Judge Orders Bakery to Serve Gay Couple

Meh. Semantics are my thing. Fantasy novels, constructed languages, you get the idea. :oldrazz:

My bad. Bygones are bygones. I have shenanigans to ensue anyway :hehe:

Later all!
 
What does Jesus have to do anything with the article? Well, I'm agnostic. I feel that business shouldn't have a place for their religious belief, IMO.
 
This thread is giving me flashbacks to crazy old ms. Carmedy in The mist.
 
Bottom line of how a decent "love thy neighbor" society should work.

Man 1: I'd like to purchase your wares(a cake), my name is Such and such, and I need it by so and so day. Can you offer me your services?

Man 2: Yes I can fit that into my schedule, or no I can't accommodate that time frame right now.

THE END
None of the other BS should ever matter.
 
Hal Jordan Wins (Thread)...

Fatality.





[/dated Mortal Kombat reference for young'uns]
 
f48y.gif
 
SentinelMind, would you be okay if a bakery refused to make a Christmas themed cake for you because it was against their beliefs? Or perhaps a traditional wedding cake because they were gay and only made cakes for same-sex couples?
 
SentinelMind, would you be okay if a bakery refused to make a Christmas themed cake for you because it was against their beliefs? Or perhaps a traditional wedding cake because they were gay and only made cakes for same-sex couples?

I wouldn't sue them.
 
I will say, as a gay man, that this gives me pause.

While I do think that if you are running a public business, you have a responsibility to serve any paying customer, I am not entirely comfortable with suing them and forcing them to bake them a cake.

1) As others have said, I wouldn't want a cake from them anyway if they had to be sued into making it for me. I'd be worried about them spitting in it or doing who knows what to it, and I'd rather just give my business to someone who was willing to treat me like they treat other customers.

2) Suing people into submission is NOT the way to social acceptance. Stuff like this turns some people off to gay rights.
 
Didn't know that about you, Schlosser. Learn something new everyday :hehe:
 
Thank you for link..
I don't see your claim in bold in the article...

I see from your and TQ sources one gay historian found records that few churches bound property of two saints and equates them as equivalent to gay marriage (although reviews show some differences between traditional marriage).

I admit I do find that record peculiar. It is perhaps possible some churches performed some form of same-gender civil union, but that is not the same as saying it was Christian doctrine, widespread practice, or that it was held in same regard as traditional marriage.
You need to be careful, here the early Christian church is not one church and Paul had been known to correct heresies within various churches. Is it really any different saying some liberal churches today performed gay marriage that is now 'Christian doctrine'

What in the blue hell does the sexual preference of the researcher got to do with the result. The man provided you with a number of sources to his claim, but because it didn't fit in with your sad demented warped world view you dismissed it as worth nothing, so why should we not do the same with what you claim, ohh I forgot everything you say is gospel truth, ohh bugger off.

You'd get more intelligent and active debate out of a stuffed corgi.
 
What in the blue hell does the sexual preference of the researcher got to do with the result. The man provided you with a number of sources to his claim, but because it didn't fit in with your sad demented warped world view you dismissed it as worth nothing, so why should we not do the same with what you claim, ohh I forgot everything you say is gospel truth, ohh bugger off.

You'd get more intelligent and active debate out of a stuffed corgi.
No need to bring corgis into this.
 
I think one of the problems here is that there is a lack of statutory legal clarity, in both red states and blue states, that will require some political courage to fix. Otherwise, it's going to be judges making law for everyone, which is a less than optimal solution. Remember it can work the other way: maybe one day one of those snake-oil ex-gay ministries will want to take ad space in The Advocate.

My own preference is for their to be a civil rights law that states the following:

1. You cannot discriminate against people's inherent qualities, but you can discriminate based on action

2. You cannot deny someone service based on enumerated grounds for a service you would normally provide any other member of the public

3. You can deny to provide a service that you would not normally provide in due course of your business. Therefore, the bakery can argue that it would not bake a same-sex wedding cake no matter who the customer was (for instance, they would similarly refuse to provide that service if a heterosexual person, a wedding planner for instance, requested a groom+groom wedding cake)
 
I will say, as a gay man, that this gives me pause.

While I do think that if you are running a public business, you have a responsibility to serve any paying customer, I am not entirely comfortable with suing them and forcing them to bake them a cake.

1) As others have said, I wouldn't want a cake from them anyway if they had to be sued into making it for me. I'd be worried about them spitting in it or doing who knows what to it, and I'd rather just give my business to someone [else] who was willing to treat me like they treat other customers.

2) Suing people into submission is NOT the way to social acceptance. Stuff like this turns some people off to gay rights.

I don’t think the couple wants service from this bakery. And according to the article, the judge ordered/warned the business to cease and desist discrimination of gay customers going forward - which is simply a reiteration of existing law. The legal action taken was a matter of principle. It’s problematic to argue that those who are wronged should just hang back, bide their time and wait for wrongdoers to get enlightened. By that rationale, there might still be establishments in the deep south who would refuse service to people of color. Activism has been a big part of the advances in civil rights.
 
Well, one thing is for sure: I would not be eating that cake now. Who knows what kind of special "frosting" they put on it.
 
You can't change your race...I can't change my race no matter what I do when I wake up or before I go to bed. Period.

Despite what liberals tell you, ...you can choose not to have sex with someone that day. Maybe that's the start of something bigger..a more meaningful change in your life.

I haven't had sex in years because I haven't found someone I want a relationship with and I'm not interested in casual sex.

That doesn't make me any less gay than I was when I was in a (monogamous) relationship for three years.
 
I haven't had sex in years because I haven't found someone I want a relationship with and I'm not interested in casual sex.

That doesn't make me any less gay than I was when I was in a (monogamous) relationship for three years.

That doesn't fit the status quo at all. You're supposed to do drugs and have numerous sexual partners on a daily basis and spread diseases and go to the schools and train kids to be gay and join your gay army.

Change your life, Schlosser. Think of the children!

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,269
Messages
22,077,575
Members
45,877
Latest member
dude9876
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"