elohiym
Well-known member
I know it was modeled after some actual place in New York, but New Yorkers are all insane. They love to be humiliated by elitist door policies. It makes them feel special, I guess.
You don't know many New Yorkers, do you?
I know it was modeled after some actual place in New York, but New Yorkers are all insane. They love to be humiliated by elitist door policies. It makes them feel special, I guess.
Taking someone's money doesn't mean you endorse their behavior. Heck, interacting with someone doesn't mean you necessarily approve of them or their behavior.
Why is this so difficult to understand?
No, the baker has every right to make or NOT make the cake. (at least that's how it should be)
Shouldn't we have the freedom to associate with who we choose?
Furthermore.... there is nothing morally wrong with the baler making the cake or refusing to make the cake. The homosexual couple can go elsewhere to have their cake made.
Why silent about Knight's comment, bootlicker? If TH had said that, you would have a field day. But you are here for something besides truth, right?
No, the baker has every right to make or NOT make the cake. (at least that's how it should be)
Shouldn't we have the freedom to associate with who we choose?
Furthermore.... there is nothing morally wrong with the baler making the cake or refusing to make the cake. The homosexual couple can go elsewhere to have their cake made.
There is no force involved, whatever. I have pointed this out on every of the other twenty or so threads about this subject, but for some reason, the super-Christians are so intent on imagining themselves to be the victims, rather than the victimizers, that they absolutely will not recognize this simple fact of reality.Forcing people to violate their personal religious beliefs is not treating people fairly, even if you are a homosexual or an atheist and think you're so much better than them.
Or maybe they already are, as they have finally realized that:
"Refusing to serve a sinner is a sure sign of the most disgusting disease….self-righteousness."
Ah, yes. I do see now.... :think:
Make sure you tell the sinner how much you support their rights to sin as you walk down the wide road to destruction with them.
Refusing to serve a sinner is a sure sign of the most disgusting disease….self-righteousness.
res said:i musta missed the part in scripture where Jesus served sinners who were celebrating their sin
And this, sadly, would make you a target: Gay couples would swarm to your store and watch the litigation and lawsuits start flying. Then you would be forced to pay 10s of thousands of dollars in fines. :nono:
The manager of a local abortion clinic comes to a baker to request five cakes for a party to celebrate the abattoir's anniversary. The cakes are to simulate, as closely as possible, newborn babies. Some are to be white cake, some chocolate, but all must be the correct size, have varied icings for hair and facial features, and are all to be filled with raspberry jam. There is no question the baker is skilled enough to pull this off with no problem, and the clinic says money is no object.
like only allowing white people into your place of businessNo, the baker has every right to make or NOT make the cake. (at least that's how it should be)
Shouldn't we have the freedom to associate with who we choose?
Furthermore.... there is nothing morally wrong with the baler making the cake or refusing to make the cake. The homosexual couple can go elsewhere to have their cake made.
The transmission on San Francisco's Sodomy-On-Wheels mobile fornication van has begun to slip badly. It's towed to an AAMCO owned and operated by a fundamentalist. The mechanic has read news stories and knows what this van is all about but the van's owner pleads with him to get it back on the road and even flashes a wad of $100s if he gets the van up on the lift pronto.
Says who?
If a baker considers his business a "Christian bakery" then it is a "Christian bakery."
And who are you to say they can't make that determination?
This is the whole problem, right here.
Once upon a time, business licenses were granted so that people could conduct business in a way that was safe for the populace and so that taxes could be collected.
Now, a business license is another tool used for social engineering.
In order to maintain a business license you have to participate in religious ceremonies against your conscience.
I see, so there are implied "no judgment" clauses in business licenses now?
Not only does the first amendment give the baker the right stand behind the counter and pass judgment on sexual perverts who walks through the door the "Christian baker" has a moral obligation to make right judgments (John 7:24), he or she is morally bound to abhor what is evil (Rom 12:9) and the bible forbids them to take part in a perverted gay wedding ceremony saying "Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. (Ephesians 5:11).
Bottom line, our government has cross the line the first amendment was written to maintain.
I don't even need to ask them to buy something.
Where I live, most everyone is a Christian of one sort or another....like it used to be in America. We don't behave like snakes. There's an expectation of Christian behavior amongst the population and those who can't be bothered to cough that up are given the choice to change up or get out. We do have a few of the Hindi persuasion here but even they behave like Christians.
I agree, but when its a specialty created item - that's completely different, then you know what their behavior is and are participating in its celebration. Wedding cakes arent blank and sitting in the case to sell to people, its a specifically created item.
like only allowing white people into your place of business
just like these young men could have chosen to go eat at a different establishment
![]()
What if a guy making an ice sculpture for a 50th anniversary for the Genoveses hates Italians? Is he "celebrating" their anniversary or just doing his job? What if a photographer does a shoot for a magazine and hates the subject of the cover? Is the photographer "celebrating" the subject, or just doing what he's good at? If a jeweler crafts a specialty work for a Muslim couple and detests Muslims, is she "celebrating" her customer's religion, or merely doing good work?
or only black people
what's wrong with that?
yes, they could have and should have
what's your point?