Posted on 12/09/2013 6:08:28 AM PST by IbJensen
Actually, I imagine the state would have ruled against a homosexual bakery that didn’t want to bake a cake for Christians. In a free country, private business owners are free to choose who they want to do business with. Sure. Some people might be offended or saddened when a business won’t sell to them, but the US Constitution does not protect citizens from being offended or saddened. What it does protect are religious, private property, and freedom of association rights.
BTW, I’m a Christian. I have no problem when people treat me poorly. They can call me a thumper or whatever, but that’s their right in a free country. Government, on the other hand, cannot create laws that give me preferential treatment or discriminate against me because of my faith.
Let’s say government wrote laws that said fundamentalist Christians are a minority and fundamentalist Christian owned businesses received preferential treatment for government contracts. I bet most Americans, fundamentalist Christians included, would find that law offensive, but that’s EXACTLY what government does when it carves out special protections for homosexuals or other perceived minorities.
LOL - that’s awful...
Or (smiling as you present the cake) “I appreciate your order SO much that I made special frosting.”
Basil Duke: “By the rationale of this particular ruling, would not the owner of a soul food restaurant be legally obligated to cater a wedding of two klan members?”
Yes, they would be forced to do business with people who held views the owner felt were offensive. The judge said people would be hurt if a business turned them away. If that’s the criteria, that someone cannot be hurt or saddened, then what about the right of the black business owner in your example to not be saddened? What if the klan couple want white supremacist decorations at said wedding? Wouldn’t the black soul food caterer be hurt by that?
They never wanted tolerance
They want dominance.
If someone made me bake a cake for a queer wedding I would put a feces covered sausage inside it.
Half blind and arthritis !!!
>> WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE!
This "right" no longer exists for Christian organizations or other free peoples.
We live in a different country.
The Soup Nazi better watch out or he'll end up in the Gulag.
Or a re-education camp soon.
Ex Lax cake. That is all.
(of course they’d probably get off on that)
Those “libertarian” and “Fiscal only” Freepers who belittle social issues had better sit up and pay attention. This is the spearhead of ALL Leftist fascism.
I’m sorry you’ve had such pain.
Has anyone noticed how the formula "NO means NO!" is only available to NARAL-inspired women refusing Mere Males' sexual advances?
When the party making the advance is a Protected Group, the rule turns inside out like a rubber glove.
Forcing a baker to bake a homo wedding cake is forcing the baker to participate in and validate a lie. Marriage is between one man and one woman no matter how many perverts say otherwise. However, now that beast.gov has codified this lie, woe to those who refuse to bow to it. Notice how it's always with the wedding cakes, or wedding photos or wedding catering... these malcontents aren't griping because they were refused a generic purchase say for muffins or cookies or a birthday cake.
This is what happens when government becomes the highest authority and dictator of morals and conscience. Wait til the so-called transgenders really crank up their act. Anyone not going along with the new DIY gender identities will be persecuted for not embracing the lies. You had better hire the "lady" with the five o'clock shadow or Mrs. Doubtfire as your kids' nanny or else be bankrupted by fines and/or lawyers' fees. I hated that movie. It tried to portray that sort of deception (of children) as acceptable and even necessary.
What of the bakers and sign makers/printers who turn away customers who want obscene designs or profanity? I guess that's still okay for now because the people who want those things haven't yet created their own protected victim class.
Of course to normal people, a "wedding" with two grooms *is* grotesque, obscene, and profane. But now that the state falsely defines the perversion as a marriage, then objectors can be punished ruthlessly under color of law.
Caesar has no right or authority to debase our value system and make us bow to his perverse, corrupted, sinking "values". Compare to Daniel in Babylon.
Ezekial: “Caesar has no right or authority to debase our value system and make us bow to his perverse, corrupted, sinking “values”.”
Bears repeating.
Well, this baker chose not to have one (participate in one.) Shows what liars homos really are.
Wow! That’s horrible!!!
Why didn’t you sue for sexual harassment?
I’m not sure why you think that. You don’t know me. I’m on the front line of family court issues daily. After 37 years I think I’ve developed some compassion.
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.