the offer for any reason

If you came into my office and wanted to apply for a loan, I must take the application and review it as I would any other application

So when you're doing business, you assess the deal for its financial merit, right?

[red states rule]

So when you're doing business, you assess the deal for its financial merit, right?

When doing busines you follow the law, and do then do business you feel comfortable with

The bottom line is the cake maker has the right to refuse the order. What is to stop another baker form offering the couple a free cake and take all the glowing coverage the liberal media will heap on the business?

[logroller]

When doing busines you follow the law, and do then do business you feel comfortable with
The bottom line is the cake maker has the right to refuse the order. What is to stop another baker form offering the couple a free cake and take all the glowing coverage the liberal media will heap on the business?

Well the law says its legal for gays to get married. I never disagreed that the business owner doesn't have right to refuse service; but the bottom line in business IS PROFIT! As to the duty of conscience and service to a personal mission--What's to stop the first baker from taking the money and using the profit to send a kid to church camp and find Christ? What purpose does refusing the order serve?

[red states rule]

I never disagreed that the business owner doesn't have right to refuse service; but the bottom line in business IS PROFIT! As to the duty of conscience and service to a personal mission--What's to stop the first baker from taking the money and using the profit to send a kid to church camp and find Christ? What purpose does refusing the order serve?

But making a profit goes against the moral convictions of the owner. She is putting her moral convictions ahead of making a profit

Which I have no problem with

[logroller]

But making a profit goes against the moral convictions of the owner. She is putting her moral convictions ahead of making a profit

Which I have no problem with

What moral conviction is that- gay people eating cake at their wedding? She isn't going to stop them from doing that. Just seems like she's cutting her nose off to spite her face.

[logroller]

RSR- you're against drug use. Do you have problem with the DEA seizing the assets of drug cartels and using that to fund the prevention of drug use? Still ill-gotten gains put to good use right? Totally the same thing.

[revelarts]

I made no assumption about life's goals, only business goals. This is a discussion about a cake BUSINESS right? I qualified my statement by what the mission of the business likelystates--to seek profit. That's a pretty fair assumption too, because a business, by definition, seeks profits. If that mission said, 'promote Christian ethics and morals in the cake trade'-- then the decision was sound, i have no problem with that. That doesn't fit the profit motive; and thus is not a business mission, but rather a non-profit mission-- which I completely support BTW, but that is a different context from which to base a decision. To say that every decision we make in life has one and only purpose, to serve God, is a fair one-- but to say that seeking profits is contrary to that purpose is a false one.



Well sure, we can have any opinion we want; my opinion describes the profit motive, which defines business-- that's not an opinion Abbey-- that's a fact! If you want to argue morals and ethics, that's fine; but that is not the primary role of a business.

As to what I understand of their moral convictions; cake lady disagrees with gays getting married and feels selling a wedding cake would be tacitly supporting gay marriage-- so they abstain. Sound about right?

Do you think that by refusing them a cake, that there isn't some other baker that'll sell them a cake; and if not, they won't get married cake-less and cease being gay? What mission does not selling them a cake serve?

You say I'm short-sighted, but consider this---

What if they were to not discriminate. Instead, they sell their cakes to whomever and funnel 10% of their profits to the church, (as that's what devout Christians do); and through their church, a non-profit religious institution, they can further the 'devoutly Christian' mission of reinforcing traditional husband-wife marriage. Wouldn't that allow them to do more because they have more resources--thanks in part from selling cakes to gays?

Service to God isn't about boasting on how you stood up for ideals and morals; its about sacrifice for the greater good. Lots of ways to do it, some better than others. Capitalism just seems to work better than anything else. It's foolish to abandon what works when you can use it to your advantage.

By that logic a woman who's a high dollar prostitute should stay a prostitute when she accepts Christs because that's HER Business, and she can give 10% of her money to the church to promote Christian values. Business is Business, totally separate from Standing up for personal values. Unless she wants to add Christ to her prostitution mission statement, which , according to what you said, automatically makes her biz a non-profit which is OK.

[logroller]

By that logic a woman who's a high dollar prostitute should stay a prostitute when she accepts Christs because that's HER Business, and she can give 10% of her money to the church to promote Christian values. Business is Business, totally separate from Standing up for personal values. Unless she wants to add Christ to her prostitution mission statement, which , according to what you said, automatically makes her biz a non-profit which is OK.
What's you deal with hookers rev? Is prostitution an issue in the OP?
Whatever, ill bite- What was Christ's relation with Mary magdeline- rejection and condemnation, or rather
Was it not one of acceptance and forgiveness?

[Abbey Marie]

First of all, where did the baker boast? Did she run to the news outlets to brag that she didn't sell them a cake? I must have missed that.

As for this quote of yours:
"Well sure, we can have any opinion we want; my opinion describes the profit motive, which defines business-- that's not an opinion Abbey-- that's a fact! If you want to argue morals and ethics, that's fine; but that is not the primary role of a business." You are still missing the point, and I cannot understand how. I'll try it another way: Christianity does not stop at the office or bakery door. If my convictions are only good until they affect my profits, then I have NO convictions.

Next, you said:
"What if they were to not discriminate. Instead, they sell their cakes to whomever and funnel 10% of their profits to the church, (as that's what devout Christians do); and through their church, a non-profit religious institution, they can further the 'devoutly Christian' mission of reinforcing traditional husband-wife marriage. Wouldn't that allow them to do more because they have more resources--thanks in part from selling cakes to gays?"

If I believe that what I am doing is wrong, then the fruits of that labor are wrong. Charities are not money-launderers. If I am an abortionist, but I give 10% of my earnings to the church, I am still killing human babies. My contributions do not magically make me innocent.

Finally, you said:

"Do you think that by refusing them a cake, that there isn't some other baker that'll sell them a cake; and if not, they won't get married cake-less and cease being gay? What mission does not selling them a cake serve? "

As a Christian, I am sure the baker didn't care that they would get their cake elsewhere. In fact, it seems like she would be glad of it. She did not want to be a part of something her faith and the word of God tell her is wrong. Good for her.
:clap:

I am glad to see someone stick by their convictions, even though, as you keep pointing out, she stands to lose $$. I would think that you would be, too.

[Gunny]

First of all, where did the baker boast? Did she run to the news outlets to brag that she didn't sell them a cake? I must have missed that.

As for this quote of yours: You are still missing the point, and I cannot understand how. I'll try it another way: Christianity does not stop at the office or bakery door. If my convictions are only good until they affect my profits, then I have NO convictions.

Next, you said:

If I believe that what I am doing is wrong, then the fruits of that labor are wrong. Charities are not money-launderers. If I am an abortionist, but I give 10% of my earnings to the church, I am still killing human babies. My contributions do not magically make me innocent.

Finally, you said:


As a Christian, I am sure the baker didn't care that they would get their cake elsewhere. In fact, it seems like she would be glad of it. She did not want to be a part of something her faith and the word of God tell her is wrong. Good for her.
:clap:

I am glad to see someone stick by their convictions, even though, as you keep pointing out, she stands to lose $$. I would think that you would be, too.

I must be missing something. The person you responded to appears to be trying to make excuses/exceptions by which you should make the cake, implying that making it is "the right thing to do."

"The right thing to do" IMO is to let the baker sell his/her goods to whoever she does and does not want. The success of the business can be affected by discriminatory selling practices, but no necessarily.

[revelarts]

What's you deal with hookers rev? Is prostitution an issue in the OP?
Whatever, ill bite- What was Christ's relation with Mary magdeline- rejection and condemnation, or rather
Was it not one of acceptance and forgiveness?
he told the crowd around the woman caught in adultery to throw the 1st rock if you haven't sinned. then he told the woman "go and sin no more."
Sure there is forgiveness, that's primary but then there is also an honest expectation that a person live as best they can by godly standards going forward. and not be tempted by the love of money or flesh to do otherwise.
what's your deal with profit above all forever and ever amen? Ayn Rand under the sign of the dollar.
Biz is biz and personal morals don't come into play when the bottom line is in question? Sounds like mafia talk.

It's not an etherir or position the Amish make money they are not in a non profit biz becuase they choose to be moral or follow their religious convictions. Morals don't negate profit making.
on the contrary they enhance it. And the market completely breaks down without them.

[LuvRPgrl]

So a mortgage company can't refuse to do business with gays, but a cake company can?

That's not out of proportion at all./sarcasm

Discriminant behavior like this is why we have nanny state laws. If people just said, I don't agree with what you do, but I'll take you money anyways and spend it trying to convince others not to do the things I disagree with-- we'd all be better off-- that's all I'm saying.

so we have to cave in to stop them from forcing laws upon us?

[ConHog]

Well the law says its legal for gays to get married. I never disagreed that the business owner doesn't have right to refuse service; but the bottom line in business IS PROFIT! As to the duty of conscience and service to a personal mission--What's to stop the first baker from taking the money and using the profit to send a kid to church camp and find Christ? What purpose does refusing the order serve?

Says you that the bottom line is profit. There are always other considerations. As I've stated before, my dad owns an auto repair business. He frequently turns down jobs that he doesn't want to do. Why? Because a successful business balances profit with other priorities.

[LuvRPgrl]

I made no
I qualified my statement by what the mission of the business likelystates--to seek profit. That's a pretty fair assumption too, because a business, by definition, seeks profits. If that mission said, 'promote Christian ethics and morals in the cake trade'-- then the decision was sound, i have no problem with that. That doesn't fit the profit motive.
so its ok to lie to the customerr if it increases profits?


;
and thus is not a business mission, but rather a non-profit mission-- which I completely support BTW, but that is a different context from which to base a decision. To say that every decision we make in life has one and only purpose, to serve God, is a fair one-- but to say that seeking profits is contrary to that purpose is a false one..
businesses have more than one mission, when they conflict, the owner has to decide, at that time, which is more important.




If you want to argue morals and ethics, that's fine; but that is not the primary role of a business. .
I ran my own business for over a decade, and my priority was making a quality product, not profit, and then the profit followed, guess what, it worked.


; cake lady disagrees with gays getting married and feels selling a wedding cake would be tacitly supporting gay marriage-- so they abstain. Sound about right?

Do you think that by refusing them a cake, that there isn't some other baker that'll sell them a cake;.
yea, and I sold arms to Hitler cuz if I didnt, someone else would.



and if not, they won't get married cake-less and cease being gay? What mission does not selling them a cake serve?.mission of doing the right thing.


You say I'm short-sighted, but consider this---a,



Service to God isn't about boasting on how you stood up for ideals and morals; its about sacrifice for the greater good..

it is actually both, but not boasting, just standing up for your morals and sacrificing, which they did, they sacrificed some of their profits.


Lots of ways to do it, some better than others. Capitalism just seems to work better than anything else. It's foolish to abandon what works when you can use it to your advantage.
which should remain their choice to choose.

[logroller]

First of all, where did the baker boast? Did she run to the news outlets to brag that she didn't sell them a cake? I must have missed that.

As for this quote of yours: You are still missing the point, and I cannot understand how. I'll try it another way: Christianity does not stop at the office or bakery door. If my convictions are only good until they affect my profits, then I have NO convictions.

Next, you said:

If I believe that what I am doing is wrong, then the fruits of that labor are wrong. Charities are not money-launderers. If I am an abortionist, but I give 10% of my earnings to the church, I am still killing human babies. My contributions do not magically make me innocent.

Finally, you said:


As a Christian, I am sure the baker didn't care that they would get their cake elsewhere. In fact, it seems like she would be glad of it. She did not want to be a part of something her faith and the word of God tell her is wrong. Good for her.
:clap:

I am glad to see someone stick by their convictions, even though, as you keep pointing out, she stands to lose $$. I would think that you would be, too.
Look, I'm not saying there isn't a threshold where the means don't justify the ends. According to you Abbey, baking a cake and aborting a child are same thing -- I think that's a bit hyperbolic. But hey, when in Rome... Oscar Schindler was a member of the Nazi Party, he worked for the Nazis making war armaments. He used his capacity to save jewish lives-- even employed children much to the chagrin of nazi leadership-- I suppose you think he's devoid of moral character and ethical responsibility since he should have refused to participate in the system which killed millions; of course refusing to participate would have led to more than a hundred more innocent men,women and children dying-- but on a personal level, his conscience would be crystal clear.

Of course charities aren't money-launderers-- but they do serve a mission and purpose-- and what purpose did refusing to sell the cake serve? Oh yeah-- a clear conscience? Of well good for her, applause all round. I think she could have helped bring somebody to Christ through funding the church, but then, according to you, she'd be a money-laundering baby-killing sodomite. So I guess we'll just have to disagree on the degree of influence a cake has on the morals and ethics of society. :peace:


he told the crowd around the woman caught in adultery to throw the 1st rock if you haven't sinned. then he told the woman "go and sin no more."
Sure there is forgiveness, that's primary but then there is also an honest expectation that a person live as best they can by godly standards going forward. and not be tempted by the love of money or flesh to do otherwise.
what's your deal with profit above all forever and ever amen? Ayn Rand under the sign of the dollar.
Biz is biz and personal morals don't come into play when the bottom line is in question? Sounds like mafia talk.

It's not an etherir or position the Amish make money they are not in a non profit biz becuase they choose to be moral or follow their religious convictions. Morals don't negate profit making.
on the contrary they enhance it. And the market completely breaks down without them.

What's my deal with it, capitalism? -- its not the power of profits or the dollar, its gaining the resources which allow one to further the change one values. As far as I know, its the best means of advancing a free society yet discovered. And the Amish ...they do trade with those who don't share their religious convictions-- so that only reinforces my point, not yours. When you can show me a system of exchange which is better than capitalism-- I've no doubt the world would be a much better place-- not sure how you're going to spread the good word without the world's damned resources, but you're free to try. Just don't be like the Phelps clan, condemning Steve Jobs from an iPhone.

[LuvRPgrl]

Well the law says its legal for gays to get married. I never disagreed that the business owner doesn't have right to refuse service; but the bottom line in business IS PROFIT! As to the duty of conscience and service to a personal mission--What's to stop the first baker from taking the money and using the profit to send a kid to church camp and find Christ? What purpose does refusing the order serve?

that would be like cutting off one of your fingers so you can get a glove to keep your hand warm

[logroller]

I made no
so its ok to lie to the customerr if it increases profits?
Where did I say one should lie???

;

businesses have more than one mission, when they conflict, the owner has to decide, at that time, which is more important.
The owner should have decided not to have a conflicting mission, at a time before they do business.




I ran my own business for over a decade, and my priority was making a quality product, not profit, and then the profit followed, guess what, it worked.
In your mission statement did it say "provide a quality product to straight people only-- because gay money is tainted by sin"?


yea, and I sold arms to Hitler cuz if I didnt, someone else would.
See Oscar Schindler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Schindler).


mission of doing the right thing.
That's obtuse. Did Oscar Schindler not do the right thing?




it is actually both, but not boasting, just standing up for your morals and sacrificing, which they did, they sacrificed some of their profits.
And I would have sacrificed my personal ego and used the profits to save souls.



which should remain their choice to choose.

I never implied otherwise.

[logroller]

that would be like cutting off one of your fingers so you can get a glove to keep your hand warm

I suppose that would be true if you had six digits and nobody would make you a custom glove because you're abominably different.

[ConHog]

Where did I say one should lie???

;
The owner should have decided not to have a conflicting mission, at a time before they do business.



In your mission statement did it say "provide a quality product to straight people only-- because gay money is tainted by sin"?

See Oscar Schindler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Schindler).

That's obtuse. Did Oscar Schindler not do the right thing?



And I would have sacrificed my personal ego and used the profits to save souls.



I never implied otherwise.



Bottom line. If it is MY business then I have a right to turn down anything, even a profit. Are you seriously suggesting that a business should by law be required to take all customers simply because YOU believe profit is all that matters?

[logroller]

that would be like cutting off one of your fingers so you can get a glove to keep your hand warm

So salvation is just like keeping one's hand warm? Is that in the scripture along with the verse that forbids selling cakes to gays? I'd like to see it.

[trobinett]

Wow!!
This really isn't about money or a business owners legal rights, its about GAY RIGHTS.

I've been in business for over 40 years, and I do pretty much what I want to, as far as who I do business with. Just be truthful, stick
to your principles, the rest will work itself out, trust me on this one.

Looks like much ado about nothing.:lame2:

[logroller]

Bottom line. If it is MY business then I have a right to turn down anything, even a profit. Are you seriously suggesting that a business should by law be required to take all customers simply because YOU believe profit is all that matters?

Bottom line of business is Profit/Loss. I seem to upsetting people by stating such- but this is the defining purpose of business- not some misconstrued opinion. Of course you can ignore profit, but thats a dangerous practice in business. If your morals disavow you from profits, maybe business isnt for you.
So far as laws- doesn't the bible say to obey the law of the land. The law in this case says gay marriage is legal. This upsets people, ok then, change the law, don't just the ignore it. That be like saying, I don't like what the federal government is doing, it violates my moral beliefs; so should I abstain from the democratic process and quit paying taxes-- thats my sovereign freedom and you cant hold me accountable for that which I have no part in promoting. If that sounds reasonable to you CH then the south may very well rise again.

[ConHog]

Bottom line of business is Profit/Loss. I seem to upsetting people by stating such- but this is the defining purpose of business- not some misconstrued opinion. Of course you can ignore profit, but thats a dangerous practice in business. If your morals disavow you from profits, maybe business isnt for you.
So far as laws- doesn't the bible say to obey the law of the land. The law in this case says gay marriage is legal. This upsets people, ok then, change the law, don't just the ignore it. That be like saying, I don't like what the federal government is doing, it violates my moral beliefs; so should I abstain from the democratic process and quit paying taxes-- thats my sovereign freedom and you cant hold me accountable for that which I have no part in promoting. If that sounds reasonable to you CH then the south may very well rise again.

The law does say gay marriage is legal (in some areas) , but you claim that equals forcing someone to do business with someone they don't want to do business with? And what about that pesky first amendment, don't I have a right to practice my religion which tells me not to support sin?

Here's an idea, everyone mind their own goddamned business. That includes both the people who bake the cakes and the people who want to buy cakes from those who don't want their business. It's not like there is only one baker in the world.




Seems to me that some entrepreneurial faggot could open his own bakery in that town and refuse to serve straights.

[logroller]

Wow!!
This really isn't about money or a business owners legal rights, its about GAY RIGHTS.

I've been in business for over 40 years, and I do pretty much what I want to, as far as who I do business with. Just be truthful, stick
to your principles, the rest will work itself out, trust me on this one.

Looks like much ado about nothing.:lame2:

Its not even about gay rights- It's about the moral implications of selling somebody a cake! But you're right about it being lame!

[Abbey Marie]

Look, I'm not saying there isn't a threshold where the means don't justify the ends. According to you Abbey, baking a cake and aborting a child are same thing -- I think that's a bit hyperbolic. But hey, when in Rome... Oscar Schindler was a member of the Nazi Party, he worked for the Nazis making war armaments. He used his capacity to save jewish lives-- even employed children much to the chagrin of nazi leadership-- I suppose you think he's devoid of moral character and ethical responsibility since he should have refused to participate in the system which killed millions; of course refusing to participate would have led to more than a hundred more innocent men,women and children dying-- but on a personal level, his conscience would be crystal clear.

No, I have not said they are the same thing, and you know it. I gave you a strong example, because you seem to have trouble understanding what I and others are saying. Had you shown you get it, instead of repeating yet again the profits mantra, I would not have had to use it. As for Schindler, he participated to achieve what he believed to be morally correct- saving Jewish lives. The baker chose not to participate, to achieve what she believes in- no gay marriage. They are in fact quite similar in that regard. I think you unwittingly gave us a good example to buttress our argument. Thanks. :cool:

Of course charities aren't money-launderers-- but they do serve a mission and purpose-- and what purpose did refusing to sell the cake serve? Oh yeah-- a clear conscience? Of well good for her, applause all round. I think she could have helped bring somebody to Christ through funding the church, but then, according to you, she'd be a money-laundering baby-killing sodomite. So I guess we'll just have to disagree on the degree of influence a cake has on the morals and ethics of society. :peace:

A clear conscience, and the belief that she is living her faith and pleasing God. Useless to you, I guess. Not to her and not to me. The influence from her taking a stand and not selling the cake is actually inestimable. Here we are talking about it, and probably lots of other people, too. And what a witness to all those who (cough, cough) don't understand foregoing profit for their convictions!


What's my deal with it, capitalism? -- its not the power of profits or the dollar, its gaining the resources which allow one to further the change one values. As far as I know, its the best means of advancing a free society yet discovered. And the Amish ...they do trade with those who don't share their religious convictions-- so that only reinforces my point, not yours. When you can show me a system of exchange which is better than capitalism-- I've no doubt the world would be a much better place-- not sure how you're going to spread the good word without the world's damned resources, but you're free to try. Just don't be like the Phelps clan, condemning Steve Jobs from an iPhone.

At our local farmer's market, I'm fairly sure no one discusses what they are going to do with those 2 pounds of pork chops. Wedding cakes are fairly specific purchases. Had the lesbians just ordered a cake and not made it clear it was for their lesbian ceremony, I'll bet they would have had their cake, too.

...

[logroller]

The law does say gay marriage is legal (in some areas) , but you claim that equals forcing someone to do business with someone they don't want to do business with? And what about that pesky first amendment, don't I have a right to practice my religion which tells me not to support sin?

Here's an idea, everyone mind their own goddamned business. That includes both the people who bake the cakes and the people who want to buy cakes from those who don't want their business. It's not like there is only one baker in the world.




Seems to me that some entrepreneurial faggot could open his own bakery in that town and refuse to serve straights.

Were obviously past the point of mutual understanding. Of course someone can be a bigot and run their business how they want to. I never said otherwise- in fact I've said that every time you allude to or ask about it. I think where we have a difference of opinion is in how selling a cake implicates one in promoting sin. Just have to disagree on this one

[LuvRPgrl]

Where did I say one should lie???. YOU said put profits ahead of your morals.

;

The owner should have decided not to have a conflicting mission, at a time before they do business.. ok, so one has to choose, either make money and have no morals or standards, or,,,,have morals and standards and dont care if you make money?
why cant they have two missions that may conflict from time to time.
Its quite simply like this: MY MISSION STATEMENT IS TO MAKE MONEY UNLESS IT REQUIRES ME COMPROMISING MY VALUES.




In your mission statement did it say "provide a quality product to straight people only-- because gay money is tainted by sin"? .
ABSOLUTELY


See Oscar Schindler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Schindler).

That's obtuse. Did Oscar Schindler not do the right thing?.
AND HE DID NOT MAKE PROFITS HIS HIGHEST PRIORITY

[ConHog]

Were obviously past the point of mutual understanding. Of course someone can be a bigot and run their business how they want to. I never said otherwise- in fact I've said that every time you allude to or ask about it. I think where we have a difference of opinion is in how selling a cake implicates one in promoting sin. Just have to disagree on this one

I'm not saying anything about sin. I'm saying a person has a right to not do business with someone without explanation. A simple " I don't want your business" should suffice. No need to get into "you're a sinner and I can't support your sin" at all.

[logroller]

YOU said put profits ahead of your morals.

;
ok, so one has to choose, either make money and have no morals or standards, or,,,,have morals and standards and dont care if you make money?
why cant they have two missions that may conflict from time to time.
Its quite simply like this: MY MISSION STATEMENT IS TO MAKE MONEY UNLESS IT REQUIRES ME COMPROMISING MY VALUES.




ABSOLUTELY


AND HE DID NOT MAKE PROFITS HIS HIGHEST PRIORITY

He still compromised to bring about a greater good, I think the same could apply to the OP.

[ConHog]

He still compromised to bring about a greater good, I think the same could apply to the OP.

who cares? If I own something , I shouldn't have to compromise sht. THat's the point. Let's say you own a piece of land and I want to hold a tent revival on that land. Should I be able to insist that you compromise and let me have a tent revival on your land? Hell, I'll even pay rent.

[logroller]

I'm not saying anything about sin. I'm saying a person has a right to not do business with someone without explanation. A simple " I don't want your business" should suffice. No need to get into "you're a sinner and I can't support your sin" at all.

So, those who applaud the baker's actions do so b/c it's nothing more than a tacit denial of service? I believe it to be otherwise, and bid you adieu.

[logroller]

who cares? If I own something , I shouldn't have to compromise sht. THat's the point. Let's say you own a piece of land and I want to hold a tent revival on that land. Should I be able to insist that you compromise and let me have a tent revival on your land? Hell, I'll even pay rent.

For the right price, you can raze it for all I care. Does that me immoral? If what you pay me affords me the ability to buy even more land; why wouldn't I?

[jimnyc]

No, I haven't looked it up yet...

It all boils down to this - whether or not sexual preference is a protected characteristic. Federal law doesn't include it and it's up to the individual states to determine. If it's not protected, then this woman can tell the dykes to go fly a kit. If it is, then she's in a legal bind, as someone offering services to the public (Again, too lazy, but is this a business open to the public, or a woman working on the side?).

[KarlMarx]

The Defense of Marriage Act is still federal law. If the Obama administration did its job to enforce the laws on the books there would be no gay marriage anywhere.

Obama should be the one who's getting sued.

[logroller]

No, I haven't looked it up yet...It all boils down to this - whether or not sexual preference is a protected characteristic. Federal law doesn't include it and it's up to the individual states to determine. If it's not protected, then this woman can tell the dykes to go fly a kit. If it is, then she's in a legal bind, as someone offering services to the public (Again, too lazy, but is this a business open to the public, or a woman working on the side?).2007 Iowa civil rights act includes sexual orientation as a protected class. But it appears the baker is operating out of her house, so she's probably exempt from anti discrimination laws. Not Health codes though; I think it's safe to assume she's officially on the radar.

[Kathianne]

2007 Iowa civil rights act includes sexual orientation as a protected class. But it appears the baker is operating out of her house, so she's probably exempt from anti discrimination laws. Not Health codes though; I think it's safe to assume she's officially on the radar.
Meaning gov't consolidating their reach through power. You wonder why there are so many conservatives?

[logroller]

Meaning gov't consolidating their reach through power. You wonder why there are so many conservatives?I wonder why so many conservatives would care who buys a cake. :dunno:

[Kathianne]

I wonder why so many conservatives would care who buys a cake. :dunno:

Coming clean time, I didn't watch the video. I don't have cable and really find the topic idiotic. Still from what I've read on here, there are 'principled' folks that think homosexuality wrong and won't condone it, including some cake baker. Now if one of the two names on the cake could have been taken as 'whatever', i.e., Pat or Chris, don't see where it became a point of contention. On the other hand, if the couple chose to 'make a big deal' out of their marriage, thus the cake; seems the baker could say, "No, thanks for this business," on their own principles/morals/interpretation of bible. I'm sure they'd have no problem dropping the dollars on some other site.

Or was it a case of 'going for what they perceived to be the weakest link?' Sort of like the lesbian couple in my old school, (Catholic). They thought they'd get a turn down, but instead were warmly welcomed. I didn't get it then, don't get it now, but there you have it. Instead of the lawsuit they thought they'd signed up for, both are on the school board now.

[logroller]

Coming clean time, I didn't watch the video. I don't have cable and really find the topic idiotic. Still from what I've read on here, there are 'principled' folks that think homosexuality wrong and won't condone it, including some cake baker. Now if one of the two names on the cake could have been taken as 'whatever', i.e., Pat or Chris, don't see where it became a point of contention. On the other hand, if the couple chose to 'make a big deal' out of their marriage, thus the cake; seems the baker could say, "No, thanks for this business," on their own principles/morals/interpretation of bible. I'm sure they'd have no problem dropping the dollars on some other site.

Or was it a case of 'going for what they perceived to be the weakest link?' Sort of like the lesbian couple in my old school, (Catholic). They thought they'd get a turn down, but instead were warmly welcomed. I didn't get it then, don't get it now, but there you have it. Instead of the lawsuit they thought they'd signed up for, both are on the school board now.

And from what you've read on here, I doubt you've been swayed to believe otherwise.:coffee:

[Kathianne]

And from what you've read on here, I doubt you've been swayed to believe otherwise.:coffee:

From what I've read here there are no surprises. Those that are judgmental are judging. Those that think they are superior are acting so. I find both not my cup of tea, but thank all for their efforts.

[KarlMarx]

Here it is...

1. Freedom of religious expression is protected under the First Amendment, freedom sexual orientation is not. No matter how much the Gay Gestapo tries to coerce the rest us to think otherwise
2. Freedom of speech is protected under the First Amendment, freedom to marry your gay partner is not. No matter how much the Gay Gestapo wants it otherwise, Federal Law supersedes State Law per the Constitution of the United States. The Defense of Marriage Act is still federal law, thus all gay "marriages" should be declared null and void. The Obama Administration publicly declared that it will not enforce this law, making it derelict in its duty to uphold the law of the land. That is grounds for impeachment and I wish someone would have the spine to do it. The only bad thing about it is that it means that I won't have the pleasure of voting that idiot out of office.
3. The lesbians could have found another baker, this is an issue of private property and of religious expression, again no matter how much the Gay Gestapo tries to intimidate us into thinking otherwise.

Guess what? I have a constitutionally protected right to be a bigot if I want to. I do not have to condone the actions of a sexually perverse, overly vocal, and politically organized minority that is trying to convince the rest of us that it is oppressed when, in fact, the facts show otherwise.

Letting the gays win on this one is just another blow to the concept of religious freedom and of private property.

[ConHog]

No, I haven't looked it up yet...

It all boils down to this - whether or not sexual preference is a protected characteristic. Federal law doesn't include it and it's up to the individual states to determine. If it's not protected, then this woman can tell the dykes to go fly a kit. If it is, then she's in a legal bind, as someone offering services to the public (Again, too lazy, but is this a business open to the public, or a woman working on the side?).

Protected class is bullshit when it comes to private industry. PERIOD.

[Psychoblues]

After 111 posts in this thread, other than unqualified remarks from unclear media sources no one has demonstrated or typified in any real way that anyone personally involved in this proposed transaction intends to sue anyone or is actually upset in any way about what has transpired. Just more ridiculous right wing fearmongering and intolerance. Depending on circumstances, however, I fully support right wing exclusions.

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Psychoblues

[ConHog]

After 111 posts in this thread, other than unqualified remarks from unclear media sources no one has demonstrated or typified in any real way that anyone personally involved in this proposed transaction intends to sue anyone or is actually upset in any way about what has transpired. Just more ridiculous right wing fearmongering and intolerance. Depending on circumstances, however, I fully support right wing exclusions.

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Psychoblues



Oh shut up. The lesbians didn't go to the press with this story because they felt like they were respected and the baker had a right to do what she did.

You're as big of a joke as what you claim those you ridiculing could ever possibly be.

[jimnyc]

After 111 posts in this thread, other than unqualified remarks from unclear media sources no one has demonstrated or typified in any real way that anyone personally involved in this proposed transaction intends to sue anyone or is actually upset in any way about what has transpired. Just more ridiculous right wing fearmongering and intolerance. Depending on circumstances, however, I fully support right wing exclusions.

Are you out of your mind? They've given interview after interview and have expressed their dismay left and right. Rather than open a thread to troll, or claim sources suck - how about you actually do a little background on what you are actually posting about. If you did, you would see that they are very upset in fact. Just because they haven't filed a lawsuit as you pointed out, that doesn't mean they are pleased. They just have no standing against this particular cake maker.

[ConHog]

Are you out of your mind? They've given interview after interview and have expressed their dismay left and right. Rather than open a thread to troll, or claim sources suck - how about you actually do a little background on what you are actually posting about. If you did, you would see that they are very upset in fact. Just because they haven't filed a lawsuit as you pointed out, that doesn't mean they are pleased. They just have no standing against this particular cake maker.

Pretty obvious that PB came back to do nothing but troll. He knows he can't back up his claim that the woman should be forced to serve lesbians with any sort of logic, so instead he's trying for the derail route.

[jimnyc]

Pretty obvious that PB came back to do nothing but troll. He knows he can't back up his claim that the woman should be forced to serve lesbians with any sort of logic, so instead he's trying for the derail route.

Like Gabby, he just has an issue with RSR. He searches out and responds in the majority to RSR posts, as if he is *egads* trolling! I'm willing to bet that if you actually searched you would see that the overwhelming majority of threads he responds to are in fact from RSR.

Maybe he just has a crush? :laugh2:

[ConHog]

Like Gabby, he just has an issue with RSR. He searches out and responds in the majority to RSR posts, as if he is *egads* trolling! I'm willing to bet that if you actually searched you would see that the overwhelming majority of threads he responds to are in fact from RSR.

Maybe he just has a crush? :laugh2:

well , too be fair, most of the threads ARE started by RSR so it stands to reason that a person couldn't help but to respond mostly to RSR's threads lol.


I think PB is an idiot with a slight man crush though.

[Psychoblues]

Oh shut up. The lesbians didn't go to the press with this story because they felt like they were respected and the baker had a right to do what she did.

You're as big of a joke as what you claim those you ridiculing could ever possibly be.

You are the only one that seems to know who went to the press first. Please link me to your source.

Psychoblues

[Psychoblues]

Are you out of your mind? They've given interview after interview and have expressed their dismay left and right. Rather than open a thread to troll, or claim sources suck - how about you actually do a little background on what you are actually posting about. If you did, you would see that they are very upset in fact. Just because they haven't filed a lawsuit as you pointed out, that doesn't mean they are pleased. They just have no standing against this particular cake maker.

I'm not out of my mind, jimnyc, and I have seen no interviews from any of these ladies, the lesbos or the bakerette, beyond the video in the OP. And I do not know who went to the media first and you don't either. The video in the OP indicates a cool, calm and cooperative couple of potential customers that were denied service for at best very questionable reasons but they were not upset or so it seems to me from the video. The OP says they may sue. Other than the unqualified words from that unclear media source how can anyone determine that? The girls don't say that. I keep waiting for someone to post up additional actual information without a bunch of innuendo and falsehoods. So far none, including the OP, have been forthcoming. And according to the laws of the state in which this failure of business transpired the lesbo's do have a standing against that particular cake maker if they choose to pursue further action. I see no inclination, however, from them to do so.

Psychoblues

[Psychoblues]

Pretty obvious that PB came back to do nothing but troll. He knows he can't back up his claim that the woman should be forced to serve lesbians with any sort of logic, so instead he's trying for the derail route.

Show me exactly where and how I might be "trolling", ConWay. I have never said the woman should be forced to serve lesbians and your assertion is hyperbole at best but most likely a downright lie as you demonstrate repeatedly you have no qualms against for your ridiculous reasons. Derail what? A thread about lesbians being denied service from a bakerette? I think every post I've made in this thread has to do with that exact circumstance and reflective of the OP. Are you trying to derail the thread and make it something about me? Shame.

Psychoblues

[Psychoblues]

Like Gabby, he just has an issue with RSR. He searches out and responds in the majority to RSR posts, as if he is *egads* trolling! I'm willing to bet that if you actually searched you would see that the overwhelming majority of threads he responds to are in fact from RSR.

Maybe he just has a crush? :laugh2:

I rarely participate in a thread of rsr, jim, so you're very wrong on that accord, and what conway said is dead on. And anymore I avoid responding directly to rsr unless he is speaking directly to me. I will, however, speak about something someone else might say in a thread from him.

Are you and conway trying to derail this thread?

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

Here it is...

1. Freedom of religious expression is protected under the First Amendment, freedom sexual orientation is not. No matter how much the Gay Gestapo tries to coerce the rest us to think otherwise
2. Freedom of speech is protected under the First Amendment, freedom to marry your gay partner is not. No matter how much the Gay Gestapo wants it otherwise, Federal Law supersedes State Law per the Constitution of the United States. The Defense of Marriage Act is still federal law, thus all gay "marriages" should be declared null and void. The Obama Administration publicly declared that it will not enforce this law, making it derelict in its duty to uphold the law of the land. That is grounds for impeachment and I wish someone would have the spine to do it. The only bad thing about it is that it means that I won't have the pleasure of voting that idiot out of office.
3. The lesbians could have found another baker, this is an issue of private property and of religious expression, again no matter how much the Gay Gestapo tries to intimidate us into thinking otherwise.

Guess what? I have a constitutionally protected right to be a bigot if I want to. I do not have to condone the actions of a sexually perverse, overly vocal, and politically organized minority that is trying to convince the rest of us that it is oppressed when, in fact, the facts show otherwise.

Letting the gays win on this one is just another blow to the concept of religious freedom and of private property.

What part of “My Business” don’t some people get?

I do wonder if the same people here defedning the gays would do the same if a Muslim baker had been the one to refuse the cake order

This story confirms the gay agenda is drive by hate as well as spite

[logroller]

Here it is...

1. Freedom of religious expression is protected under the First Amendment, freedom sexual orientation is not. No matter how much the Gay Gestapo tries to coerce the rest us to think otherwise
2. Freedom of speech is protected under the First Amendment, freedom to marry your gay partner is not. No matter how much the Gay Gestapo wants it otherwise, Federal Law supersedes State Law per the Constitution of the United States. The Defense of Marriage Act is still federal law, thus all gay "marriages" should be declared null and void. The Obama Administration publicly declared that it will not enforce this law, making it derelict in its duty to uphold the law of the land. That is grounds for impeachment and I wish someone would have the spine to do it. The only bad thing about it is that it means that I won't have the pleasure of voting that idiot out of office.
3. The lesbians could have found another baker, this is an issue of private property and of religious expression, again no matter how much the Gay Gestapo tries to intimidate us into thinking otherwise.

Guess what? I have a constitutionally protected right to be a bigot if I want to. I do not have to condone the actions of a sexually perverse, overly vocal, and politically organized minority that is trying to convince the rest of us that it is oppressed when, in fact, the facts show otherwise.

Letting the gays win on this one is just another blow to the concept of religious freedom and of private property.


Would you be willing to abandon state-recognized marriage to protect the religious significance?

I don't care either way-- but law must apply equally to all. My marriage is wholesome and no law or 'gay agenda' will change that; neither will a couple lesbians getting married and eating a cake.

[red states rule]

Would you be willing to abandon state-recognized marriage to protect the religious significance?

I don't care either way-- but law must apply equally to all. My marriage is wholesome and no law or 'gay agenda' will change that; neither will a couple lesbians getting married and eating a cake.


This issue is like a cobweb in the corner. It keeps getting bigger unless it is removed

I remember well many years ago when gays demanded civil unions. There main talking point was "it is not ike we are asking to get marrried"

They can live together and they eat their cake. But stop demanding others accept and excuse their lifestyle that most people reject

[KarlMarx]

Would you be willing to abandon state-recognized marriage to protect the religious significance?

I don't care either way-- but law must apply equally to all. My marriage is wholesome and no law or 'gay agenda' will change that; neither will a couple lesbians getting married and eating a cake.

The law should apply equally to all.. good point. So gays should not be allowed to marry because federal law prohibits them from doing so and, if the Obama administration did its job, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[fj1200]

The law should apply equally to all.. good point. So gays should not be allowed to marry because federal law prohibits them from doing so and, if the Obama administration did its job, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And how would that be the law "applying equally to all"?

[jimnyc]

I'm not out of my mind, jimnyc, and I have seen no interviews from any of these ladies, the lesbos or the bakerette, beyond the video in the OP.

Then you are speaking out as if you are an authority on the matter, and you obviously haven't done any research at all outside of this thread. Therefore, you are speaking about and replying to things you have no idea about. If you DID research these things, like I have, by just doing a few searches, you would see that I am right, and you are wrong as usual.

[ConHog]

And how would that be the law "applying equally to all"?

I personally would apply the law equally by doing away with government sanctioned marriages. Go get married in a church or even have some private business which sells little plaques that say "you're married." This is a freaking non issue. Who cares who marries who as long as both parties are of legal age and consenting. Hell, who even cares if 12 people want to get married?

Sure some laws would have to be amended and married couples would need to get legal contracts to cover some things that are now covered by marriage contracts, but ohwell.

[fj1200]

I personally would apply the law equally by doing away with government sanctioned marriages. Go get married in a church or even have some private business which sells little plaques that say "you're married." This is a freaking non issue. Who cares who marries who as long as both parties are of legal age and consenting. Hell, who even cares if 12 people want to get married?

Sure some laws would have to be amended and married couples would need to get legal contracts to cover some things that are now covered by marriage contracts, but ohwell.

Now how am I supposed to argue with that? :laugh:

[LuvRPgrl]

Would you be willing to abandon state-recognized marriage to protect the religious significance?

I don't care either way-- but law must apply equally to all. My marriage is wholesome and no law or 'gay agenda' will change that; neither will a couple lesbians getting married and eating a cake.

it is equal to all, all can marry someone of the opposite gender

[Psychoblues]

Then you are speaking out as if you are an authority on the matter, and you obviously haven't done any research at all outside of this thread. Therefore, you are speaking about and replying to things you have no idea about. If you DID research these things, like I have, by just doing a few searches, you would see that I am right, and you are wrong as usual.

Do you have additional information gleaned from your so-called research? Link it, quote it, post pictures of it. Therefore I think you're somehow not being honest. I know exactly what I am talking about and no one, and certainly not you have proven me wrong in any way much less in any significant way. Differing opinions don't count for anything and I do reject statements of facts when the actual facts don't support the ideologies behind the statements. And, jimbo, I have done a few searches. I've found nothing to disprove the facts as I view them and have stated them. There is no lawsuit or complaint from the lesbo's. There is no animosity between the lesbo's and the bakerette. There is no indication of any kind just who went to the media or if any of the principals approached the media at all. It might have been a slow day in the newsroom and someone heard a rumor of something happening at the bakerette's business. The article states this happened in a very small town. There are not many secrets in a small town and none of the principals seem inclined towards keeping their business personally private in any way. Many unanswered questions but there are very definite things that can be gleaned from existing information and all this horsepucky from the homophobes is just that, horsepucky.

Psychoblues

[LuvRPgrl]

I personally would apply the law equally by doing away with government sanctioned marriages. Go get married in a church or even have some private business which sells little plaques that say "you're married." This is a freaking non issue. Who cares who marries who as long as both parties are of legal age and consenting. Hell, who even cares if 12 people want to get married?

Sure some laws would have to be amended and married couples would need to get legal contracts to cover some things that are now covered by marriage contracts, but ohwell.

then whats the point of marriage?
If you knew the primary purpose and why society at large has a meaningful stake in this topic, you would realize your above statement wouldnt work

[ConHog]

Now how am I supposed to argue with that? :laugh:

Well you COULD try the tired old routines of either

"That's not fair dammit, MY marriage deserves to be recognized by the government to"

or

" That's just giving the faggots what they want, their marriage equal to anyone's , and we can't have that"

Both of which are bullshit. Who gives a shit if two guys call themselves married? It has ZERO effect on anyone else.

[fj1200]

then whats the point of marriage?
If you knew the primary purpose and why society at large has a meaningful stake in this topic, you would realize your above statement wouldnt work

So if it weren't for government sanctioned marriage our entire society would fall apart? That's quite the claim. :)

[ConHog]

then whats the point of marriage?
If you knew the primary purpose and why society at large has a meaningful stake in this topic, you would realize your above statement wouldnt work

What societal purpose is served by the government selling a little piece of paper that says "yep, you're married?"

My marriage is just as strong, just as vital, and just as beneficial to society whether the State of Arkansas gives me a piece of paper or not (they have, that isn't the point.)

[LuvRPgrl]

Well you COULD try the tired old routines of either

"That's not fair dammit, MY marriage deserves to be recognized by the government to"

or

" That's just giving the faggots what they want, their marriage equal to anyone's , and we can't have that"

Both of which are bullshit. Who gives a shit if two guys call themselves married? It has ZERO effect on anyone else.

family law courts are already overburdened and cant spend the time on cases to determine what really is best for the kids, now with the homos getting married, they will just clog those courts up more.

but like you say, their only goal is to make homosexuality appear normal

[LuvRPgrl]

So if it weren't for government sanctioned marriage our entire society would fall apart? That's quite the claim. :)

no, I didnt say that.

[LuvRPgrl]

What societal purpose is served by the government selling a little piece of paper that says "yep, you're married?"

My marriage is just as strong, just as vital, and just as beneficial to society whether the State of Arkansas gives me a piece of paper or not (they have, that isn't the point.)

so then what is the point of getting married?

[ConHog]

so then what is the point of getting married?

To signify my level of commitment to my wife before the eyes of God. Not before the eyes of Uncle Sam, I couldn't care less what he thinks.

[logroller]

then whats the point of marriage?
If you knew the primary purpose and why society at large has a meaningful stake in this topic, you would realize your above statement wouldnt work

There's a primary interest in the state sanctioning marriage? Pray tell.

[Psychoblues]

I thought this thread was about buying a cake, some honest customers and a very poor businesswoman. WTF?

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

The bottom line is the baker didn’t bake a cake. And because of that respectful decline, she is now a target of the gay community

[fj1200]

no, I didnt say that.

;)

[Shadow]

I thought this thread was about buying a cake, some honest customers and a very poor businesswoman. WTF?

Psychoblues

Goes to show how much you know. Honest customer's don't alert the media about their passive aggressive petty disputes,after leading the other party to believe they settled their differences cordially.
:rolleyes:

[LuvRPgrl]

To signify my level of commitment to my wife before the eyes of God. Not before the eyes of Uncle Sam, I couldn't care less what he thinks.

so why bother with the legal aspects, just go to your church, make your vows to god, which are meaningless anyways cuz almost everyone who does appaRENtly doesnt know what "til death do us part" means,
but why bother with the marriage license, you dont need it for your religous vows.

[LuvRPgrl]

I thought this thread was about buying a cake, some honest customers and a very poor businesswoman. WTF?

Psychoblues

go get a case of cervasa and leave the big boys alone, you might get hurt.

[ConHog]

so why bother with the legal aspects, just go to your church, make your vows to god, which are meaningless anyways cuz almost everyone who does appaRENtly doesnt know what "til death do us part" means,
but why bother with the marriage license, you dont need it for your religous vows.

Exactly what I proposed.

[LuvRPgrl]

Exactly what I proposed.
then why didnt you
and why do you care about this thread

[ConHog]

I thought this thread was about buying a cake, some honest customers and a very poor businesswoman. WTF?

Psychoblues

What makes you believe the customers are honest, and by extension you are obviously implying that the baker is not honest. Please give the basis for THAT opinion as well.

[ConHog]

then why didnt you
and why do you care about this thread

I DID propose that. I plainly stated do away with state marriage licenses. If my church wants to issue a piece of paper recognizing my marriage that is clearly none of your business. And gays could and should have the same thing available to them.

As for the thread, I clearly have stated why I care, because I believe it is unconstitutional for the government to dictate to me who I can and can't do business with.

[LuvRPgrl]

I DID propose that. I plainly stated do away with state marriage licenses. If my church wants to issue a piece of paper recognizing my marriage that is clearly none of your business. And gays could and should have the same thing available to them.

As for the thread, I clearly have stated why I care, because I believe it is unconstitutional for the government to dictate to me who I can and can't do business with.

but you did apply for, and get a marriage license, right?
why bother?

[ConHog]

but you did apply for, and get a marriage license, right?
why bother?

Umm because my wife wanted to take my last name and have our child not seen as a bastard and under current law that is the process.

[jimnyc]

Back to the OP...

This woman did the right thing by politely explaining her stance to these women. She could have been a bitch and told them to get lost. But she stuck to her principles and beliefs while remaining polite. As an independent baker, she had no obligation towards these women, nor any other potential buyers. May not make business sense to many, but it's still legal. And I highly doubt that she ran to the media afterwards to brag about her decision. I'm sure it's another case of "I'm angry so I will go to the media for justice" - and in reality they got jack shit and a lot of people laughing at them. If I lived in the area, I would buy a cake from this lady just for the hell of it. Of course mine would be a small cake, in the $10 range, or maybe a couple of cookies!

[LuvRPgrl]

Umm because my wife wanted to take my last name and have our child not seen as a bastard and under current law that is the process.

well then, you just gave reasons for the gubt to be involved, the same guvt you claimed you dont think should be involved. Your wife can take your last56 name w/o a legal marriage.
the term bastard is meaningless anymore.

[fj1200]

well then, you just gave reasons for the gubt to be involved,

That's not a reason that they need to be involved, that's a reason that they've streamlined certain aspects of the marriage process.

[ConHog]

well then, you just gave reasons for the gubt to be involved, the same guvt you claimed you dont think should be involved. Your wife can take your last56 name w/o a legal marriage.
the term bastard is meaningless anymore.

Incorrect sir. IF the government would accept a contract in lieu of a marriage certificate to allow my wife to have legally changed her name to mine THEN we wouldn't have needed a marriage certificate , but since they don't a marriage certificate was necessary.

And the term bastard may be meaningless to YOU, but I am rather proud of the fact that I have only got two women pregnant and was married to both of them prior to conception.

[logroller]

Back to the OP...

This woman did the right thing by politely explaining her stance to these women. She could have been a bitch and told them to get lost. But she stuck to her principles and beliefs while remaining polite. As an independent baker, she had no obligation towards these women, nor any other potential buyers. May not make business sense to many, but it's still legal. And I highly doubt that she ran to the media afterwards to brag about her decision. I'm sure it's another case of "I'm angry so I will go to the media for justice" - and in reality they got jack shit and a lot of people laughing at them. If I lived in the area, I would buy a cake from this lady just for the hell of it. Of course mine would be a small cake, in the $10 range, or maybe a couple of cookies!

Independent? More like amateur. I'd assume the reason the customer went to this baker is actually because of her amateur status; she assumed it would be cheaper. A more professional solution: give her an extremely high price, the couple would have went elsewhere, her principles would still be intact and nobody feels wronged--win/win. Legalities aside (such as preparing food for sale in a residence), she could have behaved more professionally and still stuck to her principles. I ran a landscape business and often people would want me to do things which i believed violated my principles; if they were dead-set on it being done, I'd give them an astronomical price--people understand you don't want their business and they go elsewhere. Sometimes they'd question the price, but whatever, that's the price for me to do it. I don't need to justify my price or negotiate terms unless I really want their business. Lessons in business, and life for that matter, are often hard-earned (or is it hard-learned) Either way, the OP is a case in point.

Back off the OP... Now I want cake, chocolate; maybe some apple pie a la mode. I am so ready for the holiday binge to begin. :cheers2:

[Abbey Marie]

If you are willing to sign a contract, what is it about marriage that you feel is unnecessary? The vows?

[ConHog]

If you are willing to sign a contract, what is it about marriage that you feel is unnecessary? The vows?

Who is this addressed to? I'm confused.

[Abbey Marie]

Who is this addressed to? I'm confused.

You...

[ConHog]

You...

I don't feel marriage is unnecessary. I feel the government butting into marriage is unnecessary. Would you and Mr Abbey's marriage be any less real if it was sanctioned solely by a church rather than by a church and the state? Of course not.

[red states rule]

Goes to show how much you know. Honest customer's don't alert the media about their passive aggressive petty disputes,after leading the other party to believe they settled their differences cordially.
:rolleyes:

Now PB will rant how you are spreading horsepucky and are one of those evil homophobics

IOW, he will avoid the facts and attack out of habit

[LuvRPgrl]

That's not a reason that they need to be involved, that's a reason that they've streamlined certain aspects of the marriage process.


?????????? Im confused now. nothing new however. But did they streamline it at all?
and what does "involved" mean?
I think I musta pissed you off in one of my posts and/or threads.

[red states rule]

If the baker is forced to bake them a cake, charge a very high price, and leave out a few ingredients like sugar and vanilla

[LuvRPgrl]

If you are willing to sign a contract, what is it about marriage that you feel is unnecessary? The vows?

Abs, whom are you addressing with this post?

f oppps, sorry, didnt see the next two posts yet.

[LuvRPgrl]

I don't feel marriage is unnecessary. I feel the government butting into marriage is unnecessary. Would you and Mr Abbey's marriage be any less real if it was sanctioned solely by a church rather than by a church and the state? Of course not.

again, so why did you go get a marriage license?
You said so that your son wont be called a bastard, yet with you being such an intimdating big bad ass ranger and all, and I mean that sincerely,
then you can just threaten to kick the shit out of anyone who says it.
If you say its so your wife can take your last name, why didnt she just start using your last name. I mean, thats what she ultimately did anyways isnt it.?
....she started using your last name on accounts, for work, etc etc. Did any of them ask to see the marriage license?

[LuvRPgrl]

In reality, by not making the cake she is showing how much she actually cares for those ladies. I mean, look at all the grief it is causing her now, and she had to know it would in this day and age. And she knows ultimately it wont make a lick of difference in how any votes, thinks, feels about same gender marriages and homosexuality.
......If she didnt care at all about them then she would have let them continue on their erroneous mission. It is only those we care for whom we correct. Kids in school, people breaking traffic laws, they say the opposite of love isnt hate, but apathy.

[red states rule]

In reality, by not making the cake she is showing how much she actually cares for those ladies. I mean, look at all the grief it is causing her now, and she had to know it would in this day and age. And she knows ultimately it wont make a lick of difference in how any votes, thinks, feels about same gender marriages and homosexuality.
......If she didnt care at all about them then she would have let them continue on their erroneous mission. It is only those we care for whom we correct. Kids in school, people breaking traffic laws, they say the opposite of love isnt hate, but apathy.

She is standing by her principals and moral beliefs

She respectfully declined to accept the cake order and expalined her reasons

and the left and gay community are responding with the usual their usual hate and personal attacks

[LuvRPgrl]

If the baker is forced to bake them a cake, charge a very high price, and leave out a few ingredients like sugar and vanilla

at first that seems like a great idea, but if you think about it for a minute, just the opposite would have been the best.
If she made a great and grand cake, and charged nothing, look how many of the wedding guests would want to go to her bakery now.
and guess what, all those people support gay marriage, and now she gets to have their undivided attention for a while.
......Does anybody really think what is on a cake, or not making a cake, is gonna change anybodys mind about ssme gender marriage one iota?

[red states rule]

at first that seems like a great idea, but if you think about it for a minute, just the opposite would have been the best.
If she made a great and grand cake, and charged nothing, look how many of the wedding guests would want to go to her bakery now.
and guess what, all those people support gay marriage, and now she gets to have their undivided attention for a while.
......Does anybody really think what is on a cake, or not making a cake, is gonna change anybodys mind about ssme gender marriage one iota?

Not at all
But if she is forced to bake the cake, an "honest" mistake could happen :laugh2:

[fj1200]

?????????? Im confused now. nothing new however. But did they streamline it at all?
and what does "involved" mean?
I think I musta pissed you off in one of my posts and/or threads.

Not at all, why would you think that? Nevertheless, there are certain things that are easier to do by presenting a marriage certificate; change your name, inherit property, etc.

[LuvRPgrl]

Not at all, why would you think that? Nevertheless, there are certain things that are easier to do by presenting a marriage certificate; change your name, inherit property, etc.


hmmmm, a bit complicated in some ways.
But once again, nobody has even posted the main reason why the state has a vested interest in marriagesw.
most here dont know how difficult it used to be to get a divorce.

[red states rule]

hmmmm, a bit complicated in some ways.
But once again, nobody has even posted the main reason why the state has a vested interest in marriagesw.
most here dont know how difficult it used to be to get a divorce.

Oh I do

It was a long and drawn out process. It only took a few minutes to get married but months to end it

[ConHog]

again, so why did you go get a marriage license?
You said so that your son wont be called a bastard, yet with you being such an intimdating big bad ass ranger and all, and I mean that sincerely,
then you can just threaten to kick the shit out of anyone who says it.
If you say its so your wife can take your last name, why didnt she just start using your last name. I mean, thats what she ultimately did anyways isnt it.?
....she started using your last name on accounts, for work, etc etc. Did any of them ask to see the marriage license?

I know you know that in order to get credit cards and such using her new last name that my wife, and indeed ANY wife , has to show two forms of government ID to prove who she is. The new government ID was only obtainable after proving that we were married. What I am suggesting is that a contract between her an I saying we have agreed to share assets and a name and that we both agree to it would accomplish the same things as a state marriage license IF state marriage certificates didn't exist.

I actually think you know what I'm saying and are just being obtuse at this point.

As for your stupid remarks about me kicking people's asses. It's funny that you keep saying that when it is YOU who threatened ME. LOL

[LuvRPgrl]

Oh I do

It was a long and drawn out process. It only took a few minutes to get married but months to end it

thats true too, but Im talking about having the divorce request flat out and out denied.

[red states rule]

thats true too, but Im talking about having the divorce request flat out and out denied.

Got it. We both wanted it, no disputes, but it still took forever before it was final

[LuvRPgrl]

I know you know that in order to get credit cards and such using her new last name that my wife, and indeed ANY wife , has to show two forms of government ID to prove who she is. .
she can get those two id's without a marriage license.


The new government ID was only obtainable after proving that we were married..
NOPE, there are other ways, you just took the easy way cuz you arent willing to go through the motions of another way of doing it, and proved you dont really care if the guvt is involved or not.


What I am suggesting is that a contract between her an I saying we have agreed to share assets and a name and that we both agree to it would accomplish the same things as a state marriage license IF state marriage certificates didn't exist.

NOW I'M REALLY REALLY CONFUSED. SO, FIRST YOU SAY YOU DONT THINK THE GOVT SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE MARRIAGE PROCESS,
THAT IT SHOULD JUST BE A CONTRACT TWO PEOPLE SIGN, AND THEY TAKE VOWS,
and you say such a contract would be the same thing basically, cept govt not involved in marriage
THEN YOU SAY YOU WONT CHOOSE THAT CONTRACT OPTION SIMPLY BECAUSE THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATES EXIST???


I actually think you know what I'm saying and are just being obtuse at this point.
Nope,,,TRUST ME, you will know when Im being obtuse.




As for your stupid remarks about me kicking people's asses. It's funny that you keep saying that when it is YOU who threatened ME. LOL .
TALK ABOUT FUNNY, I even made a caveat when I posted that line, I SAID IT WAS MEANT COMPLETELY SINCERELYD, NOT AS AN INSULT, OR WITH ANY NEGATIVE CONOTATIONS INVOLVED WHATSOEVER. For me to make that clear to you, do I need to do more than just say it? Please tell me what you need from me to not take something as an insult when it isnt meant to be.
.
Not to mention, I DIDNT THREATEN YOU, I DIDNT BRING UP "YOU AND ME", you did.



wow, I musta hit a nerve. I brought up absolutely nothing in this thread about you and me, then you do, and then you accuse me of doing it.
:lame2:

[fj1200]

hmmmm, a bit complicated in some ways.
But once again, nobody has even posted the main reason why the state has a vested interest in marriagesw.
most here dont know how difficult it used to be to get a divorce.

Society has a vested interest in stable relationships in which to raise children. The mixture of government and the state in that is somewhat unnecessary IMO and becoming more so. Insisting that man/woman is the only relationship to governmentally bless is being outdated whether accepted by all or not.

[logroller]

hmmmm, a bit complicated in some ways.
But once again, nobody has even posted the main reason why the state has a vested interest in marriagesw.
most here dont know how difficult it used to be to get a divorce.

Besides the commercial interest in cake sales, maybe there isn't one...I don't recall a "Reason for getting married?" box on the application; so it certainly doesn't have anything to do with the reasons the parties entering into it have. We do need some protection to prevent the fraudulent entry into marriage to gain the implicit legal protections it offers: like spousal confidentiality or marrying a foreigner to gain him/her permanent residency, but that's a fairly limited interest. Do they even make you get a blood test anymore? There's no broadly compelling social investment in a man and woman getting married; even as FJ reasoned, a stable home environment for kids has become less salient, as modern contraception allows a man and wife to consummate whilst never having children.

I'd guess it was originally to establish a record of a family when most births occurred at home and the state felt a family needed some form of legal establishment, some way to track any claims to the fruits of the marital partnership-- kids, house, etc, being legally bonded under one household name out of necessity. As even birth and death records weren't uniform across the states until the mid 20th century, marriage created a legal entity by which other interests could be tracked; whereas now every individual is tracked from birth with a SSN. Assets, earnings and taxes and such are tracked that way now-- satisfying the state's vested interest IMO.

[red states rule]

Bck to the topic, why not offer to bake the cake but tell them the price would be $25,000 in advance

They won't pay - end of story

[logroller]

Bck to the topic, why not offer to bake the cake but tell them the price would be $25,000 in advance

They won't pay - end of story

Oh that was suggested on page one; apparently that wasn't 'principled' enough. What if they did pay?

[red states rule]

Oh that was suggested on page one; apparently that wasn't 'principled' enough. What if they did pay?

If it was me, and they offered to pay - I would get "ill" and be unable to work and fill the order. Sorry about that

Maybe then the lisbos would get the hint and find another baker

[Gunny]

I don't feel marriage is unnecessary. I feel the government butting into marriage is unnecessary. Would you and Mr Abbey's marriage be any less real if it was sanctioned solely by a church rather than by a church and the state? Of course not.

No shit. Too many people consider the validity of Holy Matrimony as that sanctioned by the state via contract. The fact is, the state doesn't give a crap about the Holy Matrimony part. It cares only about pigeon-holing people into categories. The state allowing churches to perform the legalities just saves the state time and money for all those overworked, government employees.

It boggles the mind a bit that some of the most religious people are know are also the most closed-minded on the topic. They cannot differentiate between the state and the church where marriage is concerned.

[ConHog]

No shit. Too many people consider the validity of Holy Matrimony as that sanctioned by the state via contract. The fact is, the state doesn't give a crap about the Holy Matrimony part. It cares only about pigeon-holing people into categories. The state allowing churches to perform the legalities just saves the state time and money for all those overworked, government employees.

It boggles the mind a bit that some of the most religious people are know are also the most closed-minded on the topic. They cannot differentiate between the state and the church where marriage is concerned.

But by the same token there are many gays who wouldn't be satisfied with that either. We've both seen them. The "by God I want a state sanctioned marriage, not a religious one, even though marriage is a religious institution and I don't believe in religion" The fact is there are nuts on both sides who will guarantee that no one is ever satisfied unless the people on both sides who are willing to compromise (and yes RSR sometimes you have to compromise, we don't live in a dictatorship) in order to satisfy MOST people.

Why do the 10% on one side who want NO gay marriages and the 10% on the other side who want state sanctioned gay marriages get to tell the 80% of us who would be fine with what I have suggested what to do? Just because they are louder??????????

[Gunny]

But by the same token there are many gays who wouldn't be satisfied with that either. We've both seen them. The "by God I want a state sanctioned marriage, not a religious one, even though marriage is a religious institution and I don't believe in religion" The fact is there are nuts on both sides who will guarantee that no one is ever satisfied unless the people on both sides who are willing to compromise (and yes RSR sometimes you have to compromise, we don't live in a dictatorship) in order to satisfy MOST people.

Why do the 10% on one side who want NO gay marriages and the 10% on the other side who want state sanctioned gay marriages get to tell the 80% of us who would be fine with what I have suggested what to do? Just because they are louder??????????

No argument here. You are absolutely correct. Last time this was an issue, a majority of Americans had no problem with legal contracts. The majority of American objected to the term "marriage" being used. The flaming gay lobby refused so they got nothing. If the state wants to do its hedonistic thing, not like it's anything new.

The 10% of EVERY vulgar, flagrant minority has been dictating to the rest for years. Pick a topic. If you're abnormal and can make enough noise, you can make the rest of us suffer. That's how badly the left has perverted the law in this nation.

[LuvRPgrl]

But by the same token there are many gays who wouldn't be satisfied with that either. We've both seen them. The "by God I want a state sanctioned marriage, not a religious one, even though marriage is a religious institution and I don't believe in religion" The fact is there are nuts on both sides who will guarantee that no one is ever satisfied unless the people on both sides who are willing to compromise (and yes RSR sometimes you have to compromise, we don't live in a dictatorship) in order to satisfy MOST people.

Why do the 10% on one side who want NO gay marriages and the 10% on the other side who want state sanctioned gay marriages get to tell the 80% of us who would be fine with what I have suggested what to do? Just because they are louder??????????

compromise is the tool of fools.

How do you know 10% want what you say, and not, lets say 25%?

If you propose that homos get a religious ceremony and be happy with that, what do they gain from what they have now?

[ConHog]

compromise is the tool of fools.

How do you know 10% want what you say, and not, lets say 25%?

If you propose that homos get a religious ceremony and be happy with that, what do they gain from what they have now?

They don't gain shit. You're missing the point. I don't care if 100 people just agree to call themselves married. Who cares? All I care about is the government should handle everything they currently handle via marriages by contractual law. Meaning if you want to have someone on your insurance then you sign a contract that says I agree to put THIS person on my insurance and you both sign it, and the laws are written so that the insurance company HAS to accept that contract. Yes limit it to one other adult because of the obvious financial implications. Too bad if polygamists don't like it. Same with any government benefit. If you have a contract then so be it, whether "married" or not.

It's THAT simple.

[jon_forward]

Simply. Removing lesbian. And Christian from the sentence at The. Start of this would have made it a nonissue. The baker made the mistake of verbally. Stating his reasons for refusal of service. His bad. However the baker gets my props for standing up for onesbeliefs. I'm on a smart phone so reading all the replys was out of the? . What was the gender of baker and did jimmynyc ask for pics? God its nice to be back. Albeit limited. Parting shot... last I checked this was still America. Aint it? ?

[fj1200]

The baker shouldn't have had them sit down so she could "explain things to them." Very condescending.

[Abbey Marie]

The baker shouldn't have had them sit down so she could "explain things to them." Very condescending.

Since when is sitting down with someone and explaining your reasons, in a nice tone at that, condescending? Would you be happier if she said "I don't want your business" as she was pushing them out the door? The condescension seems imputed by you.

[fj1200]

Since when is sitting down with someone and explaining your reasons, in a nice tone at that, condescending? Would you be happier if she said "I don't want your business" as she was pushing them out the door? The condescension seems imputed by you.

My happiness is not the issue. They wanted a cake, not a sermon and they could have gotten that message without sitting down. The condescension is implied by the baker's actions.

[Abbey Marie]

My happiness is not the issue. They wanted a cake, not a sermon and they could have gotten that message without sitting down. The condescension is implied by the baker's actions.

Your mind has created the implied condescension.

[fj1200]

Your mind has created the implied condescension.

No. Clear condescension:


I asked them to sit down... we need to talk... I will tell you, I'm a Christian...

And felt by the subjects as well.


It was degrading... she chastised us...

[jimnyc]

I don't think politely explaining to someone your beliefs and why you can't make a cake = chastising them.

[ConHog]

My happiness is not the issue. They wanted a cake, not a sermon and they could have gotten that message without sitting down. The condescension is implied by the baker's actions.

Let's say I knock on your door and want to use the phone, let's say you say "okay you can use my phone if you listen to my views on the economy."

Now, bearing in mind that it is YOUR phone, do you have the right to make that stipulation?

[Abbey Marie]

No. Clear condescension:



And felt by the subjects as well.

Ahh, we've now gone from "implied condescension" to "clear condescension".

You can say it a hundred times, it doesn't make it so.

You may want to check your own biases. You wouldn't want to go around assuming the worst about people all the time.

[logroller]

I don't think politely explaining to someone your beliefs and why you can't make a cake = chastising them.

I don't how polite one can be in explaining her beliefs on the matter at hand.

" Please understand it's nothing against you, its just that your marriage goes against my beliefs, so I am unable to make your cake."

--what is implied---

"I cannot have anything to do with your abomination of our Lord and Savior, or I too could face eternal damnation."

[ConHog]

No. Clear condescension:



And felt by the subjects as well.

Who gives a shit son? Condescension is NOT illegal. Neither is being a jackass. Neither is being gay. They have their rights, and the baker has hers.

[fj1200]

Let's say I knock on your door and want to use the phone, let's say you say "okay you can use my phone if you listen to my views on the economy."

Now, bearing in mind that it is YOUR phone, do you have the right to make that stipulation?

Sure... but not what we're talking about now is it?


Ahh, we've now gone from "implied condescension" to "clear condescension".

You can say it a hundred times, it doesn't make it so.

You may want to check your own biases. You wouldn't want to go around assuming the worst about people all the time.

How am I assuming the worst in people? I'm going based on the words as expressed in the news story. Nevertheless, I started at "very condescending" and showed that the lesbians felt that the baker was condescending (http://www.google.com/search?gcx=w&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=condescending).


1. Acting in a way that betrays a feeling of patronizing superiority.

It seems the lesbians are in the best position to decide condescension and who was feeling patronizingly superior.

It was degrading... she chastised us...

[ConHog]

Ahh, we've now gone from "implied condescension" to "clear condescension".

You can say it a hundred times, it doesn't make it so.

You may want to check your own biases. You wouldn't want to go around assuming the worst about people all the time.


He's making an irrelevant argument anyway. So what if the woman was condescending? Is that illegal? Nope.

[fj1200]

Who gives a shit son? Condescension is NOT illegal. Neither is being a jackass. Neither is being gay. They have their rights, and the baker has hers.

The lesbians pops. People have died, and new stories have been done, over less.

[ConHog]

Sure... but not what we're talking about now is it?



How am I assuming the worst in people? I'm going based on the words as expressed in the news story. Nevertheless, I started at "very condescending" and showed that the lesbians felt that the baker was condescending (http://www.google.com/search?gcx=w&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=condescending).



It seems the lesbians are in the best position to decide condescension and who was feeling patronizingly superior.


Please explain how they are different.

[fj1200]

He's making an irrelevant argument anyway. So what if the woman was condescending? Is that illegal? Nope.

No, if she could explain her position in a non-preachy, non-condescending manner, this may never have come up.

[ConHog]

The lesbians pops. People have died, and new stories have been done, over less.

Why do the lesbians care? Were they by law forbidden to do business elsewhere? Nope, boils down to "you're going to accept me as equal goddammit " and nothing more. Talk about intolerant.

[jimnyc]

I don't how polite one can be in explaining her beliefs on the matter at hand.

" Please understand it's nothing against you, its just that your marriage goes against my beliefs, so I am unable to make your cake."

--what is implied---

"I cannot have anything to do with your abomination of our Lord and Savior, or I too could face eternal damnation."

Someone hearing something that was never stated doesn't mean the baker was chastising them. People can look into what she said, but she said what she did, now what people interpret the worst of out of it. The reality is, she was quite cordial with the ladies but simply made it clear that she couldn't work with them.

[ConHog]

No, if she could explain her position in a non-preachy, non-condescending manner, this may never have come up.

Oh please. It's likely the lesbos in question feel offended anytime anyone says ANYTHING about their lifestyle so no explanation would have pleased them. Nor should it have.

[fj1200]

Please explain how they are different.

:facepalm:

Am I telling you that your view on economics is inferior to mine because I'm a Christian? Am I not letting you use my phone because of your avowed belief in Marxism?

[fj1200]

Why do the lesbians care? Were they by law forbidden to do business elsewhere? Nope, boils down to "you're going to accept me as equal goddammit " and nothing more. Talk about intolerant.


Oh please. It's likely the lesbos in question feel offended anytime anyone says ANYTHING about their lifestyle so no explanation would have pleased them. Nor should it have.

Now who's implying? :rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

No, if she could explain her position in a non-preachy, non-condescending manner, this may never have come up.

In other words, she should have bit her tongue about her beliefs and lied about why she couldn't do business with them.

[fj1200]

Someone hearing something that was never stated doesn't mean the baker was chastising them. People can look into what she said, but she said what she did, now what people interpret the worst of out of it. The reality is, she was quite cordial with the ladies but simply made it clear that she couldn't work with them.

But cordial condescension is the best. :laugh:


In other words, she should have bit her tongue about her beliefs and lied about why she couldn't do business with them.

I'm sorry but a simple, "I don't believe in gay marriage" would have been more in line with a business meeting.

[ConHog]

:facepalm:

Am I telling you that your view on economics is inferior to mine because I'm a Christian? Am I not letting you use my phone because of your avowed belief in Marxism?

Oh I see, it's different because the baker was speaking as a Christian.

"Oh come on all ye faitfhul, and shut the fuck up" , that's your stance?

[ConHog]

In other words, she should have bit her tongue about her beliefs and lied about why she couldn't do business with them.

Cat's out of the bag Jim, FJ as much as admitted that he doesn't think CHRISTIANS should be able to choose not to do business based on their religion.

[fj1200]

Oh I see, it's different because the baker was speaking as a Christian.

"Oh come on all ye faitfhul, and shut the fuck up" , that's your stance?

No, and if you really can't see the difference I can't help you.


Cat's out of the bag Jim, FJ as much as admitted that he doesn't think CHRISTIANS should be able to choose not to do business based on their religion.

Where did I admit that son?

[jimnyc]

But cordial condescension is the best. :laugh:

I'm sorry but a simple, "I don't believe in gay marriage" would have been more in line with a business meeting.

She didn't want to make this cake based on her beliefs. NO ANSWER she could possibly have given would be acceptable to you guys. Other than lying to them.

[ConHog]

No, and if you really can't see the difference I can't help you.



Where did I admit that son?

No you can't use my phone if you won't listen to my views on finance and no you can't buy a cake from me b/c you are living a lifestyle that is contrary to my beliefs. There is only one difference there. One has to do with religion, specifically Christianity.

THis is a non story that never should have made the news anywhere.

[ConHog]

She didn't want to make this cake based on her beliefs. NO ANSWER she could possibly have given would be acceptable to you guys. Other than lying to them.

Wrong. That wouldn't have been acceptable either. Catering to the lesbos is of course the only acceptable response to them.

[fj1200]

She didn't want to make this cake based on her beliefs. NO ANSWER she could possibly have given would be acceptable to you guys. Other than lying to them.

There's preachy and there's non-preachy. If they were told simply and without the lesson and they still have a problem, then it's on them.


No you can't use my phone if you won't listen to my views on finance and no you can't buy a cake from me b/c you are living a lifestyle that is contrary to my beliefs. There is only one difference there. One has to do with religion, specifically Christianity.

Apples and dumptrucks as an e-friend of mind would say; You never stated your views on economics/finance and the usage of my phone wouldn't cause the eternal damnation of either of us... unless your Amish and then it would be on you. ;)


THis is a non story that never should have made the news anywhere.

True.

[logroller]

She didn't want to make this cake based on her beliefs. NO ANSWER she could possibly have given would be acceptable to you guys. Other than lying to them.

"I can't make your cake. You'll need to find another baker. GOOD DAY."

[ConHog]

"I can't make your cake. You'll need to find another baker. GOOD DAY."

Why is that neccesary? I mean I agree that it would have been the simplest and probably best way to handle it, BUT are the women entitled to not being treated in what they view as a condescending or even rude way simply because they are homosexual?

[fj1200]

... BUT are the women entitled to not being treated in what they view as a condescending or even rude way???

Yes.

[LuvRPgrl]

Yes.
It might be nice, but an entitlement? No.
Are we goiing to have to publish and hand out proper LEGAL responses to every type of lifestyle and every varioius type of character basis a baker or any other small business owner has.

[jimnyc]

Yes.

No one is entitled to a damn thing from this woman. Not a cake and not what one perceives to be polite. It may be the right thing to do, or make good business sense, but these ladies are far from entitled any type of rude free service. The baker can treat her customers any way she chooses, and the customers can take their business elsewhere if they don't like the service.

[fj1200]

It might be nice, but an entitlement? No.


No one is entitled to a damn thing from this woman.

Just common decency one would hope.

[Kathianne]

No one is entitled to a damn thing from this woman. Not a cake and not what one perceives to be polite. It may be the right thing to do, or make good business sense, but these ladies are far from entitled any type of rude free service. The baker can treat her customers any way she chooses, and the customers can take their business elsewhere if they don't like the service.

At least that's the way it should be.

[LuvRPgrl]

Just common decency one would hope.

One would need the whole context before making a judgement, we dont know if those two, or some other lesbo couple had already been there before and the baker figured it would be better to explain it to them. Hell, had it been me I would have brought up how theirs isnt a real marriage anyways, and how sick they are for muff diving instead of sucking my big one.

[jimnyc]

Just common decency one would hope.

I would agree, just not as an entitlement. Compared to many businesses I have been to, this woman WAS polite towards these women. Even in logroller's very good example "I can't make your cake. You'll need to find another baker. GOOD DAY." - this would still be considered "rude" by many for not simply taking the job, or not explaining why she couldn't perform the job, or the shouting of good day! Keep in mind, if she simply couldn't make a cake, she never would have heard them out. So denying the cake AFTER hearing them out would make the response by Log to be a bit obvious. In lieu of a magical answer or to turn back time - MY opinion is that you remain truthful and true to one's beliefs. What some call rude or condescending, others call honest and forthright. That's why we have the ability to shop elsewhere if we don't like the service.

[logroller]

I would agree, just not as an entitlement. Compared to many businesses I have been to, this woman WAS polite towards these women. Even in logroller's very good example "I can't make your cake. You'll need to find another baker. GOOD DAY." - this would still be considered "rude" by many for not simply taking the job, or not explaining why she couldn't perform the job, or the shouting of good day! Keep in mind, if she simply couldn't make a cake, she never would have heard them out. So denying the cake AFTER hearing them out would make the response by Log to be a bit obvious. In lieu of a magical answer or to turn back time - MY opinion is that you remain truthful and true to one's beliefs. What some call rude or condescending, others call honest and forthright. That's why we have the ability to shop elsewhere if we don't like the service.

If the baker doesn't need a reason to deny service, why give an elaborate reason, if one at all? If a reason is requested, as not to seem 'rude', just say its personal and leave it at that. Its personal, hence not privy to a professional relationship. If you had to cancel a professional meeting with someone because you had the flu, you'd say you were ill or something to that effect. You wouldn't say, oh I've got it out both ends-- why, because that would be unprofessional. I'm not saying it makes her a bad person; I'm sure she thought she was doing what is right and meant no disrespect, but she erred. It happens, everyone makes mistakes. What makes this story important is that hopefully others learn from her mistake-- that's how we self-regulate in society w/o govt getting involved.:thumb:

[jimnyc]

If the baker doesn't need a reason to deny service, why give an elaborate reason, if one at all? If a reason is requested, as not to seem 'rude', just say its personal and leave it at that. Its personal, hence not privy to a professional relationship. If you had to cancel a professional meeting with someone because you had the flu, you'd say you were ill or something to that effect. You wouldn't say, oh I've got it out both ends-- why, because that would be unprofessional. I'm not saying it makes her a bad person; I'm sure she thought she was doing what is right and meant no disrespect, but she erred. It happens, everyone makes mistakes. What makes this story important is that hopefully others learn from her mistake-- that's how we self-regulate in society w/o govt getting involved.:thumb:

I think this is a woman working out of her house, and sounds like her explanation would have taken less than a minute, so I'm not sure I would call it "elaborate". I see this from both a personal and a business side. My business sense is telling me to make the money, and if not, at least don't burn bridges or alienate potential customers. My personal side feels that there is nothing wrong with someone speaking their feelings, especially in their own home, and when done as politely as one feels they can.

I don't think this woman was wrong at all for what she did with her personal business. I do think this woman was wrong if she expects her business to flourish.

[LuvRPgrl]

If the baker doesn't need a reason to deny service, why give an elaborate reason, if one at all? If a reason is requested, as not to seem 'rude', just say its personal and leave it at that. Its personal, hence not privy to a professional relationship. If you had to cancel a professional meeting with someone because you had the flu, you'd say you were ill or something to that effect. You wouldn't say, oh I've got it out both ends-- why, because that would be unprofessional. I'm not saying it makes her a bad person; I'm sure she thought she was doing what is right and meant no disrespect, but she erred. It happens, everyone makes mistakes. What makes this story important is that hopefully others learn from her mistake-- that's how we self-regulate in society w/o govt getting involved.:thumb:

she did NOT err.

[Kathianne]

she did NOT err.

I'm going to say that I don't know any of the specifics of this case. If I was a baker and someone came to me and said, "We want a wedding cake. Names are Jennifer and Rebecca." I'd just bake the cake and decorate the way they wanted. That's me.

I'm not gay. I wouldn't promote gay causes. However, I don't begrudge their right to live, love, and celebrate.

Now if instead I was of a different take, I thought God hated them and would hate anyone that didn't hate them.

I'd say, "I'm sorry, I can't bake and decorate your cake, but here is the name of someone that can." End of story. If they tried to make that into a hate crime, screw them.

[logroller]

she did NOT err.

So she meant to disrespect them. You may be right; but based off the interview, I presume she did not.

[Missileman]

I'm going to say that I don't know any of the specifics of this case. If I was a baker and someone came to me and said, "We want a wedding cake. Names are Jennifer and Rebecca." I'd just bake the cake and decorate the way they wanted. That's me.

I'm not gay. I wouldn't promote gay causes. However, I don't begrudge their right to live, love, and celebrate.

Now if instead I was of a different take, I thought God hated them and would hate anyone that didn't hate them.

I'd say, "I'm sorry, I can't bake and decorate your cake, but here is the name of someone that can." End of story. If they tried to make that into a hate crime, screw them.

Bingo. Although I think her decision was a poor business decision, it is her prerogative.