It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bakers Ordered to Pay $135,000 for Refusing Gay Wedding Service

page: 12
9
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko




Answer my actual question.


Answer mine then!

Why do Christians feel they get to pick and choose the rules they follow?




posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: yeahright

"Caketh" ... now there's a verb I can get behind ...



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

He's already been banned.

Again.


I thought the rhetoric sounded familiar.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Further ... (since the MSNBC article refers to this one ...)

No, Oregon Did Not “Gag” That Anti-Gay Bakery



On Friday, the Daily Signal—which consists mostly of the conservative Heritage Foundation’s press releases dressed up as news—published an article claiming that an Oregon labor commissioner had “placed an effective gag order” on a bakery that refused to serve gay couples. The story was picked up the National Review and the Weekly Standard, both of which repeated, verbatim, the “gag order” claim. Having read the names National Review and Weekly Standard, you can probably already guess that this account is absurdly exaggerated in order to further the right’s favorite narrative that gay rights are trampling on religious liberty. But it is illuminating to see how conservatives contort the facts and the law in order to shoehorn stories like this into their own cake war agenda.


Well, these folks are just suffering in silence as the State of Oregon keeps them from praying and worshipping their god as they see fit, right? Turns out, no ... they're on the road doing the right-wing press circuit:



He also noted that the bakers had granted an interview with hate-group leader Tony Perkins, which aired on the Christian Broadcasting Network. During the interview, Melissa Klein (of Sweet Cakes) stated: “We don’t do same-sex marriage, same-sex wedding cakes.”


Oh, but that's just more of that Liberal Media crap, right? There's not actually any laws involved here, right?



These statements, Avakian held, clearly telegraph Klein’s intention to continue to refuse service to gay couples. That presents a new legal wrinkle, since under Oregon law, businesses may not “publish, circulate, issue or display” any “communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind” that suggests they will turn someone away because of their identity. It’s this law that prevents a hotel from declaring on its website “no interracial couples.” An individual hotelier, of course, retains his private First Amendment right to preach about God’s intent to separate the races—as the trial judge in Loving v. Virginia did. But when he’s speaking publicly in his official capacity as a hotelier, he may not declare that his business will refuse service to the public based on their identity.


Now, you can debate whether the People of Oregon, through their legislature, can make such laws, and you can argue whether the laws are Constitutional or not ... but that is the law, and the Klein's are not only breaking the law repeatedly, but telegraphing in national broadcast that they intend to KEEP breaking it.

Which of course, is breaking the law.
edit on 16Wed, 08 Jul 2015 16:15:04 -050015p042015766 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   
I find it interesting that no one seems to have an issue with with the fact that the couple that owned the bakery (they had to close over this stupidity, and it IS stupidity, as the gay couple could have easily gone elsewhere to have their cake baked, but would rather drag another family through the mud for adhering to their beliefs) were also hit with a gag order to keep them from discussing the case (how is THAT okay?).

So, to sum up:

Violating Religious beliefs - Okay
Violating freedom of speech of the religious (this includes the gag order placed on the Christian bakery) - Okay
Refusing to bake a cake based on religious beliefs (specifically if those beliefs are Christian in nature) -Not Okay
Suing a bakery for refusing to bake a cake that violated their religious beliefs (specifically if those beliefs are Christian in nature (I haven't seen any Muslim bakeries hauled into court, have you?) - Okay
Fining a bakery for refusing to bake a cake that violated their religious beliefs $135,000 - Okay

Yeah, clearly these Christians claiming that there's a passive aggressive persecution of them for their beliefs, are just drama queens looking for attention...


I can't wait until this slippery slope that we're on reaches its terminus, and everyone that thinks they're safe is forced to look around and wonder what went wrong.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: ProfessorChaos

Wow I didn't even have to bring up the slippery slope fallacy. You did yourself, and you were serious about it.

Neat.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ProfessorChaos

It's really quite simple:

Religious beliefs are not a justification for breaking the law. Period.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: ProfessorChaos

Do you believe that Religion is above the Law? do you believe that Religion is above the Constitution?

the State of Oregon has Anti-Discrimination Laws and the Bakery knowingly broke them, and now he pays the consequence as any other person that break a law.

how is that violating Freedom of Religion?

Is he able to still Worship-Yes
Was he able to still Worship-Yes

And on top of the fact that the Cake is not even for the Wedding Ceremony, it's for the After Party..



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Yah ... except that ...

No religious tenets have been violated. (No Commandment about cake baking or selling.)

No one's freedom of speech has been violated. (No gag order.)

Refusing to bake a cake because someone is a member of a protected class (Against the law in Oregon.)

There was no suit brought, there was a claim to the appropriate government agency regarding a breach of civil rights. (and the State of Oregon enforced it's laws accordingly).

No, these Christians aren't being passive aggressive in their spurious claim that their religious beliefs are being supplanted, they are perpetual law-breakers and they're pursuing the wealth that will be available to them as darlings of the right-wing media machine.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: wayforward

They were not fined for refusing the cake. They were ordered to pay the proven damages resulting from an intentional course of conduct after the 2 women filed a complaint. Death threats were made. Personal information was disclosed. The 2 women were vilified on radio. If you want the true facts, look at www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com...



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
]Ah, gotta love this strawman whenever it pops up. Maybe because Muslims aren't actively trying to suppress gay rights in this country?


How would you know? The media and gay activists dont target their businesses.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: TheBulk

Well a guy did do a video where he went to Muslim bakeries and tried to get them to decorate a cake with gay depictions.
They refused to decorate the cake but some did offer to bake a cake without the decoration he wanted.

Do you have an example of a muslim bakery denying a gay couple a cake and not getting attention?


That's precisely my point. As a non-religious person, it definitely seems like Christians are being targeted. There are no exposes or gay activists going in to Muslim businesses to request these services. Or did you not know that all these businesses are being specifically targeted for propaganda purposes?

In fact I bet if someone did start targeting Muslims businesses like this, the media and left would demand bigots stop harassing these good, Muslim people.
edit on 8-7-2015 by TheBulk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: TheBulk

Well a guy did do a video where he went to Muslim bakeries and tried to get them to decorate a cake with gay depictions.
They refused to decorate the cake but some did offer to bake a cake without the decoration he wanted.

Do you have an example of a muslim bakery denying a gay couple a cake and not getting attention?


That's precisely my point. As a non-religious person, it definitely seems like Christians are being targeted. There are no exposes or gay activists going in to Muslim businesses to request these services.


What part of they were in violation of state law are you missing?

It wouldn't matter if they were immigrants from Pluto.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBulk

Correlation doesn't equal causality.

Perhaps some Christians are the only ones we hear about in these situations because they're the only ones that think they are a special class that doesn't have to follow the same laws as everyone else.

The remainder of your statement is just partisan clap-trap.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: ProfessorChaos
Violating Religious beliefs - Okay


Except that didn't happen.


originally posted by: ProfessorChaos
Violating freedom of speech of the religious (this includes the gag order placed on the Christian bakery) - Okay


Except that didn't happen.


originally posted by: ProfessorChaos
Refusing to bake a cake based on religious beliefs (specifically if those beliefs are Christian in nature) -Not Okay


Which is breaking the law.


originally posted by: ProfessorChaos
Suing a bakery for refusing to bake a cake that violated their religious beliefs (specifically if those beliefs are Christian in nature (I haven't seen any Muslim bakeries hauled into court, have you?) - Okay


Nowhere in the Bible is there any instruction to refuse to bake a cake.
Please show me where the Bible prohibits the baking of cakes for anyone.


originally posted by: ProfessorChaos
Fining a bakery for refusing to bake a cake that violated their religious beliefs $135,000 - Okay


Baking a cake was not violating their religious beliefs.

So, in retrospect, none of what you're claimed is actually true. Their beliefs were not infringed, their rights were not harmed, their freedoms were not damaged. They are free to believe what they want to believe, and pray as they want to pray. They can believe whatever they like, but they CANNOT then use those beliefs to be bigots in refusing to provide service to all customers equally.

Again, please show me the passage in the Bible pertaining to the baking of cakes for gay couples, I would really love to see it



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBulk




Or did you not know that all these businesses are being specifically targeted for propaganda purposes?


Prove it.
What can you show that these people went out of their way to find a bakery they knew would deny them.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Britguy
The problem with all this "hate" legislation, is that there will always be people, serial victims for instance, waiting in the wings to exploit it to make a name for themselves, and maybe a bit of cash on the side as well.

Real freedom dictates that the bakery owners have the right, as a private business, to decide who they do business with. If others do not like it, then tough, get over it.

I see there have been a few similar cases in recent times and it smacks of deliberate targeting of those individuals or businesses by people who already know, or expect a particular response or outcome, and are simply using it to push their own agendas.

Where do you draw the line?
If I tried to join an exclusive country club and they refused because I'm deemed not rich or affluent enough, would that also be grounds to sue them in court for discrimination?


uhhm no, it's a private club...if it was a club open to the public, yes you can be taken to court.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: TheBulk

Well a guy did do a video where he went to Muslim bakeries and tried to get them to decorate a cake with gay depictions.
They refused to decorate the cake but some did offer to bake a cake without the decoration he wanted.

Do you have an example of a muslim bakery denying a gay couple a cake and not getting attention?


That's precisely my point. As a non-religious person, it definitely seems like Christians are being targeted. There are no exposes or gay activists going in to Muslim businesses to request these services. Or did you not know that all these businesses are being specifically targeted for propaganda purposes?

In fact I bet if someone did start targeting Muslims businesses like this, the media and left would demand bigots stop harassing these good, Muslim people.


religious people SHOULD BE TARGETED.....they are the ones following the mythical words of a mythical being. your religion I do not care about nor do I wish to follow, that's MY CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM. I follow the man-made laws of this land, not some mythical god(s) from 2000 year ago.
edit on 8-7-2015 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: TheBulk

Well a guy did do a video where he went to Muslim bakeries and tried to get them to decorate a cake with gay depictions.
They refused to decorate the cake but some did offer to bake a cake without the decoration he wanted.

Do you have an example of a muslim bakery denying a gay couple a cake and not getting attention?


That's precisely my point. As a non-religious person, it definitely seems like Christians are being targeted. There are no exposes or gay activists going in to Muslim businesses to request these services. Or did you not know that all these businesses are being specifically targeted for propaganda purposes?

In fact I bet if someone did start targeting Muslims businesses like this, the media and left would demand bigots stop harassing these good, Muslim people.


religious people SHOULD BE TARGETED.....they are the ones following the mythical words of a mythical being. your religion I do not care about nor do I wish to follow, that's MY CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM. I follow the man-made laws of this land, not some mythical god(s) from 2000 year ago.


Yeowch! I'm also an arhiest, but targeting people just because you don't like their beliefs is not only unConstitutional (so obviously you don't really agree with that document) but just as bigoted as you claim other people are.

Here's a novel concept--live and let live.



posted on Jul, 8 2015 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: TheBulk

Well a guy did do a video where he went to Muslim bakeries and tried to get them to decorate a cake with gay depictions.
They refused to decorate the cake but some did offer to bake a cake without the decoration he wanted.

Do you have an example of a muslim bakery denying a gay couple a cake and not getting attention?


That's precisely my point. As a non-religious person, it definitely seems like Christians are being targeted. There are no exposes or gay activists going in to Muslim businesses to request these services. Or did you not know that all these businesses are being specifically targeted for propaganda purposes?

In fact I bet if someone did start targeting Muslims businesses like this, the media and left would demand bigots stop harassing these good, Muslim people.


religious people SHOULD BE TARGETED.....they are the ones following the mythical words of a mythical being. your religion I do not care about nor do I wish to follow, that's MY CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM. I follow the man-made laws of this land, not some mythical god(s) from 2000 year ago.


Yeowch! I'm also an arhiest, but targeting people just because you don't like their beliefs is not only unConstitutional (so obviously you don't really agree with that document) but just as bigoted as you claim other people are.

Here's a novel concept--live and let live.


I'm just curious about your reasoning behind targeting people being unconstitutional? Not disagreeing with you.

Perhaps jimmyx is speaking from the great deal of frustration that atheists have to deal with day to day in our cultures.

I wouldn't have phrased it the way they did, but I do understand the frustration. You must deal with a good bit on your own as an atheist right libertarian ...



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join