Christian Bakers Forced to Pay Nearly $137,000 for Refusing to Make Gay Wedding Cake Up the Ante in

utter bullcrap

they can call themsevles the first church of gay-sex or whatever they wish but a Christian church cannot perform a gay marriage any more than they can abort an unborn child

 

Christian churches have been performing same sex marriages for quite some time now

 

The destruction of US law (by allowing it to be ignored when one has personal religious beliefs) hits me as just more of the assault on governance in the USA that has been progressing for a good number of years now.

It is born in the disrespect for government and matures as that disrespect propagates through congress and is mixed with the absolutism of religion.

Finally, we start getting candidates like Trump - disdainful of policy, free of experience, preferring bullying as opposed to negotiation, disinterested in the nature of problems faced by those unlike himself.

I see this attempt to defeat US law through use of religion as being a piece of this continuum.

 

umm, no Rahly

A CHRISTIAN church cannot perform a service which celebrates the homosexual lifestyle. The Bible does not state that gay-sex is AOK

It is clear that gay-sex is unacceptable.

 

I think they prefer to call themselves Presbyterians, Unitarian Universalist, Conservative Jewish Movement, Episcopal, United Church of Christ, Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (as opposed to the Missouri Synod), Society of Friends (Quakers), United Church of Christ among others.

Of course, your religious direction has the rudeness factor dialed in pretty well. I'm sure there are Christians who like that.

 

What is this rant about. They had religious freedom. Isn't that what you've been whining about in this thread? Lack of religious freedom?
You proved we have it in this country. Be proud of your accomplishment and don't be so emotional.
There was no one killed, again so emotional and making crap up.
If you have an issue with the gov't and the laws change them. But until you do, one must follow the laws or pay the price.
No one is bigoted towards christians, just more emotion from you. Is it that time of the month?

- - - Updated - - -

utter bullcrap.
Show the law that says christians can't perform gay marriages. Why do folks just make up things for absolutely no reason?
Oh, they have no argument.

- - - Updated - - -

They have no problem marrying somone for the 2nd or more time. Even you are living the adulterous lifestyle. Same type of sin as gay, so if one is good, all is good.

- - - Updated - - -

Jesus never said anything about being rude. Those who are can not be a real christian.

 

This law doesn't over ride the constitution. What makes you think it does?

 

Incorrect.

T.S. kiddo. They can and they do.

- - - Updated - - -

incorrect. Many CHRISTIAN churches do. You will just have to deal with that.

 

I guess I have to talk to you as if you were a child because that's how badly you've missed the point.

Refusing to drive a truck when your job title is "truck driver" is not covered by any policy of religious freedom.

Refusing to check out items when your job title is "check out clerk" is not covered by any policy of religious freedom.

Its simply refusing to do your job.

When the government steps in and awards millions of dollars under those circumstances in the name of "discrimination" they are pandering.

When that same government then doesn't show the same degree of consideration to the aspects of another religion then said government is, by definition, exercising bigotry.

Any rational and intelligent person would understand and acknowledge this.

 

It would appear that they are determined to generate as much opposition and hostility to the gay community as possible.

Has it actually cost them a dime?

 

Several denominations of Christianity recognize, celebrate and perform same sex marriages. Who died and appointed you the Czar ruling over all doctrines? You are full of crap sir. Get a grip.

 

The only child here would be the one who doesn't understand the law allowed them their religious beliefs and freedom.
And then can't see that using religion to break the law doesn't cut it and one can't use religion to break the law.
It is irrational to think anything different.
But I will agree, that if one can't do their job because of some religious belief, they should not be in that job. Just like the lady from Ky who refused to do her job.

 

Really ?

The Kliens were not fined for refusing to make a wedding cake. They were fined by the BOLI for refusing to come to court to defend themselves against a basic discrimination COMPLAINT. And the best part was that the complaint was not about them not making the wedding cake !! There was a complaint made to the BOLI for the treatment that the couple had at the bakery, but then Aaron Kline posted the complaint to his facebook page without redacting the names of the couple who made the original complaint. THATS why they got called to court. So Aaron Klien posted the couples name to discriminate against them !!!!!!!!!!! When the Kliens refused to "recognize the authority" of the BOLI they set all of this in motion themselves.

The fine was for them not showing up to defend themselves for the public discrimination they posted to Facebook. They were fined because they refused to defend themselves, NOT because they didn't make a cake. But don't let that little tidbit get in the way of a good conservative victimization party.

 

if it hasn't cost them a dime, what are they complaining about?

 

It is a political show. Which side does it help?

 

Your double talk is perplexing to the point that its hard to even formulate a response.

You keep referencing a "law" that doesn't even exist.

There is no "law" that allows Muslim truck drivers and Muslim store clerks to refuse to do their jobs and then be awarded millions of dollars.

The government stepped in and decided that Muslims can do what they want based on the most absurd and twice-removed tenets of Islam.

-Origin: 13th Greater Sin, The belief that inhibiting your body and mind is a sin.
-Tenet: One does not drink alcohol.
-Removed: Not being involved in the sale of alcohol *to Muslims*, profiting by sale to non-Muslims is considered virtuous.
-Twice Removed: Refusing to drive a truck because somewhere in the back of the truck is a box and in that box is an alcoholic beverage.

-Origin: 35th Greater Sin, Containing the belief that pork cannot cannot be purified in Allah's name and made to be clean.
-Tenet: One does not consume pork.
-Removed: Not being involved in the sale of alcohol *to Muslims*, profiting by sale to non-Muslims is considered virtuous.
Twice Removed: Refusing to touch a piece of plastic at a check out stand because under that piece of plastic is a pork product.

That same government also decides that a removed tenant of Christianity is to be ignored.

-Origin: Ten Commandments, You shall not murder.
-Tenet: One does not murder.
-Removed: Not playing a part in a the role of murder, ie: not funding abortion.

So why does the government favor Muslims tenets and not Christian ones?

Because it does not agree with Christianity.

It is showing intolerance towards those who hold different opinion.

THAT IS THE TEXTBOOK DEFINITION OF BIGOTRY.

So please stop making this about laws because the core issue isn't the law.

The core issue is a corrupted bigoted government creating laws which codify that bigotry.

 

In the first majority-Muslim U.S. city, residents tense about its future

Guess we'll find out sooner or later, it's already happening in Hamtramck, Mich.

I doubt it.

No, with regard to religion, it's an unconstitutional law and not applicable.

You will notice religion and religious practice is a protected class by not only the First Amendment to the Constitution as a constitutional right but also Codified in the Civil Rights Act. Alas LGBT is simply not there. That puts them in the same category as folks with red hair or thick mustaches and bushy eyebrows.

Hobby Lobby didn't have to pay for insurance that covers contraception at all. They reasonably chose insurance that covered 16 out of 20 oral contraception, excluding abortion pills which they find violates the tenants of their religion.

That's for the Supreme Court to decide.

 

I was responding to Will.

 

So? What makes you think it violates the constitution?

 

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. Why do those bakers not go, not-for-profit if they want to engage in religous discrimination in public accommodation?

Otherwise, there are many Persons who may like that public accommodation, location.

 

This is what I was responding to. It's a generalized statement.

 

Our First Amendment protects everyone, not just bakers.

 

Persons who practice the Abomination of Hypocrisy are also not protected by Religion.

 

This again? Seriously?

Christians need to realize that their bullying and idiocy needs to end. No one cares that you believe your iron age war god is the only true god. No one cares about your stupid and idiotic ritualistic hatred of gays and lesbians. No one. Cares.

Seriously. Keep your awful, vindictive, bloody, violent, oppressive, suppressive, regressive faith to yourself. You chose to shackle your own mind in the confines of the convictions of a bunch of poor desert dwellers from 2000 years ago.

Don't dare and try to confuse the rest of us into it.


The baker broke state law. As I have said time and time again. No one, not one shill or demagogue among the right, has disputed that.

These idiots should lose their license at this point, costing the tax payers tons of money with their idiotic crusade.

 

So? I asked you why it violates the constitution?