Remember The Oregon Bakery?

[Russell C McGregor]

Where did you learn your "new speak".

Is that a question?

How is baking "participation in a same sex wedding"? All the baking will be done in the bakery. The couple will pick ip the cake. The baker will not attend any part of the ceremony or reception. But somehow in your new speak, mixing eggs,water, flower, and cooking it at 425 for 30 minutes is "participation in a same sex wedding"; goodness me.

Perhaps you've never had this experience, but there are those who take pride in their work; so much so that they regard whatever they do as an extension of themselves.

And, being decent people, they'd prefer that extensions of themselves not be involved in indecent acts.

Which brings me to another point that you've evidently not experienced, and that's making decisions based upon principle, instead of self-interest.

Decent people are those who have principles that make them unwilling to participate in indecent acts, however remotely.

We might as well claim that the Church is promoting homosexuality by donating money to a pro-gay group.

Nice try.

[Storm Rider]

Well then let them appeal their case. Let them stand in a court of law and stand before a judge and say we refused to provide the services we offer to every one of our other customers but this couple is gay and we didn't like the way they intended to use our product. Good luck with that.

Sorry about your head. You might try meditation and scripture study

 

I support that, I will gladly serve as the judge.  I would have just as much kangaroo authority as the twit that judged $135,000 was an appropriate amount for this poor, victimized couple that went out of their way to target a business in order to force them to violate their conscious choice.  Oh, puleez, this reeks of stupidity, arrogance, and injustice.  

 

As a businessman, throughout most of my professional life, I have never forfeited the right to refuse service to anyone that I did not want to serve.  I am not required to work when I don't want to work.  I don't like rude people; I don't like over-demanding people; sometimes I just don't like anyone.  At those times I consistently refuse service.  I don't care about your sexual preferences or anyone else's.  I also know that when I refuse service to someone that they can go down the street and will be served because someone else is more interested about making money than I am.  

 

I reject this terrible couple; I reject their false sense of taking offense, and their fake request for a wedding cake.  They no more wanted a cake than they wanted a smack up side the head.  Their main objective was to force another human to do something against their morals standards.  You and I may reject their moral standards, but we dang sure better respect their right to have their own moral standards.  If not, we are societies worst form of citizen. 

Edited July 4, 2015 by Storm Rider

[Judd]

I would support (and I'd venture to guess most all -- including those who support this ruling -- would also support) the refusal of service in the following circumstances:

- A Jewish baker refusing to bake a cake for a youth baptism temple trip (objecting to church's history of baptizing for the dead holocaust victims).

- An atheist baker refusing to bake a cross cake for an evangelical gathering, feeling their beliefs oppress others.

- A Muslim baker refusing to bake a "welcome home troops" cake.

- A gay baker refusing to bake cakes for a traditional marriage rally.

[tonie]

What a surprise. Another snarky drive by personal attack without any substance. It is all we expect from you

Nice to see the Pahoran that for banned for doing this very thing is back

His word:

vituperation: bitter and abusive language.

[ERayR]

What are you talking about? This isn't about tolerance, this is about discrimination. This is about breaking the law. And from a religious point of view this is about unchristian like behavior and using the name of Christ to justify self righteous actions.

Christ taught both by exams and word to serve others including sinners. It was the gospel of the pharasies that taught a message of "we don't serve sinners". Is there any proof that this "sweet" bakery refused service to someone who was divorced? How about an adulter or someone who abuses children. Or beat their wife? Or is this refusal only about discrimination against gays

No Christian could read Matthew 25 and get that they should not serve sinners. They should be ashamed to bring Christ into their argument to justify discrimination and break the law.

 

Whatever your stand on SSM it is irrelevant here.  We live in a country that allows us the freedom to speak whether it is unchristian or not. 

[thesometimesaint]

Yes, another example of tolerance for all....except for those who think and speak in any way different from those most tolerant in our society (at least in their own minds), the Liberals who prefer to be called Progressives.  Just warms your heart to see their tolerance in action.  

 

And these same people wonder why there are wars in the world. 

 

What should should be the penalty for willful repeated violations of Law and Court Orders?

[tonie]

Is that a question?Perhaps you've never had this experience, but there are those who take pride in their work; so much so that they regard whatever they do as an extension of themselves.And, being decent people, they'd prefer that extensions of themselves not be involved in indecent acts.Which brings me to another point that you've evidently not experienced, and that's making decisions based upon principle, instead of self-interest.Decent people are those who have principles that make them unwilling to participate in indecent acts, however remotely.Nice try.

Nice to see that you still rely on fallacies. Your vituperation seems alive and well.

No honest usage of the words "participate" or "involve" - in a same sex wedding - can be used to describe the baking of a cake.

Baking a cake is "participaction is indecent acts".....ok you've strained and snapped credulity.

But giving money to an organization that "prides" itself and defines itself by indcent ancts and promotes an indecent lifestyle; is not "involved" nor "participate" in indecent acts....new speak, thanks for the clarification.

Edited July 4, 2015 by tonie

[thesometimesaint]

I would support (and I'd venture to guess most all -- including those who support this ruling -- would also support) the refusal of service in the following circumstances:

- A Jewish baker refusing to bake a cake for a youth baptism temple trip (objecting to church's history of baptizing for the dead holocaust victims).

- An atheist baker refusing to bake a cross cake for an evangelical gathering, feeling their beliefs oppress others.

- A Muslim baker refusing to bake a "welcome home troops" cake.

- A gay baker refusing to bake cakes for a traditional marriage rally.

 

Think about it for a minute. I'm LDS, I'm not an Atheist, Muslim, or gay. If I walked into your bakery and asked you to bake me a cake for my friends. What business is it of yours to ask me about those friends?

 

BTW.If your normal business practice is to bake cakes. Then NO you don't have the right to refuse service on the basis of your sincerely held beliefs.

 

PS; There are plenty of Muslims in the US Military.

Edited July 4, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[california boy]

Why do you say this, when you know perfectly well that it is false?

You know perfectly well that I am challenging your constantly reiterated refrain that refusing to be involved in a same sex "wedding" is "refusing to serve sinners" and "discrimination against gays."

If you had evidence that an adulterer had gone in to the bakery and ordered a cake for the purpose of seducing his neighbour's wife, AND the baker knew it, AND the baker went ahead and provided the cake anyway, you'd have the beginnings of a parallel case.

But you don't.

And after all, who would announce that, if that was what they were doing?

You have no valid basis to accuse them of singling out "gays." I realise that having no valid basis for an accusation isn't likely to slow you down, but that's just the way it is.

Likewise, you have not one example of anyone trying to blanket ban "gays" as customers; a fact that reliably draws forth snarls, but nothing resembling a substantive rebuttal. Every single instance that you have claimed showed Christians practicing "discrimination against gays" was actually an attempt to conscientiously object to being involved in a same sex "wedding."

Ah. A cheap shot.

How entirely unsurprising.

REALLY? And would it change your ridged mind if I had such evidence? Would it make even one bit of difference to you if I had such proof? Somehow I sincerely doubt it. You will always believe that religion allows believers to break the law even if they have no religious basis in doing so. And they drag the holy name of Christ through the mud to justify their prejudice

Do you remember "masterpiece cake shop"? You know, that other "Christian" bakery that refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple because they believed marriage was only between one man and one woman

It turns out that they had no problem baking s wedding cake celebrating a wedding between two dogs.

And this "Sweet Cakes" bakery in Oregon agreed to bake a cake for "a pagan solstice " party. Also a divorce party. But wait there is more. Also a party for a woman that had several children out of wedlock

Yeah these bakers are true followers of the gospel of Jesse Christ. You are defending hypocrites who slander the name of Christ.

Now did you change your mind....

Thought not

[tonie]

CaliforniaBoy, some people cant be troubled with facts that challenge their current dogma.

[california boy]

I support that, I will gladly serve as the judge. I would just as much kangaroo authority as the twit that judged $135,000 was an appropriate amount for this poor couple that went out of their way to target a business in order to force them to violate their conscious choice. Puleez, this reeks of stupidity, arrogance, and injustice.

As a businessman most of my life I have never forfeited the right to refuse service to anyone that I did not want to serve. I am not required to work when I don't want to work. I don't like rude people; I don't like over-demanding people; sometimes I just don't like anyone. At those times I refuse service. I don't care about your sexual preferences or anyone else's. I also know that when I refuse service to someone that go down the street and are served because someone else is more interested about making money than I am.

I reject this couple; I reject their false sense of taking offense, and their fake request for a wedding cake. They no more wanted a cake than they wanted a smack up side the head. They wanted to force another human to do something against their morals. You and I may reject their moral standards, but we dang sure better respect their right to have their own moral standard. If not, we are societies worst form of citizen.

You got things a bit twisted up. Of course you don't have to work. Yes you can legally refuse to serve customers who are rude don't have shoes or shirts or you simply don't like

What you can't do is refuse service based simply on race, religion, sex and in most states gender orientation.

How can you not understand the difference between discrimination and rude behavior Now did that fact change your mind ?

[tonie]

Link

Baby Out of Wedlock

WW Asks - I’m shopping around for a nice baby shower cake for my friend. It’s her second baby with her boyfriend so I’m not looking for anything too big or fancy—probably enough to serve 15 to 20 people.

Sweet Cake says - “We have a sheet cake that will feed 30, or a 10-inch cake that would feed 30 people. The 10-inch cake is $50 and the sheet cake is $52. Or we have an 8-inch cake that would feed 15 for $40.”

Fleur says - Prices vary based on decoration and frosting, but a basic cake is $3 per serving.

Divorce Party

WW Asks - My friend is getting divorced and we’d like to throw her a little party to mark the start of her new life. Do you ever write messages on those—we’d want it to say “congratulations!”—and how much would it be for a cake that could serve about eight people?

Sweet Cake says - “A 10-inch is $29.99. That should probably do it....We can definitely do something like that.”

Fleur says - “The price for a 10-inch cheesecake is $36 and up. So it’ll be between $36 and $45, but you’re going to have to call in advance because my schedule for June and July is very busy.”

Edited July 4, 2015 by tonie

[california boy]

Whatever your stand on SSM it is irrelevant here. We live in a country that allows us the freedom to speak whether it is unchristian or not.

I completely agree. it is a fundamental right that I also defend. But discrimination based on race, religion sex or gender orientation is not prohibiting sreedom of speech is it.

It does have NO tHONG to do with SSM. At the time SSM was not even legal in Oregon

And while I distain those that use the name of Christ to hide behind their bigotry the have the right to do so. It doesn't mean they can break the law though does it

Edited July 4, 2015 by california boy

[Judd]

Think about it for a minute. I'm LDS, I'm not an Atheist, Muslim, or gay. If I walked into your bakery and asked you to bake me a cake for my friends. What business is it of yours to ask me about those friends?

Do we have evidence that this baker went out of her way to ask them what they were using it for?

BTW.If your normal business practice is to bake cakes. Then NO you don't have the right to refuse service on the basis of your sincerely held beliefs.

If you owned a business, I'd imagine you'd have the right to refuse service for whatever reason. If that happens to be refusing Mormons because you don't like them, oh well.

PS; There are plenty of Muslims in the US Military.

I'm sure there are. But I don't feel anyone else can determine for them what they feel they can and can't object to or what they feel they are or are not condoning/supporting with their work.

Plenty of people boycott Walmart for ethical reasons. I disagree but I'm certainly not going to tell them what to think about it. Likewise, someone owning a business is under no obligation to partner with Walmart. By extension, if an individual from Walmart (or any other company one finds morally objectionable) approaches someone about doing business, one can refuse citing objection to Walmart and their practices (I know you yourself find Walmart rather objectionable) without having it be about the individual.

Nobody, to my knowledge, has provided any evidence that this was about not serving gay people, though we're content in conflating the idea of it being the same. I don't think we'd be having this same discussion if it were a gay baker refusing to provide a cake for a traditional marriage rally. In fact, we would be lobbing accusations, rightfully so, about the traditional marriage rally people seeking out a gay baker to be purposefully inflammatory and trying to stir up controversy for their agenda.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Judd

[SmileyMcGee]

Does anyone have references to the facts surrounding this ordeal, and not just short quotes from either party to the case? Was the bakery asked to provide a product that they don't offer or did they refuse to provide a product they offer because of the sexual orientation of the customer or because the product would be used in a same sex wedding?

[tonie]

Smiley,

The couple arrainged for a "tasting" with sweet cakes, before they could very far into the discussion with a sweetcakes rep; the rep asked "name of groom". The couple informed him it was two females. He then informed sweetcakes would not peovide a cake.

[california boy]

Does anyone have references to the facts surrounding this ordeal, and not just short quotes from either party to the case? Was the bakery asked to provide a product that they don't offer or did they refuse to provide a product they offer because of the sexual orientation of the customer or because the product would be used in a same sex wedding?

Google sweet cakes bakery, Oregon.

[ERayR]

CaliforniaBoy, some people cant be troubled with facts that challenge their current dogma.

 

I see you have been admiring yourself in the mirror again.

[Storm Rider]

What should should be the penalty for willful repeated violations of Law and Court Orders?

 

The penalty of rebellion to an unjust judicial system?  Hmm, what do we call that?  Seems like on the 4th of July we call it revolution for a just cause and for liberty.  What would you call it?

[Kenngo1969]

I’ve said this on other gay marriage threads (“Nooo!  We’ve had other threads on this?  Really?!”   I know, I know; hard to believe ), but here’s how I would split the baby: You want to sue a cake-baker because he won’t bake a cake for your gay wedding?  Fine; sue away.    But I would require you to prove by a relevant evidentiary standard (preponderance of the evidence, I would assume: 50 percent, plus a smidge) that you made reasonable efforts to secure a similar service at a similar price, and that those efforts were unavailing.  I would also limit recovery to the difference between what the refusing baker would have charged you if he had provided the service and what the accepting baker did charge you, along with related expenses such as travel.

 

Such a result would cut down really quickly on gay would-be spouses seizing the limelight; feigning (largely, if not entirely) shock, shame, hurt, humiliation, and horror at being refused such service; and being able to use sympathetic publicity to pulverize a recalcitrant cake-baker into submission and drive him out of business. (Crap, the militant gay lobby and their supporters did that to a friggin' pizza parlor when an employee ... not even the owner ... answered a hypothetical question about catering a gay wedding: who the crap ever heard of getting pizza catered for a friggin' wedding? )  You think someone’s wrong for not baking you a cake?  Fine; prove it.  Make your case.  Do your best to convince anyone who will listen that it’s not about deeply-held religious beliefs, but, rather, about bigotry and animus.

 

And I say all of that as somebody who would bake the dang cake!^*; as someone who, deeply-held religious beliefs and opposition to gay marriage notwithstanding, believes that nothing in my faith tradition demands that I force people to accept my paradigm; as someone who would be too practical to lose business in such a case; and as someone who believes that a refusal would only engender needless ill will against me, against my business, and (if it were known) against my religion.  Don’t believe it?  I voted AGAINST Utah’s Proposition 3, which would have amended the state’s Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.  Why?  Because I thought it would simply needlessly increase the potential for litigation.  Voila!  I’m a Prophet!

 

^*I might refuse to decorate it with “gay-themed” items because that comes closer to a line I wouldn’t want to cross, but big deal: buy your own plastic, gay “bride and groom” and feel free to place them prominently on the otherwise-nicely-decorated cake’s top tier.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Storm Rider]

Think about it for a minute. I'm LDS, I'm not an Atheist, Muslim, or gay. If I walked into your bakery and asked you to bake me a cake for my friends. What business is it of yours to ask me about those friends?

 

BTW.If your normal business practice is to bake cakes. Then NO you don't have the right to refuse service on the basis of your sincerely held beliefs.

 

PS; There are plenty of Muslims in the US Military.

 

The issue is not taking a cake off the shelf or buying a plain cake.  it is to make a specific, special kind of cake.  I think every business owner has the right to not work; to refuse any additional work from any client regardless of the request.  If it causes an owner to do something special, different, or unique for a specific client that is not "off the shelf".  No where is a business owner required to work when they do not want to.  

 

If I am wrong on this point, CFR.  What law requires me to work when I choose not to do so as an owner of any business?

Edited July 4, 2015 by Storm Rider

[Calm]

Correction a court of law has not ruled on this case. This is an agency decision. The judge in this case was just an admistrative law judge. I know some of the attorneys that are working this case. It hasn't gotten out of the agency yet to a real court of law.

Is this for both the award of damages and the gag order?

Thanks for the info.

[Russell C McGregor]

Nice to see that you still rely on fallacies. Your vituperation seems alive and well.

What "fallacies?"

No honest usage of the words "participate" or "involve" - in a same sex wedding - can be used to describe the baking of a cake.

In your opinion.

It's remarkable how it's not possible to honestly disagree with Tonie's opinion.

Baking a cake is "participaction is indecent acts".....ok you've strained and snapped credulity.

But giving money to an organization that "prides" itself and defines itself by indcent ancts and promotes an indecent lifestyle; is not "involved" nor "participate" in indecent acts....new speak, thanks for the clarification.

The Church isn't giving money to such an organisation. It gave a bishop's storehouse grant -- i.e. not money, but foodstuffs and other necessities -- to help homeless youth.

The Church has a track record of helping people, including when their own choices have contributed to their negative situation.

[Russell C McGregor]

Link

Baby Out of Wedlock

WW Asks - I’m shopping around for a nice baby shower cake for my friend. It’s her second baby with her boyfriend so I’m not looking for anything too big or fancy—probably enough to serve 15 to 20 people.

Sweet Cake says - “We have a sheet cake that will feed 30, or a 10-inch cake that would feed 30 people. The 10-inch cake is $50 and the sheet cake is $52. Or we have an 8-inch cake that would feed 15 for $40.”

Fleur says - Prices vary based on decoration and frosting, but a basic cake is $3 per serving.

Divorce Party

WW Asks - My friend is getting divorced and we’d like to throw her a little party to mark the start of her new life. Do you ever write messages on those—we’d want it to say “congratulations!”—and how much would it be for a cake that could serve about eight people?

Sweet Cake says - “A 10-inch is $29.99. That should probably do it....We can definitely do something like that.”

Fleur says - “The price for a 10-inch cheesecake is $36 and up. So it’ll be between $36 and $45, but you’re going to have to call in advance because my schedule for June and July is very busy.”

Thank you for proving that it was nothing to do with "refusing to serve sinners."

I always knew it wasn't, and this establishes beyond doubt that I was right.

So, thank you.

[Russell C McGregor]

REALLY? And would it change your ridged mind if I had such evidence?

Yes. No matter how many ridges my mind has, if there was such evidence, it would make a difference.

Mind you, if there was such evidence, you wouldn't need to strive so hard to make the actual evidence mean something it clearly does not.

Do you remember "masterpiece cake shop"? You know, that other "Christian" bakery that refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple because they believed marriage was only between one man and one woman

It turns out that they had no problem baking s wedding cake celebrating a wedding between two dogs.

It's a joke, right? Who takes something like that seriously?

And this "Sweet Cakes" bakery in Oregon agreed to bake a cake for "a pagan solstice " party. Also a divorce party. But wait there is more. Also a party for a woman that had several children out of wedlock

Thus proving that they don't "refuse to serve SINNAHS!"

Yeah these bakers are true followers of the gospel of Jesse Christ. You are defending hypocrites who slander the name of Christ.

Now did you change your mind....

Thought not

Jesse Christ? Is he related to Jesse James?