The sign posted on their business entrance
Posted on 09/03/2013 7:40:30 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Is this a case of religious freedom? Or unlawful discrimination?
The state of Oregon says if you run a business, you've got to serve gays even it goes against your religious principles. So when a gay couple wanted to order a wedding cake from Sweet Cakes bakery, the owner, a devout Christian, refused.
The couple sued and the Oregon state Bureau of Labor and Industries, after conducting an investigation, ruled that the bakery had to serve the gay couple.
Welcome to America in 2013:
On Aug. 14, Oregon's state Bureau of Labor and Industries reported its investigation to determine if Sweet Cakes' actions violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, which states that people cannot be denied service based on sexual orientation. The law provides an exemption for schools and religious groups, but not for private businesses, according to a BOLI news release.
Since 2007, Oregonians have filed 11 complaints of unlawful discrimination in public places under the 2007 equality law. BOLI found no substantial evidence in five of those complaints but parties negotiated settlements in three other cases, including one this past week where a bar was fined $400K for keeping transgenders away.
The Sweet Cakes case is still being reviewed by BOLI investigators as of Aug. 30.
A note on the shop's Gresham door Sunday said the following:
"This fight is not over. We will continue to stand strong. Your Religious Freedom is becoming not Free anymore. This is ridiculous that we can not practice our faith. The LORD is good and we will continue to serve Him with all our heart.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
What did they want - a sex organ shaped cake with fudge icing on it?
This business was forced out of business because the owners refused to validate (prostrate to) beastgov's debasement and destruction of the language. The owners would not agree with nor accommodate a lie and perversion, so... off with their heads.
How much longer before it is illegal to discriminate against those who are trans-species? That is, if a man is convinced he is a dog, woe to those in the dog-grooming business. (I skipped the step WRT the transgenders 'cause we're already there.)
The word "discriminate" has already been significantly corrupted. Those who are guilty of discrimination are actually "guilty" of proper discernment between good and evil.
In a sane world, noone could be hired to bake a Sodomite wedding cake, much less be coerced by government edict to do so. That's what these couples' friends are for. Surely there are a few happy home economics types in their social circles?
Actually it wasn't the official position of Chic-Fil-A. It was the personal opinion of their CEO that offended the rug munchers and fudge packers.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
I have heard it suggested that business should create a membership type of basis similar to Costco. Charge $1 to be a member and have membership subject to review by the owners. Should the member not be up to the standards of the organization, refund their $1 fee and don’t due business with them.
This doesn’t even make any sense. Oregon does not recognize same-sex “marriage,” and so the baker was promoting state law.
What the government says, the government imposes ( regardless of whether it’s Federal or State ).
See more news here:
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2013/08/bureau_of_labor_and_industries_1.html
Bureau of Labor and Industries orders North Portland bar owner to pay $400,000 to cross-dressers
"Pole smokers"
"Bone smugglers"
"Swisher sweets"
"Rump rangers"
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Yep-saw that. A group of cross dressers hung out at a bar and started giving it the rep to being a gay/lesbian/transgender/tv, whatever bar, so the owner asked them to leave. Now he has to pay 400k to them. Outrageous.
Don't forget:
Disease-ridden, boy-raping whackjobs.
Degeneracy has come to be what America stands for, and what it is today.
Are churches and even businesses like photographer and baker going to become private clubs?
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from making laws which abridge constitutionally enumerated rights. And since the states have amended the Constitution to protect religious expression, but not to protect so-called gay rights, in those cases where citizens refused their services base on their religious convictions the state is in violation of Section 1.
The problem is that parents are probably not making sure that their children are being taught the Constitution. So citizens are not fighting the state’s unconstitutional laws as a consequnce of their ignorance of the Constitution.
I wonder how many of their customers were the sort to smile and nod and say “Not that there’s anything wrong with it” or “Some of my best friends are gay (sic)”?
People have to earn a living. And it’s sad when you can’t do that because your neighbors and customers embrace and enable reprobates who hate God and want your business shut down. (I wonder if the same thing happened to Paul’s tent-making business?)
If an openly homo business, Homo-Cake Inc refused a Christian-themed cake, I bet the left wouldn’t think anything of it.
This cannot be emphasized enough. My understanding is that these two "fellas" were actually repeat customers of this bakery. She had no problem selling them her goods; but, when it came to making a "wedding" cake for them, she just couldn't. Now, they are screaming because she is "intolerant". But, aren't they the actual intolerant ones here?
What a croak of horse dung, this country is going down the hole in a whirlpool now. God help us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.