Baking Cakes for Homosexual Couples

[PureX]

Yes it can, if we're talking about other people's children, to whom homosexuals demand educational access. Short of that, they settle for forcing dissenters to obey them by force of law.

Children are not sexual beings. The existence of a homosexual teacher in a classroom will not cause them to suddenly choose to become homosexuals.

 

[musterion]

Children are not sexual beings. The existence of a homosexual teacher in a classroom will not cause them to suddenly choose to become homosexuals.

First, children are not sexual beings, and that's precisely the reason liberals in general and homosexuals in particular want to sexualize [corrupt] them.

Second, don't play stupid, you know exactly what I'm referring to and it's not the odd homosexual teacher who never mentions his/her private perversion. I'm referring (and you know it) to organized sodomites who want their lifestyle choices presented to children as a sexual option that's just as normal as that of their moms and dads.

 

[resurrected]

If you don't want to do business with certain members of the public, don't open your business up to the general public.

so you'd be fine if the bakery hung a sign out front saying "no perverts"?

why do we bake cakes fo atheists or muslims? Are they different?

i wouldn't want to bake a cake celebrating someone's rejection of God either :idunno:

Children are not sexual beings.

psychologists, who are apparently the arbiters of what's "normal", disagree

 

[Truster]

These perverts are either seeking approval or recruits or both.

 

[Granite]

Children are not sexual beings. The existence of a homosexual teacher in a classroom will not cause them to suddenly choose to become homosexuals.

These guys lump all sexual behavior they don't approve of (which is most of it) in as "perversion" which is why they don't distinguish between two adults and child abuse. It literally makes zero difference to them.

 

[musterion]

These guys lump all sexual behavior they don't approve of (which is most of it) in as "perversion" which is why they don't distinguish between two adults and child abuse. It literally makes zero difference to them.

Nice tapdancing around the obvious true point there, Granny.

 

[PureX]

These guys lump all sexual behavior they don't approve of (which is most of it) in as "perversion" which is why they don't distinguish between two adults and child abuse. It literally makes zero difference to them.

Some of the comments here are so absurdly stupid that I can't find a way or even a reason to try and converse with their authors. I can't grasp how a human mind can become that lazy and twisted up.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Nothing short of having Luke 13:3 and Acts 16:31 iced on it would be "effective" for the sodomites.

Oh, and an update on the reasonableness and charity of the modern atheist:

http://christiannews.net/2014/08/29...iscount-despite-atheist-pressure-bomb-threat/

Seems like the church bulletin coupon offer is just one of many.

___________
However, Rose says the church bulletin discount was never designed to prohibit anyone from eating at the restaurant.

“It has nothing to do with excluding anybody,” Rose contended. “It’s not specific to any church. It’s another way to bring people in and make them feel welcome.”

Rose says the church bulletin discount is just one of the many special offers he makes available to customers of Bailey’s Pizza.

“I offer discounts to others, too, like college students, teachers, military, police, and senior citizens,” he said. “It was just like giving a discount to the Boy Scouts or the military and [FFRF] made it an ugly thing.”
___________​

Maybe the liberals will try to sue because he offers discounts to the military.

 

[genuineoriginal]

The practice of your religion stops at that point when it does harm to others.

There is no harm in offering a coupon.

There is no constitutional right that says a business person can lie to and cheat his customers in the name of religion, which is what you want to do.

Nobody is being lied to and nobody is being cheated by the pizza parlor owner.
From the article:

___________
“Bailey’s does not turn any customers away, or provide inferior service to customers who do not hold the same Christian beliefs and worldview as its owner. What Bailey’s does do, however, is implement different promotions to attract customers to the restaurant,” the letter stated. “There is no violation of either federal or state anti-discrimination laws covering public acconìmodations under these circumstances.”
___________​

And for the hundredth time, no one is being FORCED to do anything. If you don't want to do business with certain members of the public, don't open your business up to the general public.

It appears that your communist fascist friends have completely hoodwinked you into losing your ability to think correctly.
For the last 5000 years, a business owner has had the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.
Taking away that right is forcing, yes forcing, a business owner to do business.

When a business person opens a business, it is open to the customers as defined by the business.
Taking away that right is taking away one of the fundamental freedoms that the constitution is supposed to protect.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Some of the comments here are so absurdly stupid that I can't find a way or even a reason to try and converse with their authors. I can't grasp how a human mind can become that lazy and twisted up.

Yes, some of your comments are way too stupid to come about by accident.

 

[genuineoriginal]

why do we bake cakes fo atheists or muslims? Are they different?

Most people understand moral behavior, even if they do not have the Bible to use as a reference.

Romans 2:14-15 14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )​

The difference in the case of homosexual couples is that their actions are a direct violation of moral behavior.

 

[TulipBee]

First, children are not sexual beings, and that's precisely the reason liberals in general and homosexuals in particular want to sexualize [corrupt] them.

Second, don't play stupid, you know exactly what I'm referring to and it's not the odd homosexual teacher who never mentions his/her private perversion. I'm referring (and you know it) to organized sodomites who want their lifestyle choices presented to children as a sexual option that's just as normal as that of their moms and dads.

I get floored when I learn about some celebritiexs lifestyle. Kids look up to superman as a role model and then, later, find out that the new superman is gay.

 

[Dialogos]

The practice of your religion stops at that point when it does harm to others.

Harm to others?

Seriously?

A gay couple walks into a bakery. They ask if they can have a cake made for their gay wedding. The man behind the counter says, "I'm sorry, we are Christians and we don't believe in same sex weddings, have a good day."

Now, you tell us, who has been "harmed?"

The homos might have to spend $1.50 in gas to get to another baker.

So what?

The same harm would have come to the gay couple if the baker had planned a vacation for that week.

They might have to take part of their valuable day picking up their cell phone and calling another baker on the way out of the door.

Nobody has been harmed.

Not yet anyway. Here is where real harm occurs. The gay couple can't let it go and wants to teach Mr. Baker a lesson so they file a complaint with the states so-called "human rights commission" (which incidentally isn't in the least bit interested in protecting religious liberty). Those clowns get involved and drag the baker through hell.

Why?

Because driving 10 minutes to a baker who would bake the cake is undue hardship?

Because having to spend 5 minutes on their cell phone plan talking to another baker constitutes undue hardship?

Meanwhile, the back at the bakery, Mr. Baker has to choose between compromising his deeply held religious beliefs or losing his livelihood.

But hey, its all worth it to keep a gay couple from getting their feelin's hurt, right? Nevermind that their "wedding" is illegal in the state that the bake shop is located. Nevermind the fact that their "wedding" is a perverted religious ceremony where two people pretend to get married (there really is no such thing as a same sex wedding as God NEVER blesses perverted unions).

There is no constitutional right that says a business person can lie to and cheat his customers in the name of religion, which is what you want to do.

And for the hundredth time, a Baker who does not believe in gay weddings is not lying by refusing to bake a cake, he or she is lying if they do.

Do you have an intelligent answer to this?

Probably not.

And for the hundredth time, no one is being FORCED to do anything. If you don't want to do business with certain members of the public, don't open your business up to the general public.

And if you don't want to have to solemnize vows for gay couples, don't answer the call to ministry, right?

BTW, in real life examples of this situation. The baker didn't refuse to serve homosexual patrons in any other way other than to refuse to participate in their perverted religious ceremony. And the only harm that came to the homos was that their feelings were hurt.

It's perfectly simple. There is no force involved. It's your own choice as to what kind of business you want to operate.

Yes, you can choose to own a business and worship the state religion or you can be a Christian. But unfortunately you can't do both.

But you aren't allowed to misrepresent your product or services and cheat people out of their money to time.

What money?

A baker who politely refuses to accommodate a gay couple at the counter hasn't taken any money.

What time, the 5 minutes it takes to call someone else?

So now lets stop talking hypothetical and start talking reality.

A News Report on the Actual Incident is here.

The business owner was treated abusively by the homos, received death threats, and eventually became the recipients of an unjust judgment from the fascist kangaroo court otherwise known as the Colorado Civil Right Division.

The homos had to drive into Denver from Lakewood (about a 10 miles away, 25 minutes even with traffic).

So you tell us, who got "harmed?"

Your rhetoric is empty PureX, this is all about punishing people for their religious beliefs and if you can't see that you are an idiot.

 

[musterion]

Originally Posted by PureX
It's perfectly simple. There is no force involved. It's your own choice as to what kind of business you want to operate.

I know you're not an idiot so you're either lying or just trolling for fun to post that.

 

[Granite]

Some of the comments here are so absurdly stupid that I can't find a way or even a reason to try and converse with their authors. I can't grasp how a human mind can become that lazy and twisted up.

That's why I just outright ignore a lot of people on TOL. Sooner or later it's a waste of time trying to reason with someone who wants to stay ignorant and obtuse.

 

[musterion]

That's why I just outright ignore a lot of people on TOL. Sooner or later it's a waste of time trying to reason with someone who wants to stay ignorant and obtuse.

Yet you persist here for 11 years. That makes you the truly stupid one, does it not.

 

[IMJerusha]

Anyone here disgusted by this outcome?

http://christiannews.net/2014/08/30...efusing-to-host-gay-wedding-shuts-down-venue/

Or does anyone here consider it a good, just outcome?

Not good. Not just. I think this can be overturned and should be. The court can not force a Christian to ignore the dictates of his/her faith. The Amish have proven this.

Liberty Ridge Farm need only identify their business as being Christian for Christians and they can continue to host weddings. Better yet, they won't need to host any homosexual receptions or weddings. They only need to put the sign of the fish on all their signs. If the Christian community wants to lend its support, we should mail $10.00 to Liberty Ridge Farm at 29 Bevis Rd, Schaghticoke, NY 12154 If God is good and we all know that He is, Robert and Cynthia Gifford won't feel the crunch at all, McCarthy and Erwin (still not married in God's eyes) will see the error of their ways, and there will be enough money leftover after paying the fine to alter their signs, and they won't have to be open on Sundays anymore either unless they want to be. Be sure and stick a note in with your donation thanking the Giffords for standing strong in Yeshua. It's called thumbing your nose at the homosexual agenda.

 

[resurrected]

time was, this was good enough:

 

[TracerBullet]

Most people understand moral behavior, even if they do not have the Bible to use as a reference.

and that is why most people reject the hate you preach

 

[TracerBullet]

Harm to others?

Seriously?

A gay couple walks into a bakery. They ask if they can have a cake made for their gay wedding. The man behind the counter says, "I'm sorry, we are Christians and we don't believe in same sex weddings, have a good day."

Now, you tell us, who has been "harmed?"

the people who were discriminated against.

The homos might have to spend $1.50 in gas to get to another baker.

So what?

The same harm would have come to the gay couple if the baker had planned a vacation for that week.

They might have to take part of their valuable day picking up their cell phone and calling another baker on the way out of the door.

Nobody has been harmed.

Not yet anyway. Here is where real harm occurs. The gay couple can't let it go and wants to teach Mr. Baker a lesson so they file a complaint with the states so-called "human rights commission" (which incidentally isn't in the least bit interested in protecting religious liberty). Those clowns get involved and drag the baker through hell.

Why?

Because driving 10 minutes to a baker who would bake the cake is undue hardship?

Because having to spend 5 minutes on their cell phone plan talking to another baker constitutes undue hardship?

Meanwhile, the back at the bakery, Mr. Baker has to choose between compromising his deeply held religious beliefs or losing his livelihood.

no he chose to break the law and discriminate.

The results would have been the same if he had refused service to a black couple or a Jewish couple or a Hindu couple. IF you operate a public business then you get to put your personal bigotries in the closet during business hours.