Court: Christian printer doesn't have to print gay pride shirts

I wasn't suggesting you speak out against actions, I was suggesting you speak out against the long established law that goes directly against your stated principle of "letting the business decide". It's nothing personal - you're far from alone in all of a sudden claiming the general personal freedom argument in relation to this.

I'm not. I've already said it was probably the right decision by the court.

 

Yeah, they just want them to be fined $100,000 and threatened with death.

 

I do. If I don't expect a Jewish deli to serve me a bacon cheeseburger, and I wouldn't support a Christian who sued trying to force a muslim to cook them bacon either.

 

That statement is pretty ridiculous, I'm sure you'll agree.

Religious business owners are not "forcing their beliefs" when they refuse to provide a service.

On the other hand, the gays drag people through the courts, protest outside of businesses until they close their doors, and call in death threats to the owners, staff, and their innocent families.

Why do so many of you repeat that foolishness.....?



.

 

Try telling that to the bakers & florists who happily served their gay customers for years, before being sued, shut down and having their lives threatened for only refusing to provide for a gay wedding.


.

 

AND of course, threatening a business owner with 100s of $1000s in damages if they dont serve gay causes and print the t-shirts, IS forcing the beliefs of the homosexual agenda onto this christian.

 

.... Dan Cathy, Phil Robertson.... it's really quite a list.

 

And all a Democrat has to do is say that it's not and the Westboro Baptist jihad starts. It flies both ways...

 

You must have missed the hundreds of stories of the Christian and other Freedom supporting communities providing a sudden financial surge to businesses who simply stand up for their own beliefs.

If only the rest of the liberals and gays felt that way.

 

There is a huge difference.

Westboro is a small group of people whose tactics are limited to protests, are widely rejected by the religious community, and Westboro's targets receive extensive support from the local and national community. Nobody is forced to join Westboro.

The gay "equality" movement has deep pockets, their tactics go far beyond public protests and into personal intimidation and harassment of their target and everyone even marginally associated with the victim. People attempting to support the victim, or who even argue the terror tactics of the gays are excessive, are in turn targeted for destruction. Public figures who prefer to remain out of the debate are forced (under threat of being "homophobic" and in turn targeted for destruction) to speak out against the victim.

Westboro is exercising its right to free speech. The gays are engaged in a jihad of personal destruction.

 

well said.... WBC are a handful of nuts.... I disagree with their agenda... but they are harmless in the long run. gaygenda is not harmless and you are spot on with their tactics. And they simply justify the tactics as "you're not free from consequences."

 

it's a 'wishful thinking' sort of thing hoping a "homophobic, and bigotted will go bankrupt" when truth shows.... if they are running a good business plan prior to, they are fine.


I do find it hilarious when it backfires and instead of hurting Chic-fil-a.... they actually boost their sales and profits to the highest ever.

They force a pizzaria out of business... not because they actually did anything.... all they did was say they wouldn't serve if given the opportuntiy.... and now, she has been donated over 1 million dollars in support. She can now take a vacation to a tropical paradise.... for a couple of months.... come back and start up another resturant with the leftover $$ as startup funds.


and guess what... she's still not going to have to cater a gay wedding

 

From what I understand, after they were targeted for comment, they only closed because of the death threats they and their staff were receiving.... and reopened just days later to a full house. Something they hadn't seen in a long time.

That nearly $1,000,000 gift from people who believe in freedom was going to restaurant updates/upgrades.

Seems "We graciously serve gays, we just don't cater gay weddings" is a business boost... as long as the gays react in their predictable way.
We've seen it dozens of times.

 

Did you hear what they did to Sweet Cakes in Oregon. Somebody set up a go fund me site to take donations to help the owners out with attorney fees and $130,000 in damages they were accused of causing because some gay couple had to go to a different baker and get the same cake at a better price. $109,000 in just a few hours and then Go Fund me shut down the site, claiming it violated their policy

•Campaigns in defense of formal charges of heinous crimes, including violent, hateful, or sexual acts.

Sooooo now not baking a cake for a homosexual is "heinous crimes"??? Its not even in the law as a crime. Im sure Go fund me likely had legions of homosexuals complaining, so they shut it down.

 

I saw that story too. I think the issue is that the Sweet Cakes by Melissa case involved "formal charges"... because the gays say it should be illegal to follow one's belief system that doesn't align with theirs. Yes, they complained.

If what I read is true, GoFundMe gave them the $109,000 that was raised. Which was the right thing to do.
And a huge help to that family who was fined $135,000 for serving gays... just not a gay wedding.

A Christian Charity stepped in and raised money for them.
Since Christians are more about lifting people up..... not tearing people down.

 

You make a lot of assumptions here. Firstly, you assume that, unlike WBC, the "gay jihad" is large and accepted by gays as a whole. I assert that you have no proof to defend that. You are also making grandiose claims about the kind of retaliation performed by the "gay jihad". Can you cite specific examples of "personal intimidation" or harassment of people associated with their "target"?

Even if that is what's happening, is it any better than holding a sign saying "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" outside a funeral? Or holding public demonstrations devoted to hate for a people group?

 

Sweet Cakes by Melissa - Death threats.

Memories Pizza - Death threats.

Not just the "people associated with their targets".... but the families also.

Those are the first two I can think of.

No, it's not better. It's a lot worse.

Threatening to kill someone is actually a crime.

 

You cut your quote short. It says "formal charges of heinous crimes". First, they committed no crime. This isn't a criminal law they are accused of violating. And second, certainly it isn't "heinous".

 

Ok. The story I read said this funding was stopped because it involved "formal charges". It didn't go any further.

And I agree, people can hate the baker all they want... they still did nothing heinous, never "forced their beliefs", or committed a single existing crime.

 

So you do not think religious politicians kicking gay people out of the military irs not forcing their beliefs? How about not allowing gays adoptions, refusing gays the ability to transfer property on their death, hospital visitations, and the right to life in some situations.

You are right, the two really do not compare do they?

 

Brendan Eich, Mozilla founder, was fired from being CEO after it was revealed that 6 years earlier he had supported California prop 8.

Jason & David Benham's home repair tv show was canceled before even the first episode was aired because of the gay jihad against them. They came to the gays attention because their father is a minister who publicly said homosexuality is a sin, and David & Jason are also Christians but were less outspoken as their father.

The recent closing of Memories Pizza (now reopened). The owner was asked by a reported if she would hypothetically cater a gay wedding, she said no. This was a purely hypothetical, it was a statement of opinion only.

Michelle Duggar of the tv show 19 Kids and Counting came under attack for having "homophobic" opinions - she advocated against an LGBT ordinance in her community. The gays launched a drive to have the tv show canceled and threatened The Learning Channel with further retribution if the show was not removed.

Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty came under attack because he stated homosexuality was a sin in an interview. Gays wanted the tv show canceled even though the interview was outside the show.

The restaurant chain Chik-fil-a came under attack and was boycotted because owner Dan Cathy had "homophobic" opinions. Cathy's activity was completely outside Chik-fil-a, but the gays wanted to damage Chik-fil-a and its 30,000 employees hoping it would put pressure on Cathy to stop advocating for traditional marriage.

Those are just some of the cases covered heavily by the media, you can find a lot of information about the cases on the internet.

In all these cases, the gay activists engaged in a national smear campaign to attack and damage the specific victim, the victims family, friends, coworkers, employer, employees, sponsors.

Nothing Westboro has done comes even close to the level of hatred held by the gays or the degree of damage the gays have imposed on people. The gays have caused emotional, financial, employment damage to their victims, the victims employer, family and friends. Westboro just uses words, the gays engage in a campaign of personal destruction.

 

Correct. Stupid lawmakers are one thing.

We were talking "activists".

Like the kind that threatens death to people who simply say "sorry, but no".

 

No, its telling them to leave with their beliefs

When has that ever occurred?

 

That is their story, but the rule is...... WOW! I was going to link to the rules and they've changed them since this morning. It said on their terms and conditions page

"Campaigns in defense of formal charges of heinous crimes"
http://www.gofundme.com/2014/09/09/content-guidelines/

and now its

"Campaigns in defense of formal charges or claims of heinous crimes"
https://www.gofundme.com/terms

Slime balls changes the rules to match their previous actions.

 

It really depends on facts and circumstances. For starters, it depends on the nature of the business. If one is a florist or a baker, discrimination against a group would mean not providing a service for which your business is intended to do. Florists, for instance, are in the business to provide flower arrangements to special occasions such as weddings, funerals, prom, church events, etc. Thus, by proving a service to one group and not providing the same service to another group is by law discrimination. If the discrimination is from a protected group under the Civil Rights Act or similar law, then that is discrimination against a group even if it is a single instance. The same is for bakers. The baker is in the business of providing a product for occasions. A service is not commercial speech such as a t shirt shop. Commercial speech is given a much broader interpretation of what is and what is not discrimination than a service. However, it may be possible for the t shirt shop to violate discrimination laws depending on what is the nature of the business on what they print on the t shirt.