Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Customers post positive and negative reviews on the websites of Businesses all the time. No reason why they should not do so. Certainly not just because it happens to be related to anti homosexual bigotry. Everyone has the right to post a review. Nothing wrong with that.
"My take-the-Bible-literally Christian critics will already have me committed to an afterlife of torment and anguish in the fiery lake for merely writing the words about not repenting. I run the risk of being crucified in the comments section. Bring it on! That's okay. You're allowed to believe whatever you need to believe to get you through. However, I refuse to carry that dark cloud over my head any longer."
"I've spent too much of my life afraid to fully express the love and anger that I feel. I was put on this Earth to live the often fabulous -- though frequently maligned by those who refuse to open their minds -- life of a homosexual. Sling your accusatory rhetoric at me like the villagers hurling their torches at Frankenstein's monster all you want for my newly found courage. But to use Bible verses to taint someone's existence, his very life, as a sin because he is attracted to someone of the same-sex (an attraction beyond his control) is deplorable"
Is his church (or mine) wrong to NOT marry gay couples? Are we acting unchristian to decline? WWJD?
If you and your fellow church members believe gays are fornicating sinners going to hell it is not wrong for you to decline. In fact, it is doing the happy couple a huge favor. ANY couple, be they gay or straight, getting married in a church should be surrounded by love and support. Which means they should be far, far away from a church full of people throwing stones.
Oh but apparently it's perfectly fine for the lesbians to invite harassment and death threats on the Christian business owners by posting on their public facebook page that this business is anti-gay. They started this when they could have easily gone to another bakery. What a double standard.
Was it not the baker who posted the complaint on Facebook including the women's name and address. The women filed a complaint with the bureau and in doing so the one did not check off the box that requests her name and address to not be shown on the complaint. The baker posted the complaint with the names and addresses on his Facebook page. I am sure he meant them no harm but it was he that made it public. From his posting and making their names public he made it possible for the death threats made to the women and the threat of having their children removed from their home. That is clearly stated in the judgement written by the State. I do not know if they posted on Facebook but the women refused to do interviews about the event but the baker did radio and TV interviews talking about it. This has been told to you on the thread in the other forum.
The double standard is your ignoring the threats made to the women as a result of the baker publishing the information on Facebook and claiming that that it was the women's doing. All they did was file a complaint about a business breaking the law, the rest is a result of the baker's action in posting the information. Have you read the judgement?
So is it perfectly fine for the baker to invited harassment and death threats on a pair of lesbians by posting on his Facebook page? Spin all you want, this is what is documented to have occurred.
Was it not the baker who posted the complaint on Facebook including the women's name and address. The women filed a complaint with the bureau and in doing so the one did not check off the box that requests her name and address to not be shown on the complaint. The baker posted the complaint with the names and addresses on his Facebook page. I am sure he meant them no harm but it was he that made it public. From his posting and making their names public he made it possible for the death threats made to the women and the threat of having their children removed from their home. That is clearly stated in the judgement written by the State.
I'm not disputing that, but it still appears to me that the lesbians wanted to do harm to the business first, and now they didn't like it when they got a taste of the bitter response that the bakers were receiving. As for the judgement, it really doesn't read like a strictly factual legal report to me. It reads more like a "oh woe is them" sympathy card going into great detail about the lesbian's emotions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
I do not know if they posted on Facebook but the women refused to do interviews about the event but the baker did radio and TV interviews talking about it. This has been told to you on the thread in the other forum.
The double standard is your ignoring the threats made to the women as a result of the baker publishing the information on Facebook and claiming that that it was the women's doing. All they did was file a complaint about a business breaking the law, the rest is a result of the baker's action in posting the information. Have you read the judgement?
Now they went on the business facebook and trashed them. They wanted this business ruined and they got their wish. Why should I feel sorry for them? You reap what you sow.
No. But his church is a community church, and according to Viz, other pastors have had services there.
Another pastor should be allowed to perform the ceremony in the church. Viz would not be in attendance.
I do not know what Viz would do after the ceremony. Is there a cleansing, special mass, smudging?
In the old days they (used as a completely anonymous term, not meant to identify anyone, either living or dead,male or female) used to drain the pool and swab it ith bleach..alway thought that was a bit drastic, but to each their own I suppose.
I'm not disputing that, but it still appears to me that the lesbians wanted to do harm to the business first, and now they didn't like it when they got a taste of the bitter response that the bakers were receiving. As for the judgement, it really doesn't read like a strictly factual legal report to me. It reads more like a "oh woe is them" sympathy card going into great detail about the lesbian's emotions.
Now they went on the business facebook and trashed them. They wanted this business ruined and they got their wish. Why should I feel sorry for them? You reap what you sow.
So the two women deserved the death threats? Deserved the threat of their children being taken away. Their crime, reporting the infraction of the anti discrimination law. The women went to a bakery that the mother of one of them had bought a wedding cake from fulling expecting to buy their wedding cake. They were turned down by the baker who had decided that he did not wish to obey the law. Yet you feel symphathy for the baker who not only willing broke the law by discriminating but also posted the women's complaint and their names and addresses which resulted in them receiving death threats and the fear of losing their children. And their testimony on what emotional suffering they beleive they felt should be written in legal technical language? The government officical's writting is the only one that has to sound like a legal factual statement not the witness testimonies.
Was the baker moral posting their names and addresses onto Facebook which resulted in threats to the two women? Was he right to do so. Is his action in putting the complaint onto Facebook which is what the judgement is all about something you support? The judgement was not about refusal to bake a cake but for publicially outing the women for requesting a cake which may have resulted in all the threats. The judgment is all about the emotional damage caused by the threats etc.
One question I do not know is who posted first, the baker about the complaint or the customers about the discrimination?
If you and your fellow church members believe gays are fornicating sinners going to hell it is not wrong for you to decline. In fact, it is doing the happy couple a huge favor. ANY couple, be they gay or straight, getting married in a church should be surrounded by love and support. Which means they should be far, far away from a church full of people throwing stones.
WWJD? Tell you to drop the stones from your hand.
You appear to be saying that if we put down the stones (your accusation), we should welcome gay couples to be united in our church. Correct me if I've misunderstood.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
