Christian Bakers Who Lost their Business after Homosexual Attack Refuse to Pay $135K

So you are arguing the extreme left is just as bad as the extreme right, we agree.
The individuals that made death threats should be punished, either monetarily or legally.

 

Nothing says freedom like drawing up a nice neat list of just exactly what everybody is allowed to do with their own lives and property.

 

Protip fopr those that hold that view: Don't get gay married.

Easy peasy.

You're really not getting this. are you?

 

The Jewish Baker should be able to tell them to get out of their store.
Same for the Muslim Baker.

But.... I would think the Christian bakers (for the most part), are above that.


Still.. where is the line... because I don't want a white baker telling a black customer they are out of luck.

 

In the florist case the customers had been regular customers for 9 years and had spent over $5,000. That is a long term, and expensive, set up.

 

If the baker advertises a good then they should make good on said advertisement, the couple didn't ask for any derogatory images or words to be placed on the cake - they wanted the same one that the couple in front of the had just received. The situation you are attempting to portray is a non sequitur.

 

Oh I thought they had a public business, didn't realize gays went to their home and demanded they bake for them.

 

Actually at the time in Oregon, the state also limited marriage to one man and one woman. Revealing that the county clerk could refuse to serve this couple a marriage license, but it costs this Baker $135,000 to refuse to bake them a wedding cake..

 

The soundest legal argument that I have heard is that the First Amendment is where the line is. In other words, people shouldn't be forced to say or convey or endorse any particular message, particularly a message they find objectionable. I think it can be said that there is a negative aspect to freedom of speech that includes the right to not say something.

We hear a lot about that right when people start drawing unflattering cartoons of Muhammad, but we don't hear much about that right otherwise...

 

A marriage is not a requirement to buy a cake - so that point is irrelevant.
The fine was a result of a myriad of issues, not just a simple refusal.
And Kim Davis should have been impeached - just as all government officials who refuse to follow the law should be.

 

As was explained earlier in the thread:


Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman were planning a civil commitment ceremony.

Oregon had a domestic partnership law since 2008. Civil commitment ceremonies were not illegal under Oregon law.

Guess what logical fallacy you just made.

 

Or an image of Jesus with the words "Jesus Is Lord" on it?

 

Heh.

...

 

The $135,000 fine is ridiculous, dimwitted, and utterly unfair/unjust, not sure how anyone with half a brain cell could claim otherwise.

With that out of the way, didn't they get a lot of donations from total strangers to help with their legal whoas? I mean I know they stopped the legal donation thingy, but didn't people still send them money anyway?

 

Their 14th amendment rights? The 14th amendment dealt exclusively with ex slaves and their children. See, this is why our nation is entering the dark ages. Deliberate twisting and torturing the Constitution to fit the leftist agenda.

- - - Updated - - -

And there was never a problem until same-sex marriage was brought into the deal. They knew right where to go.

 

Micketto graciously <cough> provided this link earlier:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/..._whom_sweet_cakes_turned_away_speaks_out.html

4. Rachel and Laurel fled their home out of fear for the safety of their children.

... At that point, they were also in the process of formally adopting the children and feared all the negative attention might derail the process.



5. The Bowman-Cryer family really did suffer immensely.

Much of the conservative outcry over the Sweet Cakes decision has focused on the &#8220;outrageous&#8221; fine of $135,000 levied against the Kleins. The Weekly Standard questioned the notion that Rachel and Laurel might deserve damages, calling their claims of emotional distress &#8220;fishy.&#8221;

Yet it&#8217;s clear that the Kleins really did cause Rachel, Laurel, and their two daughters to suffer&#8212;not only by denying them service, but also by enabling the public to inundate them with hateful threats. When the couple talks about the awful, unceasing discrimination they faced because of the Kleins' actions, $135,000 starts to sound like a pretty reasonable sum.

Yup. Over a half million in Bigot Bucks came rolling in.

 

Yes the couple went to the SAME florist that they had used for YEARS. Just like most people do when planning events, they went to a business they were familiar with.

 

You mean "All persons" in the 14th Amendment means The Gheys too?


Waaaa...

 

Why? Those other customers were not discriminated against. Why is it their responsibility to deal with the baker's criminal action?
Or what if they're also a bunch of bigots and support the baker's criminal action?
The hope that bigots will eventually lose some customers is not a workable law enforcement policy.
Hell, Apple uses essentially slave labor to manufacture their gadgets in the far east and nobody gives a (*)(*)(*)(*) or boycotts their products.

 

So it was the event being discriminated against.... not the people.

Always the case.....

 

GoFundMe removed their funding page but let them keep the $108K+ that was already donated.
They removed it when the gays started complaining. They used the rule against funding people involved in “formal charges in defense of heinous crimes,” even though they weren't charged.
They let them keep the money because they knew they were just screwing these people over.... and they rewrote the rules after this and it now reads: “claims of heinous crimes, violent, hateful, sexual or discriminatory acts,”

"Claims of"... lol

So now all the gays have to do is claim someone is discriminating and GoFundMe can remove them.

Then someone started funding on a different crowd-funding site called "Continue To Give", and they broke that site's record with $369K or something like that.

“Lots of people have been asking us to take it off,” Mr. Wellhoefer said. “Our response has been, ‘Thank you for your concern, have a great day and God bless you.’”

Lol...

Anyway, so they can definitely afford it, but to them it's the principle

 

Which is against the law. If a business provides a good or service, like wedding cakes, or flowers, they can not discriminate against who they sell them to based on race, religion, sex, age in some cases, and sexual orientation in some states.

Baker sells 3 tier white cakes with sugar flowers to couple A, they must sell it to couple B.
Florist sells flower arrangements or boutonnières to couple A they must sell them to couple B.

 

"As of Wednesday, those efforts had raised at least $515,000..."

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2015/09/sweet_cakes_owners_who_refused.html

And $$$$$$$$$$B$iG$$O$$t$$$B$$u$C$$$$k$$$$s are still rolling in.

 

Don't care.

I was just pointing out how foolish people look when they claim these businesses discriminated against gays.... when the gays were customers for years... and it was only the event that was discriminated against.

 

Bigot bucks? That's as corny as it is lame. Especially since you're just as bigoted, if not more, than they are.