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

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: 9thWatcher
Revelation 2:10
Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you life as your victor’s crown.

It's so nice that Christians have a catch-all so they don't have to take responsibility for their awfulness.

When you write Christians and follow it with their awfulness

Remember you are by default referring to ALL Christians:
including Mother Theresa
including Martin Luther King
including the man my church supports in Costa Rica who makes water purifiers for people who live in the mountains to prevent the severe diarrhea and death caused by dirty water
including my Doctor friend who is the only Doctor in the area who has a free clinic for AIDS patients
including George Washington Carver, who was known as a scientist quietly seeking the will of God
including JRR Tolkein who wrote Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit
including the people in my church who feed the homeless and make quilts and sleeping mats for the homeless

So if you consider all of the above to be awful people, then and only then are you are consistent in your assertions.

Actually, if you'd read between the lines, that was aimed specifically at Christians who would use that passage from Revelations to defend their awful actions. If that doesn't apply to you as a Christian, then I wasn't talking to you or about you.

PS: Mother Teresa was an awful person.

originally posted by: Britguy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But the bakery was a private business too, serving the public, same as the country club analogy I used. So if the country club can refuse me entry / membership because they don't deem me rich enough, then they too should be prosecuted?

One is a private members club, the other is a private business selling to all.
You can tell the difference, right?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: 9thWatcher

There are always wars. Again, it's a great catch-all.

It is unfortunate, that it seems war is required so that people can know what these words mean. Comfort and faith in the institutions of men blurs the denotations.

The Law exists, and it doesn't change. The things we write and call laws, are approximations of our understanding of the Law. This is foundational. To Americanism. That country unlike all others, that for a short time pushed the boundaries of what men are capable of creating.

When we make a deportation law, we are saying that our understanding of the Law is that you have to have our collective permission to exist on our portion of the earth. What we call law, is nothing more than us setting limits and qualifications on our understanding of the Law.

Most of what we now call law is nothing but contracts.

Freedom is another fun one. It's not supposed to mean an iPhone and a Facebook.

Christians are a good one two. 'Christians' especially around here, are defined by actions not at all consistent with Christ's teachings. Why do Christians Hate Gays? When will you stop beating your wife?

The word slave, too. If any one group or region should have monopoly on that word, I'll vote for the Slavic people.


I dunno, I'm tired of walking and typing. Hope that was quasi coherent. It just seems we are so lazy in the way we use the words to talk about these things today.

The Law on the battlefield is no different than the Law in a court, or the Law in feudal Japan, just people operating under different understandings of it. That was the point I really wanted to make.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

He's already been banned.

Again.

Aw. I would have preferred he changed his posting habits and stuck around, but I can't fault the mods here. That will be all I say on the topic of him.

Back on topic:

Now, while I don't think businesses that serve the public should be allowed to discriminate against gays, I think the fine levied at this bakery is unreasonable. Their business was already being trampled by the court of public opinion. If I'm not mistaken, they already had to shut down or something, right? Maybe I'm thinking of a different bakery.

The fine is just insult to injury at this point.

All other considerations aside, I would appreciate an explanation of how a six-figure fine is justifiable?


Let's compare:

DUI:

1st offense: $300 - $1,000

2nd offense: $600 - $1,000

3rd offense: $1,000 - $5,000

4th offense: $1,000 - $5,000


Refusing to bake a cake:

1st offense: $135,000



A fine example of tyranny.

a reply to: Rocker2013

No, they are both private businesses providing services / goods to the public. Private members are also members of the public, there is no difference.

originally posted by: Britguy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But the bakery was a private business too, serving the public, same as the country club analogy I used. So if the country club can refuse me entry / membership because they don't deem me rich enough, then they too should be prosecuted? I'd say it's their right not to allow me entry / membership and I can live with their choice. I might not like it but hey, it's their loss of business and I'll take my custom elsewhere.

Clubs are organizations that have memberships, club dues, and other things that make them exclusive. It ISN'T the same thing as a privately owned business that caters to the public.

Can private clubs and religious organizations legally discriminate?

That depends. When dealing with private individuals, the Federal civil rights statutes only reach as far as public accommodations. Thus, while it is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of race or national origin in hotels, restaurants, theaters, public transportation and public parks, the Federal civil rights laws do not make it unlawful for bona fide private clubs and religious organizations to discriminate on whatever basis they choose.

Many states have enacted laws that go well beyond the protections afforded by the Federal laws, both in terms of their scope of prohibited conduct and their application to what might be regarded by some as private clubs or organizations. For example, in March 1998, a divided New Jersey Appeals Court decided that New Jersey's Civil Rights Law prohibited the Boy Scouts from discriminating against a scoutmaster because of gender preferences, while in a similar case across the country, the California Supreme Court held that California Civil Rights Law did not prohibit the Boy Scouts from denying membership to persons who are gay or do not believe in God.

The government has no place legislating what private businesses can and cannot do and who they have to sell to. It is up to the business. Public opinion is of no importance and we are all entitled to our own opinions and to live by whatever code we see fit, as long as we are not harming anyone. Someone getting bent out of shape over that opinion is not a reason for legal action, but we are now all expected to act like sheep and are now forced by law to follow the crowd and be good little drones!

It DOES have that place to do that, ala the 14th Amendment.

I find it distasteful in the extreme seeing all these "pride" parades showing up everywhere. Displays of S&M, sex toys, oiled up half naked narcissists etc! It has no place in a public environment and that sort of behaviour, by anyone, used to be discouraged or was worthy of an arrest and fine. Keep it behind closed doors!

I went to a pride festival once and I didn't see any displays of S&M, sex toys, oiled up half-naked narcissists, etc. How many have YOU actually been to and seen exactly? Also, homosexuality != practicer of S&M. That is a terrible correlation.

I honestly don't care who someone has sex with and what kinks they are into, but it has no place outside the home, and certainly not in the streets, where criticism of it is now labeled as "hate".

Again, how many times have you PHYSICALLY seen this in the streets?

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
It's very simple. If you own a business that serves the PUBLIC, you must serve ALL members of the public.

And yes, you have the right to refuse service to anyone, so long as the reason for refusal is NOT that the person belongs to a protected group.

If a customer is acting like a general arseface and you refuse to serve them. That's your right.

If a customer is gay, disabled, black, catholic, etc, and you refuse to serve them for THAT reason, that's illegal.

It's really quite simple. If your business serves the public, you can't discriminate.

Even if you are a Mens Barber shop. A woman in Saskatchewan took it to the Human Rights Commission. The business apologized to her. Wonder if I'll be able to join an all woman gym?

I agree though, if you serve the public, you serve the public. There should be no double standards or discrimination. They don't ask if you're gay at the local coffee shop, so what makes a bakery so special?

a reply to: superman2012

A gym is considered a club, in that most gyms have dues that members pay, and thus can be selective about who is able to join.

But it would be interesting to see where such a line of reasoning would take you!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I've seen enough photos from such events and been pretty shocked at the displays of bad taste in public places to know to steer clear of them. Like I said, I don't care who they want to have sex with and what kinks they like, just keep it off the streets. That is not homophobic by the way, it's just common decency and maintaining standards of decorum, which sadly seem to be lacking these days!

a reply to: Britguy

You've seen photos? So you haven't actually been to one, and you are talking like you know what goes on at them? Wow. Sounds awfully biased to me.

Again I have 100% MORE experience than you do with these things because I've actually attended one and I can tell you that your gross mischaracterization of them is 100% wrong and those things DON'T go on at pride events. There certainly ARE displays of flamboyancy, but that isn't sexual deviancy.

originally posted by: Britguy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I've seen enough photos from such events and been pretty shocked at the displays of bad taste in public places to know to steer clear of them. Like I said, I don't care who they want to have sex with and what kinks they like, just keep it off the streets. That is not homophobic by the way, it's just common decency and maintaining standards of decorum, which sadly seem to be lacking these days!

You'd be in favor of shutting down all Mardi Gras and Carnival celebrations around the world then?

Also, no more celebrating in the streets after football game championships? (works for both American and European) Talk about bad behavior.

These get under you skin just as much as what you imagine Pride events to be?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Britguy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I've seen enough photos from such events and been pretty shocked at the displays of bad taste in public places to know to steer clear of them. Like I said, I don't care who they want to have sex with and what kinks they like, just keep it off the streets. That is not homophobic by the way, it's just common decency and maintaining standards of decorum, which sadly seem to be lacking these days!

You'd be in favor of shutting down all Mardi Gras and Carnival celebrations around the world then?

Also, no more celebrating in the streets after football game championships? (works for both American and European) Talk about bad behavior.

These get under you skin just as much as what you imagine Pride events to be?

Hey, that's a great point! At Mardi Gras, it is permissible for women to show their boobs in exchange for some beads. This can happen in the middle of public, in the middle of the street. Why isn't this guy complaining about THAT event? Fair's fair.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Britguy

You've seen photos? So you haven't actually been to one, and you are talking like you know what goes on at them? Wow. Sounds awfully biased to me.

Again I have 100% MORE experience than you do with these things because I've actually attended one and I can tell you that your gross mischaracterization of them is 100% wrong and those things DON'T go on at pride events. There certainly ARE displays of flamboyancy, but that isn't sexual deviancy.

I think this instructional video on gay wedding etiquette will help:

a reply to: NavyDoc

Lol that skit is hilarious. I've seen it a bunch of times. I love Key and Peele. It's pretty funny. The best was when they got Aaron Rogers to introduce himself as A Aron Rogers during the Super Bowl special they had.

I keep starring and agreeing with NavyDoc's and Beezzer's posts ...

WHAT IN THE NAME OF RANDOM CHANCE AND GEORGE MCGOVERN IS GOING OOOONNN?????

*runs out of the room raving*

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I keep starring and agreeing with NavyDoc's and Beezzer's posts ...

WHAT IN THE NAME OF RANDOM CHANCE AND GEORGE MCGOVERN IS GOING OOOONNN?????

*runs out of the room raving*

Obviously you have fallen into an alternate dimension.

a reply to: wayforward

Okay. What if the shoe or pump was on the other foot? What if a gay couple owned the bakery and refused to serve you because you are heterosexual, or they found out you were mormon and you wanted to marry your 10'th wife and they disapproved and refused to make your stupid wedding cake, what then? Would they be justified to refuse you service?

It is always just so easy for people to forget they themselves are often discriminated against and forget how it feels when it happens to them.

a reply to: NavyDoc

There has to be tolerance. Is it okay to go into a Jewish or Muslim bakers asking for a pig shaped cake that says ''mmmm bacon'' on it? Is it okay to sue them when they say ''no''? There would be constant law suits against most businesses under such premises.