Quote: No, I'm not arguing that point at all. I'm just saying that if pro gay marriage activists, i.e., for one, want to threaten businesses with boycotts or threaten and harass people they disagree with, then turn about is fair play. I would support an organized effort to combat such activists at their game. In other words, use their own tactics of bullying and harassment against them and against the businesses who support their efforts.

The businesses in question wanted to deny service to a specific group of people, a like-for-like retaliatory boycott would mean boycotting every business that doesn't refuse to serve everyone equally - this is crazy, and also impossible

(July 5, 2015 at 1:06 am)Saxmoof Wrote:

Quote: No, I'm not arguing that point at all. I'm just saying that if pro gay marriage activists, i.e., for one, want to threaten businesses with boycotts or threaten and harass people they disagree with, then turn about is fair play. I would support an organized effort to combat such activists at their game. In other words, use their own tactics of bullying and harassment against them and against the businesses who support their efforts.

The businesses in question wanted to deny service to a specific group of people, a like-for-like retaliatory boycott would mean boycotting every business that doesn't refuse to serve everyone equally - this is crazy, and also impossible

Yes! Thank you, this is exactly my point.

I wonder how this will finally play out in the courts on appeal, especially if this goes to the SCOTUS. I knew this was going end up as an assault against peoples' religious and moral convictions. Serving gays, individually, as customers is one thing. But forcing business owners to recognize gay marriage against their religious convictions is another. This is the very thing that the dissenting justices and people of faith warned about. This assault against people of faith is very concerning. This is why I say there needs to be an organized effort to preserve the freedom of religion for people of faith.

Quote:Bakery ordered to pay $135,000 for denying wedding cake to lesbian couple

The former owners of an Oregon bakery have been ordered to pay $135,000 to a lesbian couple who were refused a wedding cake, in the latest front in the battle between religious liberty and individual rights.
Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian ordered Aaron and Melissa Klein, who owned the Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery in Gresham, Ore., to compensate the couple for emotional and mental suffering that resulted from the denial of service.
The Kleins had cited their Christian beliefs against same-sex marriage in refusing to make the wedding cake for Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer.

Aaron Klein said his family had suffered because of the case and the glare of media attention.

The bakery's car was vandalized and broken into twice, he said. Photographers and florists severed ties with the company, eventually forcing the Kleins to close their storefront shop in September 2013.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/bakery-...id=DELLDHP

(July 5, 2015 at 8:22 am)A Theist Wrote: I wonder how this will finally play out in the courts on appeal, especially if this goes to the SCOTUS. I knew this was going end up as an assault against peoples' religious and moral convictions. Serving gays, individually, as customers is one thing. But forcing business owners to recognize gay marriage against their religious convictions is another. This is the very thing that the dissenting justices and people of faith warned about. This assault against people of faith is very concerning.

Quote:Bakery ordered to pay $135,000 for denying wedding cake to lesbian couple

The former owners of an Oregon bakery have been ordered to pay $135,000 to a lesbian couple who were refused a wedding cake, in the latest front in the battle between religious liberty and individual rights.
Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian ordered Aaron and Melissa Klein, who owned the Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery in Gresham, Ore., to compensate the couple for emotional and mental suffering that resulted from the denial of service.
The Kleins had cited their Christian beliefs against same-sex marriage in refusing to make the wedding cake for Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer.

Aaron Klein said his family had suffered because of the case and the glare of media attention.

The bakery's car was vandalized and broken into twice, he said. Photographers and florists severed ties with the company, eventually forcing the Kleins to close their storefront shop in September 2013.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/bakery-...id=DELLDHP

While obviously I don't think their car should be vandalized, I think everything else is fine considering the bakery owners broke the law by using their business to discriminate.

(July 5, 2015 at 8:26 am)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(July 5, 2015 at 8:22 am)A Theist Wrote: I wonder how this will finally play out in the courts on appeal, especially if this goes to the SCOTUS. I knew this was going end up as an assault against peoples' religious and moral convictions. Serving gays, individually, as customers is one thing. But forcing business owners to recognize gay marriage against their religious convictions is another. This is the very thing that the dissenting justices and people of faith warned about. This assault against people of faith is very concerning.




http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/bakery-...id=DELLDHP

While obviously I don't think their car should be vandalized, I think everything else is fine considering the bakery owners broke the law by using their business to discriminate.

I don't think the owners were denying gays other services in their bakery, they just had a problem with being forced to recognize gay weddings, against their religious convictions, by baking the lesbian couple a wedding cake. This is playing out exactly the way people of faith feared it would.

(July 5, 2015 at 8:32 am)A Theist Wrote:

(July 5, 2015 at 8:26 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: While obviously I don't think their car should be vandalized, I think everything else is fine considering the bakery owners broke the law by using their business to discriminate.

I don't think the owners were denying gays other services in their bakery, they just had a problem with being forced to recognize gay weddings, against their religious convictions, by baking the lesbian couple a wedding cake. This is playing out exactly the way people of faith feared it would.

Bullshit! They refused to bake a cake for a couple because they where gay, who cares what the occasion was for. Their business is baking cakes, its not to tell people what marriages they think should be recognized. Would you be ok if they refused to bake a cake for an interracial marriage?

This does not violate religious freedom in any way shape or form, you cannot use your religion to violate somebody else's civil rights, that is not religious freedom.

Of course. You're in the 70% of the demographic, but that won't stop you from screaming 'persecution'. Your religious freedoms aren't oppressed in any way. If you can't keep your bigotry out of your business, don't whine when met with backlash.

Vandalism I don't agree with, but boycotting discrimination bakeries? Why not?

They don't have to 'recognize' their clients marriage, they're not a fucking church. What they were asked for was a damn cake, not their opinions on civil rights.

(July 5, 2015 at 8:43 am)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(July 5, 2015 at 8:32 am)A Theist Wrote: I don't think the owners were denying gays other services in their bakery, they just had a problem with being forced to recognize gay weddings, against their religious convictions, by baking the lesbian couple a wedding cake. This is playing out exactly the way people of faith feared it would.

Bullshit! They refused to bake a cake for a couple because they where gay, who cares what the occasion was for. Their business is baking cakes, its not to tell people what marriages they think should be recognized. Would you be ok if they refused to bake a cake for an interracial marriage?

This does not violate religious freedom in any way shape or form, you cannot use your religion to violate somebody else's civil rights, that is not religious freedom.

Yeah, Bullshit backatcha! Yes it does violate their religious freedom. Unlike serving up some coffee and a doughnut or a cream puff, baking a wedding cake for those two lesbians and being forced to recognize gay marriage was an infringement on the Baker's religious convictions.

Quote:you cannot use your religion to violate somebody else's civil rights, that is not religious freedom.

What about the other way around? Can someone use their Civil Rights to violate the Civil Rights of others, namely, Freedom Of Religion?

Quote:Would you be ok if they refused to bake a cake for an interracial marriage?

 Only if the interracial couple were gay.

(July 5, 2015 at 12:00 pm)A Theist Wrote:

(July 5, 2015 at 8:43 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: Bullshit! They refused to bake a cake for a couple because they where gay, who cares what the occasion was for. Their business is baking cakes, its not to tell people what marriages they think should be recognized. Would you be ok if they refused to bake a cake for an interracial marriage?

This does not violate religious freedom in any way shape or form, you cannot use your religion to violate somebody else's civil rights, that is not religious freedom.

Yeah, Bullshit backatcha! Yes it does violate their religious freedom. Unlike serving up some coffee and a doughnut or a cream puff, baking a wedding cake for those two lesbians and being forced to recognize gay marriage was an infringement on the Baker's religious convictions.

Quote:you cannot use your religion to violate somebody else's civil rights, that is not religious freedom.

What about the other way around? Can someone use their Civil Rights to violate the Civil Rights of others, namely, Freedom Of Religion?

Quote:Would you be ok if they refused to bake a cake for an interracial marriage?

 Only if the interracial couple were gay.

Its not a violation of the business owners civil rights because when you open a business to serve the public you are subject to anti-discrimination laws. Their personal stance on gay marriage is irrelevant when it comes to their business and the laws that govern that business.

Why only if the interracial couple was gay? There are plenty of Religious views that promote racial segregation, why would you be against a baker discriminating against a straight interracial couple and not a gay interracial couple?

Bottom line is bigots don't get to hide behind their religions to discriminate against groups of people.

(July 5, 2015 at 12:17 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(July 5, 2015 at 12:00 pm)A Theist Wrote: Yeah, Bullshit backatcha! Yes it does violate their religious freedom. Unlike serving up some coffee and a doughnut or a cream puff, baking a wedding cake for those two lesbians and being forced to recognize gay marriage was an infringement on the Baker's religious convictions.


What about the other way around? Can someone use their Civil Rights to violate the Civil Rights of others, namely, Freedom Of Religion?

 Only if the interracial couple were gay.

Its not a violation of the business owners civil rights because when you open a business to serve the public you are subject to anti-discrimination laws. Their personal stance on gay marriage is irrelevant when it comes to their business and the laws that govern that business.

Why only if the interracial couple was gay? There are plenty of Religious views that promote racial segregation, why would you be against a baker discriminating against a straight interracial couple and not a gay interracial couple?

Bottom line is bigots don't get to hide behind their religions to discriminate against groups of people.

Bigot is a word that's used too loosely to attack people who doesn't agree with a particular stance of another person. It's not bigotry to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, especially if gay marriages are against a person's religious convictions. I know of Christians who would refuse to recognize a straight marriage if the couple had been divorced from previous marriages. That doesn't they're bigoted against divorcees, it means that they have religious objections to divorce.