Remember The Oregon Bakery?

[Mystery Meat]

Your misunderstanding come from the false presumption that Christianity is supposed to condone any and all actions and not call the world to repentance.

 

His understand and selective application of Christ's teachings indicates a creation of God in his (CB's) image.

[Stargazer]

 

LOL, I said "If a gay bakery refused to bake me a straight wedding cake, could I get the government to put them out of business? I'd like to see that happen -- it wouldn't, I'm pretty sure."I didn't say there were any, I said that IF there were any, could I get the govt to put them out of business if they refused to bake a straight wedding cake.It's a rhetorical question. My rhetorical answer is, if there were any, and they refused, the govt wouldn't do a thing about it.Don't get too worked up about it, Skeptic.

personally I stand against any discrimination based on race religion sex gender orientation no matter what someone's beliefs are. Prejudices have already caused too much evil in the world. If a gay person discriminates, it is just as evil and I certainly would be right there condemning it

 

 

Yes, and I would defend a gay person from being attacked or discriminated against, and anyone at all who was being discriminated against because of something that was a part of them inherently, or something that they have a right to do, or be.  I've waffled on participating on the gay marriage thing, even in this forum Would I or wouldn't I attend the gay wedding of one of my children?  I can't say, but it's definitely not a foregone conclusion that I wouldn't do so under any circumstances.  Fortunately all of my children are confirmed heteros, so that's a bridge I won't have to consider crossing, but...   And if I were a baker of wedding cakes, and got an order for a gay wedding cake, complete with guy-guy figures for the decor ... well, I guess I'd do it, but ... not particularly enthusiastically, and not because the alternative would be an administrative law judge levying a stiff fine.  BUT, I defend the right of another to refuse that particular service if they can't make themselves do it.

 

You know, after all those years of being discriminated against, now that gays can finally "have it all", wouldn't it be nice if they could just accept that some people just can't make themselves accept it, and graciously go to the next baker -- instead of letting loose the dogs of whatever??  That would be the classy thing to do, in my humble opinion.  And let everyone know who won't bake a gay wedding cake -- that's fair enough. 

 

I suppose it might or could be discrimination, still, but in the instances that we've been favored with in this thread the dreadful people refusing to bake a wedding cake were perfectly happy to serve gays in any other way, except wedding cakes.  So, it seems to me that they were refusing, not out of discrimination of the customers, but refusing out of a sincerely held belief about the celebration of an event.

 

I'd refuse to pay for an elective abortion, even if the government threatened me with criminal penalties for the refusal.  It turns out that I don't have an operative choice in the matter, since tax-funded abortions (do they still do them?) come out of general tax funds, not something itemized that i can identify.  But I would if I could. 

 

CB, you just don't or can't see that refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding isn't an act of discrimination in the case of the Oregon bakery, and I guess I have to accept your blindness on the issue, but I wish you could see their point of view.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Stargazer

[changed]

Has everyone read this new article?

http://lds.net/blog/buzz/how-same-sex-marriage-laws-will-affect-you/

 

I think it does a good job summarizing everything. 

[california boy]

Your misunderstanding come from the false presumption that Christianity is supposed to condone any and all actions and not call the world to repentance.

No my misunderstanding of Christianity is that people should worry about their own sins and salvation. (Matthew 7 eye and beam) should treat others with love and compassion through service to them regardless of who they are or how righteous that sinner is. (Matthew 25). And that one of the things Christ whom they claim to follow condemned the most was hypocracy. (Matthew 23)

This idea that if you help a fornicator or a murderor or an adulterer or any other sin it means you condone or participate in ithat sin is not found in the scriptures. (Do you have any s ruptures supporting this teaching?) it is only found in the minds of those who want to discriminate and use religion to justify their actions. Shame on them. Those that follow Christ should be the most outraged by their behavior.

[california boy]

If the prosecutor can not even challenge the sincerity of the defendants claim of having some kind of Christian belief that prevents them from baking a simple came then indeed there is something grossly wrong with our legal system.

 

You actually want judges to be able to interpret religious code? Now that is crazy.

 

I thought the. courts are suppose to find truth but as even you have pointed out, truth is.not the main objective.

 

Well if this isn't a gross manipulation of anything I have said, then I don't know what is. Does it make you feel somehow justified to twist what I said? Does it help you fit me into a box of some hateful person who just wants to discriminate against gays and hates the truth? Just know when you do it, it not only hurts you, it hurts others like you. Next time I hear a gay person's tragic story of some hateful person who was treated poorly by a bigot I will remember our interaction and be less likely to believe them.

In any event, this case will be tried in a court of law and what is said on a discussion board won't make one bit of difference. We won't know what happens until it goes to trial

What I do know is that by these bakers actions their "deeply held religious. beliefs are certainly not very deep at all.

 

Christ said "Judge not, lest ye be judged". Surely no person who uses Christ's teachings would not selectively apply them to people who disagree with him...then again...

 

Lately people have been abandoning Christianity at an alarming rate. I think one of the primary reasons religion is failing can be summed up by this case. A lot of hypocrisy and an abandonment of the teachings of Christ on how we treat others. I certainly would not be proud to defend these hypocrites

 

And yet for someone who likes to use Christ's teaching as a sword, you don't do a very good job of living up to them (to be fair, there aren't many who do). You bash and rail against one couple who you don't think lives up to Christ's teachings, even going as far as questioning their sincerity to those beliefs (despite the fact that they have served the couple before with no problem), and yet you have yet to criticize the lesbian couple for their blatant disregard for many of Christ's teachings. Who is the real hypocrite here? AGAIN, beams and motes.

 

The sad part about trying to discuss these things with you is that you selectively respond over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. None of what I said above is new. But you are so blinded that you refuse to be responsive for whatever reason(s). I find it very, very, very disturbing that you not only find yourself qualified to judge these people's dedication to their faith, but you have no problem selectively applying Christ's teachings and you want a judge, who may or may not even believe in Christ, to make a determination in a court of law (not religion) as to their sincerity as well. Yet, Christ's teachings could never apply to this lesbian couple (who would not turn the other cheek) or to you (judge not lest ye be judged). But go ahead, keep trying to remove the mote from other's eye, while ignoring the beam in your own.[/quoting have answered most of your question

I have answered most of your questions in the post above. If you have a question for me.you think I have not answered state your questions and I will be glad to answer it Sometimes it is. hard to know what is a question and what is just. a rant a against me. I do tend to ignore personal attacks.

This thread is about using religion to justify discrimination against a gay couple wanting a wedding cake. If you want to discuss the sins of the lesbian couple or my sins start another thread

[california boy]

LOL, I said "If a gay bakery refused to bake me a straight wedding cake, could I get the government to put them out of business? I'd like to see that happen -- it wouldn't, I'm pretty sure."I didn't say there were any, I said that IF there were any, could I get the govt to put them out of business if they refused to bake a straight wedding cake.It's a rhetorical question. My rhetorical answer is, if there were any, and they refused, the govt wouldn't do a thing about it.Don't get too worked up about it, Skeptic.

personally I stand against any discrimination based on race religion sex gender orientation no matter what someone's beliefs are. Prejudices have already caused too much evil in the world. If a gay person discriminates, it is just as evil and I certainly would be right there condemning it

 

Yes, and I would defend a gay person from being attacked or discriminated against, and anyone at all who was being discriminated against because of something that was a part of them inherently, or something that they have a right to do, or be.  I've waffled on participating on the gay marriage thing, even in this forum Would I or wouldn't I attend the gay wedding of one of my children?  I can't say, but it's definitely not a foregone conclusion that I wouldn't do so under any circumstances.  Fortunately all of my children are confirmed heteros, so that's a bridge I won't have to consider crossing, but...   And if I were a baker of wedding cakes, and got an order for a gay wedding cake, complete with guy-guy figures for the decor ... well, I guess I'd do it, but ... not particularly enthusiastically, and not because the alternative would be an administrative law judge levying a stiff fine.  BUT, I defend the right of another to refuse that particular service if they can't make themselves do it.

 

You know, after all those years of being discriminated against, now that gays can finally "have it all", wouldn't it be nice if they could just accept that some people just can't make themselves accept it, and graciously go to the next baker -- instead of letting loose the dogs of whatever??  That would be the classy thing to do, in my humble opinion.  And let everyone know who won't bake a gay wedding cake -- that's fair enough. 

 

I suppose it might or could be discrimination, still, but in the instances that we've been favored with in this thread the dreadful people refusing to bake a wedding cake were perfectly happy to serve gays in any other way, except wedding cakes.  So, it seems to me that they were refusing, not out of discrimination of the customers, but refusing out of a sincerely held belief about the celebration of an event.

 

I'd refuse to pay for an elective abortion, even if the government threatened me with criminal penalties for the refusal.  It turns out that I don't have an operative choice in the matter, since tax-funded abortions (do they still do them?) come out of general tax funds, not something itemized that i can identify.  But I would if I could. 

 

CB, you just don't or can't see that refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding isn't an act of discrimination in the case of the Oregon bakery, and I guess I have to accept your blindness on the issue, but I wish you could see their point of view.

Thank you for your post. I agree with most of what you say. And I wish we lived in a more kind world on all of these issues. I guess for me I am. nof willing to go back to the days of signs in the windows saying.we don't bake gay wedding cakes without a fight even if that fight has to be in a court of law.

If I could find one shred of evidence that Christ taught such a principle of withholding services to others then I would be MUCH more willing to accept such a belief. But I can't. Yes the scriptures teach to cry repentance. But no one if preventing this couple from .crying repentance. Perhaps if you or anyone else could show where Christ taught his followers this concept of refusing services to others I would be MUCH more understanding. Until then it just looks like using religion to justify something that is against the law.

[thesometimesaint]

Now for the rest of the story.

SEE http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/oregon-bakers-werent-fined-over-cake-they-were-punished-for-sharing-lesbian-couples-home-address/

[Mystery Meat]

Now for the rest of the story.

SEE http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/oregon-bakers-werent-fined-over-cake-they-were-punished-for-sharing-lesbian-couples-home-address/

 

Yeah thats pretty stupid to share that information. Although, because the address was in the Complaint itself and they were sharing the Complaint (not specifically the address) everyone could see the address. It was probably a careless mistake, a stupid one, but I would like to think they did not mean to open them up to threats, etc. I have never claimed to support what the bakery owners did. I think they should have the right to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a SSM due to their own interpretations of the Bible. The $135K fine is still outrageous nonetheless.

 

ETA: If the address was not included in the complaint and they intentionally shared the address, I have much less sympathy for them.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Mystery Meat

[longview]

 

Now for the rest of the story.

SEE http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/oregon-bakers-werent-fined-over-cake-they-were-punished-for-sharing-lesbian-couples-home-address/

 

Yeah thats pretty stupid to share that information. Although, because the address was in the Complaint itself and they were sharing the Complaint (not specifically the address) everyone could see the address. It was probably a careless mistake, a stupid one, but I would like to think they did not mean to open them up to threats, etc. I have never claimed to support what the bakery owners did. I think they should have the right to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a SSM due to their own interpretations of the Bible. The $135K fine is still outrageous nonetheless.

 

ETA: If the address was not included in the complaint and they intentionally shared the address, I have much less sympathy for them.

 

Eminently reasonable post.  I have read of multiple instances of the left widely publicizing addresses and phone numbers of individuals or groups that are being targeted for extra heavy persecution.  The Kleins are pretty mild in comparison.

[thesometimesaint]

 

 

Now for the rest of the story.

SEE http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/oregon-bakers-werent-fined-over-cake-they-were-punished-for-sharing-lesbian-couples-home-address/

 

Yeah thats pretty stupid to share that information. Although, because the address was in the Complaint itself and they were sharing the Complaint (not specifically the address) everyone could see the address. It was probably a careless mistake, a stupid one, but I would like to think they did not mean to open them up to threats, etc. I have never claimed to support what the bakery owners did. I think they should have the right to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a SSM due to their own interpretations of the Bible. The $135K fine is still outrageous nonetheless.

 

ETA: If the address was not included in the complaint and they intentionally shared the address, I have much less sympathy for them.

 

Eminently reasonable post.  I have read of multiple instances of the left widely publicizing addresses and phone numbers of individuals or groups that are being targeted for extra heavy persecution.  The Kleins are pretty mild in comparison.

 

 

My momma taught me that Two wrong actions never equal a right action.

[filovirus]

So, the lawsuit was about releasing the customer's personal information rather than refusing to bake the cake? Or was it the money awarded for releasing the customer's personal information rather than refusing to bake the cake? If the Kein's information was never released would there be no fine?

[Daniel2]

Now for the rest of the story.

SEE http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/oregon-bakers-werent-fined-over-cake-they-were-punished-for-sharing-lesbian-couples-home-address/

Wow... awesome link, SS....

 

Thanks for shedding further light and knowledge on the issue!

[ERayR]

Isn't the complaint a public document? 

[Mystery Meat]

Isn't the complaint a public document? 

 

Probably. So it depends on if the address was included within the complaint itself. If so, it was probably stupid to post it on Facebook without taking out that information. If it wasn't they probably should be sued. Either way $135K is entirely unreasonable.

[thesometimesaint]

 

Isn't the complaint a public document? 

 

Probably. So it depends on if the address was included within the complaint itself. If so, it was probably stupid to post it on Facebook without taking out that information. If it wasn't they probably should be sued. Either way $135K is entirely unreasonable.

 

 

But judge I really did not mean to speed in that school zone.

[ERayR]

 

 

Isn't the complaint a public document? 

 

Probably. So it depends on if the address was included within the complaint itself. If so, it was probably stupid to post it on Facebook without taking out that information. If it wasn't they probably should be sued. Either way $135K is entirely unreasonable.

 

 

But judge I really did not mean to speed in that school zone.

 

 

It is my understanding that public documents can be revealed publicly without liability.

[california boy]

So mystery meat now that we have a little more knowledge of these "Christian" bakers I would like to ask you a few questions

1. Do you still think this is an of an attack on religion?

2. At some point does it ever in your mind become an attack on this gay couple?

3. Are you ever offended that these "Christian" bakers use the name of Christ to justify their behavior?

4. Do you think that the excessive penalty awarded the gay couple is justified?

5. Do you think the bakers have been manipulating the press about them being victims?

6. Who do you think are the real victims in this case? Still the bakers? Could it ever be the gay couple?

I would just like to know your thoughts since you have spent the last 15 pages defending their behavior.

[Zakuska]

I seem to remember the personal information of donors to California's Prop. 8 was published by the LGBT and other special interest groups and there were death threats. White powder being mailed to the SLC temple. Threats of Boycotts. etc.

 

Heres what Snopes has to say about the bakery incident:

http://m.snopes.com/2015/07/03/sweet-cakes-melissa-damages/

 

 

 

 

The lengthy ruling described incidents wherein the Kleins’ promotion of their plight resulted in negative attention and threats to the Bowman-Cryers, including Klein’s publication of court documents to Facebook that included the couple’s home address.

 

Court documents include the information. Are not court documents public record?

Edited July 10, 2015 by Zakuska

[ERayR]

I seem to remember the personal information of donors to California's Prop. 8 was published by the LGBT and other special interest groups and there were death threats. White powder being mailed to the SLC temple. Threats of Boycotts. etc.

 

Heres what Snopes has to say about the bakery incident:

http://m.snopes.com/2015/07/03/sweet-cakes-melissa-damages/

 

 

 

 

The lengthy ruling described incidents wherein the Kleins’ promotion of their plight resulted in negative attention and threats to the Bowman-Cryers, including Klein’s publication of court documents to Facebook that included the couple’s home address.

 

Court documents include the information. Are not court documents public record?

 

That's what I asked.  How can it be a crime to publish public records?

[Mystery Meat]

So mystery meat now that we have a little more knowledge of these "Christian" bakers I would like to ask you a few questions

1. Do you still think this is an of an attack on religion?

 

Yes.

2. At some point does it ever in your mind become an attack on this gay couple?

 

Very possible. But not in this case based on facts available.

3. Are you ever offended that these "Christian" bakers use the name of Christ to justify their behavior?

 

I might disagree with their personal interpretation, but offended no. I would be more offended if they were telling others they were terrible or insincere Christians, while selectively ignoring certain other  teachings of the Savior.

4. Do you think that the excessive penalty awarded the gay couple is justified?

 

No. From all indications they were public record. Do I think it was stupid to publish them, yes. Criminal? No. Worthy of fine? No.

5. Do you think the bakers have been manipulating the press about them being victims?

 

Perhaps. But I don't think publishing public records means they did anything of legal consequence.

6. Who do you think are the real victims in this case? Still the bakers? Could it ever be the gay couple?

 

I am not sure there are any innocent people here. Certainly not the lesbian couple. I am reluctant to call the bakers villains for publish documents that were part of the public record. I have no doubt they could have behaved better, however.

I would just like to know your thoughts since you have spent the last 15 pages defending their behavior.

 

If you would have actually listened you would know there is a big distinction between condoning bad behavior and defending someone's right to engage in what you or me might consider bad behavior. I don't believe I have ever defended their behavior, but I have defended their right to make choices based on their religious convictions.

[Kenngo1969]

I'm not necessarily defending everything Sweetcakes By Melissa proprietors have done, but, while the Lily-White Plaintiff with Absolutely Clean Hands might be a common archetype, very seldom does it match messy reality.

[Storm Rider]

Now for the rest of the story.

SEE http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/oregon-bakers-werent-fined-over-cake-they-were-punished-for-sharing-lesbian-couples-home-address/

 

 

Ah, Raw Story, and reported the blog Love, Joy and Feminism.  From the number of complaints for such media outlets such as National Review and others, I am supposed to get excited for blogs and "progressive" muckrakers?  This is not even a pot and kettle comparison. 

Edited July 11, 2015 by Storm Rider

[california boy]

So, the lawsuit was about releasing the customer's personal information rather than refusing to bake the cake? Or was it the money awarded for releasing the customer's personal information rather than refusing to bake the cake? If the Kein's information was never released would there be no fine?[/quot

I may be wrong but I don't ever think there was a lawsuit. The gay couple reported the bakery to the state authorities. The state authorities investigated and awarded the gay couple damages. My understanding is that the bakery is appealing the damages.

[Stargazer]

If I could find one shred of evidence that Christ taught such a principle of withholding services to others then I would be MUCH more willing to accept such a belief. But I can't. Yes the scriptures teach to cry repentance. But no one if preventing this couple from .crying repentance. Perhaps if you or anyone else could show where Christ taught his followers this concept of refusing services to others I would be MUCH more understanding. Until then it just looks like using religion to justify something that is against the law.

Well, the shred I have is not something Christ taught, but something that occurred in the Old Testament. The law uttered by Pharaoh said that the midwives were required to kill boy babies immediately, and let the girl babies live. Well, the midwives feared God more than Pharaoh, and simply refused to do it. And they lied. The excused their not killing the Hebrew babies by saying that the Hebrew women were very strong and gave birth long before the midwives could get there, and since too much time had elapsed after the birth, they couldn't kill the boy babies in time.

I assume that Christ was OK with it, though. Both with the breaking of the law and the lying.

I suppose that in our case at bar, we would have to lie to the customer and say that we have too many wedding cakes to make at this time and can't take another one on. It might take us months. So, do you want to put your name down on the waiting list? No? Oh, sorry about that!

How well do you think that would work?

And if you want a cake baked, CB, I will gladly do it for you! My cake-baking skills are phenomenal! Well, maybe not. I've never actually baked a wedding cake. I can do soups, though! How about a wedding soup? Yes, I've suddenly gone whimsical. I've released my inner Terry Pratchett.

Edited July 12, 2015 by Stargazer

[Mystery Meat]

 

If I could find one shred of evidence that Christ taught such a principle of withholding services to others then I would be MUCH more willing to accept such a belief. But I can't. Yes the scriptures teach to cry repentance. But no one if preventing this couple from .crying repentance. Perhaps if you or anyone else could show where Christ taught his followers this concept of refusing services to others I would be MUCH more understanding. Until then it just looks like using religion to justify something that is against the law.

 

 

If I could find one shred of evidence that Christ taught such a principle of complaining to the government that I would be MUCH more willing to accept the lesbian couple's position and their supporters who have not so humbly taken it upon themselves to judge how Christian the bakers are. But I can't. Yes the scriptures teach to love thine enemy. But refusing to bake a wedding cake does not mean this couple does not love. Perhaps if you or anyone else could show me where Christ taught his followers this concept of taking your complaints to the government I would be MUCH more understanding. Until then it just looks like petty entitlement on the part of the couple, and blatant hypocrisy by their supporters who selectively apply Christ's teaching to the bakers, but not to the lesbian couple to justify sinful behavior that is against the laws of God.