Christian bakery wins 'gay cake' ruling from UK supreme court

And how could that be achieved without every single person's personal definition of marriage recognised in law?

 

"Gay lesbian 40 to 63%." Approval of gay and lesbian relationships or the sexual orientation? Also, you didn't provide a link to the Gallup poll.

 

Not sure. What is the one to watch is polygamy - 7 to 16%. That's tripling every five years.
The Left said it would never support polygamy. It is about to change its mind. And when
it has changed its mind it will beat down on the Right for being poligaphobic or some such
rubbish. That's why I don't support the Left - you can't because they are changing the goal
posts all the time, and denying they do so.

 

People existing is not — and will never be — a moral issue. Most of these are not moral choices.

I’m not sure how any of this shows we are “creating a society that is toxic”. Casual sex is none of your business. As is divorce. As is polygamy. As is doctor assisted suicide (I mean how do you have the balls to suggest you have the right to keep a terminally ill person that is suffering from ending their life).

Unplanned pregnancy is actually lower in areas that have sensible sex education programs and higher in religious ‘abstinence only’ ones forced by religion.

It’s just several more areas of life where you believe your opinions should have greater weight than the individual actually experiencing the event.


Just because we are dropping the evangelical totalitarianism that has controlled the lives of others does not mean it’s toxic, just the opposite actually.

 

Polygamy exists in all three of the major religious texts. I’m not sure what your problem with it is? Who are you to stand in the way of their religious freedom?

 

Still no link?

 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1681/moral-issues.aspx

 

My issue is that the Left has staunchly maintained that gay marriage won't lead
to polygamy. And when polygamy does arrive the Left will harangue the Right
for not supporting it.

 

It's toxic because we all have to live with it.
It's toxic for children, and it's toxic for women.
Ref to someone terminally ill, or irreconcilable marital differences,
or an abortion for a rape case etc show we are basing our societal
values upon the lowest common denominator.

I grew up in the hippy era. It was okay being cool, showing attitude
and bucking the system - but when everyone did it, it wasn't so cool
anymore.
"Tolerance" means you have to live with things that other generations
never tolerated (drugs, adultery, gambling etc..)

 

The anti Christian bigotry leads to 100s of $1000s in fines and bankrupted businesses. What you refer to as right wing anti gay bigotry leads to customers going to a different bakery to get their cake.

 

With marriage declared by judicial fiat to be unrelated to procreation, don't see any justification for prohibiting polygamy. Not to mention the abundance of evidence in the congressional record to show that the Federal legislation was motivated by an anti Mormon bias.

 

To live ones life according to their religious beliefs.

 

there is no excuse for right wing homophobia

 

By treating all people equally under the governments definition of marriage

 

Im sure these Christian bakers would be equally opposed to two heterosexuals of the same sex seeking a wedding cake. Has nothing to do with their sexual orientation. Many of the sued bakers had previously served the same homosexual customers.

 

not likely

 

Christian bigotry has lead to the deaths of millions. I’m so sorry that people who opened a for profit business are expected to abide by the same rules as all other businesses.

We should all feel just devastated...

 

You didn’t answer either of my questions.
Why is it relevant to what kind of civil contract others engage in?
What about their religious freedom — which you stated is one of the most essential liberties we have?

 

You get to have your made up beliefs until those beliefs impact the rights of others.
We already allow religious orgs to steal in the way of not paying taxes and exempt them from child abuse laws — do you really feel your fictional cherrypicked ideals should be forced on others? What about others being able to force their ideals on you? I’m sure a few of our Muslim friends would have quite a few ways convince you otherwise.

You want your — and any your — religious fascism forced on others. Religious freedom isn’t what you are after, it’s control.

 

What is toxic for children and women? Two males signing a civil document? But I bet you were silent when the church was hiding actual child rapists. Toxic for women is thinking they are less than men — and that is your narrative.

Drugs, adultery and gambling have existed since the inception of time. Prostitution is known as the oldest profession and your drug war has done nothing but split families apart while making the cartels billions and turning our police in micro military forces. Most drugs as we know today were once sold in pharmacies so I’m not sure where you are getting they were not “tolerated”.

 

I cant think of any aspect of equal protection law that varies depending on wow likely something is to occur.

 

????? I don't think sending the gay guy to another bakery to get a cake is about control. YOU wanting to fine him 100s of $1000s of dollars if he doesn't agree to sell the cake IS ALL ABOUT CONTROL.

 

I don’t want to fine him anything - simply to treat his customers the same way all businesses are forced to treat Christians.

He can also operate out of his home where many of those laws don’t apply
Or turn into a non-profit (but as any good person of faith green is allmitery)
Or allow members only access

But instead they want special rules because they feel they are special people

 

Oh I think all bakers, religious or not should be able to decide who they want to do business with. AND if everyone insists upon imposing equal protection for customers of businesses, then they should prohibit all forms of discrimination, not just their favorite classifications of people. AND they should stop simply presuming race is involved if the customer is a minority race, Stop presuming sexual orientation is involved just because the customer is of a minority sexual orientation.
Read about the T-girls case in Oregon. Bar owner INVITED the T-girls to hold their meetings at his bar. Was happy to get the business. Eagerly served them for some time. But then, women customers were complaining about all the guys in the womens bathroom and stopped going. Male customer looking to pick up chicks stopped going because those weren't the type of women they wanted to pick up. Belief that the bar had become a gay bar became prevalent in the town. And his business was suffering. He ASKED THEM, NICELY if they would discontinue holding their meetings there and it cost him $400,000 and put him out of business.
Now imagine the same scenario with, lets say one of those motorcycle riders clubs made up of Drs accountants and lawyers holding their meetings at the bar and prior customers not showing up because they think the bar is a biker bar and his business suffers so he tells them to **** of you *******ned Harley riders never show your face at my bar again..... and there isn't a thing they could do. When in both scenarios his reasoning for wanting to exclude them was the same. Holding the club meetings at his bar harmed his business. But when a sexual minority is involved, it is always simply presumed that animus towards the sexual minority motivated his decisions.

 

I agree, there should be no special classifications of people.

The only places that reference “guys in the women’s bathrooms” are right wing evangelical ones. The only complaint revolving around the bathroom use was that they “left the toilet seats up”. All of the independent sources I have read on the issue — as well as the courts — show: First, they were recurring customers on Friday night. Second, his revenue decreased 18% eoy Third, the owner requested them not to return because patrons were confused it was a “tranny bar”. He didn’t ask them nicely, he barred their entrance. They asked for a mediated settlement as they did not want the money — they wanted an apology — he refused, appealed but failed to appeal the fine. His bar was seized because he did not appeal and refused to pay. That’s how the court system works everywhere across the country.

While I agree that this was a difficult and somewhat unwinnable position for the bar owner (see my response above), replace the ‘T-Girls’ with any other group — say blacks for instance or Christians. The media response from an incident would have been staggering and your position would be the plight of Christians.

The bar owner admitted in the voicemail that it was because of their perceived status as a sexual minority. The voicemails are why the court ruled the way it did. The administrative investigation also found that the claims of financial loss were not discovered. “The labor bureau's Civil Rights Division began investigating and found no evidence to support Penner's contention that the T-Girls disrupted business.

Instead, the bureau found substantial evidence of discrimination and tried to reach a settlement with Penner. When none was reached, Avakian took the case to a hearing.[article]”

Voicemail
“Hello, my name is Chris. I'm the owner of the P-Club Bar and Grill. Unfortunately, due to circumstances beyond my control, I'm going to have to ask for you, Cass and your group, not to come back on Friday nights. ...People think that A.) we're a tranny bar, or B.) that we're a gay bar. We are neither. People are not coming in because they just don't want to be here on a Friday night now."


The end result is the result of poor decision on the part of the bar owner.