Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close

hinault wrote: »

No.

People go in to business to make a living and to hopefully make a profit too.

To assert that these people are in business to promulgate their moral views is
quite frankly laughable:D

Doesn't matter if that's why they got into business to do that. I never suggested they did, either, I'm afraid.

But, that is absolutely exactly what they did when they decided to discriminate against these particular customers for this particular reason - to impose their personal judgment onto their customer's personal lives.

There's nothing "clandestine" about boycotting. It's perfectly overt. "You are jerks and we don't want to give you our money because you are jerks" is about as straightforward as you can get with somebody.

It's a ludicrous attempt at backflipping to try and suggest that the people being intolerant here are the customers who decided not to continue supporting an outlet which singles out some of their potential customer base for crappy treatment.

Peregrinus wrote: »

If a black person was refused service, we would not say that they ought simply to go and find another cake shop, would we? And we wouldn't say that even if the black person concerned happened to be wealthy, well-connected, powerful and generally well-set-up in life?

Goodshape wrote: »

Everyone here defending the shop's right to refuse service, I assume you're OK with this sign too:



Otherwise, please, explain to me the difference.

This couple were not refused service. If they simply wanted to buy a cake, then there would be no issue. Its not a case of 'No homosexuals allowed'. No hate, bigotry or indeed intolerance was shown by the bakery. The only intolerance was on behalf of the couple and the activists. It was a case of the bakery not wanting to make a cake especially for a homosexual couples wedding. They may feel that this is a form of approval or involvement in a ceremony they have a moral objection with.

What if a psychologist who helped her clients overcome unwanted same-sex attractions asked a gay-owned website designer to help increase her web presence with a new website announcing the success of her practice and with an aggressive search engine optimization campaign? If the company refused to do business with her, should they be codified as bigots? While I'd disagree with the web-designers views, I'd tolerate them, and completely understand them.

This bakery was more than happy to serve the couple, but not to specifically get involved in their wedding (by making their wedding cake). I believe its open to the decisions of ones own conscience in matters like this. If one refuses to bake the cake, fine. If one decides to make it, fine. The persons decision should be tolerated and understood even if one disagrees with it.

jill_valentine wrote: »

Doesn't matter if that's why they got into business to do that. I never suggested they did, either, I'm afraid.

You claimed earlier that they conducted business in order "to make their business a means to make a point"

The point of a business is to make a living and to make a profit.

jill_valentine wrote: »

.
But, that is absolutely exactly what they did when they decided to discriminate against these particular customers for this particular reason - to impose their personal judgment onto their customer's personal lives.

Business people do have to make such decisions all the time.
The hospitality sector has to decide whether to run the risk of admitting members of the public to their premises all the time.
Are they imposing their personal views? Sure they are.

jill_valentine wrote: »

There's nothing "clandestine" about boycotting. It's perfectly overt. "You are jerks and we don't want to give you our money because you are jerks" is about as straightforward as you can get with somebody.

It's a ludicrous attempt at backflipping to try and suggest that the people being intolerant here are the customers who decided not to continue supporting an outlet which singles out some of their potential customer base for crappy treatment.

The "support" you speak of was not sought by the confectioner. Quit the contrary in fact.

In fact the confectioner was prepared to sacrifice custom to accord with their personal views.

jill_valentine wrote: »

I think you must have misread me at some point.

Doubt it.

I quoted what you posted.

jill_valentine wrote: »

Indeed. And they got their wish, and went out of business. What's your point?

Only as a result of the boycott organised by the homosexual lobby.

Are you homosexual?

Corkfeen wrote: »

You do realise that most Irish people would have issues with trading with a business that is refusing clientèle because of their sexuality? It was honest but you're going to get a backlash and rightfully so. It's not illegal to boycott a business or inform people of their position. I don't approve of threats however they still broke the law and the negative PR surrounding their business is entirely their own fault.

I am straight however if I discovered any business I used was discriminating against people. I'd happily report them under discrimination laws and I'd encourage people to boycott them(that would include informing their suppliers). It doesn't matter if they were refusing custom to Christians, gay people, people of a different race etc. Yet according to you, this makes me intolerant which yes technically I am. I won't tolerate discrimination.

You DO tolerate discrimination. We ALL do. What you won't tolerate is discrimination against things you don't think should be discriminated against. Its worth noting that the couple were not discriminated against, but rather, the bakeries owners did not feel that it would be in keeping with their Christian view, that they should have any involvement with the celebration of a homosexual wedding. So its nothing like, 'We don't serve gays'. Its, 'we wont get specifically involved in a gay wedding'. It would be like an atheist going to a church for a wedding or a funeral etc, but deciding not to get involved in the religious ceremony side of things, I.E. Being tolerant that religious people exist, who have views contrary to your own, but not wanting to be part of it yourself.

hinault wrote: »

What commandment?

The last one about coveting. You covet the tactics of some gay lobby. You want to be like them.

Also the one about stealing. You want to steal their ideas.

Do you think the gay lobby lies? Then you may end up breaking that one too.

This is getting silly. That place went out of business for the same reason that any openly bigoted place would go out of business. People just don't like bigotry and when a company is openly bigoted, it turns people off.

Did you notice that there was no government intervention required? This was the free market in action. People were openly being douche-bags, people publicised the fact and others decided to take their business elsewhere.

JimiTime wrote: »

You DO tolerate discrimination. We ALL do. What you won't tolerate is discrimination against things you don't think should be discriminated against. Its worth noting that the couple were not discriminated against, but rather, the bakeries owners did not feel that it would be in keeping with their Christian view, that they should have any involvement with the celebration of a black wedding. So its nothing like, 'We don't serve blacks'. Its, 'we wont get specifically involved in a black wedding'. It would be like an atheist going to a church for a wedding or a funeral etc, but deciding not to get involved in the religious ceremony side of things, I.E. Being tolerant that religious people exist, who have views contrary to your own, but not wanting to be part of it yourself.

Still bigotry, I'm afraid. Same old justifications, different target.

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Irrelevant - don't bother asking this again. No one is required to state what their sexual orientation is on this or any thread.

Fair enough. I won't ask the question again.

mcmoustache wrote: »

Still bigotry, I'm afraid. Same old justifications, different target.

Not at all 'Im afraid'. Comparing the view that a persons race puts them beneath you, to having views about actions that have moral implications, is quite the nonsense. Much propagated nonsense, but nonsense nonetheless.

JimiTime wrote: »

Not quite:

While the initial boycott and harassment did little to impact the bakery's overall business, the homosexual lobby then began to target other wedding businesses in the area, threatening to boycott florists, photographers, wedding planners, and other vendors who continued to work with Sweet Cakes by Melissa.

“That tipped the scales,” Aaron Klein told Fox News. “The LGBT activists inundated them with phone calls and threatened them. They would tell our vendors, ‘If you don’t stop doing business with Sweet Cakes by Melissa, we will shut you down.’”

Did you just quote Fox news? Fox news quoting a bigot? A bigot who went out of business for being a bigot?

OK then.

JimiTime wrote: »

Not at all 'Im afraid'. Comparing the view that a persons race puts them beneath you, to having views about actions that have moral implications, is quite the nonsense. Much propagated nonsense, but nonsense nonetheless.

"I don't mind that you're black but I wouldn't want you to marry my daughter.".

Nice try. Separate the sin from the sinner all you like but you know well it's only semantics.

"It's not that I hate gays, it's just that I think what they do is an abomination. I'd be fine with them if they behaved like straight people".

Anyway, I'm out for now. I have to wake up in the morning and be good to people.

mcmoustache wrote: »

"I don't mind that you're black but I wouldn't want you to marry my daughter.".

Again, thats racism and is not based on the actions of a person.

Nice try. Separate the sin from the sinner all you like but you know well it's only semantics.

There is absolutely nothing semantical about it. It may be convenient for you to think so, but its simply not the truth of the matter.

"It's not that I hate gays, it's just that I think what they do is an abomination. I'd be fine with them if they behaved like straight people".

TBH, the issue is activism in terms of this thread. As for having sex with members of the same sex, it is indeed sinful to God, but then, so is fornication, adultery etc. Both very common in 'straight people'. Thankfully, the death grip that sin had over mankind was blown away in Christ, and all of us sinners can repent and accept Christs gift of everlasting life. Thankfully, not hating the sinner means that I don't hate myself, but rather I hate my own sin and pray for my heart not to desire it.

Anyway, I'm out for now. I have to wake up in the morning and be good to people.

Good to hear.

JimiTime wrote: »

Again, thats racism and is not based on the actions of a person.

You are not following your own logic.

You said

Not at all. Its nothing to do with being gay or whether its a choice or not. Its about sex, and the context in which you do it in. Be it hetero, homo, paedo or whatever, its an action that has moral implications. Some people believe it to be morally acceptable to cheat on ones wife, some dont. Some find it morally acceptable to sleep with people outside of wedlock, some don't. Some find it morally acceptable to have sex with sheep, most dont. Some find it morally acceptable to have sex with members of the same sex, some dont. See, sex is an action, that brings with it differing views in terms of morality. Skin, is well, skin.

By your logic, we could easily append "Some people find it morally acceptable to marry people outside of their race, some don't." to your list, which is exactly what mcmoustache was implying.

I find discrimination based on the gender combination of the people getting married to be just as reprehensible as discrimination based on the race combination of the people getting married. We can argue over whether there should be legislation against such discrimination, but they are absolutely analogous situations, and it is perfectly appropriate to draw a comparison. You cannot argue that it is ok to legislate against one but not the other.

In fact, the comparison is far more appropriate than your comparison with bestiality and paedophilia, as those do not involve consenting adults.