Good news: Anti-gay bakers owe lesbian couple $135,000 (America, church, atheist)

[cupper3]

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/3632...n-wedding-cake

After the bakery owners went to the Internet to raise money, the court has decided that that same couple and bakery owners owe the lesbian couple who they denied a wedding cake, $135,000.

Maybe that finally sends the message that no you cannot discriminate against same sex marriage or those who are LBQT.

Of course we can expect outrage by some of the religious fundamentalist around the country. Get into the 21st century, because the rest the world really doesn't care.

[jeffbase40]

Originally Posted by cupper3

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/3632...n-wedding-cake

After the bakery owners went to the Internet to raise money, the court has decided that that same couple and bakery owners owe the lesbian couple who they denied a wedding cake, $135,000.

Maybe that finally sends the message that no you cannot discriminate against same sex marriage or those who are LBQT.

Of course we can expect outrage by some of the religious fundamentalist around the country. Get into the 21st century, because the rest the world really doesn't care.

There should be outrage. This is a ridiculous overblown fine for a minor offense. And not surprising since the person laying down the judgement had a serious bias and conflict of interest by meeting behind the scenes with gay groups and attending gay rallies.

And it's not just Christians who are against this ruling. Here is a comment from an atheist:

As an atheist, I side with the bakers. I wouldn’t walk into a place of worship for any religion and demand that the leader provide me and my fellow atheists a sermon on how evolution trumps creationism. The beautiful thing about America — at least it WAS a beautiful thing about America— is that we are all entitled to our own opinions.

Well said! And this:

Let’s start with the fact that same-sex marriage was not recognized by the state of Oregon at the time this “offense” occurred. In fact state law at that time specified marriage as between a man and a woman. The activist judge has imposed a standard in direct conflict with the law as it existed at the time the bakery service was denied. There is no legal foundation to support the decision other than the judge’s personal beliefs. The decision is coercive, discriminatory, and a major breech of judicial ethics.

That makes it a little more difficult to say that the business owners were purposely disoboeying the law.


‘Can Anyone Say ‘Conflict of Interest’?’: Blaze Readers React to Twist in the Story Surrounding Oregon Bakers Who Face a Major Fine for Refusing to Make a Gay Wedding Cake | TheBlaze.com

[zthatzmanz28]

Yes there should be outrage..

$135K is not nearly ENOUGH...nothing short or a MILLION would be comforting..

[Ralph_Kirk]

There is more to that case than the headline implies. In this case, the baker also went into the public "libel and slander" realm rather than keeping the issue within the court.

[VanHalen5150]

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

There should be outrage. This is a ridiculous overblown fine for a minor offense. And not surprising since the person laying down the judgement had a serious bias and conflict of interest by meeting behind the scenes with gay groups and attending gay rallies.

And if they did this sort of thing against a black couple, there would be almost unanimous support against them... so what's the difference?

[RonkonkomaNative]

I think fundamentalist ideologues should send them more money. There should be commercials similar to the commercials to send donations to poor communities where children have no food or clean water.

For the cost of a cup of coffee, you can adopt these bakers. You will receive a picture of your poor, poor, baker. There could be close up shots of a small tear running down their face.

Won't you please help? There should be lots of boo-hooing.

[caverunner17]

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

There should be outrage. This is a ridiculous overblown fine for a minor offense. And not surprising since the person laying down the judgement had a serious bias and conflict of interest by meeting behind the scenes with gay groups and attending gay rallies.

And it's not just Christians who are against this ruling. Here is a comment from an atheist:




Well said! And this:





That makes it a little more difficult to say that the business owners were purposely disoboeying the law.


‘Can Anyone Say ‘Conflict of Interest’?’: Blaze Readers React to Twist in the Story Surrounding Oregon Bakers Who Face a Major Fine for Refusing to Make a Gay Wedding Cake | TheBlaze.com

The example of the preacher giving a sermon on evolution trumping creation is completely off base.

They were getting paid to do their job. Bake a cake. There's no difference between a gay/lesbian cake and a straight cake.

[jeffbase40]

Originally Posted by zthatzmanz28

Yes there should be outrage..

$135K is not nearly ENOUGH...nothing short or a MILLION would be comforting..

Why stop there, how about a public execution? The indignant sense of righteous that your side proudly promotes is so far detached from reality.

[Shirina]

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

There should be outrage. This is a ridiculous overblown fine for a minor offense. And not surprising since the person laying down the judgement had a serious bias and conflict of interest by meeting behind the scenes with gay groups and attending gay rallies.

Yes, yes, there will always be some nefarious angle, some sinister "agenda" going on behind the scenes whenever a ruling doesn't go in favor of religion. We get it. Believe me ... we get it. Only too well.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

And it's not just Christians who are against this ruling. Here is a comment from an atheist:

Who cares? There are atheists on this very board with whom I disagree because they want private business owners to have the right to openly discriminate against anyone, much less against gay couples. Just because someone is an atheist doesn't mean all atheists are going to suddenly agree.

"Wow, golly gee willickers! I guess because this atheist is against the ruling, I guess I ought to be as well!"

Nope, doesn't work that way. Unlike many church congregations who would gleefully follow their pastor over a cliff, atheists are not one monolithic group of non-believers who all hold the same opinions.

Yes, the atheist is right in that we are all entitled to our own opinions. What we are NOT entitled to, however, is to ACT upon our opinions.

Plus, his comparison about an atheist demanding a church give a sermon on the superiority of evolution is ridiculous. Last I checked, a bakery isn't a place of worship and no one goes to one for the purpose of receiving a moral lesson from the baker. A church has a stated and accepted purpose of proselytizing and promoting religious dogma. A bakery does not.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

Well said!

Of course you would say that since this atheist happens to agree with you. Funny how suddenly the words of an atheist are just fine and Jim-dandy to you since he supports your pro-discrimination stupidity. Strange how at no other time are the words of an atheist worth a hill of beans to you.

Plus, it was rather poorly said in my opinion.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

That makes it a little more difficult to say that the business owners were purposely disoboeying the law.

LOL! I love how the quote you reproduced says that the "decision is coercive, discriminatory, and a major breach of judicial ethics."

Wow, funny how discrimination, coercion, and ethics are suddenly important to you -- but all of that flies right out the window as you push for the right for people to ... wait for it, wait for it .... wait for it ... yeah, DISCRIMINATE!

Uh huh, it's just hunky dory when YOU get to discriminate, but if you think a judge discriminated AGAINST you, just watch the fur fly.

The hypocrisy of your position is so staggeringly obvious that you must not have any shame whatsoever.

[jeffbase40]

Originally Posted by VanHalen5150

And if they did this sort of thing against a black couple, there would be almost unanimous support against them... so what's the difference?

There is no universal moral argument to support racism. None. No one can make a case that it is justified. You can't say the same about homosexuality. And despite the false sense of reality in this forum, many many people out there agree with me.