Judge Rules Bakeshop Owner Doesn't Have To Bake Wedding Cake For Gay Couple

TLK Valentine · Feb 8, 2018

Liza B. said:
Many gay people--not all by a long shot, but many--do not see diversity as a gift. These people, even if they were deeply offended, could not just leave it alone, see. They could not see it as, hey, our wedding is offensive to this guy. Nope.

In this case and other cases, they have to drag through the courts, ruin lives, businesses, reputations and everything. And beyond that, they want to compel the artistry.

That is not "tolerance", is it?

Sounds like "activism" to me.

SilverBear · Feb 8, 2018

Zoii said:
I think the greatest travesty in all this is that the prevailing culture has become so litigious that a conflict over the making of a cake for a particular cohort could not be sorted out amicably.

those who engage in discrimination are rarely amicable

Catherineanne · Feb 8, 2018

Lily of Valleys said:
45. As the creator of a wedding cake, I believe that I am an important part of the wedding celebration for the couple, and my creations are a central component of the wedding. By creating a wedding cake for the couple, I am an active participant and I am associated with the event.

What nonsense. As if a wedding cake is the equivalent of a certificate of holy living; an endorsement of holiness.

It isn't. Even being a guest at a wedding is not an endorsement of everything about the happy couple; we might know they lived together for years, have six children and perhaps even three (or indeed more) former broken marriages between them, and assorted ex spouses and half siblings wandering the aisle. We might know he isn't exactly faithful and she isn't exactly truthful. We might personally not think any of this quite the thing, and yet we still put on our glad rags and high heels and go along to celebrate the wedding, because going to a wedding is just going to a wedding. It is not a endorsement of the couple's morality, nor of our own.

We can happily swallow all of that, but God forbid a gay couple want to buy a cake!

PeaceByJesus · Feb 8, 2018

TLK Valentine said:
Are you saying that desegregation was a mistake by the courts?

No, that there were wrong in making race itself, not behavior, determinitive of the rights of a person, which certain churches influenced the state to change, contrary to the court in many cases.

PeaceByJesus · Feb 8, 2018

Skreeper said:
It's been a while since I had the honor of reading a steaming pile of garbage like the article you posted. Cheers for that!

Well, its from your pals. You do not believe it was written and followed?

PeaceByJesus · Feb 8, 2018

Catherineanne said:
What nonsense. As if a wedding cake is the equivalent of a certificate of holy living; an endorsement of holiness.

It isn't.

Holy living is not celebrating that which is unlawful in the eyes of God, and as a RC you should understand the weight of the symbolic.

SilverBear · Feb 8, 2018

PeaceByJesus said:
So homosexuals picking a Christian bakery out of about a dozen in its 5 mile radius, and asking him to create a special cake specifically for the purpose of celebrating what both his faith and the state constitution held as unlawful,

it was for a party ...are parties held by gay people suddnly now illegal?

thus making him am accomplice, and thus being refused and then leaving the store cursing the baker in public

Its amazing how new details like this just suddenly appear

and prosecuting him,

you mean filing a complaint about a law being broken.

resulting in a loss of above 40% of his business,

that was entirely a decision made by Philips

and death threats

which were strangely never reported to he police

and prolonged vituperate venomous language, and the media and public condemning him for not refusing to recognize what even state law did not, but somehow the homosexuals are the victims and not bigots?

exactly

[/quote] I think your position is a real piece of cake for a one who IDS as Christian. Rather than homosexuals being the victim, this case is consistent with the tactics seen for decades used by homosexual activists, as laid out in

After the Ball [which], is widely regarded as the handbook for the gay agenda, in which two homosexual Harvard-trained graduates, [54] Marshall Kirk (1957 - 2005) - researcher in neuropsychiatry - and Hunter Madsen (pen name Erastes Pill) - who was schooled in social marketing - advocated avoiding portraying gays as aggressive challengers, but as victims instead, while making all those who opposed them to be evil persecutors. As a means of the latter, they promoted jamming, in which Christians, traditionalists, or anyone else who opposes the gay agenda are publicly smeared. Their strategy was based on the premise that, "In any campaign to win over the public, Gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector. The purpose of victim imagery is to make straight people feel very uncomfortable."[55] [56]

"Jamming" homo-hatred (disagreement with homosexual behaviors) was to be done by linking it to Nazi horror, advised Kirk and Madsen. Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered, hysterical backwoods preachers, menacing punks, and a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed. Thus, "propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths..."[57] " It can show them being criticized, hated, shunned. It can depict gays experiencing horrific suffering as the direct result of homohatred-suffering of which even most bigots would be ashamed to be the cause. It can, in short, link homohating bigotry with all sorts of attributes the bigot would be ashamed to possess, and with social consequences he would find unpleasant and scary... our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof."[58]

The need for Kirk and Madsen to engage in such manipulation may be seen as being due to their sober realization of the nature of the homosexual lifestyle.

“In short, the gay lifestyle - if such a chaos can, after all, legitimately be called a lifestyle - it just doesn’t work: it doesn’t serve the two functions for which all social framework evolve: to constrain people’s natural impulses to behave badly and to meet their natural needs. While it’s impossible to provide an exhaustive analytic list of all the root causes and aggravants of this failure, we can asseverate at least some of the major causes. Many have been dissected, above, as elements of the Ten Misbehaviors; it only remains to discuss the failure of the gay community to provide a viable alternative to the heterosexual family.”[64]

More.

[/QUOTE] a book that apparently only anti-gay activists have ever heard of

TLK Valentine · Feb 8, 2018

PeaceByJesus said:
So homosexuals picking a Christian bakery out of about a dozen in its 5 mile radius, and asking him to create a special cake specifically for the purpose of celebrating what both his faith and the state constitution held as unlawful, thus making him am accomplice, and thus being refused and then leaving the store cursing the baker in public and prosecuting him, resulting in a loss of above 40% of his business, and death threats and prolonged vituperate venomous language, and the media and public condemning him for not refusing to recognize what even state law did not, but somehow the homosexuals are the victims and not bigots?

Martin Luther King did the exact same thing in Birmingham -- his group didn't start boycotting at random -- they chose specific locations for very specific reasons...

Had you been around at that time, you could have recycled the above complaint -- just by changing two words...

And hey, lookie here! 40%! You don't even have to change the numbers:

Modeled on the Montgomery Bus Boycott, protest actions in Birmingham began in 1962, when students from local colleges arranged for a year of staggered boycotts. They caused downtown business to decline by as much as 40 percent, which attracted attention from Chamber of Commerce president Sidney Smyer, who commented that the "racial incidents have given us a black eye that we'll be a long time trying to forget."

Birmingham campaign - Wikipedia

Skreeper · Feb 8, 2018

PeaceByJesus said:
Well, its from your pals. You do not believe it was written and followed?

I believe that whole piece about "the gay lifestyle" is pure poppycock.

SilverBear · Feb 8, 2018

PeaceByJesus said:
Which shows the courts can be wrong.

Sadly, I am not surprised at all that you think this

PeaceByJesus · Feb 8, 2018

Catherineanne said:
What nonsense. As if a wedding cake is the equivalent of a certificate of holy living; an endorsement of holiness.

It isn't. Even being a guest at a wedding is not an endorsement of everything about the happy couple; we might know they lived together for years, have six children and perhaps even three (or indeed more) former broken marriages between them, and assorted ex spouses and half siblings wandering the aisle. We might personally not think any of this quite the thing, and yet we still put on our glad rags and high heels and go along to celebrate the wedding, because going to a wedding is just going to a wedding. It is not a endorsement of the couple's morality, nor of our own.

We can happily swallow all of that, but God forbid a gay couple want to buy a cake!

Then you have a unscriptural, superficial understanding of what taking part in a celebrating of that which is immoral means. You might as well advocate taking part in religious idolatry.

TLK Valentine · Feb 8, 2018

PeaceByJesus said:
No, that there were wrong in making race itself, not behavior, determinitive of the rights of a person,

That's the fault of the Constitution, not the courts.

Catherineanne · Feb 8, 2018

PeaceByJesus said:
Holy living is not celebrating that which is unlawful in the eyes of God, and as a RC you should understand the weight of the symbolic.

I am not Roman Catholic.

A cake is just a cake. It is not a certificate of confession.

Catherineanne · Feb 8, 2018

PeaceByJesus said:
Then you have a unscriptural, superficial understanding of what taking part in a celebrating of that which is immoral means. You might as well advocate taking part in religious idolatry.

Twaddle.

Do you check that every bride is a virgin and every groom a gentleman before you accept a wedding invitation? Do you make sure that the money used to pay for the wedding has been honourably earned, and proper tax paid on everything? Do you insist on only sitting next to Christians at the wedding and in the reception?

If not, why not? You might as well be taking part in religious idolatry if you don't ensure the complete purity of the whole event.

Here is what the people are a wedding are for; they are there to witness the wedding. That is it. No moral approval or disapproval. No moral statement of any kind. They are just there so that if they are ever asked, 'Were you at this wedding?' they can say, 'Yes, I was.' They don't even have to declare it was a valid wedding; only that it happened and they saw it.

That is it. Nothing more.

PeaceByJesus · Feb 8, 2018

PeaceByJesus said:
Then you have a unscriptural, superficial understanding of what taking part in a celebrating of that which is immoral means. You might as well advocate taking part in religious idolatry.

I see. So toy really do not believe these homosexuals strategists wrote it?

“In short, the gay lifestyle - if such a chaos can, after all, legitimately be called a lifestyle - it just doesn’t work: it doesn’t serve the two functions for which all social framework evolve: to constrain people’s natural impulses to behave badly and to meet their natural needs. While it’s impossible to provide an exhaustive analytic list of all the root causes and aggravants of this failure, we can asseverate at least some of the major causes. Many have been dissected, above, as elements of the Ten Misbehaviors; it only remains to discuss the failure of the gay community to provide a viable alternative to the heterosexual family.”[64]

PeaceByJesus · Feb 8, 2018

Catherineanne said:
I am not Roman Catholic.

A cake is just a cake. It is not a certificate of confession.

Perhaps liberal Catholic Lite, while despite your miscontruance, it is not "just a cake," but a contract to create a special (thus costly) cake to be specifically used to celebrate that which is unlawful in the eyes of God, and was also unlawful according to the highest state law at the time. The baker would have thus have been an accomplice to the crime, just as a person who knowingly agrees to create a picture of Christ specifically to be used for haters to defile.

bhsmte · Feb 8, 2018

Grandpa2390 said:
my caveat would be that the business owner was consistent. You deny homosexuals because you are a Christian. What about the adulterers and the fornicators, etc. you can't claim you are doing something based on religious belief if you are inconsistent about it. And then what about all of the other sins? Going to have the customers fill out a questionnaire?

cherry picking what kind of sinners you won't serve sends an ill-message about Christianity.

Well, in my idea, I say let them cherry pick, as long as they are willing to put their personal religious beliefs where their mouth is, by posting specific notices for the public in regards to who they will refuse service.

If you are running a public accommodating business and are therefore inviting the public in your door, the least they could do is inform the public (clearly), who they will not serve. Once the public is aware of how a business operates, let natural consumer forces take care of the rest of it.

Paidiske · Feb 8, 2018

PeaceByJesus said:
So you must support gay marriage and perhaps even conduct the same, besides compelling a baker of contrary and Biblical convictions to contract to create a cake specifically to be used in the celebration of that which is unlawful in the eyes of God and even the state (at the time), thus making him an accessory to the crime?

a) It is - despite recent changes in Australian law - still not legal for me to conduct gay marriages, because my church does not authorise me to. This is not without problems for some people, but it is a situation I can live with. I do not support gay marriage per se, but I support the right for gay people to have their marriage recognised by a secular state. (That is, I don't believe that my beliefs should be imposed on others).

b) The couple wanted a cake for a party to take place sometime after their wedding. That's not illegal, and I'm having difficulty deciding that even God is against parties for sinners. So, no, the baker would not be an accessory, and claiming a conscience issue is - imv - displaced.

PeaceByJesus said:
Says who? creating and selling a cake is not just selling a cake when you know it is to be specifically used to do something unlawful. Celebrating an unlawful sexual union is sin, and knowingly creating and selling a special work specifically for that celebration facilitates/helps that sin by providing assistance, is sin. As shown, even US law, while dealing with weightier cases essentially aligns with this.

Accomplice Mens Rea and Actus Reus

In order to obtain a conviction of a defendant for being a principal or an accessory before the fact, the prosecution must prove that the defendant committed an act that either encouraged or actually helped the criminal, that he had the requisite intent of encouraging or helping the criminal, and that the criminal who was encouraged or assisted by the defendant actually committed the crime...

In order to demonstrate that the defendant committed the requisite actus reus, the prosecution must show that the defendant either directly or indirectly encouraged or facilitated the commission of the crime. A person has facilitated a commission of the crime if he provides the criminal with the means that the criminal uses to commit the crime...

Other jurisdictions only require the prosecutor to show that the accomplice knew that his actions would either assist or encourage the commission of a crime. The difference is that, in jurisdictions that require the prosecution to prove only that the accomplice acted while knowing that his actions would aid or encourage the commission of a crime, the accomplice can be convicted even if he did not actually want his actions to aid or encourage the commission of a crime. In these jurisdictions, even if the accomplice was dead-set against his actions being used to encourage or aid in the commission of a crime and even if he did not intend for his actions to aid or encourage the commission of the crime, so long as he knew that his actions would aid or encourage the commission of a crime, he can be convicted as an accomplice. Accomplice Mens Rea and Actus Reus - LawShelf Educational Media (emp. mine)

There's nothing unlawful about eating cake, which is the purpose of buying a cake. It's not intrinsically part of the wedding, especially when it's supplied for a party some time later.

FireDragon76 · Feb 8, 2018

PeaceByJesus said:
Then you have a unscriptural, superficial understanding of what taking part in a celebrating of that which is immoral means. You might as well advocate taking part in religious idolatry.

You are just peddling flim-flam and groundless assertions.

Your self-righteous standards of purity are the sort of stuff Christians aren't supposed to deal in. They resonate with the type of religion Jesus condemned.

Sourcing from Conservapedia is hardly evidence of intellectual rigor or integrity. That's like going to Stormfront to learn about the Holocaust.

teresa · Feb 8, 2018

Paidiske said:
a) It is - despite recent changes in Australian law - still not legal for me to conduct gay marriages, because my church does not authorise me to. This is not without problems for some people, but it is a situation I can live with. I do not support gay marriage per se, but I support the right for gay people to have their marriage recognised by a secular state. (That is, I don't believe that my beliefs should be imposed on others).

b) The couple wanted a cake for a party to take place sometime after their wedding. That's not illegal, and I'm having difficulty deciding that even God is against parties for sinners. So, no, the baker would not be an accessory, and claiming a conscience issue is - imv - displaced.

There's nothing unlawful about eating cake, which is the purpose of buying a cake. It's not intrinsically part of the wedding, especially when it's supplied for a party some time later.

I see nothing wrong with celebrating a divorce with cake especially if one is finally free from being tortured from physical. mental and emotional abuse. sure I agree that god hates divorce, yet jesus gives a few reasons for it to be allowed-right paidiski?

i can see this opening up a whole can of worms

ppl can say its against their religion bc they belong to the cult of gym, and therefore cannot serve fat people.

where will this end?

Judge Rules Bakeshop Owner Doesn't Have To Bake Wedding Cake For Gay Couple

I've already read the books you want burned.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Well-Known Member

I've already read the books you want burned.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

I've already read the books you want burned.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

Newbie

Clara bonam audax

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads