Bakers refuse to makes wedding cakes for same sex couples

[CrazyPaul]

Yes, and Indian cuisine restaurants are also open to the public - which includes beef eaters.

Same goes for Jewish delis - the public is full of bacon eaters.

The fact that these foods are not available in these establishments is a direct result of religious beliefs. Forcing a Jewish deli to put bacon in their menu, or an Indian restaurant to include beef, since they are open to the public, and should accommodate all people of all walks of life, is trampling on their rights to run their privately owned business.

A private business is not a government entity.

Like if I go to a Thai restaurant, can I order a New York steak? Thai is a country, not religion. Same with Jewish and Indian, that's their food tradition. They are open to the public who love those food, fool.

Like Jiro said:

I think it's probably best if you stop coming up with any more examples....

One day you will :jaw: when married same-sex couples get what married straight couples get. We are created equal. If you are against same-sex marriage, you will lose like others.

That bakery was an American bakery, not a religious bakery.

 

[Jiro]

Yes, and Indian cuisine restaurants are also open to the public - which includes beef eaters.

Same goes for Jewish delis - the public is full of bacon eaters.

The fact that these foods are not available in these establishments is a direct result of religious beliefs. Forcing a Jewish deli to put bacon in their menu, or an Indian restaurant to include beef, since they are open to the public, and should accommodate all people of all walks of life, is trampling on their rights to run their privately owned business.

A private business is not a government entity.

um...... what? the gay couples did not force or ask the bakers to make something that's not in the menu like a steak :roll:

the bakers simply refused to make a wedding cake for gay couples.

 

[Steinhauer]

um...... what? the gay couples did not force or ask the bakers to make something that's not in the menu like a steak :roll:

the bakers simply refused to make a wedding cake for gay couples.

They asked, no, they DEMANDED that the bakery owner compromise their religious belief.

Which is the same exact thing as demanding an Indian cuisine restaurant to serve beef (Hindus view the cow as a sacred animal) or demanding a Jewish deli to serve a ham and bacon sandwich (orthodox Jews are forbidden, by their religion, to eat pork).

Don't ask a Hindu to kill Nandi .. it is rather impolite.

 

[Jiro]

They asked, no, they DEMANDED that the bakery owner compromise their religious belief.

Which is the same exact thing as demanding an Indian cuisine restaurant to serve beef (Hindus view the cow as a sacred animal) or demanding a Jewish deli to serve a ham and bacon sandwich (orthodox Jews are forbidden, by their religion, to eat pork).

Don't ask a Hindu to kill Nandi .. it is rather impolite.

like I said.... if it ain't in the menu - then it ain't served. simple as that. your example is not the same exact thing at all. not a single bit.

IMO - if you're in business of serving people - you're always going to deal with people of all races, genders, cultures, etc... and if you have problem with that - then you shouldn't be in business.

probably why they're closing shop.

 

[kokonut]

Incorrect. the SECOND definition of discrimination is noting differences. The FIRST definition of discrimination which most people think of when they hear the word is

dis·crim·i·na·tion
disˌkriməˈnāSHən/Submit
noun
1.
the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

Unjust treatment. It is unjust to discriminate against someone based on Sex. Since same sex relationships legally follow under sexual discrimination... unjust treatment based on sex. Poof.

Sex discrimination also can involve treating someone less favorably because of his or her connection with an organization or group that is generally associated with people of a certain sex.

Discrimination against an individual because that person is transgender is discrimination because of sex in violation of Title VII. This is also known as gender identity discrimination. In addition, lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals may bring sex discrimination claims. These may include, for example, allegations of sexual harassment or other kinds of sex discrimination, such as adverse actions taken because of the person's non-conformance with sex-stereotypes.

Poof. again.

From the dictionary on discrimination:


1.an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction.
2.treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
3.the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.
4.Archaic. something that serves to differentiate.

It is still noting the differences. Note what I said, "Nothing illegal about discrimination per se but how we use that discrimination against other people." You can use discrimination to *favor* certain people or group. Discrimination does not always mean against. Again, each of us do discriminate everyday.

 

[kokonut]

The state got involved because the lesbian couple wanted to stir up trouble. They filed a complaint and purposely tried to violate the rights of others.

Yeah, I've a mind to think the whole thing was actually vindictive, and of malice by design. Did the bakery store made it known to the public that it was a Christian-run business?

 

[kokonut]

Reminds me of the blind person with the guide dog vs the Muslim taxi driver.

Yeah, heard about that one. Did it get resolved?

 

[PowerON]

religious people needs more education and less indoctrination

You mean Westboro Baptist Church? They made the terrible noise. Also, they make us look bad.

 

[Foxrac]

like I said.... if it ain't in the menu - then it ain't served. simple as that. your example is not the same exact thing at all. not a single bit.

IMO - if you're in business of serving people - you're always going to deal with people of all races, genders, cultures, etc... and if you have problem with that - then you shouldn't be in business.

probably why they're closing shop.

Yes, if you are running the business so you have to deal with risk, including federal and state regulation.

Steinhauer, the lesbian couple made coward move and it was not our gay community problem. Don't blame on gay people for lesbian couple's case with Oregonian bakery.

 

[Foxrac]

The owner of the bakery had their religious rights trampled on.

That was the point I was making about the Indian cuisine refusing to serve beef cattle, and the Jewish deli refusing to serve bacon.

A Christian believes that a marriage is between one man and one woman. So do about 99.9% of the rest of the world's religions.

Many gay people have religion and they support same sex marriage.

Your number isn't make sense.

 

[Foxrac]

That's fine if they are religious but they can't do that at their own business such as a retail store. Their store was open to the public. They must leave their religious belief out of their retail business. Those losers moved the business to their home because...

I think religious people oppose gay marriage are bigot, that's my personal opinion but not issue if they kept to themselves instead of gossip to government.

The gay wedding cake is product so they don't have to offer. The anti-discrimination law only cover on public accommodation (welcome you go inside) but it doesn't cover on product, such as wedding cake, ham, bacon, beef, etc.

 

[TXgolfer]

Yeah, I've a mind to think the whole thing was actually vindictive, and of malice by design. Did the bakery store made it known to the public that it was a Christian-run business?

Of course it was vindictive. They sought these people out to make $ and headlines because the are intolerant of others. It is blatantly hypocritical. Same thing happened with the photographer in NM.

 

[TXgolfer]

um...... what? the gay couples did not force or ask the bakers to make something that's not in the menu like a steak :roll:

the bakers simply refused to make a wedding cake for gay couples.

Actually, they refused to provide a service. It is an important distinction. That is the difference between this situation and most of the comparisons. For one, a wedding cake is custom, meaning it has artistic value. It would be like hiring a lyricist and demanding they write a song about a particular subject.

And as pointed out when this thread started, people in the wedding cake business normally do more than just bake the cake...they attend the event and serve the cake and often help with a lot of the organization. This, again is where most of the other arguments fall short. A wedding cake involves much more than just ordering off of a menu.

like I said.... if it ain't in the menu - then it ain't served. simple as that. your example is not the same exact thing at all. not a single bit.

IMO - if you're in business of serving people - you're always going to deal with people of all races, genders, cultures, etc... and if you have problem with that - then you shouldn't be in business.

probably why they're closing shop.

Technically they are not closing shop, they are closing up THE shop. They will still operate as a home business. They are most likely doing this so that in the future the line between retail business and service business will be drawn more clearly.

 

[CrazyPaul]

I think religious people oppose gay marriage are bigot, that's my personal opinion but not issue if they kept to themselves instead of gossip to government.

The gay wedding cake is product so they don't have to offer. The anti-discrimination law only cover on public accommodation (welcome you go inside) but it doesn't cover on product, such as wedding cake, ham, bacon, beef, etc.

Not only that, the owner insulted the couple by name-calling. At his business, he told them that they are "abominations unto the Lord". What happens to "Love Thy Neighbor"?

 

[caz12]

Oragan the state that believes in euthenasia yet finds relgious grounds to deny this couple a wedding cake....his loss they go to another bakers

 

[Foxrac]

Not only that, the owner insulted the couple by name-calling. At his business, he told them that they are "abominations unto the Lord". What happens to "Love Thy Neighbor"?

Oh I see, I got it now.

for remind me about business owner.

 

[TXgolfer]

Not only that, the owner insulted the couple by name-calling. At his business, he told them that they are "abominations unto the Lord". What happens to "Love Thy Neighbor"?

The owner disputes that claim. It is likely a lie created by this vindictive couple.

 

[TXgolfer]

I think religious people oppose gay marriage are bigot, that's my personal opinion but not issue if they kept to themselves instead of gossip to government.

So then, the gay couple would be bigots ae well then since they didn't respect the beliefs of the store owners, right?

 

[CrazyPaul]

The owner disputes that claim. It is likely a lie created by this vindictive couple.

What do you think he would answer after the couple asked why he refused? THAT!

 

[TXgolfer]

Oragan the state that believes in euthenasia yet finds relgious grounds to deny this couple a wedding cake....his loss they go to another bakers

The Baker would not view this as a loss. The loss would be if the baker sold out their beliefs to make $