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.
Do you have any idea how spoiled you sound? Who would have cancelled the reception had there been no cake? You?
That does not prove cake is part of any marriage ceremony. It does serve to illustrate only how shallow some people's values can be. SMH.
Says the woman that thinks a couple is discriminated against because the baker they went to couldn't provide a cake for their "wedding", so the baker needs to be fined $135,000.
Says the woman that thinks a couple is discriminated against because the baker they went to couldn't provide a cake for their "wedding", so the baker needs to be fined $135,000.
Like your go-to god-guru, Matt "The Oil" Slick, you deliberately misrepresent reality.
The bakers were fined because they broke the law and caused pain and anxiety for their would-be customers by naming them publicly, thus inviting and bringing abuse their way.
Says the woman that thinks a couple is discriminated against because the baker they went to couldn't provide a cake for their "wedding", so the baker needs to be fined $135,000.
So how does it work, Viz? If the reception is cancelled ......"You can get in your cars folks! We're calling off the reception because the cake was a no-show!".......do you still take the presents?
The "bigotry" that I get is that when one responds with a thought-out statement, and someone else simply dismisses it because of a hatred for religion. The poster in question has demonstrated on a number of occasions that he hates Christianity, yet daily posts on a religious message board, insulting and making fun of religious people.
Let us say for the sake of argument that he (1) hates religion and (2) his rejoinder -- or just its tone -- was prompted in some measure by that hatred.
This has no bearing at all on (3) whether or not what he said was true or (4) whether that equals the threat of your personal annihilation such that you need to (5) take it personally or (6) feel threatened by it.
Disagreement is not the same thing as hating, persecuting, etc. And it certainly has nothing at all to do with being right or wrong. It is all just opinions. Maybe your problem isn't your interlocutor's opinion so much as that he can afford to have it and you can't. In other words your opinions must be closely held and defended because they are decreed for you rather than simply the organic result of observed facts.
I have been accused repeatedly by many Christians (on these forums, who can't possibly know me personally) of being a sinner, condemned by god to Hell, filled with hatred for god and/or his church and/or his people, immoral, pathetic, miserable ... while I will on occasion rebuke someone for their impertinence and inappropriateness I have never once felt threatened by mere opinions, anymore than I felt threatened when on occasion my child would opine that they hate me or that I hate them because I stood in the way of some desire of theirs. Annoyed, sure, but not offended. I know what I think and feel and what my motivations are and I don't let the thinking of others control the narrative about such matters.
If you are similarly secure in your belief as I am in my unbelief then you do not need to complain about someone's attitude towards you. In fact you might consider that some of that heated rhetoric is designed to shake you loose from what to us often appears to be deliberately blinkered obtuseness. (This last for example was simply an observation, not an an attempt to insult you. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it).
If it helps, I can say unequivocally that I do not hate you nor even really dislike you, and I certainly cannot hate your god, who I don't even believe in and therefore cannot be held to account by me for doing or not doing anything. But if I think you're being, e.g., willfully obtuse, or bigoted, or for that matter noble, I will call it like I see it.
It's a government's business because people do not have common courtesy and have prejudices. The government had not regulated it, there would still be blacks who would not be served, Chinese who would not be served, and Mexicans would be discriminated against.
On second thought some of that still exists even though it's illegal.
Which explains why the government has to be involved.
Government should play no part in any of that. Human decency should eradicate those scenarios. If that doesn't solve the problem then we have more evolving to do.
All the government did in the situation was keep a bigot in business, and force the next gay couple to do business with an owner that wants nothing to do with them.
Cannot recall any Law action taken re the above Signs.
You missed the whole civil rights legislation thing over the last 60 years? Have you been living in a cave? First we decided that it was not appropriate to discriminate because of race, then things like national origin, sex, religion were noticed as things that there was persistent bigotry about, and some places like Oregon realized that sexual preference was among them. Collectively the last are known as "Matthew Shepard Laws" for a good reason, look it up and you will then be up to speed. Welcome to the new century.
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.
