Christians Again Forced To Do Artwork For LGBT

[Carborendum]

Don't know if anyone else noted this.  But Masterpiece Cakeshop is being sued a THIRD time by the same transgender individual who began it all.

https://denver.cbslocal.com/2019/06/06/discrimination-lawsuit-lakewood-jack-phillips-masterpiece-cakeshop/

https://www.newsweek.com/colorado-baker-protagonist-satan-dildo-cake-other-bakeries-wouldnt-create-1077250

[USU78]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

For the first.....they can actually by just suing the people they do not want to use it.

BMI/ASCAP own those rights.

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, USU78 said:

BMI/ASCAP own those rights.

Ahhh, my mistake. Then they can sue whichever side they like.

[USU78]

On 6/8/2019 at 4:05 PM, Calm said:

I don't think I am the one doing it, but the government.  I am trying to understand the legal argument, not defend it.

Sorry.  I didn't get this responded to over the weekend.

I didn't intend to impute the hairsplitting to you personally.  Bad writing on my part.  I rather intended the "you" to be a generic "you" and not a personal "you."

Quote

And I think it is very important to be accurate in what is being required, including how and why the artistic work is produced.

If the courts were to follow this novel notion of whether a piece is commissioned or not determining whether something is expressive or not, they would, should the nonsensical holding hold up to scrutiny, then we would be looking at a chilling effect on art in commerce.  Art, by its very nature, is an expressive exercise, which point I made earlier.  If an artist is only expressing himself when he's not getting paid, or when he's producing a commissioned work without contractual parameters determining what the work must look/sound/feel like, then all artists will go out of business and get jobs as waiters.

Quote

I don't think we should make decisions based purely on how vulnerable it makes us to "malicious setup artists", but more on what is right and fair...and then try to incorporate protections against maliciousness.

I understand that the prevailing view that "law doesn't count costs," and if constitutional law weren't political, that might make real world sense, but the costs of imposing novel liability upon the unwary or ignorant when the justification for imposing the cost is so ephemeral and the costs themselves so very dire, what we're crafting is a generation of very angry people who'll be presenting a bill to somebody.  Let's pray the bill, when due, doesn't bring things crashing down.

Quote

As for my preference, I would prefer business owners the right of refusal for any reason---even petty ones---if there were comparable services (in terms of type of product and quality) within a reasonable distance though I am not sure how that would be implemented.  I get why the government went this route though it creates its own set of problems.

I agree with your preference.  Liberty is preferable to despotism.

Quote

I have been a few times on the raw end of being refused service in Russia where the assistant refused to assist and just stared with a blank look or even disgust on their face.  It is a very creepy and disturbing experience.  I cannot imagine what it would be like if this was a common occurrence in my life.  I suspect I would isolate myself to a large degree to avoid the experience of wondering if the next person I encountered disliked me.  (And I get that there may not be dislike of the person but rather something they are doing, but if it happens enough it will feel like a personal dislike, imo.)

We've all suffered such things at some point or other in our lives.  I favor a libertarian approach, unless safety/preservation of life/liberty is involved.  If there truly is no housing option, for example, which is a rare thing indeed, and has hardly ever been seen:  the housing may suck, but the housing is there.  As car salesmen say, "There's a butt for every seat."

[longview]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I would also recommend getting your history from a better source.

So you have an objection to Ben Shapiro as a person?  This appears to be another of your habitual ad hominem attack.  Too bad for you.  His book is really excellent.

[longview]

2 hours ago, Anijen said:

I never said the court has power to introduce laws, i said introduce words i.e. penumbra and privacy. The Court did not invent these words, but they did introduce them in their opinions. Which in effect creates court law another term for it is judicial activism.

Furthermore, when the courts use words this way it is literally called "magic words" as so I learned in law school. Another term for this is called dictum.

All evidence of men's tendency to add more layers of complexity and skirting the Constitution.  This is a form of legalistic priestcraft.  Which must be rejected.

What is your legal philosophy concerning advocacy for the unborn?   As an actual person?   Have you seen the movie:  "Unplanned"?

[USU78]

Anijen, I'm curious.  Colorado has an anti-SLAPP statute.  What with the baker there now being sued a third time, I was wondering whether the anti-SLAPP statute, with its useful attorney's fees and other provisions, might be used to SLAPP-back against the nasty plaintiff. 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, longview said:

So you have an objection to Ben Shapiro as a person?  This appears to be another of your habitual ad hominem attack.  Too bad for you.  His book is really excellent.

Sort of, I have a knee jerk objection to propagandists as I think they are a blight on society. I have worked in marketing you see.

When they assault history, one of my favorite studies, it is like watching a horrific violation. History, like life which is future history, is always messy. People who approach it with an agenda destroy it.

You May ask how I am sure his works are propagandist. Let’s peruse the titles of his published works:

• Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth
• Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism Is Corrupting Our Future 
• Project President: Bad Hair and Botox on the Road to the White House 
• Bullies: How the Left's Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America
• The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against the Obama Administration
• A Moral Universe Torn Apart
• What's Fair and Other Short Stories 
• True Allegiance
• The Right Side of History: How Reason and Moral Purpose Made the West Great

Yeah, you can tell he is deeply interested in the lessons of history and is not just looking to distribute talking points to those who already agree with him. There are times I wish I had less of a soul. I could make a good living writing propaganda. It is easy. You just need a certain rhetorical style, a willingness to ignore anything that disagrees with your conclusions, a brazen flippancy showing how corrupt the enemy leaders are and how dumb their sheep are, and risk permanent brain damage from that mindset.

By permanent brain damage I mean the loss of any intellectual sense of wonder. Children want to learn stuff for the sheer joy of learning and most of us carry that wonder into adulthood about something. Sports, amateur hobbies, literature, history, politics, birdwatching, fiction, etc. Propaganda takes that wonder and deadens the intellect. It is lazy. You never faces challenges to your conclusions or need to revise your conclusions. It is comfort food that does not satisfy or inspire and provokes anger and hatred. It is the preferred artform of hell.

[Storm Rider]

22 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

I have several thoughts about what you wrote above which I will space over a series of posts, since my first point will quote from the ruling itself and will be somewhat lengthy.

I understand how the account about Rosa Parks, which occurred 64 years ago and galvanized the civil rights movement concerning racial equality and ultimately ended up in our history books, has been the subject of historical revisionism, with potential embellishments and omissions adding to and potentially white-washing some aspects of the story.  After all, the event happened 64 years ago, and also occurred at a time when media exposure was far more limited than we've become accustomed to, today.  I'm actually curious how aware the public and courts were at the time of Rosa Park's activism, and will be pursing that in my own further research now that it's piqued my own curiosity over the matter.

That said, even if Rosa Parks was more of a conscious activist, how much does it change the narrative?  Does it means she is worthy of vilification or nefarious motives?  Was she any less sincere in her desire to bring about an end to unjust racial discrimination, segregation, et all?  Do any of us today think that forcing blacks to sit at the back of the bus and allow whites to have the preferred seats should have continued or is something society should bring back?  Is conscious activism in pursuit of equal treatment for a newly emerging protected class somehow 'worse' than accidental victimization?  Is it wrong for those who feel they are denied justice to exercise their government-mandated right to seek redress through the court system...? 

I'm not so sure that conscious activists like Rosa Parks are worthy of scorn or derision.  Is she any less a hero that she stood her ground, knowing the cause she was hoping to engage in?

All of the above said, I still maintain that the two cases in this thread are not like Rosa Parks in any sense that Ingersol and Freed were NOT "innocent buyers sincerely wanting a specific provider to assist them," and they did NOT target Arlene's Flowers "because of who they are and their personal standards."

Quoting once again from the ruling in the link I provided earlier, here's pages 5-9 that addresses your points (again, I've removed the legal citacions to make it more readable, but those citacions can be found in the link previously provided):

Daniel, do you have any information on how this went from, "please make flowers for my wedding" to the actual lawsuit? None of the information above reveals anything about the couple's innocence regarding the lawsuit. I am sure Rosa Parks rode the bus many times, but the event that brought her lawsuit was a planned event. Still looking for information. 

[Anijen]

4 hours ago, longview said:

All evidence of men's tendency to add more layers of complexity and skirting the Constitution.  This is a form of legalistic priestcraft.  Which must be rejected.

I am in complete agreement.

 

Quote

What is your legal philosophy concerning advocacy for the unborn?   As an actual person?   Have you seen the movie:  "Unplanned"?

I have not seen Unplanned. I am immensely pro-life and do not subscribe, for any reason, a choice for abortion.

As far as legal advocacy for the unborn, I would like to see the fetus legally called a "human" before he/she is born. Currently, legally the baby is not considered a human until the baby is born. 

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Daniel, do you have any information on how this went from, "please make flowers for my wedding" to the actual lawsuit? None of the information above reveals anything about the couple's innocence regarding the lawsuit. I am sure Rosa Parks rode the bus many times, but the event that brought her lawsuit was a planned event. Still looking for information. 

According to the defendant's attorneys, the prime mover responsible for pushing the litigation forward was Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson.

Apparently, "[h]e was so eager to file a lawsuit against Barronelle [Stutzman, the owner,] that he did so without receiving a legal complaint from Rob or Curt, and he bypassed the state agency charged with enforcing the state’s nondiscrimination law. He then hand-picked Barronelle to make an example of her, even suing her in her personal capacity to frighten her and anyone who dared to live out those same beliefs about marriage." [source]

Initially, the couple wasn't interested in suing the florist, but conversations with friends and a personal phone call from Ferguson persuaded them to join with the ACLU and the state of Washington in pursuing litigation.

The following Christian Science Monitor article has a good summary of events, here:

Quote

As part of the preparations, Ingersoll went to his favorite florist to ask her personally if she would handle the flowers.

At that brief meeting, Stutzman reached across the counter and took hold of Ingersoll’s hand. He would later recall to Freed the words she used: “You know I love you dearly. I think you are a wonderful person, but my religion doesn’t allow me to do this.”

In response to Ingersoll’s request for a referral, she suggested three local florists from among a dozen flower shops in the area. They talked a bit more, then hugged, and Ingersoll left the shop.

Ingersoll wrote to the Monitor that he was “overwhelmed by the rejection from someone I had done business with for years.”

He added: “While trying to remain composed, I was of course flooded with emotions and disbelief of what just happened.”

He said he was aware that some religious conservatives were opposed to same-sex marriage, but he did not know that Stutzman was one of them.

Freed says the florist’s refusal has had a lasting impact. “We had not made other arrangements for our wedding, and this was really the first contact with a vendor we made,” he said.

“We immediately became concerned that we were going to experience the same treatment from other vendors as well,” Freed said. “The experience left us feeling isolated, singled-out, and discriminated against.”

Soon after, Freed posted a comment on his Facebook page recounting the florist’s refusal. It went viral. According to a sworn deposition filed in the case, the Facebook post generated “overwhelming” support for the couple from across the United States. It also attracted the attention of the media, the state attorney general, and the ACLU.

At first, both Freed and Ingersoll thought Stutzman had a right to refuse their business based on her religious beliefs. Ingersoll even confided to a friend shortly after the exchange that he did not plan to file a lawsuit. “Not my thing,” he said in an email.

That view changed after conversations with friends and a personal phone call from Attorney General Ferguson. The ACLU also agreed to represent the couple in a private lawsuit against Stutzman and her company.

Although the matter was considered a high priority, Freed and Ingersoll were told (in mid-March 2013) there would be no action taken in their case for several weeks out of concern that media coverage of the dispute with the florist might set back other efforts to advance gay rights.

Those other efforts were taking place at the US Supreme Court.

On March 26, 2013, the US Supreme Court heard oral argument in a case challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which barred same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage benefits.

On March 27, the high court took up a challenge to Proposition 8 in California, which banned same-sex marriage in that state.

On March 28, the first formal notice was sent to Stutzman from the state attorney general’s office, informing her that she had violated the state’s antidiscrimination law. The letter urged her to sign an agreement pledging that she would not discriminate in the future.

It warned that she might be liable for up to $2,000 in fines per violation as well as attorney fees and costs. The message was clear: Settle now or the state will come after you.

The settlement document included as a final provision a disclaimer that nothing in the agreement would bar anyone else from suing her. What Stutzman didn’t know at that point was that the ACLU was also working on the case behind the scenes on behalf of Ingersoll and Freed. So even if she agreed to settle with the state, there was no guarantee that the ACLU wouldn’t pursue its own litigation.

Stutzman refused to sign [the agreement]. Within weeks, complaints were filed by both the attorney general’s office and the ACLU. In addition to naming Arlene’s Flowers, both suits also named Stutzman in her personal capacity.

This is litigation hardball. It is usually done in an effort to persuade a defendant to settle a lawsuit to avoid huge fees in the future.

 

[Storm Rider]

26 minutes ago, Amulek said:

According to the defendant's attorneys, the prime mover responsible for pushing the litigation forward was Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson.

Apparently, "[h]e was so eager to file a lawsuit against Barronelle [Stutzman, the owner,] that he did so without receiving a legal complaint from Rob or Curt, and he bypassed the state agency charged with enforcing the state’s nondiscrimination law. He then hand-picked Barronelle to make an example of her, even suing her in her personal capacity to frighten her and anyone who dared to live out those same beliefs about marriage." [source]

Initially, the couple wasn't interested in suing the florist, but conversations with friends and a personal phone call from Ferguson persuaded them to join with the ACLU and the state of Washington in pursuing litigation.

The following Christian Science Monitor article has a good summary of events, here:

A noble, unbiased government servant at work. The couple appears to be very noble and innocent...and used to achieve the objectives of this pig of an AG. I wonder what office is wanting to run for? 

[longview]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You May ask how I am sure his works are propagandist. Let’s peruse the titles of his published works:

• Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth
• Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism Is Corrupting Our Future 
• Project President: Bad Hair and Botox on the Road to the White House 
• Bullies: How the Left's Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America
• The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against the Obama Administration
• A Moral Universe Torn Apart
• What's Fair and Other Short Stories 
• True Allegiance
• The Right Side of History: How Reason and Moral Purpose Made the West Great

All true and very excellently presented with contrasting points of view from different players.  How they contradict themselves.  Very informative.

For you to stoop to calling Ben a propagandist reveals yet again your mindless default to ad hominem attacks.  Without explaining how he is a propagandist (implying his use of falsehoods) with at least a few examples from his written works.  Many of the stories are about the sheer intolerance and violence displayed by campus radicals, Antifas, angry bolshevik professors, etc that come against Ben when he is invited by YAF (Young Americans for Freedom), Young Republicans and other conservative student groups who have paid for lecture hall reservations.  You know very well there are hundreds and thousands of college agitators that refuse conservatives their First Amendment Rights to Free Speech and will commit havoc to prevent appearances by Ben, Charlie Kirkland, Candace Owens, Dinesh Sousa, Ann Coulter and many other conservatives.  You have yet to condemn Eric Clanton, an actual college professor, who has brazenly gone around swinging bike locks on the heads of conservative demonstrators.

[longview]

2 hours ago, Anijen said:

As far as legal advocacy for the unborn, I would like to see the fetus legally called a "human" before he/she is born. Currently, legally the baby is not considered a human until the baby is born. 

A very tragic situation where the Supreme Court took away the right of states to debate and resolve the abortion question with greater input from people across the country (Roe v. Wade in 1973).  Because SCOTUS legislated from the bench, the country instead has undergone greater and greater polarization ever since.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, longview said:

All true and very excellently presented with contrasting points of view from different players.  How they contradict themselves.  Very informative.

For you to stoop to calling Ben a propagandist reveals yet again your mindless default to ad hominem attacks.  Without explaining how he is a propagandist (implying his use of falsehoods) with at least a few examples from his written works.  Many of the stories are about the sheer intolerance and violence displayed by campus radicals, Antifas, angry bolshevik professors, etc that come against Ben when he is invited by YAF (Young Americans for Freedom), Young Republicans and other conservative student groups who have paid for lecture hall reservations.  You know very well there are hundreds and thousands of college agitators that refuse conservatives their First Amendment Rights to Free Speech and will commit havoc to prevent appearances by Ben, Charlie Kirkland, Candace Owens, Dinesh Sousa, Ann Coulter and many other conservatives.  You have yet to condemn Eric Clanton, an actual college professor, who has brazenly gone around swinging bike locks on the heads of conservative demonstrators.

Are you okay?

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

A noble, unbiased government servant at work. The couple appears to be very noble and innocent...and used to achieve the objectives of this pig of an AG. I wonder what office is wanting to run for? 

Pig of an AG?  For enforcing the laws of the State of Washington?  The very job he was elected to do?

And these "christians" who believe Christ was big on discriminating against sinners.  Have they even read their Bibles where Christ specifically talked about the then shunned group in telling us exactly how to treat those differently than us in the story of the Good Samaritan?  Do they even understand exactly why the priest and Levite refused to help, and why Christ used the Samaritan as the one that offered the help?  Discrimination is ugly and this country has long ago decided it is not something that Americans want to embrace.  

Religion, being used as a weapon to discriminate is not going to end well unless the goal of religion is to push decent people who believe in treating everyone with respect and dignity away from religion. When the only sin these 'christians" are unwilling to bake a cake for or make a flower arrangement is SSM, then the sincerity of their "religious beliefs" looses all credibility.  Where are these "christians" refusing to bake a cake for the unwed mother or the divorce celebration or bachelor parties where strippers entertain or a hundred other sinful events their cakes may be eaten at.  Why aren't these "christians" going through a little interview process to see exactly who is eating their products and what possible event it might be used in.  Please.  IMO, most people look at this as shear discrimination against the LGBT community because they seem to be the only targeted group.  

Those of you who rally around these religious excuses for discriminating against the LGBT community celebrating a legal marriage really think this is going to help attract more people to your message?  Do you really think calling the Attorney General of Washington State a pig for enforcing the law to not discriminate is going to win over followers?  Do you really want discrimination tied directly to Christ and what He stands for?  I personally am outraged that anyone is using Christ as a weapon to perpetuate discrimination.  Bake the cake.  Show kindness to all who enter your store.  If you want to use your business to preach your beliefs, then find, hand out bibles or brochures with each and everything you sell.  Or put some scripture on the bottom of your drinking cups.  But discriminate as a way to bring people to Christ?  Don't think that is going to work out well.

[Calm]

Is there any effort to publicize refusals of serving celebrations of unwed mothers?

I have heard of divorce parties being refused (as in someone describing what they would refuse to serve), but haven't seen any activism to publicize such.

So unless you can show significant evidence of acceptance of serving everything but SSM, I think claiming that is what is happening is premature.

I suspect few of those refusing SSM would be willing to do an abortion celebration either as one likely other lines not crossed.  I would be very surprised to hear in general ofthem be okay with divorce celebrations and I have read a few saying they wouldn't be.  I can see unwed mother if they are celebrating the birth, the choice not to abort.

If anyone is interviewing only for SSM but nothing else, I will be happy to declare them hypocrites, but if they refuse simply when something is openly known without an "interview", I don't see it as hypocritical if they choose not to interview.  Now I may find other reasons, but not interviewing...not that.

[Calm]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

 I personally am outraged that anyone is using Christ as a weapon to perpetuate discrimination.  Bake the cake.  Show kindness to all who enter your store...

Shouldn't there be the reciprocal of showing kindness and forgiveness of those who err in service for you as a customer because of their own shortcomings and things you, the customer, views as sins?

Edited June 11, 2019 by Calm

[longview]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Are you okay?

Is this your way of implying I am the problem?  Your premise being conservatism is not worth pondering over?  The fact that I have presented a comprehensive overview of the issues happening around the country and well documented by ALL media is NOT going to be addressed by you?  Yet another example of you engaging in more ad hominem attacks (this one indirect) without honestly responding to my points.

[Amulek]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Pig of an AG?  For enforcing the laws of the State of Washington?  The very job he was elected to do?

Well, I wouldn't call him a pig, but his behavior isn't entirely beyond reproach. As was mentioned, he was so zealous to prosecute this woman that he filed his case against her “without receiving a legal complaint” from the gay couple, and “he bypassed the state agency charged with enforcing the state’s nondiscrimination law.”

And he didn't just go after her business - he sued her in her personal capacity as well. So now, this 74 year old woman is looking at potentially losing not just her business and her livelihood, but her personal life savings as well. 

Classy.

Where was this passion "[f]or enforcing the laws of the State of Washington" when he refused to take action against the coffee-shop owner who threw Christian pro-life activists out of his Seattle store?

Let's be honest: it's a total double-standard.

He can get away with playing hardball with the little old lady out in Tri-Cities while giving the King County crowd a pass for doing the same sorts of things. 

 

Quote

Religion, being used as a weapon to discriminate is not going to end well unless the goal of religion is to push decent people who believe in treating everyone with respect and dignity away from religion.

Using public accommodation laws to come after religionists - religionists who both serve and hire gays, but only refuse to participate in gay weddings - is not going to end well unless the goal is to ensure that more jurisdictions refuse to add sexual orientation / gender identity as a protected class to their public accommodation statutes.   

 

Quote

When the only sin these 'christians" are unwilling to bake a cake for or make a flower arrangement is SSM, then the sincerity of their "religious beliefs" looses all credibility.  Where are these "christians" refusing to bake a cake for the unwed mother or the divorce celebration or bachelor parties where strippers entertain or a hundred other sinful events their cakes may be eaten at.

I have no idea how you could be involved in so many of these discussions and not have seen it previously - especially, since I'm fairly certain I have personally pointed it out to you before (though I'm having a hard time finding it with the search function) - but the baker from Masterpiece Cakeshop does refuse to make other kinds of cakes which violate his Christian beliefs.

In fact, he has "declined to make a number of other types of cakes, including cakes for Halloween, bachelor parties, divorce, cakes with alcohol in the ingredients, and cakes with atheist messages." [source]

So please, give it a rest with this whole 'they're only out to get the gays' nonsense; it's both tiresome and false. 

 

Quote

Those of you who rally around these religious excuses for discriminating against the LGBT community celebrating a legal marriage really think this is going to help attract more people to your message?

The only thing I care about in these cases is free speech. And I think people of principle support free speech even when it isn't popular to do so (e.g., Nazi's marching in a public parade, KKK members burning a cross on their own property, etc.). 

If the LGBT community wants to celebrate a legal marriage, that's great! Have at it.

But when the LGBT community tries to use the power of the government to force other people to celebrate along with them, then yeah - I've got a problem with that. 

 

Edited June 11, 2019 by Amulek

[The Nehor]

25 minutes ago, longview said:

Is this your way of implying I am the problem?  Your premise being conservatism is not worth pondering over?  The fact that I have presented a comprehensive overview of the issues happening around the country and well documented by ALL media is NOT going to be addressed by you?  Yet another example of you engaging in more ad hominem attacks (this one indirect) without honestly responding to my points.

No, you started rambling about stuff only peripherally connected to the discussion at best, ranting about your standard list of everyone wrong with America, and suggesting moral perfidy on my part for not condemning “an actual college professor” that I have never heard of for doing something I have never read about. It sounded a little like the beginning of some kind of mental break. If not, I apologize.

Conservatism does deserve a fair hearing but you are not presenting that. You are talking about persecution narratives and how court cases about being required to serve the public equally are destroying us. Then you posted links to propaganda and when challenged on its value as history went off on a rant about how Antifa’s actions somehow relate and somehow that makes you right or I have to explain it or something. You are using tactical strikes instead of trying to convince.

It is a standard propaganda technique. If something has failed to convince just run on to something else to prove the other side’s moral perfidy hoping that will shame your opponent. It is the technique anti-Mormons use. They generally do not do an exhaustive analysis of a subject. They just throw darts at Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. If one is mitigated or shot down you just keep throwing more hoping the listener will be overwhelmed by the volume of them and accept that some must be true. It is easy and lazy and your opponent will probably give up when they realize you are not arguing in good faith and are just trying to stay perpetually on the offensive. And yes, the Left has its awful propagandists too right now. I avoid them too.

And again, I am an Eisenhower Republican on economic issues. I am not a leftist. I have no political home right now.  I seem to be a virulent because you have an “us versus them” mentality that puts everyone into two camps and propaganda has convinced you that if someone says A they logically believe A, B, and C because that is what they have to believe in their group mind. And yes, the Left has propagandists doing the same thing. I avoid them too. Propaganda is easy to spot.

I say the following in all sincerity (a rare thing for me here):

Please try to detox from this vile stuff. It is not bringing you joy or happiness. It is the devil’s tool designed to stir people to anger once against another. Read some real history and some real conservative reasoning. Dig into the Federalist Papers (not what other people write about them). Read some of the great conservative writers of history: Confucius, Cato, Locke, Goethe, Hamilton, Burke, and many others. Get outside the bubble of “what you should be mad about today” and dig deep into the foundations of the beliefs you espouse instead of the latest clickbait designed to make you hate.

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Is there any effort to publicize refusals of serving celebrations of unwed mothers?

I have heard of divorce parties being refused (as in someone describing what they would refuse to serve), but haven't seen any activism to publicize such.

So unless you can show significant evidence of acceptance of serving everything but SSM, I think claiming that is what is happening is premature.

I suspect few of those refusing SSM would be willing to do an abortion celebration either as one likely other lines not crossed.  I would be very surprised to hear in general ofthem be okay with divorce celebrations and I have read a few saying they wouldn't be.  I can see unwed mother if they are celebrating the birth, the choice not to abort.

If anyone is interviewing only for SSM but nothing else, I will be happy to declare them hypocrites, but if they refuse simply when something is openly known without an "interview", I don't see it as hypocritical if they choose not to interview.  Now I may find other reasons, but not interviewing...not that.

 

 

Article in the Huffington Post

Sweetcakes Bakery in Oregon agreed to bake a cake for

A Divorce Party

Cloning Human Stem Cell Party

Pagan Solstice Party

A. party for a woman who had multiple children out of wedlock

Article from the Huffington Post

Masterpiece Bakery of Colorado agreed to make a cake for celebrating two dogs getting married.  Yeah that isn't mocking the sanctity of marriage between only a man and a woman.

These are the exact two bakeries that are involved in these discrimination lawsuits.  Evidently no problem with pagan worship or having children out of wedlock or divorce or marrying two dogs.  But a gay wedding.  Well, we just don't do those.

 

 

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Shouldn't there be the reciprocal of showing kindness and forgiveness of those who err in service for you as a customer because of their own shortcomings and things you, the customer views as sins?

I wouldn't ever refuse service to them or anyone else because of their beliefs  if that is what you mean.  It doesn't mean I don't find it offensive when these "christians" use the name of Christ to promote discrimination. 

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

 

Article in the Huffington Post

Sweetcakes Bakery in Oregon agreed to bake a cake for

A Divorce Party

Cloning Human Stem Cell Party

Pagan Solstice Party

A. party for a woman who had multiple children out of wedlock

Article from the Huffington Post

Masterpiece Bakery of Colorado agreed to make a cake for celebrating two dogs getting married.  Yeah that isn't mocking the sanctity of marriage between only a man and a woman.

These are the exact two bakeries that are involved in these discrimination lawsuits.  Evidently no problem with pagan worship or having children out of wedlock or divorce or marrying two dogs.  But a gay wedding.  Well, we just don't do those.

 

 

Oh no.....I just realized I never married my sugar gliders. They are living in sin. I have caught Elric with both the girls.

(I was tempted to post a gif of them going at it as a visual aid but I am guessing that would be considered inappropriate.)

[longview]

55 minutes ago, Amulek said:

. . . (though I'm having a hard time finding it with the search function) . . .

I have the same problem with using the search function on many websites.  Even lds.org do not always return the results I expect.  I have had much better luck going to Google and using the site command.  Try a variation of the following:

      site:http://www.mormondialogue.org/* Amulek+California