Topic: Bakery That Refused to Make Cake for Lesbian Couple Raises Record-Breaking Donat (Read 1746 times)

Yeah.



My next logical step towards giving the story a happy ending was to tweak the thread title. Much cheaper than calling in the lawyers.

Such a disappointment this was bumped for an advertisement.

Anyway -- if someone refused to bake a cake for anyone, the next logical step is to file suit and pay a hefty price for lawyers....oppose to, you know, going down the street to another bakery. Sexual orientation and gender identity are protected classes now according to Bostock v. Clayton County, so the lesbians can rest easy knowing they get to eat their cake.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf

Go figure.

Americans and their Bronze Age myths!!!

Idiocracy 2.0

Something about there being a separation between church and State but not there being one between Mosque and State.

Refusing to participate in something you find objectionable to your religion is not automatically bigotry. These bakers (and others) were clearly carefully selected and targeted for this. There is a difference between refusing to violate your religious rights in order to earn income and persecution of individuals because they are homosexual. I feel the United States has made great leaps accommodating the homosexual constituency of the US, and in most of the country one can be freely and openly homosexual with hardly any note from others.

Homosexual people have a right to live their lives as they wish, undisturbed, they do not however have the right to force others to agree with their choices. In my opinion the "gay lobby" is now currently engaged in a campaign to try to force everyone to share their world view, not just allow them to live in peace like everyone else has a right to. This is not about equality any more, it is about supremacy. This is a direct attack on the religious beliefs of this baker. You do not take the rights of one person to give rights to another, that is not justice. If these people worked in a hospital, or even a restaurant, I might agree they should be punished, but it is a FUCKING CAKE, I am sure the emotional scars of having to drive down the street to another baker for an event months in the future will last a life time. This is certainly a good enough reason to bankrupt that entire family right? What a heinous unforgivable crime!

They used to label moral as bigotry as that's something what doesn't fit into their agenda. They are trying to replace it with ethics, what is a social consensus, therefore more easy to re-shape on demand, then moral what is based on beliefs, rules and tradition (basically a collection of time tested "best practices").

Jeez, I hope not. This isn't the Islamic State. Just because the Bible calls for people to do something doesn't mean U.S. law will allow it.

So far as I know the Kleins aren't calling for the death of those with other religious views.
Where did you get the idea they were?

Deuteronomy 13:6-10

6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

Just hand over your Jewish friends to the authorities. It's the law.

Ah, the words of the enlightened Paul. Perhaps unlike you, I don't let Paul's opinions override current knowledge. But I just LOVE how bigots cherry-pick the bible. Let's ignore Leviticus, we don't do things that way anymore. Except for THIS verse and THAT verse, which we deem is the very Word Of God. YMMV, of course.

Christians are so funny. They do not question their emotional reactions, they search for bible verses they can interpret as ratifying those emotions. And they can always do this no matter what emotional reactions they have. There is ALWAYS scripture that can be found to support anything. Amusing to watch groups of Christians banging one another over the head with their bibles, claiming that their interpretation is obviously correct, and the other interpretation is obsolete/a misunderstanding/no longer holy or whatever.

Romans 1:26-28 - 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

Yet I haven't seen a single lawsuit against a Muslim Baker. For folks who carp about equal rights, Christians are the only ones they sue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4&feature=youtu.be

Bravo ended. About sums it up!

They could have simply taken their business somewhere that wanted it, and this dust storm would have never ensued. And yes.....they are a vengeful, petty couple.

You don't seem to mind intolerance when the intolerants are with you. Instead of merely taking their business elsewhere this lesbian couple opted instead for the most punitive vengeful path possible. True Old Testament stuff.

The fact is this bakery had served this lesbian couple many times in the past (it's why this particular shop was chosen though Portland is filled with bakeries). So these bakers had no problem with homosexuality, per se.
They had a problem with actively being forced to participate (albeit tangentially) in a ceremony their religion did not
approve of.

Well, it seems as though they've had the last laugh. And Ghandi's view of Christians would extend it seems to all of humanity because we all fall far short of perfection. And that would include these lesbians and their supporters who
all howled for their pound of flesh above all else.

You can believe whatever you choose for yourself. However......the comment "true Christianity is limited to those" is making a bold, incorrect, unnecessary commentary on what others believe.

To me, true Christianity is limited to those who emulate the life of the prophet, Jesus Christ. I take my cue from this guy;

                                                             

My religious beliefs do not permit me to serve men/women/blacks/Christians

Again, I agree. Believe what you will, but follow the law.


And I agree yet again! Some people have a deeply emotional reaction to gays. This isn't a religious reaction, it's a visceral reaction. The problem comes when they rationalize this reaction by waving their holy scripture around.

I could care less how stupid you think it is... It's only been common among Christians for the last 1950+ years...

The First Amendment is law.....

No, I'm not. I'm saying SOME people are bigots. Those among the bigots who are Christians, are using their bibles to rationalize their bigotry.


If intolerance is all you can find to pride yourself on, you are a sorry excuse for a person. Surely you can do better.

So you think yours is more correct, because you preach tolerance toward gays? Others believe this is a sin. Yet others stand that truly believing in the gospel is what makes one a true Christian and everything else means little. And so on.

My dimwit comment wasn't personal. Comments by individuals claiming that they know what "true" Christianity is, based on their emotional reaction to gays or anything else, is what is dimwitted.

I agree with you. Law should be equal for everyone. Imagine what will happen, if you go to a bakery run by the African Americans and order a Confederate flag cake. Or imagine what will happen if you go to a bakery run by homosexuals, and order a cake with the label "Death to the Sodomites". If bakers can refuse confederate cake, then for sure they have the right to refuse a Lesbian cake.

Who the hell do you think you are rewriting religion?

You're basically saying only Christians who support gay marriage are "real Christians" and the rest are just cloaking their bigotry...

You got some nerve progressive.....

Do you completely ignore the last 1950 years where Christians didn't tolerate homosexuality PERIOD? since when did the messiah come back and set the record straight?

An unjust law is not a law. If I sell cakes I myself will surely refuse to make a wedding cake for lesbians, sodomites, and other sexual pervert people.

Those who refuse to do some business with some of the public for reasons unrelated to the busines, have been hiding behind their bibles. Surely you have noticed this. They are screaming that the right to discriminate illegally against a minority is part of their "religious freedom."



But the strong majority of practicing Christians find themselves able to tolerate it without any difficulty. And many of these Christinas (I don't know about Muslims) are coming to recognize that if something is inborn and cannot be altered, it's involuntary and can't be repented, so it's not a sin any more than blond hair is a sin.



But your claim of a "sin" rests on willful ignorance of the condition, and your conviction that your god will somehow damn you for tolerance is pretty arrogant. Most Christians realize this.

But isn't it an amazing coincidence that Christians can disagree with one another so violently, and STILL when they pray, their god NEVER corrects their opinion? How they continue to believe they're all praying at the same god is beyond me. Their god must have a nasty sense of humor, to tell the majority to tolerate and the minority NOT to tolerate. This god is a troublemaker.

Speaking of dimwits, I'm not Christian Poindexter.

Another dimwit comment claiming his or her "brand" of Christianity is supposedly the true Christianity. That's the crapola.

If ten million people believe a stupid thing, it is still a stupid thing....and illegal. I know some people who are Christian that have no problem with catering to Gay events. To them, a sin is something between God and the alleged offender and they do not allow themselves to judge other people, which by the way, is true Christianity....not this cultish crapola being passed out the the evangelical fundamentalists and southern baptists.

What evidence to do you have that "bigots" are cloaking themselves in Christianity?

You do realize the strong majority of practicing Christians and Muslims believe homosexuality is a sin and want nothing to do with it? it doesn't mean they're bigots - it means they want nothing to do with contributing to a sin or endorcing what they believe is a sin.... It's not that difficult to understand... In their mind asking them to bake a wedding cake would be about the same as asking them to sin, and if progressives were tolerant at all they would respect that... So as far as I'm concerned you have ZERO resepct for other individuals values...

I tend to agree with this.....

Wrong. Christians who are labeling other Christians as bigots are at best misguided, and at worst.....hypocrites and even bigots themselves.

Well, someone's brain is pretty limited. No, one can be a Christian and still not be a bigot, and the vast majority of Christians are not bigots. But you SHOULD be upset that bigots are using Christianity as their excuse, and tarnishing the faith in the process. Christ taught the very opposite of what these "Christians" are doing.

I love how progressives label people bigots for following their religion... It shows how limited their brains are.

Oh......another sarcastic vote for the Cankle Monster herself. With the way things are going, I think Barry Hussein will have already driven the last nail in America's coffin long before she would step to the podium.

They broke existing law and are on the hook for it.

The time and place to protest this abomination of protected class for gay sex was long ago. GTF out of Oregon and similar lefitist craphole states. Thhe blue states are long gone and unfixable.

And let's all vote VAGINA '16 to put the killing blow on America.

I would only condemn a cake baker to eternal torment for pineapple-pistachio, but anyone is free to make up this own particular "religious" taboos to fit his agenda, apparently.

yeah, well, given the choice of following my beliefs and giving to Caesar.... Caesar can kiss my ass and I'll gladly go to jail for the pleasure if it.


If that 'little bakery' was owned by muslims, the ACLU would have defended them to the death.

That bakery did not ask or want to be sued. They just got lucky. The next one will include it in the five year plan for solvency.

How so? Are you suggesting their actions had the motive of wanting to invite a lawsuit so they could raise money by donations?

Don't answer. You always come up with some phoney baloney fairy tales.

I don't think the little bakery asked, nor wanted, to be sued. But you believe whatever you want.

It can be a real money maker.

I was never aware that there were any sects that had taboos about cake baking.

God is already endorsing dating sites. Now all the church needs is to start selling the endorsements. Maybe they need to sue those who use God as an endorsement without church approval so they can continue to maintain a monopoly. Otherwise God is going to go the way of Kleenex.

But you can fool some of the people all of the time. Enough of them, anyway, to retire in luxury.

Usually the same following as stupidity.

Televangelist scammers have been grabbing people by their Jesus and shaking money out of them for as long as broadcasting has been around, and Elmer Gantry made a great living since long before that. But to run the bakery scam, you have to get in on the ground floor. Pretty soon, the number of bigots claiming the government is depriving them of their religious freedom will be old news, too many for even dedicated "god is for sale if you pay enough" folks to keep coughing up for.

Correct, this means that a business can't hang a sign up which says "no Christians" allowed or "no Catholics allowed". It shouldn't mean however that religious practice receive special privilege which other things don't get.

Just like a business can't hang up a sign which says "no Muslims allowed" - that doesn't mean that a Muslim employee should have a right to wear a burka to the office when no other women are allowed to cover their face.

Whatever the law is, it should apply equally to all, as long as a certain religion isn't singled out then there's no legitimate claim to discrimination.

On the flip side though, the amount of money awarded by the lawsuit is bogus.

Now who looks like the victim and who the beneficiary of this brouhaha. If I need to pay off my debtors, I'll become a bigot with a bible and watch the cash roll in.

Bigotry has a strong following.

I believe the 1st Amendment's correct intent is to prevent the government from singling out a specific religion (ex. an employer refusing to hire someone because they're Catholic).

It wasn't intended to provide affirmative action for religious people, as in give "religious" people an exclusive right to do certain things which other people can't.

The argument the OP's making is the same argument which has occurred in cases where Muslim women claimed "religious discrimination" for wearing a veil in violation of employee dress code (even though no other women are allowed to cover their face), so it's equally foolish. The Hobby Lobby decision should be modified as well.

Ideally though I'd like to see anti-discrimination laws only apply to larger companies which service a large percentage of the public, not mom and pop stores like this - I don't think that small businesses which can't afford a lawsuit should have to fear going out of business over dubious discrimination claims.

That and I'd like to see putative damages awarded to a charity of the plantiff's choosing rather than the plaintiff themselves - this would cut down on frivolous lawsuits - so yeah I'm happy they got their donation money, because if being offended is worth $135,000 in damages, then anyone who visits 4chan should be a billionaire.

You mean Hobby Lobby? Religious freedom is already the law.

Good luck with that. (Save your money, though).

Religious belief is not an excuse for breaking the law.

The SCOTUS has ruled on this in the past, it probably won't do so again.

Render unto Caesar.

A fund set up for Aaron and Melissa Klein, the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, had raised $372,000 by Friday afternoon. The couple shut down the Gresham bakery in 2013 amid backlash over their decision not to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple because, they said, it was against their Christian beliefs.

Earlier this month, the bakery owners were ordered to pay a total of $135,000 in damages to the couple "for emotional and mental suffering resulting from the denial of service," according to court documents from the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries.

The donations made on the site Continue To Give surpassed the goal of the fund by $222,000, and has raised the most money of any personal fundraiser on the site to date, Continue to Give founder Jesse Wellhoefer said.

Read More

I can only hope Aaron and Melissa Klein file suit against the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries for violating their 1st Amendment and Civil Rights under the Civil Rights Act.


Religion and religious practice is a protected class by not only the First Amendment to the Constitution as an right but also Codified in the Civil Rights Act. The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries trampled those rights with their decision and should be made to pay for their religious discrimination. I would welcome this one heading for the SCOUTS and would be willing to donate as much as I can to get it there.