Bakery That Refused to Make Cake for Lesbian Couple Raises Record-Breaking Donations

No it hasn't. In fact, the full three hour unedited video that was subsequently released makes it worse. See the doctor quaffing wine, munching on salad talking about "crush above, crush below" to make sure the saleable body parts could be recovered?

What evil ghouls.

 

Yeah... That vandalism and those death threats the homofascists visit on people of faith in business who choose to actually live according to their faith. Why how could anyone possibly think that was bad?

 

Pathetic.

Religious people have specifically targeted homosexuals for over two thousand years. Homosexuals have endured imprisonment, stoning, chemical castration, being fired from their jobs and their military service disrespected while many religious people stood around and applauded.

Now one gay person demands a cake, and some of the religious start running around screaming like their hair was set on fire. The horror, the horror.

Pathetic. Just pathetic.

 

Religions have many taboos, but I know of no religion that forbids baking cakes.

Some Christian sects now recognize and celebrate same-sex marriages and others don't yet, but none procribes cake baking.

 

They lost it,... because their stance to go discriminate people like we're back in the 1950's and white people could turn down black people for being black. And you either get with the program or get your backward ass financially punished.

 

`
Since this is faith which is way outside the realm of science and conventional logic, I've come up with a hypothesis while mixing the batter, the spirit of the almighty infuses itself in the mixture from the baker and in a cosmic way that is hard to explain, all three become one with the universe.

 

I agree. Getting your panties in a twist because someone wouldn't bake you a cake when there are other bakers (maybe even homosexual ones) who would cheerfully do so is pathetic.

 

So you would choose to perpetuate discrimination? Or are you arguing the "free rider" case that society can tolerate a certain percentage of lawbreakers?

 

Making accommodations in certain select situations for people's sincerely held religious views is not breaking the law.

It is in fact upholding it.

 

I choose to defend religious liberty, one of the founding principles of the United States of America. Go read about the reason English settlers landed in 1634 on St. Clements Island in Maryland and established St. Marie's Cittie. I don't think people who fled religious oppression by government in the 1600's whose heirs founded a nation that guaranteed prohibition on government interference with the free exercise of religion would really have been interested in having their descendants re-establish government ability to quash religious freedom in modern times.

You say discrimination: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

 

I suppose we will see how this plays out. Harking back to the civil rights battle, we're looking at free rider like I said - that if a small number of conscientious objectors can be accommodated somehow, we'll be fine. If everyone claims religion and the "certain select situations" are the norm rather than the exception, then maybe a different policy can be developed. But note that conscientious objectors STILL had to contribute, if only through public service.

 

You can see that there is a conflict here, right? One person's ceiling is another man's floor and all that. So is your right to deny me service more important than my right to expect to be treated like any ordinary customer? I guess courts will decide.

I've read about a number of people who came to the New World for religious reasons. And if you examine their social structure, they were as oppressive as those they fled - the only difference is that you had to follow the dictates of THEIR religion rather than any other. Or else! These colonists didn't want religious freedom at all - they wanted to be able to impose their faith on everyone. It seems to be in the nature of the human religious sense to wish to impose oppression on all who disagree, and they are distinguished only by which religion you'd be forced to follow.

But when the United States was created, special effort was made to reverse such policies. The goal was to create a nation where all religions were equally respected, and no one religion would be able to oppress believers in any other. And this is a real challenge when one of the tenets of a common faith is to PUSH their religion on to those who don't follow it. As we're seeing here.

I believe in equal rights, equal treatment, equal opportunity as devoutly as the Kleins believe in denying these things. Why should their bigotry be honored, rather than my American values?

 

Comparing gays not being served by Christian bakers to blacks being refused service in the 1950's is mentally retarded. Blacks were refused service solely for being black. There were no religious liberty arguments being made. Christian bakers are simply refusing to participate in a same sex wedding because it violates their religious beliefs. Gays are not being refused or turned away as individual consumers. If they just wanted to buy a cupcake and coffee for their personal consumption the owners would gladly serve them.

 

Good Lord, what a bunch of dramatic whiners. The one named Cryer was certainly correctly named.

More drama than my heart can withstand. I'm going to go cry now.

(Puke.)

 

Why should your morals be forced down the throats of others any more thanthe Kleins's should be?

 

Talking about a friggin' garden variety wedding cake here....my God! To hear the wails of the offended you would think the Kleins were tattooing numbers on the lesbian's forearms and sending them to Christian run death camps!

There is absolutely zero sense of proportion here or the slightest interests in the Kleins' rights (they do exist, you know). You see when the gay community is empowered and made a protected class you see how fascistic the left becomes. Stanford did a famous bit of research on how students turn into intolerant zealots when they were given authority over other students. I guess no one should be surprised.

 

Meanwhile the lack of morals and the bizarre obsession with perversion is being shoved down our throats by force. Frickin' hypocrites.

- - - Updated - - -

they lost it because society lost it's soul.

- - - Updated - - -

Lawbreakers ...and there we have the warped belief system of the left forcing their beliefs upon society as a whole.

- - - Updated - - -

 

"We hold these truths to be self evident". Remember ever reading that?

- - - Updated - - -

I wish those leftists would raise the speed limits.

 

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: It is abomination."

Mainstream theology is in disagreement here. What does abomination mean? Many argue it is something that causes disgust or hatred from others. But is Leviticus telling us God's orders? And is it relevant?

My Concordance says Leviticus was written by Moses during the 40 years "Levites" wandered the dessert. The book's theme is "holiness" and how to Maintain it in the wild. It is specific reference to "cleanliness" and being seen to be keeping the covenant.

The book also instructs one that if mildew is found in one's "house" he must burn in down and destroy all the contents. Most scholars agree that using Leviticus as an isolated quote such as that is an error, and I agree.

Whenever considering anything of the Bible, context, such as the above, when it was written, to whom and for what purpose is crucial. While I admire these people for standing up for what they believe, I cannot support the way he did it, throwing God in one's face is an equal abomination and I consider it a breaking of the first commandment, "Do not take the name of God in vain". He should have simply said "I am sorry, my religious beliefs prevent me from doing that. Maybe I can help find a baker who can help."

 

No. Not in this country. Maybe there is such a place for you.

 

Baking a cake is not participating in a ceremony. But you should already know that.
And a ceremony isn't a sin.

 

What sin is done by baking a cake? Please cite the verse or commandment.

 

Dang, how is baking a cake participating in anything other than baking a cake.
They aren't participating in any same sex anything. They won't even know anything about the wedding except they baked a cake.
And there is no sin against getting married.

 

I will say I would have made a different decision in the gay couples request, however, $135,000 being rewarded to them because their 'feelings' got hurt is a bit stupid, don't you think? I mean, how do you quantify the monetary value of that kind of crap?

 

I have no problem at all with homosexuality. In a free society, everyone should be free to choose their associations, and if they want to call themselves married they can do so. However, some don't want to just be free to associate, they want to force everyone to associate with them.