Gay marriage is adult's pretending

No it was not the other cake, it was a special cake, google the story.

 

except the fact that law has not been broken.
Christians have no obligation to make Ramadan cake for Muslims, Scientologists have no obligation to serve special Happy Kwanzaa event so heterosexual people have no obligation to bake homosexual celebration.

 

Christians have no obligation to make Ramadan cakes at all. But if they choose to make and sell those cakes in Oregon, they cannot sell them only to non-Muslims.

Same as a restaurateur has no obligation to make sandwiches. But neither does he have the freedom to refuse to sell the ones he does choose to make, to people of the wrong color.​

​

 

Technically the two women were having a commitment ceremony because at the time, Oregon didn't legally recognize same-sex marriage at the time, but everybody treated the same-sex commitment ceremony as a same-sex wedding, including Sweet Cakes. So even though technically it was a commitment ceremony cake, it was treated as a wedding cake by everybody involved. Apparently Sweet Cakes was happy to take the lesbian's money when they bought a wedding cake for a heterosexual wedding (the mother of one of the lesbians), but balked at taking money from them for a cake that was to be used in a same-sex commitment ceremony.

No matter how you slice it, it's still discrimination on the part of Sweet Cakes. Had it not been known that the cake was to be used for a same-sex commitment ceremony, I'm sure Sweet Cakes would've gladly taken their money again. I wonder if they would've demanded the cake bake, or refunded the money paid if they subsequently found out the cake was used for same-sex commitment ceremony or wedding.

 

How do you bake a homosexual celebration? Have you got the recipe?

 

The law was broken- specifically the public accommodation laws were broken. Christians do not get special exemption from the law just because they are Christians.

If for example a bakery sells cakes for religious celebrations- say cakes specially for Easter- then yes- if they refused to sell a cake for Ramadan or a Bar Mitzvah they would be breaking the public accommodation laws.

And a baker who is homosexual in Oregon- could not refuse to sell a cake to a heterosexual just because the person is heterosexual.

You may not like the law- but it is very straight forward- and if the people of Oregon don't like the law they can change it.

 

Unless it required orphan blood, upside down crucifixes, or a form of allegiance pledged to another god, it doesn't violate a christian bakers beliefs to bake a cake for a same sex couples wedding.

Now if you can prove it requires any of those things than this religious argument may have a prayer.

That being said, I don't think anybody should be forced to provide a good or service for anybody

 

It looks like we are in agreement.
If we assume that homosexuality is not a lifestyle but some kind of human condition, then bakers did a right thing.
They did not discriminate woman on sexual orientation but refused to abide to homosexual culture because of different cultural background.
I hope you are not going to insist that culture is equal to race gender and sexuality.

- - - Updated - - -

That is not up to you to decide what is required, the constitution is pretty clear on it.

- - - Updated - - -

Accommodation to someone's lifestyle is not a discrimination.

- - - Updated - - -

No one knows, that is exactly why bakery refused to take an order.

 

I understand your desire to have unlimited power and make people to follow any of your orders but race and cultural behavior are two different things.

 

Their reasons still aren't relevant. The religious angle is a bad one. Obviously, they lost.

The constitution never said that you could do whatever the hell you want as long as you claim it's for religious purposes. Nothing interfered with these people's ability to exercise their religious beliefs except for their own business. It's not really a religious issue. It never has been. It's about an individual's right to do business with who they want. You and others in the phoney conservative end are really shooting yourselves in the foot caterwalling about religion.

- - - Updated - - -

If you can't tolerate the culture you exist in perhaps operating a business that serves them isn't a good idea.

 

Refusing to sell your wares to someone because of their race, their religion or sexual orientation is discrimination- and against the law in Oregon.

And that is why this business got penalized.

Christians do not get special exemptions from the law.

 

Race, religion, and gender are different things. All are poor criteria to prejudge a couple for exclusion from the community of Oregon. According to the people of Oregon.

I have no orders for you. It's your life, you figure it out. And if you choose to break the law in Oregon, answering to their legal system is all on you.




​

 

We are not in agreement.

While I recognize the fact that sexual orientation is an innate trait that cannot be altered, you seem to view as some sort of lifestyle choice or cultural thing. I have no problem comparing the struggles of gay people with that of minorities who fought (and continue to fight) for equal rights, because I can see how they are similar in nature, but don't have to be identical in specifics.

Oregon voters and legislators apparently feel the same way because they passed laws that bar discrimination against people in the public sphere, specifically adding sexual orientation as a protected class. Sweet Cakes violated those laws and was appropriately punished for those violations. If you have a problem with sexual orientation being recognized as a protected class by the Oregon legislature and voters, perhaps you should take up that issue with the Oregon legislature and voters and not whine about how unfair it is on an anonymous Internet forum. Whining about it here just makes you look, well, whiny.

 

the issue is that there was no violation
it was clash of two cultures, that is all
there is no way you can apply logic in the judge's decision other then corruption and pandering to some kind of political group.

 

Whatever you say, if law is used by corrupt judges to punish people who disagree with homosexuals then it is not the law.
There is no logical sequence that can be followed to explain the punishment of innocent people.

- - - Updated - - -

You know that is B.S. because ware were sold to them before.
Why are you trying to mislead honorable people.

 

The same constitution never said that people should accommodate to your culture.
It is a same thing as if government of Germany forces women to accept rape because they have to accommodate the culture of Arab immigrants.

 

I never argued that it did do the above statement is irrelevant and not argumentative. So non point addressed.

We aren't talking about alien culture infiltrating native culture here. So your analogy fails to be analogous for that reason alone. Thus you posted for nothing more than to verbally masturbate.

There is an argument to have here if you could stop jerking yourself off to religious nonsense.

 

You may choose to think that there was no violation, but the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries disagrees with you, and they are the ones that make the rulings here, not you or me. They don't see it as a clash of cultures, but rather a violation of the law, plain and simple.

 

Whatever they ruled is not important because laws related to race and culture are very vague.
The laws made intentionally vague to give government a powerful tool to prosecute people.
So the government did that with much pleasure.
Our discussion not about law and government action, we are talking about whether government had given any consideration to this case.
The answer is no, the government just used a law as tool of prosecution.
plain and simple.
There is no logic has been presented why people should be punished by not accepting someone's culture.
The bakers would equally refuse to bake cake for heterosexual couple if that couple asked them to make homosexual cake (e.g. for fun).

- - - Updated - - -

we are talking about pederast culture, that is foreign no normal people.

 

This is all fact- why are you trying to mislead honorable people?

Refusing to sell your wares to someone because of their race, their religion or sexual orientation is discrimination- and against the law in Oregon.

And that is why this business got penalized.

Christians do not get special exemptions from the law.

- - - Updated - - -

The Constitution says that all Americans get equal protection of the law.

You don't have to like blacks or jews or homosexuals- or their culture- but you if you refuse do business with blacks or Jews or homosexuals in Oregon- you are breaking the law.

- - - Updated - - -

"we"- who other than you is talking about pederast culture?


Why the hell did you decide to bring child molestation into this thread?

What the hell is wrong with you?

 

There are no facts, only interpretation of the facts by the corrupt government officials.
Christians have the same exemption as the other religions.
Bakers treated all people equally regardless of their sexuality.
They have a right to refuse special service they have never advertised.

 

You not understanding why the couple was penalized doesn't mean there is no logic to it.

Regardless of what this business believes- if it sells wedding cakes- it cannot refuse to sell wedding cakes to black because it doesn't approve of black weddings. It cannot refuse to sell wedding cakes to Jews because it doesn't approve of Jewish weddings. And it cannot refuse to sell wedding cakes to a couple for a gay wedding- just because they don't approve of gay weddings.

The logic is exactly the same- whether you approve or not.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pederasty

 

Okay- where are the facts that you have that these are 'corrupt government officials'?

Religions have no special exemptions- Christians don't get excused for parking tickets because they are Christians and Jews don't get excused for running a red light because they were on their way to temple.

The Bakers treated everyone equally- until a wedding cake was ordered for a gay couple- and then that order was refused based upon the sexual orientation of the couple.

 

The two most authorative dictionaries of English are the Merriam Webster and Oxford English Dictionary

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pederast

a man who desires or engages in sexual activity with a boy

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/pederasty

Sexual activity involving a man and a boy.

So again- what the hell is wrong with you?