Good news: Anti-gay bakers owe lesbian couple $135,000 (protestant, attend, judge)

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by Vizio

Bigotry is still bigotry, though. We have seen an increase of it on this very message board in the past year. The fact that this thread is about rejoicing over the fascist bigotry that forces a Christian couple to pay a fine of $135,000 for daring to open their mouths is a major example.

Vizio, tell the complete truth. Why were they really fined? It was not just because they refuse the cake, you know that, you've been told that, yet you continually hearken back to that.

So why were they really fined?

[DenverEN]

Originally Posted by Vizio

Bigotry is still bigotry, though. We have seen an increase of it on this very message board in the past year. The fact that this thread is about rejoicing over the fascist bigotry that forces a Christian couple to pay a fine of $135,000 for daring to open their mouths is a major example.

Sooo... you think I'm the bigot because I think I deserve to be treated equally in public service? The old, "you should tolerate my intolerance of you" reasoning.

[TroutDude]

Originally Posted by Vizio

Bigotry is still bigotry, though. We have seen an increase of it on this very message board in the past year. The fact that this thread is about rejoicing over the fascist bigotry that forces a Christian couple to pay a fine of $135,000 for daring to open their mouths is a major example.

[DewDropInn]

Originally Posted by TroutDude

Sometimes they are off-the-charts hilarious they are so obstinately clueless.

[NoCapo]

Originally Posted by Vizio

Bigotry is still bigotry, though. We have seen an increase of it on this very message board in the past year. The fact that this thread is about rejoicing over the fascist bigotry that forces a Christian couple to pay a fine of $135,000 for daring to open their mouths is a major example.

Or it isn't bigotry at all... It isn't about their Christian beliefs, it is about the fact that they did something that is illegal in their state and city, got caught and had to pay a fine. I guess you could argue that I am bigoted against lawbreakers, but then you are just being absurd.

But for the record, I would be applauding as loudly if they were Muslim, or Satanist, or Atheists, or green aliens from Mars ( But not the grey aliens, I hate those guys!). It is not about their belief, it is about the commonsense idea that ones personal belief does not get to trump the law of the land, and if one wishes to take a principled stand against that law in an attempt to publicize and rally support, one should be prepared for the consequences.

Now I will point out that I do think the judge in that case is pushing the line hard, as he is very loosely( too loosely in my opinion) interpreting statements by the proprietors of the cake place as statements of intention to discriminate. That said I think his decision is factually correct. For some really nice detailed analysis of the decision I suggest the Volokh Conspiracy and Popehat.

-NoCapo

[badlander]

Originally Posted by Vizio

Bigotry is still bigotry, though. We have seen an increase of it on this very message board in the past year. The fact that this thread is about rejoicing over the fascist bigotry that forces a Christian couple to pay a fine of $135,000 for daring to open their mouths is a major example.

you caught on to us, we are out to get the Jews and the Gays and the Unions just like the Fascists did in the 1930s. It is sick that you are calling people who are supporting equal rights to small minorities as fascists and then also claim that the group that has been in control since the beginning of your country is being persecuted because they have to share the word marriage with homosexuals or are loosing the power to discriminate agaisnt yet another minority.


And of course you mislead your audience, people are rejoicing because the court determined that just being religious is not sufficient of a reason to be able to discriminate against a group when you are in business. I would have been quite happy if they paid their small fine or even if they stated they were going to appeal to a higher court. But no that was not enough, they publically outed the people they were willing to discriminate against, had these two women's names and addresses on the baker's Facebook and the women recieved death threats and the fear of loosing their children. The baker actually said that the women are at blame becasue if they would have just kept quiet and not laid a complaint nothing would have happened, including the baking of a cake. So it was not a matter of just opening their mouth but publizing the real victims in this case and bragging that they were not going to obey the law that got them in the big dollar value. I personally do not understand any of the settlements that are done in the States as the amounts are always too high IMHO but I think the people on this board who oppose you are just glad that people are not allowed to discriminate in the business world.

I would have had the same opinion if a gay baker refused outright to bake a cake for you based on your religion but of course you and Jeff have to bring up examples of some one wanting offensive messages in addition to the cake and in the above case the women never even got to the point of being able to say what type of wedding cake they wanted.

Use the words bigot and fascists all you want but what the two of you really want is the abiltiy to keep marriage to what you beleive it should be or what you think your religion thinks it should be.

[GldnRule]

Originally Posted by DewDropInn

Ummm...... the LGBT community fought for the right, under the Constitution of the United States and the laws of this country, to be married. Just as the black community fought for the right to vote and eat at the lunch counter.

Marriage equality is not about demanding to be married by some unhappy religious conservative who thinks everyone who is gay is going to hell. It's about having the right to a CIVIL marriage.

The LAW says bakeries cannot discriminate. The LAW said the lunch counter owners could not discriminate.

This path has been heavily beaten lately!

As typical...people will cite "the law" (in this case "anti discrimination" law) as the ultimate arbiter of "what you can or can't do".
How is "the law" a good arbiter? If we want to tout "the law"..."the law" in the USA actually sanctioned discrimination for much more time than it did not. For example: Women just recently just gained the right to vote...for hundreds of years they couldn't.
So, what law was "right"? The one we had for most of the time...or the one we have now?
Was it a reasonable argument for people to just say to women: "If you are a woman you must follow the anti female voting laws."? Did that make it right, because it was "the law"?
You only must follow the law to avoid legal sanctions...not necessarily to do what is or isn't "right".
Just because the government has made laws of this nature doesn't mean that necessarily makes it "right".
What about the places where the law says the opposite of that? Does that make it "right" just because "the law" allows it as legal in those places?
By that logic slavery and "Jim Crow" was "right" when it was legal.
Do you now see how simply stating, "It's the law!", is not at all a meritorious argument?

That they equate things that are immutable like what race you are, what country you were born in, or whether you are male or female...with things that people can (and do) switch up like what theology they claim to endorse or what gender they claim to be attracted to and/or have intercourse with, just shows how ill-thought those laws are.

These types of laws ( anti-discrimination) are very new...and just a few decades old.
How long did this country legally allow blacks to be held as slaves or be discriminated against?
How long did this country legally deny women the right to vote compared to how long they have allowed it.
The USA is the "poster child" for gender & race discrimination and oppression...and only VERY recently enacted laws that said anything different. Which would figure, because the "Founding Documents" were written by dudes that were genocidal, gender oppressing, slavemasters...that wrote about how "all people are equal", but sanctioned ordinances and regulations, and conducted themselves personally, exactly opposite of what they wrote about "equality for all". This world has never known people that were more full of it than that crew!
As far as "The Law" goes: The U.S. Constitution says that the government, "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". So then, what are they doing making laws respecting those things?
If there is supposed to be a, "wall of separation between church and state"...then keep it completely separate. The government shouldn't even be dealing with these issues in any way what-so-ever. "Separate" is separate...so stay out of it.

The only way for true freedom in the marketplace...is to let both the Buyers and the Sellers freely choose who they will do business with.
The messed up way they have it now: Buyers can discriminate (and need not declare why, or even that they did) against Sellers and decide for any reason what Sellers they will or will not buy from...but Sellers are forced to sell to all Buyers. So it's STILL discrimination...of Buyers over Sellers. These "anti discrimination laws" are themselves discriminatory...and violate the laws of "equal protection" on their face.
A person who discriminates against particular people can walk into a business intending to buy...but then, upon gaining knowledge that ownership consists of those that they don't prefer, can actively discriminate and turn around and walk out without buying. How come the "anti discrimination laws" don't force them to buy? Why should the ownership (The Sellers) be forced to sell to anybody...but The Buyers can pick and choose who they do business with? How is that fair and equal? Buyers can legally discriminate but Sellers can't? THAT is discrimination. THAT is not "equal".
Neither should have to do business with the other for any reason whatsoever.
Same with with the workforce. An employer must hire anybody...but the employee gets to pick and choose who they will work for? How "equal" is that?
Let "the market" sort it all out. THAT is the ONLY truly fair and equal way.

[badlander]

GdnRule

Free market deciding always puts the large majorities and the powerful at a tremedouc advantage over the poor and the small minorities. I grew up in a small town and if businesses were allowed to discriminate there are a couple that would not have sold to me as I was not Christian and for me to have to travel several towns over in the hopes that the people there would is pretty unreasonable. Plus what about those who work for the government are they going to be allowed to discriminate against who they want and if not they you still have laws on the books. I fail to see how a bakery is part of a church though.

If you wish for a country that allows open discrimination against anyone with no protections from it fine, but you will need a government willing to do that. If discrimination against religion is the only one that should be protected go for it.

[Wardendresden]

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

Bigotry disguised by hiding behind the legal system is still bigotry. I think it is a fair perception that a lot more bigotry against Christians now exists in this country than towards gays. Certainly in the mainstream media.

Your bigotry was legalized by the Nazis---they started in with passing laws against abortion and homosexuality before they turned their attention to Jews. You and Vizio can count the Nazi regime as partners with you for your proposal to the nation. Christians can be bigots, but speaking out against that bigotry is in itself bigotry.

Both of you should move to Uganda, a freedom loving nation that imprisons homosexuals and those who assist them for up to 14 years. You will be happy, and so will the United States.

[jeffbase40]

Originally Posted by DenverEN

lol! It's like saying that the end of slavery was bigotry toward the slave owners

I'll tell you this. If, upon death, we have to answer to a higher power for what we did in our lives on earth, I sure would rather be in my shoes than yours Dedicating you life toward hating fellow humans is just pathetic.

And that's the false narrative that you must present being we are haters. And I'll say it again. We only hate sin not the sinner just like God does. And I rather be on the side being against sin than supporting it on judgement day. If homosexuality is not a sin then God is a liar in His Word. Sorry but that scenario just isn't likely.