Sweet Cakes closing shop amid same-sex rift

You see to a god fearin' christian telling a gay that they are filthy sodomites who are going to hell is not hateful, it's simply telling the truth.

 

To be exact I think the language is broader....any baked good involving wheat and yeast.

The bakery should have just made them an unleavened cake. They could have gotten paid and gone to heaven at the same time...a two-fer...heheh.

 

Would a kilt be ok ?

 

And if your kids went in a store to buy some ice cream or a doll and the store told them to "get out! they don't serve no Jewish/White/Christian scumbags"?

Do you honestly think bigots are always NICE and POLITE when they throw out the objects of their hate? That bigots don't take advantage of the audience of a store probably fairly filled by other bigots to humiliate, demean, abuse and terrify the races and religions they HATE?

When we began to apply civil rights to ALL citizens instead of just whites, the white bigots ASSASSINATED, harassed, threatened and jailed many minorities who tried to organize boycotts and publicize the bigot businesses.

As far as I am concerned, the right to publicly discriminate against groups in the business square was lost by the violent and disgusting behavior of the people of that day. And it remains MANY would do EXACTLY the same cruelty and violence now without the threat of lawsuits and punishment to restrain them from their desired public obscenity to vent their hatred in their businesses on their chosen victims.

Businesses would thrive on owners and customers waiting for the next unsuspecting victim to come in to be set upon by their hate.

 

Where in the Bible does it say ANYTHING that the Religious Right says it does?

Abortion - not in there!

Rapture - not in there! ...

There IS something in the Bible that says you aren't allowed to "add" things to the Bible.

 

As I've said many times, for 2000 years they've been making it up as they go along.

 

Well now you needn't even concern yourself with that because the government will make the choice for you!

 

It's my understanding, from both reading published articles as well as the bakery owner's interview, that they have served the gay couple in question. The bakery drew the line at a forced endorsement/support of homosessual marriage.

Soooooo, looks to me like someone else needs the attitude adjustment... maybe the local courts.

 

While it's possible (and IMO desirable) to legislate against denial of service for reasons of bigotry, it is NOT possible (and IMO not desirable) to legislate against being a bigot. If the law says they gotta serve you, and they despise you, they can make it abundantly clear that while they are obliged to obey the law, they still despise you.

Kind of like passing a law giving Catholic churches the option of EITHER performing same-sex marriage, OR losing their tax status. Some of those churches might choose to take the tax breaks, but they surely won't make the wedding a pleasant experience if they can avoid it.

 

How is selling them a wedding cake a forced endorsement of homosexual marriage?
They were a bakery that sold wedding cakes, among other baked goods.
What exactly is the difference if the wedding cake they sell gets used for a straight marriage or a gay marriage?
When did bakery sanctioned marriages come about?

Personally I think the business couldn't pay the rent, and it's moving back to being a home based business and this becomes a publicity stunt.

 

Great, it's a fail.
Doesn't change the fact there are a whole slew of things one should not do. You just pick one and chose to hate it. Know any divorcees?

- - - Updated - - -

They're human. Humans sin, case closed.

 

Purposely tanking the product or service is just as discriminatory as not serving at all and would probably be met with the same lawsuit...this time with punitive damages.

It boggles my mind that some christians just don't get this.

 

It boggles my mind that some Americans don't get that its about freedom. Freedom of association. Freedom of contract.

 

Neither of those "freedoms" in the context you apply are laws nor are they in play. Like others, you just make it up as you go along.

So explain and show is in the law how those things you claim are pertinent.

 

Actually both are laws and it is the courts who make them up.

 

John Howard Griffin (in Black Like Me) spoke of the "hate stare" he common received from various clerks and sales people. They sold him the product, they took his money, they did not damage the product of overcharge him, but they still made it plain that they despised him and were forced to serve him against their will. He noted (and I'm repeating here) that these people could not help how they felt. They did their jobs, but that's it.

Stephen Jay Gould told of Louis Agassiz, the world's foremost scientist of his day, visiting from Europe and being served a high-class meal in Philadelphia - by black waiters. Agassiz (who had never before encountered a Negro) discovered he was so revolted by their skin color he was unable to eat. You just can't legislate away that sort of visceral reaction.

 

Exactly, it isn't only the gay community that is offended by people that want to publicly discriminate.

Maybe because Chik-fil-a wanted to continue to enjoy profits and reconsidered their stance?

TCRA's statement appears to confirm earlier reports which indicated that Chick-fil-A might be reconsidering their LGBT stance. Last month, reliable sources who did not wish to be identified told the HuffPost Gay Voices team that Dan Cathy, the fast food chain's president, "welcomed campus leaders to a private luncheon in Atlanta...to discuss diversity, hospitality and the opportunity to find common ground," though no further information regarding exactly which college groups were present was provided.

The recent backlash against the Atlanta-based fast food chain was sparked by Cathy's remarks in a July 16 interview with the Baptist Press. When writer K. Allan Blume asked Cathy, the son of company founder S. Truett Cathy, about the restaurant group's "support of the traditional family," the president glibly responded, "Well, guilty as charged."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/chick-fil-a-anti-gay-organizations-funding-ceased_n_1896580.html

 

So this "couple", instead of taking their business to another baker who would welcome their money, as sane people would do, decided to close them down for ideological reasons. That is not the way to endear people to your beliefs, IMO.

 

Gays are so (*)(*)(*)(*)ing full of themselves that they interpret support for traditional families, mothers and fathers working together to provide and care for their children, as opposition to gays.

 

Horseballs. Gays wish to be regarded, and treated, just the same as everyone else. No special discrimination with regard to marriage, to cakes, to products for sale, or anything else. No special privileges at all.

Recall, back in the civil rights days, when Negroes who simply wanted to be treated as ordinary people were regarded as "uppity" pushy undeserving people who wanted special privileges and "didn't know their place".

NOBODY opposes families (many gays want to raise families), nobody opposes caring for children except the anti-abortion fanatics. It IS traditional for bigots to claim that those they hate are causing the bigotry, just by existing.

 

No, they simply view any support for "traditional families" as not treating them equally because they would rather not participate.

 

I don't think their goal was to endear the baker. They were instead seeking retribution. Its like the transvestites who won $400,000 from the bar owner because he dared asked them to go elsewhere, while they now refuse to patronize the bar and going elsewhere. They don't want to endear the bar owner, they want to punish him.

Back when I was young there was a song that went "Sign says, long haired freaky people, need not apply...... ". I cant imagine what possible justification there could be for a baker, bar owner or florist being forced by law to provide services to guys in heels, short skirt and long haired wig, while they are perfectly free to refuse the long haired freaky people.

 

Complete mischaracterization of my statement. It won't be "just one cake shop." This libertarian utopia where everyone has an equally good alternative if one shop chooses not to serve "the gays" doesn't exist and won't be the reality if anyone can discriminate against anyone they don't like for no relevant reason. It will become an unnavigable maze where no one knows where they can or can't safely shop (unless the business is going to publicize who they won't serve, which is highly doubtful).

Think about it. Suppose you're a couple trying to plan a wedding, and you spend a bunch of time trying to locate a business that does what you want at a price you can afford. Then you get there, go through taste tests, etc. and when you're ready to make a decision the owner says, "Oh, it's a gay wedding? We don't do gay weddings." Back to the drawing board. Do you not think the consumer's time is just as valuable? Now, multiply that by living in a rural area where the options are even more limited. You end up spending more on gas to drive extra miles to find a business that can make your cake. Only they don't deliver to your area, so now you've got to spend the extra time and money to do the pickup.

It's not that cake prices will rise; it's that business owners will exploit the discriminatory situation. If most of the businesses in a location discriminate, but just one serves "the gays", that business is probably going to charge a premium price to gay customers because the gay consumer has no other real options. And this is not all some hypothetical with no foundation in history. At the time of the Stonewall riots, if gay people wanted to go to the bar, their choice was a mafia-run establishment that charged higher prices for watered-down drinks.

Calling my observation "crazy" is just an excuse to avoid having to address the actual argument.

 

There is no federal anti-discrimination protection on the basis of perceived sexual orientation. The hate crime law is a separate piece of law that covers that one thing, and that thing only. There are localities and some states that have anti-discrimination laws; some will cover things like housing, but not other public accommodation. It's a patchwork of law that just adds to the difficulty of living with a same-sex orientaiton.

My state has no protections on the basis of perceived sexual orientation. The effort to change the law in Michigan has been going on for at least a couple of decades or more. Local protections in the law have no teeth without the backing of state law, and recently there has been talk of passing a state law that requires local law to mirror state law in anti-discrimination protections - not because legislators want to make sure those protections are carried through to the local level, but for the purpose of blanketly eliminating local protections for sexual orientation.

Addendum: I should just note here that while discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not allowed in hiring practices for state employees in Michigan, this only exists as a matter of executive order, not legislation. The governor signed a law this past winter prohibiting local government agencies from offering domestic partner benefits to employees.

 

OK, take a breath. I agree, we should have the government tell everyone even more than they do now what they can or cant do. We could even advocate for some reverse discrimination and have black only restaurants, and handicap only grocery stores. Forget individual rights and liberties, we dont need those. Maybe we can even have the government run some of these businesses so the ones who were formerly discriminated against get subsidized products and services? Maybe they can even set what color frostings can be used too. Be sure that equal but better rights is what you want because if you ever own or run a business you just may be forced to do something or serve some racist bigot because you cant discriminate against him.