American Atheists comment on Washington Florist case

[Moral Orel]

Disagreement is not hate. You can insist it is all you want but that does not make it true.

Even though I'm siding against the ones refusing service in this thread, I agree with this. Not every instance of poor treatment between one person and another is "hate". What matters is the outcome of their store policies. Why they hold those policies is irrelevant, but regardless, I don't believe it to come from a place of "hate" either.

 

[SilverBear]

I'm not sure why you continue to make nonsensical little retorts with no substance.

People gave to assist with legal bills

you mean the pro bono lawyers the represented Sweetcakes

because they didn't like how this family was being railroaded.

and just how were they being "railroaded"?

You can like it or not. But that's what happened.

Disagreement is not hate. You can insist it is all you want but that does not make it true.

discrimination isn't disagreement.

you can pretend all you like that the bakers weren't prejudiced, you cna pretend that they din't publish the couples home address and suggest to friends that if enough people make life difficult for them the courts could take away the couple's children. you can pretend the bakers didn't ignore court order after court order. you can pretend anything you want, but it won't make your fantasies truth

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

you mean the pro bono lawyers the represented Sweetcakes

and just how were they being "railroaded"?

discrimination isn't disagreement.

you can pretend all you like that the bakers weren't prejudiced, you cna pretend that they din't publish the couples home address and suggest to friends that if enough people make life difficult for them the courts could take away the couple's children. you can pretend the bakers didn't ignore court order after court order. you can pretend anything you want, but it won't make your fantasies truth

Source for that assertion that they had pro bono attorneys and no legal expenses? I believe the pro bono action was a brief, not their representation through this process.

Cite your sources.

There is no prejudice. There is a good faith religious belief (and in certain cases, legal certainty at the time) that same sex partnering is not marriage. So if you only do weddings, then it should not be an issue to refuse to do a nonwedding. Each baker could have simply lied and said that he/she was booked. But chose to do the honorable thing and speak the truth.

I'm not the one operating in hate here. Please cite your sources. Thank you.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Even though I'm siding against the ones refusing service in this thread, I agree with this. Not every instance of poor treatment between one person and another is "hate". What matters is the outcome of their store policies. Why they hold those policies is irrelevant, but regardless, I don't believe it to come from a place of "hate" either.

Using that terminology is recommended to demonize any opposing idea. It is a recommended tactic to write off everything that contravenes your beliefs - no matter how logical or well-founded or longstanding - as "hate" in order to delegitimize and "other" anyone who thinks otherwise.

 

[Mayzoo]

Source for that assertion that they had pro bono attorneys and no legal expenses? I believe the pro bono action was a brief, not their representation through this process.

Cite your sources.

There is no prejudice. There is a good faith religious belief (and in certain cases, legal certainty at the time) that same sex partnering is not marriage. So if you only do weddings, then it should not be an issue to refuse to do a nonwedding. Each baker could have simply lied and said that he/she was booked. But chose to do the honorable thing and speak the truth.

I'm not the one operating in hate here. Please cite your sources. Thank you.

Civil unions were legal. Do you speculate that the baker would have made a civil union cake (which of course would look just like a wedding cake) for this couple?

There is no honor in a Christian violating God's commands.

 

[SimplyMe]

Source for that assertion that they had pro bono attorneys and no legal expenses? I believe the pro bono action was a brief, not their representation through this process.

Cite your sources.

This article shows that the legal team for Sweetcakes was non-profit First Liberty. Granted, non-profit does not mean free, but if you go to First Liberty's website, it says, "As a nonprofit organization, First Liberty fights for people of all faiths whose religious liberty has been threatened or whose First Amendment rights have been violated. Even better, we do it for free." So the attorneys did work pro bono.

The article also mentions that the Klein's received over half a million dollars in donations, on top of the free legal representation.

 

[Mayzoo]

This article shows that the legal team for Sweetcakes was non-profit First Liberty. Granted, non-profit does not mean free, but if you go to First Liberty's website, it says, "As a nonprofit organization, First Liberty fights for people of all faiths whose religious liberty has been threatened or whose First Amendment rights have been violated. Even better, we do it for free." So the attorneys did work pro bono.

The article also mentions that the Klein's received over half a million dollars in donations, on top of the free legal representation.

Violating the law and God's commands was VERY profitable for this bakery. They certainly no longer need to make wedding cakes now do they?? AND, boy howdy do they deserve all our sympathy **sarcasm**. This couple coming into their shop was a major boon for them!!!!! All that money and free publicity to boot!!

"Crime doesn't pay" sounds great, but as a cynical adult, I have known it pays quite well for many folks. Not a life for me, but many do quite well within it.

 

[devolved]

This isn't a trial, it's a debate forum. Prove your claim.

I don't believe for a second you don't understand it . Proof of evidence that it's not harmful is the lack of evidence that it is. The moment that you can cite some evidence... I have no ground to stand on. If you can't, then you don't get to jump around claiming that you won't believe that until I prove it to you .

 

[Mayzoo]

I don't believe for a second you don't understand it . Proof of evidence that it's not harmful is the lack of evidence that it is. The moment that you can cite some evidence... I have no ground to stand on. If you can't, then you don't get to jump around claiming that you won't believe that until I prove it to you .

https://www.google.com/search?sourc.......0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.Ky9DTcyAOkw

 

[devolved]

https://www.google.com/search?sourc.......0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.Ky9DTcyAOkw

1) Please understand the context of what I'm talking about before you reply

2) In context of your reply... Should women discriminate who they should be dating and marrying?

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

This article shows that the legal team for Sweetcakes was non-profit First Liberty. Granted, non-profit does not mean free, but if you go to First Liberty's website, it says, "As a nonprofit organization, First Liberty fights for people of all faiths whose religious liberty has been threatened or whose First Amendment rights have been violated. Even better, we do it for free." So the attorneys did work pro bono.

The article also mentions that the Klein's received over half a million dollars in donations, on top of the free legal representation.

This article shows that the legal team for Sweetcakes was non-profit First Liberty. Granted, non-profit does not mean free, but if you go to First Liberty's website, it says, "As a nonprofit organization, First Liberty fights for people of all faiths whose religious liberty has been threatened or whose First Amendment rights have been violated. Even better, we do it for free." So the attorneys did work pro bono.

The article also mentions that the Klein's received over half a million dollars in donations, on top of the free legal representation.

Ok, thank you for the source. I see that. It won't open for me for some reason, though. This was definitely a First Amendment case. I'm sure they don't take too many of those without payment. They were fined an insane $135,000. The page got shut down by Go Fund me because of pro-gay bias. This wasn't a "sexual crime". That's nuts.

I'm only finding $109,000 was raised before being shut down on gofundme. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/5/sweetcakes-melissa-snubbed-gofundme-gets-new-crowd/

I did find this: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/14/sweet-cakes-melissa-crowdfunder-breaks-record-352k/

So apparently another crowdfund site raised more money for them. From the article:

"The Oregon labor commissioner ordered the Kleins to pay $135,000 to a lesbian couple for “emotional damages” to Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer after declining to prepare a cake for their June 2013 commitment ceremony.

Mr. Klein had informed the couple that he was sorry but that the bakery did not prepare cakes for same-sex ceremonies as a result of the family’s religious convictions. Gay marriage was not legal in Oregon at the time."

Give me a break on "emotional damages" because they were not able to compel the Christian couple to create a wedding cake for a non-wedding. It wasn't even legal in the state. Wow.

I do agree wholeheartedly with this statement, which is completely Constitutionally grounded:

“Every American should be free to live and work according to their faith without the government punishing them for doing so.”

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

1) Please understand the context of what I'm talking about before you reply

2) In context of your reply... Should women discriminate who they should be dating and marrying?

No! You should be able to sue for discrimination if a particular woman (or man) decides not to go out with you. (Sarcasm, though I am sure someone could make a torturous case for this nonsense).

We all discriminate. We discriminate in every possible kind of way when selecting a mate, in order to determine what person aligns most closely with our values and our desires in terms of attractiveness.

 

[Mayzoo]

1) Please understand the context of what I'm talking about before you reply

2) In context of your reply... Should women discriminate who they should be dating and marrying?

I understand the context of what you are saying. I also understand you will not agree with me or the links that prove harm is caused by denying services due to discrimination. I am still providing the links for others who may see the harm caused.

I will also stand by my view that the one most harmed here is the Christian violating God's commands (and yes, I know you do not agree with this either).

Yes, women should be allowed to discriminate in dating and marrying. That discrimination, as does all discrimination, causes harm. However, women discriminating in dating/marriage does not violate any laws.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Violating the law and God's commands was VERY profitable for this bakery. They certainly no longer need to make wedding cakes now do they?? AND, boy howdy do they deserve all our sympathy **sarcasm**. This couple coming into their shop was a major boon for them!!!!! All that money and free publicity to boot!!

"Crime doesn't pay" sounds great, but as a cynical adult, I have known it pays quite well for many folks. Not a life for me, but many do quite well within it.

Who violated God's commands? Certainly not the bakery owners. If you think that the $352K is going to keep them on easy street for life with 5 kids, well....you don't have kids.

 

[Mayzoo]

Who violated God's commands? Certainly not the bakery owners. If you think that the $352K is going to keep them on easy street for life with 5 kids, well....you don't have kids.

I'll be sure and tell my child she does not exist.

The baker violated man's law, thus he violated God's commands:

In this case, God's law and man's law did not conflict. Baking wedding cakes does not violate God's law, and it does not violate God's law to not discriminate. If the Christian baker believed baking wedding cakes violated God's law, he should have chosen another means of earning a living.

Had he himself chosen to enter into a homosexual marriage (or civil union which was legal), that would have violated God's command. As far as I am aware, no one asked him to enter into a SSM or a civil union. I am unaware of any command that God has given us that states we are to not provide services to non-Christians who we believe are violating God's commands. If God did in fact tell us not to provide services to people we believe are sinning, then there would be no Christian businesses. Instead God is pretty clear it is His job to judge non-Christians (1 Corinthians 5:9-13).

The business owner could have opened a members only business so he could have served only those he wished to, or he could have stopped discriminating. If he choose instead to close down or stop selling wedding cakes, that is also his choice, but no one forced him to close or stop selling wedding cakes. All he was forced to do was decide in what manner he wished to adhere to God's commands and man's law. This always a personal decision of a business owner.

To advocate for Christians being able to deny services to those they feel are sinning is to advocate for NO Christian owning a business. Not a wise course of action in my opinion.

 

[devolved]

Yes, women should be allowed to discriminate in dating and marrying. That discrimination, as does all discrimination, causes harm. However, women discriminating in dating/marriage does not violate any laws.

Lol... so you would then agree that discriminating against Homosexuals was not wrong in 60s then, because there were laws against it? So, you would argue that discrimination against homosexuals was not wrong then?

 

[Mayzoo]

Lol... so you would then agree that Homosexuality was wrong in 50s then, because there were laws against it? So, you would argue that discrimination against homosexuals was not wrong then?

I will agree it was not illegal to discriminate then, thus not violating God's commands. Now it violates man's laws thus illegal discrimination violates God's commands.

Homosexuality is in violation of God's commands (as I understand them) for Christians. So in my opinion it is not a wise choice for Christians, and that has not changed.

Is there a point coming, or did you simply wish to agree on something?

 

[devolved]

I will agree it was not illegal to discriminate then, thus not violating God's commands. Now it violates man's laws thus illegal discrimination violates God's commands.

Homosexuality is in violation of God's commands (as I understand them) for Christians. So in my opinion it is not a wise choice for Christians, and that has not changed.

Is there a point coming, or did you simply wish to agree on something?

The point is where would you draw the line, if you think people should follow law as opposed to religious ideals?

 

[Mayzoo]

The point is where would you draw the line, if you think people should follow law as opposed to religious ideals?

The line is drawn by God for Christians. Obey man's laws unless that law violates God's law (baking a cake for someone we deem as sinning does not violate God's law). The person we are speaking of claims Christ, thus this should have been clear for him.

 

[Mayzoo]

Who violated God's commands? Certainly not the bakery owners. If you think that the $352K is going to keep them on easy street for life with 5 kids, well....you don't have kids.

BTW, fines paid and lawyers free....Masterpiece is still soliciting donations. So, 325K and counting.......