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

Most people are against forced servitude and arbitrary punishment until it suits their agenda. It works that way on the left and the right.

 

Forced servitude? I must have missed where the bakery was forced to open and offer its services to the public.
If they chose to open they are required to follow local state and federal laws. Break a law and there is usually some form of punishment.

 

Well, if memory serves, you acted like a piece of work in a thread that had the mods delete out your insanity and I was only curious about what you said. I asked for a private message to see what was said, but since you made a big production of it, I thought I would follow in kind. If you have problems with this, go back to the posting, the nature of it, and ask yourself why, after the mass deletion and why you acted so deplorably, I was curious to your motivation. My stuff was not deleted, yours was. Case closed. Want to rehash? I have an excellent memory. You seem to forget little facts and want to draw on something that happened over a month ago. Carry on, great and mighty Queen (in your own mind) Micketto.

 

There is nothing in the Bible that says "Thou shall not make a cake for gay people." They used the excuse of religion to determine their course of action. There are 50 commands of Jesus but most of them are ignored by the Christian conservatives on this forum, most notably about not judging. Paul even writes that the Law of Moses is not to be obeyed, per se. This meant that Christians are not to be circumcised or eat unclean meat. Paul even writes in Romans 7 saying "we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." Read more in this article.

From a religious perspective, only the Old Testament mentions that sleeping with same gender is an abomination to God. It is never mentioned in the same context. But at the same time, in Christianity where sin is prevalent and we all have sinned, the foundation of Christianity is not the purge of sin from our lives, but the closeness of being Christ like. Being Christ like is not going to change the fact that we are tempted, but it is to change our mind and spirit of how we present ourselves for accountability, both to God and to man. The Klein's are simply trying to avoid man's law by claiming God's law supersedes man's law, and that is further from the truth when it comes to being Christ like.

 

This is not based on entitlement. Even in this case, there was a chance at reconciliation. That did not happen so they had a hearing. The result of that hearing was the rewarding of $135k to the gay couple. It is the legal process.

If you want to get rid of the prescribed legal process, then I would replace it with trial by combat.

- - - Updated - - -

No the conservatives are mad because they did not get their way.

 

Well, you have restaurants offering lower prices to senior citizens, veterans, and students. You have grocery stores offering two prices, one that is the regular price and one for its "members." There are even prices for plane tickets for bereavement, children, and employees. There is no lawsuit because no one has been harmed.

But what you are arguing is, however, the sense of entitlement that choices you make should not have consequences. And that is simply wrong.

 

I'd feel the same way and have consistently upheld what I believe is a correct reading of the Constitution that the government may not use its power to advance or hinder the beliefs of any religious group, or openly discriminate against particular groups of citizens for whatever reason.

 

Then you are wrong. You believe gays and minorities should have an advantage over others. That is discrimination against straight people and business owners. You believe in forced coercion to YOUR notion of what is 'fair', denying rights of others to exercise their own beliefs, and punishing those that do. Your kind is self-righteous. Small wonder you're losing ground. The public is wising up to you.

 

Gays and minorities only want to be treated like everyone else. There is no "advantage" one way or another in that. If two guys walk into a public bakery that makes wedding cakes for the public, then they should not be denied service. No more; no less.

BTW - In regard to your ability to tell me what I supposedly think, well ... see opening emoticon.

 

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/if-law-unjustquotation

Gay benefits law is not just, everyone knows that.
We have to disobey that law, because that law treats relationship between man and woman unfairly.

 

I'm telling you what you are. You are bigoted against straight people. You are in denial about it.You don't believe in freedoms. You support gays and minorities having an advantage. You do know there are racial and gender quotas, which is discrimination against white males. And telling a business owner who they must hire and serve is abuse of power and hypocritical.

 

I don't believe the bible says to not cut ones head off in the name of religion either, but we understand that thou shalt not murder covers a lot of different scenarios tied to it. If homosexuality is an abomination, then anything associated with it is included. Making a gay wedding cake would be this association.

 

You're right. Most liberal and conservative statists are like children who want their own way and care nothing for adult things like principles, integrity, etc. Things like jury trials, due process, innocence before guilt only matter when it's convenient. Conservatives care in this case because it's their "side" and liberals don't care because they want punishment for these people no matter what. If their authoritarian mommy/daddy government is punishing the other side, they are very happy for it.

 

The only issue they are a public business under a state business license to do business in the state and meeting all local zoning laws and such as a business NOT a church a bakery in this case. If the law says you cannot discriminate against gender identity, sexual orientation or other protected groups the state identifies then you can't do so and if you do you can and should be fined. And making an example of a business to make sure this activity is less likely to happen with other businesses is justifiable so they got fined. Now pay up and next time don't discriminate and learn your lesson.

Or don't do business.

 

Lev 11:12
Whatsoever has no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

I hope the bakery carefully inspected each wedding they baked a cake for, if not they are guilty of being hypocrites along with bigots.

I would recommend you also stop going in most grocery stores - as they are associated with the abomination... Oh you want to ignore that part and just use the one you agree with to justify your discrimination... Carry on

 

"Gay benefits law", you mean public accommodation laws?
How is a heterosexual relationship treated unfairly because a homosexual couple received the same service?

 

Some things are OT, some are NT and some are both. Homosexuality is a sin in both. And, making a generic wedding cake and not knowing it is for a gay wedding would not constitute knowingly participating in a gay event. No surprise you would present the absurd to defend your position.

 

OT:

Leviticus 20:9 ESV / 210 helpful votes

For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.

NT:

John 8:7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

NT:

1 Corinthians 6:9-11New King James Version (NKJV)

9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

 

You have a disgusting notion of the law.

And, no, discrimination such as proscribed by public accommodation law is present because of our principles and integrity - not in spite of it.

 

I do not defend the bible - I believe it is a man made document ment to control (it has accomplished this goal spectacularly) - I was pointing out another "abomination" in the bible (but that one should be ignored because it's in the wrong section of the man made and revised document) also when one opens a business they agree to the legal provisions of the area they open in.

As for homosexuality being a sin per your book (ignoring the fact that the bible is not basis for law) the translation of the word "arsenokoitai" is debated by many - it has been argued to mean everything from phedophilia to male prostitute to a male laying beside another male while in bed - homosexual as a word was not used until the mid 1800's.

Your religious laws are irrelevant, outdated, and being purged from societies around the word (except Africa and the ME) at an ever increasing pace.

 

My primary argument against officially recognizing homosexuality is based on our natural biological state. We are a male/female species, period. Anything else is not normal and merely a deviation.

 

There are MANY things that qualify as "not normal" when you compare them to other things. Do you want ginger people banned from marrying, they aren't "normal" when compared to the number of Gingers compared to the population as a whole.

Normal is quite subjective and is dependent on what you are comparing it to. Your reason to not "recognize" homosexuality is why you folks lost the SSM battle. It's not a reason enough to ban something.

 

So are you thinking that a bakery who has lower prices for hetero-wedding cakes is doable?

Or can we safely say the gays, "unharmed" in this example, would not let that go without whining and crying ?

 

I'm not attempting to ban anyone from marrying. I'm arguing against official recognition of perversions as natural/normal of our species. Imo, marriage is a religious institution that no government has business in.