1. Just_Me_D's Avatar
    So... if they kept their mouth shut and just said no, or ignored the couple, none of this would happen?

    C'mon on man.....
    In 'this particular situation', no. Activists and the media would have totally disregarded the owner's personal beliefs, no matter how polite they were in their refusal as evidenced by the picketing, the threats, etcetera. The owners of the bakery didn't prevent them from getting married or even spoke ill of them. They simply refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple due to their beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman. If it had been a Muslim bakery that refused to make a cake, that would have been the end of it. Those guys would have sought a cake elsewhere, in my opinion.
    Duvi likes this.
    07-21-2015 11:35 AM
  2. kilofoxtrot's Avatar
    In 'this particular situation', no. Activists and the media would have totally disregarded the owner's personal beliefs, no matter how polite they were in their refusal as evidenced by the picketing, the threats, etcetera. The owners of the bakery didn't prevent them from getting married or even spoke ill of them. They simply refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple due to their beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman. If it had been a Muslim bakery that refused to make a cake, that would have been the end of it. Those guys would have sought a cake elsewhere, in my opinion.
    Exactly. This is a case of Freedom of Religion, not Freedom of Speech. IMO
    07-21-2015 12:24 PM
  3. Just_Me_D's Avatar
    Exactly. This is a case of Freedom of Religion, not Freedom of Speech. IMO
    No. They were free to exercise their religious beliefs up until the time they verbally declined to make a cake for a same-sex couple. In my opinion, they could have said, "I'm not making a cake for you simply because I don't want to", and they still would be in the position that they're in due to the fact that the couple is gay.
    07-21-2015 12:32 PM
  4. Haalcyon's Avatar
    I thought free speech was already banned in America. I've seen multiple examples of this. You only have free speech as long as you don't offend the wrong people. Not saying whether that's bad or good...just noting it.
    Last edited by Haalcyon; 07-21-2015 at 01:33 PM.
    Just_Me_D likes this.
    07-21-2015 01:22 PM
  5. SeanHRCC's Avatar
    Refusal of Services = Speech?

    I guess I am confused.
    You're intentionally being oblivious.
    Just_Me_D and Tartarus like this.
    07-21-2015 01:31 PM
  6. SeanHRCC's Avatar
    Exactly. This is a case of Freedom of Religion, not Freedom of Speech. IMO
    It is directly related.
    07-21-2015 01:31 PM
  7. kilofoxtrot's Avatar
    It is directly related.
    There are over 300 hundred religions or denominations in the US.

    Is this a place we should go?
    07-21-2015 01:38 PM
  8. kch50428's Avatar
    Exactly. This is a case of Freedom of Religion, not Freedom of Speech. IMO
    Part of the order of the state commission is the bakers are not allowed to discuss their religious beliefs and this case.
    07-21-2015 01:52 PM
  9. kilofoxtrot's Avatar
    You're intentionally being oblivious.
    No I am not. Read the 1st Amendment.
    07-21-2015 02:13 PM
  10. iOS Gravity's Avatar
    C'mon man. Stop playing' around. You know darn well that it was their spoken reason for refusal that got them in trouble and not the refusal itself.
    This entire case doesn't make sense to me. A bakery refuses to bake them a cake, so they sue it and win $130,000 for "emotional suffering"... They could've just went to another bakery, knowing that the owner couldn't violate their religious beliefs...
    07-21-2015 03:53 PM
  11. SeanHRCC's Avatar
    No I am not. Read the 1st Amendment.
    Done...still trying to figure out what the relevance to what I observed about your comment is.
    07-21-2015 05:03 PM
  12. SeanHRCC's Avatar
    There are over 300 hundred religions or denominations in the US.

    Is this a place we should go?
    And?
    07-21-2015 05:04 PM
  13. kilofoxtrot's Avatar
    And?
    I'll be more succinct. Do you want over 300 different religious groups to be able to deny services based on their religious beliefs?

    In the case of Sweet Cakes, Oregon found that they refused to serve some because of their sexual orientation. Had Sweet Cakes won, see the above.

    This has nothing to do with free speech, and everything to do with using religion to discriminate.

    The Supreme Court has held that laws may prohibit religiously motivated action, as opposed to belief.

    The legislative branch may prohibit conduct it deems discriminatory, even where the motivation for that conduct is base on a religion. This too has been held up in courts.

    On a side note, I wonder how many wedding cakes Sweet Cakes made for couples who engaged in premarital sex? I bet quite a few. It would appear that Sweet Cakes cherry picked what sinner they would serve and ones that they would not.
    Duvi and Shanicenicolle like this.
    07-21-2015 05:53 PM
  14. kilofoxtrot's Avatar
    If it had been a Muslim bakery that refused to make a cake, that would have been the end of it.
    Not a cake.... but remember the Muslim taxi drivers in Minnepolis refusing to take passengers with alcohol?

    Appeals Court backs MAC on Muslim taxi drivers - StarTribune.com

    Appeals Court Rules Against Muslim Instructional Aide in Ohio District

    http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/schoo...gainst_mu.html
    Last edited by kilofoxtrot; 07-21-2015 at 07:14 PM.
    07-21-2015 06:50 PM
  15. iOS Gravity's Avatar
    07-21-2015 09:51 PM
  16. SeanHRCC's Avatar
    I'll be more succinct. Do you want over 300 different religious groups to be able to deny services based on their religious beliefs?

    In the case of Sweet Cakes, Oregon found that they refused to serve some because of their sexual orientation. Had Sweet Cakes won, see the above.

    This has nothing to do with free speech, and everything to do with using religion to discriminate.

    The Supreme Court has held that laws may prohibit religiously motivated action, as opposed to belief.

    The legislative branch may prohibit conduct it deems discriminatory, even where the motivation for that conduct is base on a religion. This too has been held up in courts.

    On a side note, I wonder how many wedding cakes Sweet Cakes made for couples who engaged in premarital sex? I bet quite a few. It would appear that Sweet Cakes cherry picked what sinner they would serve and ones that they would not.
    Cherry picked? Are you joking? You're being ridiculous now. Nobody is going to go request a cake from a bakery and make it known that they were screwing before they tied the knot. A gay couple is a bit more in your face, to say the least.

    And I wanted your elaboration for a purpose...you seem to want to distance this from the idea of "freedom of speech", but at the end of the day, it is directly related. Say that couple goes in, and they ask for a cake for the wedding and the bakery simply says "No." Are you telling me that you're naive enough to think that it simply ends there and nothing else is said about it? Really?

    In reality, the bakery says no...the customer says "Why not?" and the bakery, according to this charge they are paying for, has no recourse because it's not good enough to run a private business in the fashion you wish to as an owner...nope, you have no freedom to explain to someone "I don't want to serve you because I don't agree with your lifestyle"...because at that point, you're going to get charged with something and you're going to pay a big fine.

    Nope, you better keep your mouth shut, and either make that cake or just stonewall them with silence.

    Where is that freedom of speech again? Oh yeah, it's so clearly present as they sign that $135,000 check because a couple of gay people were "offended" that they wouldn't make a wedding cake for them and explained to them why. Best just not to say anything anymore out of risk of being sued for doing such.

    My father in law does video editing as a side business/hobby...he does a lot of wedding video editing. As a Christian man, he would not do video editing of a gay wedding. If someone asked him to do that, he would tell them no and he would explain to them why. Now days, he can be sued for that and end up losing everything he owns because of it...not because he simply WON'T do the job...but because he won't do the job and he'd tell you precisely why.

    It's a hypocritical system of enforcement. Nearly the whole damn system is...one of the reasons why I jumped at the chance to get out of it when I could and never look back. It disgusts me.
    07-22-2015 12:49 AM
  17. duckduckgoose's Avatar
    This entire case doesn't make sense to me. A bakery refuses to bake them a cake, so they sue it and win $130,000 for "emotional suffering"... They could've just went to another bakery, knowing that the owner couldn't violate their religious beliefs...
    Actually if you read the stories the bakery refused to bake the cake but then printed the couples name and address on Facebook. The gay couple then started receiving death threats and obscene calls. Child protective services was going to remove their foster children from the home worried for the children's safety. I think there is a ton of emotional suffering there.
    The bakers have now been funded over three or four times the fine on one of online funding sites. If the couple has any sense of decency they will donate the excess to a charitable cause, but I really doubt that happens.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    07-22-2015 02:41 AM
  18. kilofoxtrot's Avatar
    Cherry picked? Are you joking? You're being ridiculous now. Nobody is going to go request a cake from a bakery and make it known that they were screwing before they tied the knot. A gay couple is a bit more in your face, to say the least.
    Is the baker that naive? Really? Or smart enough to "dont ask, dont tell" and everything is ok and I'll take your money. <wink> <wink>.

    And I wanted your elaboration for a purpose...you seem to want to distance this from the idea of "freedom of speech", but at the end of the day, it is directly related. Say that couple goes in, and they ask for a cake for the wedding and the bakery simply says "No." Are you telling me that you're naive enough to think that it simply ends there and nothing else is said about it? Really?
    The only thing I am naive about is that fact that you have a law degree in constitutional law. It appears the bakers should have hired you as their lawyer. After all, their 1st amendment rights were violated. Right?

    In reality, the bakery says no...the customer says "Why not?" and the bakery, according to this charge they are paying for, has no recourse because it's not good enough to run a private business in the fashion you wish to as an owner...nope, you have no freedom to explain to someone "I don't want to serve you because I don't agree with your lifestyle"...because at that point, you're going to get charged with something and you're going to pay a big fine.

    Nope, you better keep your mouth shut, and either make that cake or just stonewall them with silence.

    Where is that freedom of speech again? Oh yeah, it's so clearly present as they sign that $135,000 check because a couple of gay people were "offended" that they wouldn't make a wedding cake for them and explained to them why. Best just not to say anything anymore out of risk of being sued for doing such.

    My father in law does video editing as a side business/hobby...he does a lot of wedding video editing. As a Christian man, he would not do video editing of a gay wedding. If someone asked him to do that, he would tell them no and he would explain to them why. Now days, he can be sued for that and end up losing everything he owns because of it...not because he simply WON'T do the job...but because he won't do the job and he'd tell you precisely why.

    It's a hypocritical system of enforcement. Nearly the whole damn system is...one of the reasons why I jumped at the chance to get out of it when I could and never look back. It disgusts me.
    Here is reality.... the courts in this case and historically have prohibited religiously motivated action over belief in cases of discrimination. SPOKEN OR UNSPOKEN.

    If their 1st amendment rights were violated.... then render your services as their lawyer.
    07-22-2015 08:06 AM
  19. SeanHRCC's Avatar
    Is the baker that naive? Really? Or smart enough to "dont ask, dont tell" and everything is ok and I'll take your money. <wink> <wink>.
    You said it right there... "Don't ask, don't tell". As long as they are hush hush about the entire situation, good or bad, they wouldn't be facing this situation.

    The rest of your post was just pot shot drivel that I'm not going to address because I like this discussion so far and I don't want it deteriorating into such. The gay couple did not have their 1st amendment rights oppressed...this wasn't the case on the bakery's side of the story, and it was enforced because they elaborated why they weren't offering service to the couple.

    They either served the couple, or did not serve the couple silently...that was the only options afforded the bakery. The fact that they did not serve the couple and explained to them why cost them $135,000 on a horse sh*t charge because the world was all fired up about the gay marriage subject and they knew they could make waves doing it.

    Thankfully, from what I understand, the bakery has received tons of donations and people reaching out with large orders where they are paying more than normal to cover this charge.
    07-22-2015 10:35 AM
  20. Just_Me_D's Avatar
    .... The gay couple did not have their 1st amendment rights oppressed...this wasn't the case on the bakery's side of the story, and it was enforced because they elaborated why they weren't offering service to the couple.

    They either served the couple, or did not serve the couple silently...that was the only options afforded the bakery. The fact that they did not serve the couple and explained to them why cost them $135,000 on a horse sh*t charge ...
    Thank you. This is indisputable, and everyone knows it.
    kch50428 likes this.
    07-22-2015 10:56 AM
  21. kilofoxtrot's Avatar
    The gay couple did not have their 1st amendment rights oppressed...this wasn't the case on the bakery's side of the story, and it was enforced because they elaborated why they weren't offering service to the couple.
    If I threaten to harm someone and do so, its the elaboration that enforces the charge and not the act?

    -----

    This is a case of the baker using religion to discriminate. Its against the law to discriminate in Oregon. You disagree?

    If the bakers said "No" to the gay couple....... the outcome would be the same.

    If the bakers said "We dont serve gays" to the gay couple.... the outcome would be the same.

    If the bakers ignored the gay couple....the outcome would be the same.

    In other words, it was the act that got the bakers in trouble. Not what they said.

    Discrimination is an act, not an elaboration.
    Last edited by kilofoxtrot; 07-22-2015 at 11:46 AM.
    07-22-2015 11:22 AM
  22. Just_Me_D's Avatar
    -----

    This is a case of the baker using religion to discriminate....
    This is a case of the bakers not wanting to violate their own principles 'in regard to marriage'.
    07-22-2015 11:43 AM
  23. kilofoxtrot's Avatar
    This is a case of the bakers not wanting to violate their own principles 'in regard to marriage'.
    As I have stated before, there are over 300 religions/denominations in the US. Do you want to go down this rabbit hole?
    07-22-2015 12:02 PM
  24. Just_Me_D's Avatar
    As I have stated before, there are over 300 religions/denominations in the US. Do you want to go down this rabbit hole?
    Nope, but like you, my stance remains as-is. I see it one way and you see it another. So be it.
    07-22-2015 12:23 PM
  25. kilofoxtrot's Avatar
    Nope, but like you, my stance remains as-is. I see it one way and you see it another. So be it.
    I appreciate your answer. I truly do.

    You might find this hard to believe, but I too am a Christian. Maybe different in some ways ... ok many ways.

    I believe that government should be secular. I am pretty sure God's Kingdom is a heavenly one, not earthly. That being the case, I would never let a gay couple come between me and God. Even if I made them a cake.
    Just_Me_D likes this.
    07-22-2015 12:30 PM
82 1234

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-18-2015, 01:35 PM
  2. How do you allow access to the microphone on the iPhone 6?
    By iMore Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-18-2015, 10:57 AM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-18-2015, 10:54 AM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-18-2015, 10:34 AM
  5. How to enable OS X's Dark Mode with a key command
    By iMore.com in forum iMore.com News Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-18-2015, 08:12 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD