Jump to content

Judge orders baker to serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 273
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

:lol: Alright you two. Knock it off. Back to topic, as someone who has faced real discrimination based on sexual orientation by being discharged under DADT (long story)I wouldn't call what took plac

I could solve this easily. Go buy a cake somewhere else. Why would anyone want to do business with someone who doesn't want their business is beyond me. Sent barefoot from the hills of Tennessee

I, being a fellow Christian, believe that people are making this into something it is not.  In no way would making a cake for a gay wedding be any sort of endorsement or acceptance of that union.  The

I could solve this easily. Go buy a cake somewhere else. Why would anyone want to do business with someone who doesn't want their business is beyond me.

Sent barefoot from the hills of Tennessee

  • Like 8
Link to post

Take the order, make a really awful tasting cake. 

Or tell them you can't make the cake because you're too busy. 

I get that the tolerance issue in America is well beyond out-of-control, but why would you invite such a scenario on yourself by telling them you won't serve because they are gay.  There's been enough of this crap in the news lately to know how it will play out. 

  • Like 1
Link to post

 Why would anyone want to do business with someone who doesn't want their business is beyond me.

Sent barefoot from the hills of Tennessee

 

it was not about doing business with someone who doesn't want to serve them. its about pushing the gay agenda. gays intend to force their choices on the rest of us no matter what

  • Like 2
Link to post

I would agree that maybe the baker wasn't the sharpest tool for stating the reason for not serving them, but on the other hand it is pretty apparent that  the only reason the gay couple took this to court was to be vindictive....instead of being a big boy and taking his business elsewhere like any reasonable adult would do...the judge was out of his mind to even rule in favor of the gay couple, they should have been told to grow up and get a life...

Edited by jacob
  • Like 4
Link to post
  • Moderators

it was not about doing business with someone who doesn't want to serve them. its about pushing the gay agenda. gays intend to force their choices on the rest of us no matter what

I'd say that is a pretty broad brush you are painting with. Not all gay folks are driven by pushing an agenda just like not all blacks are saggy pantsed thugs and not all gun owners are inbred rednecks. There are actually some gay folks out there who don't have an agenda, they just want to be left alone to live their lives. Hell, I guarantee there are some gay folks that agree with you that this case was stupid and the couple should have just gone somewhere else and that the baker had the right to choose not to participate.

  • Like 4
Link to post

it was not about doing business with someone who doesn't want to serve them. its about pushing the gay agenda. gays intend to force their choices on the rest of us no matter what

 

 You have hit the nail on the head! It has no more to do with a cake as it has to do with a damn horseshoe. They want to push the rest of us into joining them or bowing to them and I for one will do neither. I don't hate or even dislike anyone because they are gay but you better believe I have a strong dislike for anyone, gay or otherwise that tries to shove some BS agenda down my throat.

  • Like 1
Link to post

I'd say that is a pretty broad brush you are painting with. Not all gay folks are driven by pushing an agenda just like not all blacks are saggy pantsed thugs and not all gun owners are inbred rednecks. There are actually some gay folks out there who don't have an agenda, they just want to be left alone to live their lives. Hell, I guarantee there are some gay folks that agree with you that this case was stupid and the couple should have just gone somewhere else and that the baker had the right to choose not to participate.

 You are right, I know a "couple" and they are quite pleasant to be around. BUT those are the folks that will do as UncleJak stated above, go somewhere else that wants the business. I have yet to hear of any lawsuits being filed like this that were from this Live and let Live type of "couple".

Link to post

I highly doubt the ruling sticks.

 

Why wouldn't it? Sexual orientation is a federally protected status against discrimination, same as race, eh?

 

Even worse if you punch a gay guy, then it's hate crime status.

 

- OS

Edited by Oh Shoot
Link to post
  • Moderators

 You are right, I know a "couple" and they are quite pleasant to be around. BUT those are the folks that will do as UncleJak stated above, go somewhere else that wants the business. I have yet to hear of any lawsuits being filed like this that were from this Live and let Live type of "couple".

I don't disagree with anything you've written here. I only took issue with the phrasing that was overly broad in its indictments. The only reason I chose to point that out is that all too often we paint with these broad brushes and develop preconceptions that would prevent us from finding common ground. Not all gay folks are prancing around in thongs on main street demanding that every church gives them a wedding that would be just faaaabulous! That's all I'm saying.

  • Like 2
Link to post

Why wouldn't it? Sexual orientation is a federally protected status against discrimination, same as race, eh?

- OS

So is the right to bear arms (2A)...so what would be our chances be in a lawsuit be if demanded to carry in a posted business if they had anti gun beleifs? Why are these NEVER a 2 way street?
Link to post

So is the right to bear arms (2A)...so what would be our chances be in a lawsuit be if demanded to carry in a posted business if they had anti gun beleifs? Why are these NEVER a 2 way street?

 

Firearm owners are not a protected class, like sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin, religion, or sexual orientation.

 

We only have that ole musty US Constitution thang, something about "will not be infringed" -- which along with a couple bucks will get you a beer.

 

- OS

  • Like 1
Link to post

Why wouldn't it? Sexual orientation is a federally protected status against discrimination, same as race, eh?

Even worse if you punch a gay guy, then it's hate crime status.

- OS


I would hardly call refusing to bake a cake discrimination in the conventional sense of the word...seems a bit of a stretch IMHO...
  • Like 1
Link to post

Firearm owners are not a protected class, like sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin, religion, or sexual orientation.

We only have that ole musty US Constitution thang, something about "will not be infringed" -- which along with a couple bucks will get you a beer.

- OS

Yeah, kind of a sad state of affairs...

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

Link to post

I would hardly call refusing to bake a cake discrimination in the conventional sense of the word...seems a bit of a stretch IMHO...

 

Precisely how is refusing to bake them a cake different than refusing to serve them dinner on the basis of discrimination? That I assume will be the legal issue.

 

The vendor's religious beliefs seem to have already failed as a justifiable reason as decided as per the ACA, for example (Catholic institutions and Hobby Lobby having to offer birth control, etc).

 

- OS

Edited by Oh Shoot
Link to post

Precisely how is refusing to bake them a cake different than refusing to serve them dinner on the basis of discrimination? That I assume will be the legal issue.

The vendor's religious beliefs seem to have already failed as a justifiable reason as decided as per the ACA, for example.

- OS

So I can sue if I don't want to wear a shirt or shoes and don't get served now?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

Link to post

So I can sue if I don't want to wear a shirt or shoes and don't get served now?

 

Shoeless shirtless people are not a protected class.

 

You can refuse to serve gay shirtless and shoeless people AFAIK. At least as per federal law. In some places you have to serve nude ones as per local law!

 

Is this a great country, or what? ;)

 

- OS

Edited by Oh Shoot
  • Like 2
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

THE FINE PRINT

Tennessee Gun Owners (TNGunOwners.com) is the premier Community and Discussion Forum for gun owners, firearm enthusiasts, sportsmen and Second Amendment proponents in the state of Tennessee and surrounding region.

TNGunOwners.com (TGO) is a presentation of Enthusiast Productions. The TGO state flag logo and the TGO tri-hole "icon" logo are trademarks of Tennessee Gun Owners. The TGO logos and all content presented on this site may not be reproduced in any form without express written permission. The opinions expressed on TGO are those of their authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the site's owners or staff.

Before engaging in any transaction of goods or services on TGO, all parties involved must know and follow the local, state and Federal laws regarding those transactions. TGO makes no claims, guarantees or assurances regarding any such transactions.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to the following.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines
 
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.