"Religious refusal to bake for a gay wedding may cost bakery $135,000"

[Curious George]

But they didn't deny something based on homosexuality; they refused to bake a cake supporting gay marriage.
Big difference.


Not that old.

Not such a big difference. The choice not to support specific marriages is based in a distinction based on sexual preference.

 

[Shad]

Where, exactly, is the law against setting up a donation drive?
Tom

Read the comment directly above your own. I have already clarified my mistake as has Skwin. It was posted 20 mins before your own but it seems like you didn't bother to read it. What GoFundMe has done is illegal or under review to become illegal up here. It is discrimination against offenders of minor crimes.

I just found it ironic that the bakery complained about business policy which violates no law in light of their own violation of breaking the law.

 

[oldbadger]

...........................................................................
I think a lack of foresight is a problem plaguing the West today.

That is very vindictive and very childlike as well. People should be allowed to be as discriminating as they please because it's their business. I really detest this whole entitled attitude people have.

Let me get this right.......
Do you think that a business should have the right to put up a sign, such as, 'We don't serve Australians, wheelchair users, married women, transvestites, Irish, Methodist Christians, pole-vaulters, adulterers or yellow skinned people'. ???????

If you do think that businesses should have this right, then don't come to England, 'cos our anti-discriminatory laws are very tough. Our legislation doesn't put up with prejudiced nutters that easily!

Well done to the couple for bringing this action. Now everybody knows that the bakery is 'extreme-prejudiced'.

 

[oldbadger]

Some people are dumb. If you don't want to bake the cake just say that you can't make it in time.

That can work, but not always.
Refused folks sometimes get acquaintances to ask for the same service immediately after a refusal, and if the business offers to fulfill............. it's 'Hey ho...off to Court we go!'

 

[Breathe]

Not if it breaks the laws. So clearly they do not have the right to refuse based on sex, race and sexual orientation. Hence why it is illegal to deny service to African-Americas for being African American. Or deny service since they do not support non-white marriage. One could produce a religious reason for not serving African Americas, they did in the 60s and before.

SC Restaurant Owner Refuses To Serve Blacks, Cites Religious Beliefs
Maurice Bessinger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Irrelevant to the discussion and naturally I condemn. The bakery did not refuse to serve because they were gay. They refused based on politics and the message. I know it's tricky for so-called "liberal" (most "liberals" aren't liberal) types to comprehend but refusing to make something does not mean refusing to do business with someone based on their sexuality at all. They could've still made another cake, only I doubt the people involved even cared about the cake.

It's not irrelevant is this very fact allows churches to marry whom they want. Hence why Churches are not treated as businesses but religious organizations. Hence why say a Rabbi can not sue a Churches for not hiring them as it's pastor.

Irrelevant.

You comment shows that you have no ideas there is a difference hence your fear mongering is not only a strawman but an easy refuted by looking up US law

You're acting hysterical. There is no fear mongering nor strawman. Stop making up things and putting words in people's mouths to try to make yourself feel better. That or stop the discussion. You're wasting my time otherwise.

Not such a big difference. The choice not to support specific marriages is based in a distinction based on sexual preference.

Nope.
They didn't refuse to serve them because they're gay. They didn't agree with the politics.
Don't make things up.

 

[Curious George]

.


Nope.
They didn't refuse to serve them because they're gay. They didn't agree with the politics.
Don't make things up.

I'm not making things up.

There political choice expressly revolves around their homosexuality.

But for their homosexuality they would get a cake for their wedding.

 

[Breathe]

I'm not making things up.

You are.

But for their homosexuality they would get a cake for their wedding.

They still could've got a cake, homosexuals or not. It wasn't their sexuality but what they wanted.
Easy to comprehend.

 

[Curious George]

You are.


They still could've got a cake, homosexuals or not. It wasn't their sexuality but what they wanted.
Easy to comprehend.

They wanted a cake for their wedding. This was not given. If they were heterosexual this would have been given. The distinction revolves around the sexuality of those involved in the wedding.
If I refuse to serve people who wear crosses with Jesus, then my discrimination though arguably based on speech, still makes a religious distinction. This is not allowed.

 

[Breathe]

If they were heterosexual this would have been given. The distinction revolves around the sexuality of those involved in the wedding.

I doubt it.

If I refuse to serve people who wear crosses with Jesus, then my discrimination though arguably based on speech, still makes a religious distinction.

Not quite the same. It'd be more like not making a cake with "John 3:16" on it but still letting them have another cake.
Your choice if you have a business. Doesn't mean I agree with either case but it'd be your choice.
It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

 

[Curious George]

I doubt it.

Not quite the same. It'd be more like not making a cake with "John 3:16" on it but still letting them have another cake.
Your choice if you have a business. Doesn't mean I agree with either case but it'd be your choice.
It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

Do you know something I don't? Was there a specific request for the cake other than it go to a gay wedding?

 

[Curious George]

I doubt it.

Not quite the same. It'd be more like not making a cake with "John 3:16" on it but still letting them have another cake.
Your choice if you have a business. Doesn't mean I agree with either case but it'd be your choice.
It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

Did they offer them a different cake?

 

[Breathe]

Do you know something I don't? Was there a specific request for the cake other than it go to a gay wedding?

Did they offer them a different cake?

I have no idea; I may be confusing two different cakes. Apologies if so.

 

[Skwim]

I doubt it.

Then read the OP.

Not quite the same. It'd be more like not making a cake with "John 3:16" on it but still letting them have another cake.
Your choice if you have a business. Doesn't mean I agree with either case but it'd be your choice.
It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

No it isn't. If you offer a service to others ("We will make a cake for your event") but refuse to do so because of the customer's religion, then you've broken the law.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Such things are not winning homosexual people any societal acceptance by forcing people to accept us.

The sad part is, the activists with the resources aren't listening to those like you and I, where we seem to agree that certain factions of the laudable Gay Rights movement is just going too far.

That is my fear of social reform issues: They always seem to start off on the right track fighting a good fight for good reasons; but once they pick up steam, they always seem to snowball out of control.

$135,000 for hurting someone's feelings is ludicrous. Losing a limb or digit on the workplace won't grant you that much. $135,000 in fines for breaking the law? Maybe. Damages? Give me a break!

 

[Skwim]

The sad part is, the activists with the resources aren't listening to those like you and I, where we seem to agree that certain factions of the laudable Gay Rights movement is just going too far.

That is my fear of social reform issues: They always seem to start off on the right track fighting a good fight for good reasons; but once they pick up steam, they always seem to snowball out of control.

$135,000 for hurting someone's feelings is ludicrous. Losing a limb or digit on the workplace won't grant you that much. $135,000 in fines for breaking the law? Maybe. Damages? Give me a break!

You misunderstand. Aside from any perceived injury the plaintiff may have suffered, court awards are also often established in part to punish and send a message. Taken together, the three considerations are sometimes lumped under a single reason; in this case, "emotional suffering." Don't take the term literally.

 

[Maponos]

Let me get this right.......
Do you think that a business should have the right to put up a sign, such as, 'We don't serve Australians, wheelchair users, married women, transvestites, Irish, Methodist Christians, pole-vaulters, adulterers or yellow skinned people'. ???????

If you do think that businesses should have this right, then don't come to England, 'cos our anti-discriminatory laws are very tough. Our legislation doesn't put up with prejudiced nutters that easily!

Well done to the couple for bringing this action. Now everybody knows that the bakery is 'extreme-prejudiced'.

Yes, I do believe that. England itself is in horrid state as we speak.

 

[Wirey]

Yes, I do believe that. England itself is in horrid state as we speak.

That is pretty sad in this day and age. I hope no one draws a cartoon you don't like.

 

[oldbadger]

Yes, I do believe that.

Well, tough cookie, 'cos most reasonable countries have legislated against any discrimination against gays, or the disabled, or gender, or race, or nationality, or skin colour, or sexual orientation, or even age.

England itself is in horrid state as we speak.

It is? I just looked outside and the Thames Estuary is all lit up, right across to Essex (from Kent) and still looks as beautiful as it always has been.
England is one of the best countries in the World, imo.
Where do you live?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I feel a fool for cosigning so quickly. While I believe that civil change movements always go too far into the extreme (and I see this happening among LGBT right activists), I certainly do not think that we should have the right to discriminate willy nilly. That just doesn't compute.

 

[Shad]

Irrelevant to the discussion and naturally I condemn. The bakery did not refuse to serve because they were gay. They refused based on politics and the message. I know it's tricky for so-called "liberal" (most "liberals" aren't liberal) types to comprehend but refusing to make something does not mean refusing to do business with someone based on their sexuality at all. They could've still made another cake, only I doubt the people involved even cared about the cake.

It was not a political choice since gay is not political. It is not even a political issue but civic. It is only political since poltitians jump on the religion bandwagon for votes.

Irrelevant.

Nope since it refuted your fear mongering about churches forced to do gay marriages.

You're acting hysterical. There is no fear mongering nor strawman. Stop making up things and putting words in people's mouths to try to make yourself feel better. That or stop the discussion. You're wasting my time otherwise.

Says the guy crying chicken little over churches may be forced to do gay marriage while they have exception in law against this very claim

Nope.
They didn't refuse to serve them because they're gay. They didn't agree with the politics.
Don't make things up.

Gay is a political position now?

Cry more chicken little.