Bakers Who Refused Lesbian Couple A Wedding Cake WILL Have To Pay $135,000

[InChrist]

Yet many Christians do regard LBGT people with a condescending, patronizing, and highly judgemental attitude.

And I'd say that attitude is wrong no matter who it is in regard to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, I'm sure that's the majority. But not everyone, by any means. So while I think that the "they're all just closet cases" gets overplayed, there's a bunch of them.
Tom

Clearly they are not all closet cases, but it some inspect their feelings and see that there is no threat they may rethink their positions.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Whoa whoa whoa!! It sounds like you are talking about Ted Haggard here. I will have you know that Ted Haggard is completely heterosexual:

I had that NAARTH guy in mind when I made the post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I had that NAARTH guy in mind when I made the post.

And yet your description could be applied to several. It shows that the concept is more than a meme.

 

[columbus]

Clearly they are not all closet cases, but it some inspect their feelings and see that there is no threat they may rethink their positions.

Oh for sure. I think that is already happening to an enormous degree. Folks who used to have no image of gays except hard drinking, sleazeball, disease ridden losers are coming to realize that isn't often the case, they just didn't notice any other kind. Getting married is the Pro-Family thing to do, even for gay people. People who oppose marriage equality are the anti- family people. It's a whole new outlook.
Tom

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh for sure. I think that is already happening to an enormous degree. Folks who used to have no image of gays except hard drinking, sleazeball, disease ridden losers are coming to realize that isn't often the case, they just didn't notice any other kind. Getting married is the Pro-Family thing to do, even for gay people. People who oppose marriage equality are the anti- family people. It's a whole new outlook.
Tom

I tend to be a bit conservative myself and I used to oppose marriage equality. I finally realized that those complaining about gay promiscuity could not oppose gay marriage in good conscience. What others do in their own bedroom does not affect me so why should I try to tell them what to do?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't expect religions ditch beliefs contradicted by scientific evidence.
Just look at creationism, the flood, Adam & Eve, etc.

Not just scientific evidence; also their own experience... if they’re straight.

Why would someone who has found that their sexual orientation has never be a matter of choice insist that sexual orientation is always a matter of choice?

Do you think opposition to homosexuality is not religion based?

Of course it is. That wasn’t at issue.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not just scientific evidence; also their own experience... if they’re straight.

Why would someone who has found that their sexual orientation has never be a matter of choice insist that sexual orientation is always a matter of choice?


Of course it is. That wasn’t at issue.

Oddly enough I have only heard anti-gay Bible believers claim it is a choice. I had no choice in being straight, the gay people that I have worked with in the past did not seem to have chosen to be gay. I always wonder about someone that claims that they chose to be straight.

 

[InChrist]

I don’t think that anyone should be forced to participate in a same-sex wedding (or an inter-racial wedding, or any other sort of wedding that violates their conscience). This right is protected by making sure that nobody is forced to take a job or start a business that requires them to participate in weddings they disagree with.

When someone decides to offer services to the public, there’s nothing wrong with laws that say the service must be offered to the whole public.

If a baker doesn’t want to bake wedding cakes for same-sex marriages, I completely support his right to choose not to bake wedding cakes at all. I don’t think that a same-sex couple should have any right to walk into a bakery that only makes pies and bread, for instance, and insist that they provide them with a wedding cake.

As long as nobody is forced to enter or remain in a line of work that violates their conscience, reasonable rules governing an industry aren’t “forcing” anyone. People who don’t like those rules can look for work in another industry.

... but none of this is forcing people to violate their consciences. It’s only asking people to take full responsibility for their free choices.

I appreciate you sharing these further thoughts. I basically am in agreement and think a wiser move would have been for the bakers to discontinue making wedding cakes or provide them on a personal basis only for friends or family, if they realized the it may become an issue for them under the current law and social environment. Nevertheless, I think is extreme when some homosexuals become so offended to the point of destroying someone's livelihood, rather than taking their business elsewhere.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I appreciate you sharing these further thoughts. I basically am in agreement and think a wiser move would have been for the bakers to discontinue making wedding cakes or provide them on a personal basis only for friends or family, if they realized the it may become an issue for them under the current law and social environment. Nevertheless, I think is extreme when some homosexuals become so offended to the point of destroying someone's livelihood, rather than taking their business elsewhere.

That move would be very hard to explain after they got their first gay wedding cake order. And remember, it was not only their actions in not baking the cake that led to such a high fine, it was their continued abuse after the fact. Face it, the judgement was fair. They got what they deserved.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I appreciate you sharing these further thoughts. I basically am in agreement and think a wiser move would have been for the bakers to discontinue making wedding cakes or provide them on a personal basis only for friends or family, if they realized the it may become an issue for them under the current law and social environment. Nevertheless, I think is extreme when some homosexuals become so offended to the point of destroying someone's livelihood, rather than taking their business elsewhere.

“Homosexuals” didn’t destroy their livelihood; the bakers did that themselves. They’re the ones who chose to break the law.

And it may have been lost here, but these bakers behaved especially vindictively. They “doxxed” the same-sex couple: they publicized their personal information to enable people who might want to threaten and intimidate them. AFAIK, the size of the award was meant to reflect this part of what happened as well. The “emotional distress” mentioned wasn’t just the distress of being denied a cake by bigots; it was the distress of being made to literally fear for their lives because of the actions of those bigots after the fact.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It's definitely overdone, in my experienced opinion.
And while my opinions are not backed up with peer reviewed studies, I have a lot of anecdotal, subjective data. It's definitely not scientific, but I have a lot of interactions. Due to organizations I have been part of, volunteer work I have done, my tendency to chat up people I don't know, and various other characteristics of mine, I have a lot of experience with religious people, gay people, and particularly gay religious people. Of course, I am as subject to confirmation bias as anyone and all that.

But yeah, latency issues do seem to show up in religious bigotry more than most kinds of issues. It really is a thing, as far as I can tell.
Tom

What else would motivate the rabid Christian homophobia we so often see except internal conflicts causing severe cognitive dissonance? Why else would any of this be an extreme emotional issue? These same people don't seem to get worked up into an analogous lather over other assorted proscribed behaviors.

 

[columbus]

Nevertheless, I think is extreme when some homosexuals become so offended to the point of destroying someone's livelihood, rather than taking their business elsewhere.

Frankly, I agree. The culture of victimhood and entitlement is quite out of control sometimes.

But on the other hand, nobody is asking them to actually participate or condone the event. All anybody asked for was something the baker's do every day. They were literally objecting to a squiggle of icing or something. "Congratulations Jill and Steve" and the bakers are happy to earn a few bucks. "Congratulations Bill and Steve" means it's a big moral disaster. Worth death threats, courtroom drama and expenses, making Christianity look petty and bigoted, all resulting in a bunch of gay marriage supporters doing the happy dance ( when the bakers are found to be breaking the law),
I see nothing good coming out of this whole thing. A bunch of Christians joined the culture of victimhood and entitlement, spending a lot of money and time to do so. Does that seem like something Jesus would be proud of to you?
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, I'm sure that's the majority. But not everyone, by any means. So while I think that the "they're all just closet cases" gets overplayed, there's a bunch of them.
Tom

It's already happened a few posts ago, but it's time to admit it.....
I'm repeating myself, & I've nothing new to add (for now).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't recall ever advocating beating homosexuals or any violence at all. If I was ever in a situation where anyone, a homosexual or otherwise was being beaten or attacked I would do whatever was in my ability to stop such treatment.

I have to apologize: I misremembered what you wrote.

I thought you had said something about God punishing homosexual people in Hell, but when I looked back through the thread, I realized you hadn't actually said it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But on the other hand, nobody is asking them to actually participate or condone the event. All anybody asked for was something the baker's do every day. They were literally objecting to a squiggle of icing or something. "Congratulations Jill and Steve" and the bakers are happy to earn a few bucks. "Congratulations Bill and Steve" means it's a big moral disaster.

It wasn't even a matter of "a squiggle of icing," which would have been a matter of expression.

If the design of the cake was the issue, I would have said that the bakers would have been within their rights to say, for instance, "we won't write 'congratulations Bill and Steve' on the cake or sell you a cake topper with a same-sex couple, but we will sell you a wedding cake with no writing on it."

The question of expression never even came up. AFAIK, the couple was refused before they even discussed design specifics.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think is extreme when some homosexuals become so offended to the point of destroying someone's livelihood, rather than taking their business elsewhere.

Christians are flexing their might. Same sex couples are objecting. The law determines which is correct. Why should these same sex couples care any more about the livelihood of Christian bigots than they care about it themselves? If the baker's livelihood was destroyed, it was their own doing.

There is nothing extreme about insisting on being treated lawfully. What's extreme is to be so bigoted that you would throw your business away rather than be a decent human being.

 

[columbus]

It's already happened a few posts ago, but it's time to admit it.....
I'm repeating myself, & I've nothing new to add (for now).

But mentioning that in a post boosted your count, as well as anything, eh?

Tom

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Oddly enough I have only heard anti-gay Bible believers claim it is a choice. I had no choice in being straight, the gay people that I have worked with in the past did not seem to have chosen to be gay. I always wonder about someone that claims that they chose to be straight.

I tried to choose to be cisgender and heterosexual. Not only did it cause lots of inner anguish and torment, it was also caused some distress for my ex who thought it was something to do with her because for me sex just wasn't enjoyable. And then there was taking my own problems out on others, and I was pretty anti-LBGT in my past life. I had a serious "Beautiful People Syndrome" going on.
That's what choosing did to me.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Nevertheless, I think is extreme when some homosexuals become so offended to the point of destroying someone's livelihood, rather than taking their business elsewhere.

Darn those pesky Negroes and Asians, ruining the livlihoods of those who wanted to keep a godly white establishment. And those military veterans, how dare they ask to be treated equally. And blast those women for becoming pregnant and costing a company money.
And, of course, breaking the law beyond a civil offense does run the risk of ruining one's livelihood.