Texas family: We’re getting death threats for not baking a cake for same-sex ‘marriag

I view all religious idiocy as equally destructive to society.

 

Like a blogger I follow says: "You will be MADE to care" The people who are homofascist bullies don't want to let us alone. They won't let us just not care about their aberrant relationships and they go on with their lives and the normal people can go on with theirs. They don't want to go down the street. They want to MAKE us celebrate their perversion. They want us to not just tolerate, but to participate in the PRAISE of their aberrant relationships.

Just go somewhere else, and let normal people be - stop bullying us. Stop trying to use government to force people to accept and praise abnormal sexual relationships.

I've done time in the military.

 

No its not. If a Jewish business owner wanted to prohibit anyone with a tattoo because of Leviticus, nothing in the law would prevent him from doing so. If a Mormon business owner wants to turn away any men with long hair, nothing would prevent him from doing so. UNLESS, OF COURSE, there happen to be a bunch of trannys in a club that meet every week at your bar, wearing long hair, that end up being excluded, THEN magically the same action, excluding men with long hair becomes illegal, only because it is primarily tranny men who wear their hair long. CRAZY (*)(*)(*)(*).... Thus is the result of laws claimed to be in the name of equality, when they are UNequal by design. Applicable only in the case of victims of 5 or 6 or 8 classifications of people selected by the particular local, state or Federal government.

Even though I would prefer government not be involved in dictating to private business owners who they must serve, Ive never been critical of the 64 act making discrimination against people by businesses based upon "race, color, religion, or national origin". They purposely left out sex, AND YET, we now have local and state governments that add discrimination against men who chose to dress like women!!!! WTF! You can discriminate against men, but you cant discriminate against men who would rather have sex with another man instead of a woman. It really is absurd. Yeah, discrimination is bad. Speak out against it. I can even tolerate government sponsored ads promoting inclusion and non discrimination. But $400,000 in so called damages because the bar owner politely asks the T Girl Trannies to discontinue their weekly, 10 to 50 members meeting at his bar because hes losing business because his regular male patrons want to hit on biological women with vaginas and the female patrons don't want to use a bathroom filled with men in drag, IS ABSURD!

 

For the record, I agree that the logical thing to do when you encounter a bigot is to move on and let your friends know so they can avoid that particular vendor in the future. I do not approve of the big punitive lawsuits if it is really just as simple as "I'm sorry but it would get me in trouble with God if I bake you that cake."

Nobody forced the baker to make them a cake. Yes, some people got mad and harassed the baker (which is WRONG). The couple did not bully him. They left when he declined to make the cake. I'm just not convinced the baker was acting on Christian principles. Do you see how much this looks like the big kid on the playground holding the ball (or the cake in this case) up over the smaller kid's head?

 

They should have just given up their religion and baked the gay cake........those are the values that this country was founded upon.........gay cakes and forcing people to give up their religion.......

 

That's the puzzling thing... the customer's use of the cake would have had no impact on the baker's Christianity or ability to practice it.

 

A bakery refusing their service is "traumatizing"? Wow....just, wow. Go across the street to the Muslim bakery, they'll make one....uh, wait a minute...

 

This is much ado about nothing. All they have to do is hire one cake decorator who does not care, around the five Christian conservatives who do. Just one and she can take care of this customer. Or subcontract with an independent decorator to provide this service for the once a month request. If the business won't do squat, sue them and take their business license. They can't obey all laws and regulations pertaining to the business venture, they should not be in business. Their call.

 

How tolerant. Isn't that what we all want- tolerance?

How do you expect to convince these people to "stop oppressing homosexuals" if you force them to bake a cake for them? Don't you think that might generate more resentment?

- - - Updated - - -

Why should I have to ask the government's permission to operate a place of business? Seems like, for the most part anyway, whether I stay in business ought to be decided by consumers.

 

You do the same thing when you decide whether to put your smoke detector where fire code tells you to. You do the same thing when you pay the payroll tax the legislature orders. You do the same thing when you label your chemicals in the format OSHA tells you to. You do the same thing when you measure the space between your front door and the curb consistent with municipal building codes. Consumers do not make those decisions.

A centuries old social compact between you and your community, ratified by a hodgepodge of monarchs or czars or prime ministers, mayors, sheriffs, parliaments, city councils, the FDA, your county commission, Land and zoning officers has always and will always regulate business activity.

It is the expectation that a business operating within the boundaries of a government entity, will constrain activity to conform with the laws therein. ALL THE LAWS. Proprietors do not get to poll consumers or investors or workers to see which they prefer to abide by or what they feel comfortable obeying. Don't like it? Sell the business to someone else who thinks they can run it within the constraints of the laws.

 

Don't people hold the natural right to participate in voluntary transactions? What if I open a business and put up a sign that says "No federal regulations apply-- beware!"?

I can see the case for some regulations for safety, consumer information problems, basic standards, etc. but if two people decide that they both want to do away with the "standard rules" in some transaction, don't you think people hold that as a natural right?

 

I am glad you see some of rules as higher priorities than others. Unfortunately those priorities are actually established by a broader public when a business enterprise is established within the geographic jurisdiction of a government. You can of course choose your base of operations from one jurisdiction to another.

Fortunately there is a definition for a business enterprise that is larger in scope than two people doing a private deal. That is why you do not need a business license to sell your second car but you do to sell a thousand cars. The public interest in what you do with the stuff in your garage and what Walmart does with its inventory is very different and so is the regulation.

 

Your statement "within the geographic jurisdiction of the government" while innocuous on its face, I believe, has very misunderstood undertones. It assumes that the government owns our property, owns the right to decide whether or not we have the right to own a business, owns the land on which we put our business. We act in ways that the government allows us to, exercising its proper jurisdiction.

This is completely contrary to the findings of the Enlightenment and of the liberal way of thinking. There were two conceptions of of the "social contract"-- Hobbes and Locke. Hobbes held that the state of nature was undesirable for the individual and therefore if the individual did any better than that, he owed it to the government. A "Leviathan state" with a powerful, unchecked monarch was justified and probably even necessary. Locke agreed that the state of nature was undesirable, but argued that the government was actually set up for a purpose-- to protect people's rights-- and that under the social contract, people contained their natural rights according to the natural law. Among these rights you find in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

I introduce this because we've been set up under the Lockean social contract. It's due to the idea that humans hold inherent natural rights while giving up few to the government to protect the rest that we even have things such as freedom of speech in the first place. Your statement is more Hobbesian, almost as if the government comes first and we have to ask for its permission to do things, as opposed to the people establishing the government to protect certain natural rights.

Does this type of thinking enter into the modern liberal's thinking at all?

--

In terms of two people versus ten people, I wasn't really referring to the number of people. Allow me to change my scenario-- I put up a sign that says "no federal government regulation protections!" and proceed to do business. Most federal regulations are supposedly there to help consumers, yes? Don't you think people have the inherent right to trade if all parties are voluntarily consenting?

 

Funny because you sure as hell did not denounce it and I have never heard you denounce the other examples of violent rhetoric over not baking a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing cake.

And I will have you know that I am pro gay marriage despite my religious beliefs. It does not bother me that 2 consenting adults want to marry and in my eyes it is their right to do so if they wish. But I will NEVER support strong arming people or death threats because someone does not want to participate in an event.

I will not support hatred from christians pointed at LGBT, but at the same time I will not support the LGBT acting like the *******n mafia and sending death threats to the bakery because they wont bake a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing cake or trying to put them out of business by suing them just because they do not want to participate in a gay marriage.

You are just being a petty ass person.

 

If they discriminate they don't deserve to be in business. Again if you allow them to discriminate against gay people, who will you let them discriminate against next?

 

People making death threats need to be charged as such, they have almost no support for their actions no matter what past injustices have been forced on homosexuals by people acting in the name of religion.

First, please stop making remarks that LGBT people are "acting like the *******n mafia and sending death threats to the bakery because they wont bake a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing cake" most of us (I would assume the vast majority) have not done what you are accusing us of.

Second, while I do not personally care about a cake - I would have told the store "how very Christian of you" and walked out - this is part of a much larger issue. There are already doctors who are refusing to see the children of same sex couples, housing and employment discrimination exist, gay people have been kicked out of restaurants and taxis; if one industry is allowed to say we don't serve your kind here then we're is the line drawn?

 

I am not interested in whether it is inherent or not or voluntary or not. I am interested in a social compact that allows for the regulation of business activity. Whatever 'right' you may want to claim must conform with the public collective welfare. You can may it sound as fundamental as you like or wrap it all cozy and warm in John Locke philosophy, but it denies the reach of government to protect the social or physical welfare of the community, you are promoting a dangerous and destructive view. You cannot put a sign on your restaurant telling patrons you do not refrigerate your meat and let them decide whether they are willing to eat it. There are kids who's lives are risked by parents who put convenience ahead of a possible risk. . There are elderly who cannot read and disabled who cannot comprehend.

Nope we require that meat be refrigerated and we don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about Locke or the natural rights of man. We can't handle 75 people with food poisoning flooding into the hospital, some of who won't make it out.

 

Those bleeding heart care for each other Liberals are starting to sound like primitive Christians.

 

To be denied service on grounds of being a homosexual has judgment attached, and yes it is traumatizing. I'm sure if you walked into businesses that were allowed to deny you service for the color of your skin, after a while you'd start to lose confidence and enter every service with a sense of trepidation. Especially if they said, "We're rejecting you because your skin color for Jesus." It's abusive, and you may consider this trivial to you, but it isn't, especially when homosexuals have wrongly endured oppression for centuries

 

There are very, very few "Christian" bakeries that turn down business that they don't see fit for their beliefs. It's as simple as the gay couple choosing another bakery. One's religious right trumps your "but I want it!" The gay agenda is getting out of control.

 

I'm not going to argue with your idiocy, you can take your trolling somewhere else. These forums are not designed for arguing, and your point is rejected, has been rejected, and you need to go pursue self esteem in a healthy way.

 

your post is based on a false assumption


One is born with their skin color

One is not born wanting gay sex

If you believe that one IS born wanting gay-sex, then that's fine

To assert it as fact would require the existence of proof and there is no test to confirm that one is "born homosexual"

 

I'm expressing my opinion, not arguing. I get the feeling that deep down you know that I'm right. When the gay army begin suing Muslim bakeries the same way that they target Christian bakeries, they may have some credibility....until then, I'll look at them as trouble makers, targeting certain businesses for financial gain and for attempting to punish people for their religious beliefs.

Calling me a "troll" and an "idiot" is not going to improve the weakness of your argument. Neither are you emotions.

 

As one attracted to the same gender, I have 100% more qualification in telling you that telling me I am assuming on a false fact is an intrusion of my boundary. I speak the truth, my sexuality was naturally attracted to men. The end