Posted on 12/18/2017 3:41:48 AM PST by Enterprise
with the principle. But when I consider the motives of the gay community, it’s obvious that the goal is not the cake. The goal is to put company owners who support traditional values out of business.””
Precisely, their goal is to attack Christianity period. Homosexuals, more than Muslims, have done incalculable damage to Christianity.
The baker should tell the gays requesting a cake “I’m busy” & leave it at that.
The gays (or anyone else for that matter) wouldn’t have any way of knowing the real reason.
Lawsuit avoided & business still running.
Interstate harassment.
It not only misses the point. It requires them to violate their own firmly held religious beliefs. Christians should not be required to endorse homosexual acts, nor to tell a lie to get out of it.
It’s strange that state-level judges, even in California, are often more conservative than the federal districts over the same area. Even the Cali Supreme Court upheld Prop 8 which defined real marriage.
County Judge ruling against the state's TRO request.
The judge in question refused to issue the TRO because he said he didn't have enough information. He's send a list of questions to the baker for answers, and will take the matter up again in February.
The lezbos did this on purpose. They chose a bakery that they knew would refuse, for the express purpose of suing them. They are out to force Christians to choose between their faith and their wallet.
They could have easily found a baker willing to bake a cake for them.
And they deliberately chose not to go to a muzzy baker.
What if her religious beliefs were not “sincerely held”? Does she have to show a church attendance record or regular tithing? What if she just didn’t want to bake a cake for “icky, creepy homos”?
And, as I’ve asked before, what if the issue is that one of the betrothed is underaged? If your argument is “anti-discrimination”, doesn’t a sincerely held belief against child abuse also violate these anti-discrimination laws?
It's not unusual for lower courts to suspend rulings on issues before the Supreme Court. They are essentially waiting for USSC to rule then they will respond to their claimants accordingly.
Involuntary servitude is prohibited by the United States Constitution no matter how noble the complainant/bully may think their "cause" to be.
Not accidental, nor are they likely asking for an ordinary wedding cake. THink about it, if someone came in and asked for your basic wedding cake, why would they object. I’m guessing they want something odd written on it, images of same sex couples, or something lewd that triggers the reaction.
Yes, it has been proven that homosexuals make for cruel masters when given a modicum of authority.
Now that’s gay. Lol
“Miller to create wedding cakes for LGBT persons, even though doing so would violate her sincerely held religious beliefs.”
Or, "we'd love to make your cake for your Gay wedding. The cost for this particular cake is, $400,000.00. Full payment must be received prior to baking of the cake."
Ruling out copycat tactics to retain the high moral ground is exactly what doomed the GOPe. I’d rethink that if I were you.
I got in a fight in middle school where the other guy broke a pop bottle and started waiving it at me. I tossed a 16oz hot chocolate in his eyes. Never felt bad about it. Still don’t.
I don't think that is quite the issue here. The issue is whether a baker should be forced to decorate a cake in a way that she finds offensive.
I'm certain that if the gay "couple" went into the bakery to get a custom birthday cake, decorated with balloons and an innocuous phrase such as "Happy Birthday, Chris!" there would have been no issue, they would have gotten the cake. But they purposely looked for a Christian and requested the Christian decorate the cake with a pro-gay theme. That *is* an issue.
“Remember that the GAYstapo doesn’t stumble across these businesses accidentally. They seek them out for the purpose of wrecking them. “
Would be interesting to ask what bakery in the area actually made the cake. Then, take a real close look to see if they are friends of those going after the Christian bakery.
If this was a plot to wipe out competition, I would sue them all.
I observed first hand where a disabled woman tied in with an attorney (in Texas) and all she did was travel around finding businesses in other states to sue for violation. The system is the punishment.
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.