Texas family: We’re getting death threats for not baking a cake for same-sex ‘marriag

People are afraid of pissing off the muslims. Christians tend to make good passive victims.

 

So, I walked into a Halal butcher shop and demanded the proprietor sell me a pork shoulder....

he refused, citing religious tenets....

not one leftist was outraged by the flagrant discrimination by a licenced public accommodation....

 

Sooo you are saying even though I am pro gay marriage and such, that simply because i believe in God I deserve nothing but disdain?

No really, tell me more about your hilarious hatred lmao. You do know that you are the last kind of person to take seriously at all correct? But I will use you as fun for laughing at though.

Hey while you are at it, since you are such a big boy internet tough guy bashing people who believe in God. I challenge you to specifically say all muslims deserve the same disdain and are all ignorant and whatever else name you would use for a christian or simply a believer in God.

Come on now, don't be a coward, specifically call out muslims with your big boy voice. You ran like a girl from this challenge last time, I don't expect you to go through with it this time. But please, prove me wrong lol.

 

Your comments don't sound like those of someone who was in the 2nd Infantry.

 

lol so called christians are obviously more tolerant than lefties, that is for damn sure.

 

What a stupid thing to do. You went in and requested something that the store doesn't sell in the first place.

Try intellectual honesty one day.

You might like it!

 

They sell animal flesh. I wanted widely available flesh from a specific animal.

Christian bakers sell cakes.....they, equally, cannot be compelled to decorate them in a specific way

 

Well I get your intent, but considering a pork product probably not sold at all in that particular Halal shop, you can't create a discrimination charge for something they never sold to anyone lol.

BUt go back to that same shop and ask them first if they provide catering. If they say yes ask them if they will cater for a gay wedding. If they say no, and nobody pitches a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about it then you will have a point.

But me personally I am not for forcing that muslim to just up and drop his beliefs and be forced to do something he doesnt want to do as far as catering certain events. I mean are you going to force a muslim to cater to a LGBT cookout? Would you force a muslims to cater to your christian event if he respectfully declined?

I sure wouldn't , id just simply say thanks and find another muslim or similar butcher that will cater to my needs.

 

So what? By definition, Halal means no pork. Again, that was quite a stupid thing to do. Hope you learned your lesson.

 

No they are not. They would have been equally opposed to two heterosexual men in a same sex marriage. ABSURD to argue that Christian doctrine of the bible limits marriage to men and women in order to exclude homosexuals. But then again that is the same absurdity used to legalize gay marriage. The claim that the legal institution of marriage isn't limited to men and women because only men and women have the potential of procreation. And is instead so limited, all as a part of a nefarious government plot to "disparage and injure" homosexuals.

 

Im sure the Christian bakers would have been more than willing to sell a wedding cake to a lesbian bride and a gay groom. And equally unwilling to sell a cake for a wedding between two heterosexual guys or two heterosexual women.

 

They're a "public accommodation", and therefore cannot, as the left's argument goes, deny any reasonable request related to the legal sale of animal flesh due to religious convictions.

 

No, that's not any argument from 'the left'. Would you go into a Ford dealership and demand to be sold a yacht? If not, why not?

If all you have is dishonesty, you might want to reassess your position.

 

You don't seen to realize you are confirming my assertions.

 

Actually, I'm considering burning the shop to the ground. (if self-righteous leftists can issue death threats to those who do not comply with their totalitarian dictates, then I, too, should be justified in a less than civil response, no?)

(there's the "lesson"....... of your perpetual double standards....one day soon, you and yours just might get what you give)

 

Would it be a structural violation of the Ford dealership owner's religious convictions to sell a yacht?

 

see. not only are leftists not outraged by the obvious discrimination by a privately owned "public accommodation", they actively defend it when it suits their pathologically deceitful politics....in this case, being "tolerant" of whatever religious convictions their new BFF's, Islamists, adhere.

 

I see you're now just trying to dodge the point.

Forget I asked, it's clear you have zero interest in honest or rational discourse.

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks for admitting you have no rational point to make and that you live strictly based on your emotions.

Welcome to Planet Ignore. Population: you.

 

What if a Muslim baker refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding. What you gonna do?

 

The bible, like the Koran (or any religious book, for that matter), can be interpreted in a variety of ways. There is no objective way to say who is "right" or "wrong." You cannot, in any objective sense, say that modern protestant interpretation of the bible is any more or less "accurate" than interpretations used during medieval Christianity. One could say, as an objective fact, that the modern protestant interpretation is far more secular than previous interpretations, as the practice of Christianity, as a whole, has become more secularized/liberalized over time. But can you say that the more secularized interpretation is more "correct" than previous interpretations? You cannot.

That is because literary interpretation / analysis is largely a subjective exercise (as any English major will tell you). A single work can be interpreted in any number of ways - and there is no true objective answer.

If anything, one could argue that the most accurate interpretation is the interpretation adopted soon after the bible was written. Any subsequent interpretation in future years is going to be less accurate to the original text, not more so.

 

The issue here is the double standards associated with your acceptance and defense of denial of service based on religious convictions for one religious group, while exhibiting outrage towards another religious group for doing the same thing.

you're a political and ideological hypocrite who will glom onto and argue whatever groupthink narrative you perceive will advance whatever your politics of the moment demands.

in other words, you have no principles or moral compass....you, like all leftists, are about means and ends.

I'm done with you for now.... people like you make me physically ill.

 

Thus the hypocrisy, in the same vein as "blacks already have the same rights as white people, they can marry anyone of the same race."

Honestly I hope more of these cases happen though, like always y'all are shooting yourself in the foot.

If a cake is so important to the bakery they would have a track record; I have yet to see one of these bakeries standing up for God investigate to see if and refuse service for second + marriage (adultery), weddings where the bride is not a virgin (impurity), quick marriages (lust), or over the top marriages (greed/pride).

Why do you think that is? If cake is a holy testiment to a bakers approval and sanctioning of a union, does that mean never religious baker is going to burn in eternal lake of fire for endorsing sin or does it only apply for homosexuals?

 

Maybe, I'm sure a passage can be twisted somewhere. Care to post the verse that says specifically no cake for homosexuals?

 

Personally, I am not going to do anything.
If the state has equal protection laws then the couple has the option to file a complaint or do nothing.
If the state condones discrimination then all they can do is make the matter public. With enough cases a SCOTUS intervention will likely happen.

People claiming religious influence should not be given special preference in the law.

 

No. What's at issue here is histrionics. Or maybe a few people going for some type of Oscar for biggest melodrama
on the internet.

There have been over 30,000 same sex marriages and during that time there have been 2 lawsuits over cakes.
That means that same sex marriages have resulted in bakery problems .006% of the time. Obviously, the VAST
MAJORITY of gay people are finding businesses that are gay friendly.

An incident that occurs .006% of the time is NOT a problem. THAT is a statistical aberration.

To whine and gnash your teeth over what is basically a statistical blip is asinine.