Christian Asks Gay Bakeries To Bake Him Pro-Traditional Cake

[SwingMan]

Thoughts anyone?

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]

[Superbone]

I think it's silly. Christian bakeries shouldn't have to make pro-gay cakes and gay bakeries shouldn't have to make anti-gay cakes. End of story.

[SwingMan]

I think it's silly. Christian bakeries shouldn't have to make pro-gay cakes and gay bakeries shouldn't have to make anti-gay cakes. End of story.

Agreed.

But gays are suing and given standing in discrimination lawsuits for Christian bakeries refusing to cater to pro-gays, while the pro-gays are given free reign to discriminate against Christians without fear of retribution. Where's the fairness in this if pro-gays can use federal, state and local governments to sue but pro-traditional marriage citizens can't? that's the point.

Under their rules, pro-gays HAVE to cater to Christians, so why do pro-gays get to have their cake and eat it too (pun intended) by forcing Christian businesses to cater to them while refusing to do the same for Christian/pro-traditional marriage folks?

[Superbone]

OK, obviously that's not right and is a double standard I agree.

[Phoenix219]

I think it's silly. Christian bakeries shouldn't have to make pro-gay cakes and gay bakeries shouldn't have to make anti-gay cakes. End of story.

Agreed.

But gays are suing and given standing in discrimination lawsuits for Christian bakeries refusing to cater to pro-gays, while the pro-gays are given free reign to discriminate against Christians without fear of retribution. Where's the fairness in this if pro-gays can use federal, state and local governments to sue but pro-traditional marriage citizens can't? that's the point.

Under their rules, pro-gays HAVE to cater to Christians, so why do pro-gays get to have their cake and eat it too (pun intended) by forcing Christian businesses to cater to them while refusing to do the same for Christian/pro-traditional marriage folks?

Yup.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/ ... ing-after/

And its not just bakers - these people, who used to rent their land out for weddings and parties, were fined and forced to host a lesbian wedding on their private property. they have now closed the land for use by anyone.

http://www.religionnews.com/2014/08/19/ ... n-wedding/

[Indy]

Exactly. Any business should get to refuse service to anyone they want for any reason.

[Dan H]

Exactly. Any business should get to refuse service to anyone they want for any reason.

I kind of instinctively want to say except for race, but the more libertarian-minded part of me says that is a situation that would resolve itself via the free market and word-of-mouth.

[Indy]

Exactly. Any business should get to refuse service to anyone they want for any reason.

I kind of instinctively want to say except for race, but the more libertarian-minded part of me says that is a situation that would resolve itself via the free market and word-of-mouth.

It wouldn't.

[Mori Chu]

Exactly. Any business should get to refuse service to anyone they want for any reason.

Except for protected classes. The law says you can't refuse service to somebody just because of race, gender, age, and a few others. (I personally think sexual orientation should be a protected class, but currently it is not.)

[Indy]

That was sarcasm. Again, with INF gone, I forgot to use the green text. Of course people shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. And yes, I don't know why it would be OK to tell someone you refuse to serve them because they have green eyes, or red hair, or too short, or because of who they find attractive.

[Dan H]

All it does is drive jerkish behavior underground. "He's gay? I refused him service because he was a jerk and he insulted my counter person." Hard to prove a negative. The lawfare is just pour encourage les autres - you will think the way you're supposed to, or we'll destroy your business. Live and let live isn't good enough apparently.

[Superbone]

It doesn't matter what the color of the person's skin is or what their sexual orientation is or what their beliefs are if they're asking a business to do something that that business doesn't do regardless.

The whole thing is just ridiculously stupid.

[AmareIsGod]

This is like going to a Muslim Mosque and asking / requiring that they have a traditional "Christian" wedding. If you aren't a member of the church or religion, find one that fits into your belief system. Don't force a square peg into a round hole. It goes both ways. I personally am not religious in any way, shape or form and think it's ridiculous that groups are suing one another to force acceptance but not holding their own group / religion accountable to do the same.

[Indy]

I think it's silly. Christian bakeries shouldn't have to make pro-gay cakes and gay bakeries shouldn't have to make anti-gay cakes. End of story.

Agreed.

But gays are suing and given standing in discrimination lawsuits for Christian bakeries refusing to cater to pro-gays, while the pro-gays are given free reign to discriminate against Christians without fear of retribution. Where's the fairness in this if pro-gays can use federal, state and local governments to sue but pro-traditional marriage citizens can't? that's the point.

Under their rules, pro-gays HAVE to cater to Christians, so why do pro-gays get to have their cake and eat it too (pun intended) by forcing Christian businesses to cater to them while refusing to do the same for Christian/pro-traditional marriage folks?

Where are you reading that? Forcing a business to not discriminate doesn't give free reign to others to discriminate.

[Indy]

This is like going to a Muslim Mosque and asking / requiring that they have a traditional "Christian" wedding. If you aren't a member of the church or religion, find one that fits into your belief system. Don't force a square peg into a round hole. It goes both ways. I personally am not religious in any way, shape or form and think it's ridiculous that groups are suing one another to force acceptance but not holding their own group / religion accountable to do the same.

Well, not really. Because we are stupid enough in this country to allow these religious "business" to operate tax free and avoid many laws as a result.

[Dan H]

This is like going to a Muslim Mosque and asking / requiring that they have a traditional "Christian" wedding. If you aren't a member of the church or religion, find one that fits into your belief system. Don't force a square peg into a round hole. It goes both ways. I personally am not religious in any way, shape or form and think it's ridiculous that groups are suing one another to force acceptance but not holding their own group / religion accountable to do the same.

Well, not really. Because we are stupid enough in this country to allow these religious "business" to operate tax free and avoid many laws as a result.

Apropos of nothing, there's a fairly obvious reason why the lawsuits have, without exception, been aimed toward Christian businesses and not Islamic.

[Indy]

This is like going to a Muslim Mosque and asking / requiring that they have a traditional "Christian" wedding. If you aren't a member of the church or religion, find one that fits into your belief system. Don't force a square peg into a round hole. It goes both ways. I personally am not religious in any way, shape or form and think it's ridiculous that groups are suing one another to force acceptance but not holding their own group / religion accountable to do the same.

Well, not really. Because we are stupid enough in this country to allow these religious "business" to operate tax free and avoid many laws as a result.

Apropos of nothing, there's a fairly obvious reason why the lawsuits have, without exception, been aimed toward Christian businesses and not Islamic.

Probably has at least a little to do with Christian owned businesses out numbering Islamic ones 100 to 1.

[Dan H]

Not in the metro areas, I'd wager.

[Indy]

100 might be a little high, but I have a hard time believing there are that many more when the Islam faith is only accounted for by <1% of the US population.

[Ghost]

The gay couple that was discriminated against was not asking for a "pro-gay" cake. They just wanted a cake. As a for-profit business, you agree to play by certain rules, which include providing your service to anyone who wants to patronize that business (although there are limits to how far you have to go).

Making a cake for a gay couple does not, in any way, imply that you support or agree with their lifestyle, any more that serving blacks in your restaurant means that you can't be a raging bigot on your free time. And that is because the cake did not say "Gay Love Is Great." It likely didn't say anything. It was just a cake, not a political message.

The asshat in this video is not asking for a cake, he's asking for a political statement. And, he's doing it in a way that expressly offends the more reasonable of us in the world. In fact, he doesn't even want a cake...he just wants to be a prick.

If he were a Grand Wizard of the KKK and asked for a cake, as the gay couple did before, and that was all he wanted...a black-owned bakery would have to sell it to him. Once he asks them to write "String 'em up!" and requests a dark tree on a lonely hill to be on drawn in the frosting, they are well within their rights to say no.

Now, back to the actual asshat. He did not request a wedding cake. Had he said "My friends Angela and David are getting married, and I'd like to buy a cake," and the gay baker said, "I'm sorry, we simply can't support that," well, then they would be in the wrong. That is discrimination. They provide a service...making cakes. And they can't discriminate against someone because of who the customer is.

They can, however, refuse service to someone who asks them to write an offensive message. And they can also refuse service to someone who is just being a complete asshat.