Total Posts:230|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Oregon Baker fined $135,000...

Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 10:02:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
..because they violated Oregon's non Discrimination Ordinance, and because they published the lesbian couple's personal information on Facebook (address, phone number, e-mail) while continually drawing attention to the complaint through the media.

"The Bowman-Cryers weren"t awarded $135,000 only for the pain and suffering they experienced as a result of being refused service based on their sexual orientation but also as a result of the Kleins" decision to dox them and then go on national media across the country. The media firestorm brought with it death threats, harassment, and the possibility of losing their children. The court found that the Bowman-Cryers suffered intensely, and that their suffering was a direct reaction of the Kleins" actions both in refusing the cake and in keeping their refusal in the media."

http://www.patheos.com...

Are these the kind of people Christians want representing them?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 10:07:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yeah, they went out of business. There goes their livelihood.

Like treating dandruff by decapitation.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 10:08:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Not saying that refusing service in the first place was the right thing to do.

I just think the way they retaliated was excessive and vile.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 10:12:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 10:08:38 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Not saying that refusing service in the first place was the right thing to do.

I just think the way they retaliated was excessive and vile.

I assume you mean the way the bakery retaliated.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 10:16:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 10:12:10 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:08:38 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Not saying that refusing service in the first place was the right thing to do.

I just think the way they retaliated was excessive and vile.

I assume you mean the way the bakery retaliated.

If you think that destroying these people's livelihood over a CAKE is justified... You're a piece of #$%^ in my opinion.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 10:19:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Fines will be the way the people stop being bigots. Once they are hit in the pocket book they will get the message that no, this isn't the Middle Ages anymore and sexuality is personal business, not any group's.
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 10:29:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 10:19:25 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
Fines will be the way the people stop being bigots. Once they are hit in the pocket book they will get the message that no, this isn't the Middle Ages anymore and sexuality is personal business, not any group's.

No, if anything, it reinforces the belief that people who engage in these behaviors are petty, vain, primarily guided by their own lusts, contribute greatly to the corruption of society on nearly every level, and are generally lousy people that we only put up with out of CHARITY.

But you can't say these things, because we live in a society that is so perverse, you are supposed to take pride in these things.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 10:46:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 10:16:03 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:12:10 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:08:38 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Not saying that refusing service in the first place was the right thing to do.

I just think the way they retaliated was excessive and vile.

I assume you mean the way the bakery retaliated.


If you think that destroying these people's livelihood over a CAKE is justified... You're a piece of #$%^ in my opinion.

These people destroyed their own livelihood. When they violated the law, they were told how to go about not violating it in the future. But they decided not to. The couple just wanted a cake and an apology. Now the bakers get to pretend to be martyrs. And you're joining right in on their pity party.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 10:51:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 10:16:03 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:12:10 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:08:38 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Not saying that refusing service in the first place was the right thing to do.

I just think the way they retaliated was excessive and vile.

I assume you mean the way the bakery retaliated.


If you think that destroying these people's livelihood over a CAKE is justified... You're a piece of #$%^ in my opinion.

It is about discrimination and an irresponsible reaction to complaints about it. They threatened their own livelihood by their own actions. You really should read the article I provided, and here is the court ruling as well:

http://www.oregon.gov...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 10:52:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 10:19:25 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
Fines will be the way the people stop being bigots. Once they are hit in the pocket book they will get the message that no, this isn't the Middle Ages anymore and sexuality is personal business, not any group's.

Let us hope.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 10:53:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 10:46:23 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:16:03 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:12:10 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:08:38 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Not saying that refusing service in the first place was the right thing to do.

I just think the way they retaliated was excessive and vile.

I assume you mean the way the bakery retaliated.


If you think that destroying these people's livelihood over a CAKE is justified... You're a piece of #$%^ in my opinion.

These people destroyed their own livelihood. When they violated the law, they were told how to go about not violating it in the future. But they decided not to. The couple just wanted a cake and an apology. Now the bakers get to pretend to be martyrs. And you're joining right in on their pity party.

I'm pretty sure the lesbians were the ones having the pity party until they got all that money. They must be very happy now.

A business should have a right to refuse service to anyone, and they would if people respected that right.

What a massive sense of entitlement you must have in order to think that you have the right to be served by a business.

You know, just because the law allows you to do something doesn't mean it is right.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 11:04:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 10:53:25 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:46:23 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:16:03 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:12:10 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:08:38 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Not saying that refusing service in the first place was the right thing to do.

I just think the way they retaliated was excessive and vile.

I assume you mean the way the bakery retaliated.


If you think that destroying these people's livelihood over a CAKE is justified... You're a piece of #$%^ in my opinion.

These people destroyed their own livelihood. When they violated the law, they were told how to go about not violating it in the future. But they decided not to. The couple just wanted a cake and an apology. Now the bakers get to pretend to be martyrs. And you're joining right in on their pity party.

I'm pretty sure the lesbians were the ones having the pity party until they got all that money. They must be very happy now.

Yeah, and Rosa Parks was just having a pity party when she wasn't allowed to sit at the front of the bus.

A business should have a right to refuse service to anyone, and they would if people respected that right.

Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn't. But the law says it doesn't.

What a massive sense of entitlement you must have in order to think that you have the right to be served by a business.

You must have terrible reading comprehension skills if you think I feel entitled to be served by a business.

You know, just because the law allows you to do something doesn't mean it is right.

Sure, but when a business owner knows what the law is, and they violate it anyway, I have no sympathy. That's especially true when the reason for violating the law is grounded in hate and superstition.
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 11:21:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 11:04:17 PM, Burzmali wrote:
I'm pretty sure the lesbians were the ones having the pity party until they got all that money. They must be very happy now.

Yeah, and Rosa Parks was just having a pity party when she wasn't allowed to sit at the front of the bus.

First of all, Rosa Parks didn't sue anybody, which is economic violence. People got together and organized a boycott, which is VOLUNTARY.

Second of all, I'd just like to point out that it is assinine to compare someone's sexual fetish with having black skin.

A business should have a right to refuse service to anyone, and they would if people respected that right.

Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn't. But the law says it doesn't.

Sure, but when a business owner knows what the law is, and they violate it anyway, I have no sympathy. That's especially true when the reason for violating the law is grounded in hate and superstition.

Well, maybe the law itself needs to be fought.

A business should have the right to refuse service to anyone, and if someone feels so strongly against same sex unions that they would like to MAKE A STATEMENT by not making a cake, that is their right. Whether or not you agree with what they say or not!

Wait, lets step back for a second.

$135,000 over a cake. A CAKE.

Go to hell.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 11:21:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 10:16:03 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:12:10 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:08:38 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Not saying that refusing service in the first place was the right thing to do.

I just think the way they retaliated was excessive and vile.

I assume you mean the way the bakery retaliated.


If you think that destroying these people's livelihood over a CAKE is justified... You're a piece of #$%^ in my opinion.

They violated multiple laws you dipshit.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 11:25:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 11:21:50 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:16:03 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:12:10 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:08:38 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Not saying that refusing service in the first place was the right thing to do.

I just think the way they retaliated was excessive and vile.

I assume you mean the way the bakery retaliated.


If you think that destroying these people's livelihood over a CAKE is justified... You're a piece of #$%^ in my opinion.

They violated multiple laws you dipshit.

It doesn't matter to me whether or not they violated any laws, there are plenty of unjust laws! The fact of the matter is, it took effort on the part of the offended to commit this economic violence, and that is wrong.

Just because the law allows something doesn't mean it is right! Just because alcohol is legal doesn't mean it is good for you!

Just because you CAN sue someone for everything they are worth doesn't mean that it is good to do!

To hell with the law, you wicked people! You are justifying someone shooting someone over an exchange of fowl words!
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 11:26:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 11:25:02 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/12/2015 11:21:50 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:16:03 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:12:10 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:08:38 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Not saying that refusing service in the first place was the right thing to do.

I just think the way they retaliated was excessive and vile.

I assume you mean the way the bakery retaliated.


If you think that destroying these people's livelihood over a CAKE is justified... You're a piece of #$%^ in my opinion.

They violated multiple laws you dipshit.

It doesn't matter to me whether or not they violated any laws, there are plenty of unjust laws! The fact of the matter is, it took effort on the part of the offended to commit this economic violence, and that is wrong.

Just because the law allows something doesn't mean it is right! Just because alcohol is legal doesn't mean it is good for you!

Just because you CAN sue someone for everything they are worth doesn't mean that it is good to do!

To hell with the law, you wicked people! You are justifying someone shooting someone over an exchange of fowl words!

The baker fvcked himself. He knowingly violated a law. In response, he publicly made the address of a family public and made them available to death threats and harassment. His losses were more than justified.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 11:38:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 11:21:49 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/12/2015 11:04:17 PM, Burzmali wrote:
I'm pretty sure the lesbians were the ones having the pity party until they got all that money. They must be very happy now.
Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn't. But the law says it doesn't.

Sure, but when a business owner knows what the law is, and they violate it anyway, I have no sympathy. That's especially true when the reason for violating the law is grounded in hate and superstition.

Well, maybe the law itself needs to be fought.

A business should have the right to refuse service to anyone, and if someone feels so strongly against same sex unions that they would like to MAKE A STATEMENT by not making a cake, that is their right. Whether or not you agree with what they say or not!

In most areas of the US, these laws exist because taxpayer dollars go to supporting local businesses, usually due to lobbying by the local chamber of commerce. This is why there are non-discrimination laws for public businesses (ones which operate public stores fronts): because by accepting the aid of the local taxpayers, a person is agreeing to serve the local taxpayers, in their entirety. By adopting a discrimination policy you have set up a situation where the local people being discriminated against are forced to pay taxes to support a business which they then are unable to use.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Bennett91
Posts: 4,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 11:44:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 11:21:49 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:

Wait, lets step back for a second.

$135,000 over a cake. A CAKE.

Go to hell.

You're A FOOL. It wasn't just the cake, it was for posting their personal info on the internet and causing the gay couple to receive death threats and other harassment. DEATH THREATS. NOT. CAKE.
ranchero
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 11:47:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 11:25:02 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/12/2015 11:21:50 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:16:03 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:12:10 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:08:38 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Not saying that refusing service in the first place was the right thing to do.

I just think the way they retaliated was excessive and vile.

I assume you mean the way the bakery retaliated.


If you think that destroying these people's livelihood over a CAKE is justified... You're a piece of #$%^ in my opinion.

They violated multiple laws you dipshit.

It doesn't matter to me whether or not they violated any laws, there are plenty of unjust laws! The fact of the matter is, it took effort on the part of the offended to commit this economic violence, and that is wrong.

Just because the law allows something doesn't mean it is right! Just because alcohol is legal doesn't mean it is good for you!

Just because you CAN sue someone for everything they are worth doesn't mean that it is good to do!

To hell with the law, you wicked people! You are justifying someone shooting someone over an exchange of fowl words! : :

The bakers don't believe that God's commandments are to be obeyed. Have you ever heard this commandment before? "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."

Matthew 7
1: "Judge not, that you be not judged.
2: For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.
3: Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
4: Or how can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye?
5: You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

The bakers do not know why God made lesbians and homosexuals so they shouldn't be judging anyone.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 12:16:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 11:21:49 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/12/2015 11:04:17 PM, Burzmali wrote:
I'm pretty sure the lesbians were the ones having the pity party until they got all that money. They must be very happy now.

Yeah, and Rosa Parks was just having a pity party when she wasn't allowed to sit at the front of the bus.

First of all, Rosa Parks didn't sue anybody, which is economic violence. People got together and organized a boycott, which is VOLUNTARY.

Second of all, I'd just like to point out that it is assinine to compare someone's sexual fetish with having black skin.

A business should have a right to refuse service to anyone, and they would if people respected that right.

Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn't. But the law says it doesn't.

Sure, but when a business owner knows what the law is, and they violate it anyway, I have no sympathy. That's especially true when the reason for violating the law is grounded in hate and superstition.

Well, maybe the law itself needs to be fought.

A business should have the right to refuse service to anyone, and if someone feels so strongly against same sex unions that they would like to MAKE A STATEMENT by not making a cake, that is their right. Whether or not you agree with what they say or not!

Wait, lets step back for a second.

$135,000 over a cake. A CAKE.

Go to hell.

Didn't take long for us to see your true colours.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 12:19:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 11:47:42 PM, ranchero wrote:
At 7/12/2015 11:25:02 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/12/2015 11:21:50 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:16:03 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:12:10 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:08:38 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Not saying that refusing service in the first place was the right thing to do.

I just think the way they retaliated was excessive and vile.

I assume you mean the way the bakery retaliated.


If you think that destroying these people's livelihood over a CAKE is justified... You're a piece of #$%^ in my opinion.

They violated multiple laws you dipshit.

It doesn't matter to me whether or not they violated any laws, there are plenty of unjust laws! The fact of the matter is, it took effort on the part of the offended to commit this economic violence, and that is wrong.

Just because the law allows something doesn't mean it is right! Just because alcohol is legal doesn't mean it is good for you!

Just because you CAN sue someone for everything they are worth doesn't mean that it is good to do!

To hell with the law, you wicked people! You are justifying someone shooting someone over an exchange of fowl words! : :

The bakers don't believe that God's commandments are to be obeyed. Have you ever heard this commandment before? "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."

Matthew 7
1: "Judge not, that you be not judged.
2: For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.
3: Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
4: Or how can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye?
5: You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

The bakers do not know why God made lesbians and homosexuals so they shouldn't be judging anyone.

Welcome back.
iSpy
Posts: 41
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 12:32:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 10:16:03 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:12:10 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:08:38 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Not saying that refusing service in the first place was the right thing to do.

I just think the way they retaliated was excessive and vile.

I assume you mean the way the bakery retaliated.


If you think that destroying these people's livelihood over a CAKE is justified... You're a piece of #$%^ in my opinion.

Destroying their livelihood? As it turns out, discrimination is way more profitable than baking cakes.

https://www.continuetogive.com...
dee-em
Posts: 6,451
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 12:49:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 10:16:03 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:12:10 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:08:38 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Not saying that refusing service in the first place was the right thing to do.

I just think the way they retaliated was excessive and vile.

I assume you mean the way the bakery retaliated.


If you think that destroying these people's livelihood over a CAKE is justified... You're a piece of #$%^ in my opinion.

So people shouldn't pursue their rights under the law? They shouldn't stand on principle? We should just accept discrimination meekly and without complaint?

There's only one a*shole in this thread.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 12:59:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 10:16:03 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:12:10 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:08:38 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Not saying that refusing service in the first place was the right thing to do.

I just think the way they retaliated was excessive and vile.

I assume you mean the way the bakery retaliated.


If you think that destroying these people's livelihood over a CAKE is justified... You're a piece of #$%^ in my opinion.

What if the people who destroyed their livelihood are the same people who destroyed their livelihood?

Would that make them a piece of #$%^ too?

I think it does!
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 1:02:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 11:21:49 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/12/2015 11:04:17 PM, Burzmali wrote:
I'm pretty sure the lesbians were the ones having the pity party until they got all that money. They must be very happy now.

Yeah, and Rosa Parks was just having a pity party when she wasn't allowed to sit at the front of the bus.

First of all, Rosa Parks didn't sue anybody, which is economic violence. People got together and organized a boycott, which is VOLUNTARY.

How is a boycott any better than suing someone? It's still an attempt to hurt a business over a perceived injustice. Your attempt to make a practical distinction between the two isn't rational.

Second of all, I'd just like to point out that it is assinine to compare someone's sexual fetish with having black skin.

Oh, you're one of those people who doesn't understand sexuality. Maybe that's where your confusion about this situation is coming from.

A business should have a right to refuse service to anyone, and they would if people respected that right.

Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn't. But the law says it doesn't.

Sure, but when a business owner knows what the law is, and they violate it anyway, I have no sympathy. That's especially true when the reason for violating the law is grounded in hate and superstition.

Well, maybe the law itself needs to be fought.

Sure. But until it's changed, businesses that violate it should expect to be punished.

A business should have the right to refuse service to anyone, and if someone feels so strongly against same sex unions that they would like to MAKE A STATEMENT by not making a cake, that is their right. Whether or not you agree with what they say or not!

You seem to have confused an individual's right to discriminate with rights that are recognized for businesses. The business owners in this case tried to take their superstitious bigotry into the realm of commerce, and that simply isn't legal. People have a right to discriminate, businesses don't.

Wait, lets step back for a second.

$135,000 over a cake. A CAKE.

It's $135,000 for treating members of a group as second-class citizens. $135,000 for violating the gay couple's civil rights.

Go to hell.

You're telling me to go to hell over a disagreement? Now that is truly pitiful.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 1:04:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 11:25:02 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/12/2015 11:21:50 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:16:03 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:12:10 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:08:38 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Not saying that refusing service in the first place was the right thing to do.

I just think the way they retaliated was excessive and vile.

I assume you mean the way the bakery retaliated.


If you think that destroying these people's livelihood over a CAKE is justified... You're a piece of #$%^ in my opinion.

They violated multiple laws you dipshit.

It doesn't matter to me whether or not they violated any laws, there are plenty of unjust laws! The fact of the matter is, it took effort on the part of the offended to commit this economic violence, and that is wrong.

Just because the law allows something doesn't mean it is right! Just because alcohol is legal doesn't mean it is good for you!

Just because you CAN sue someone for everything they are worth doesn't mean that it is good to do!

To hell with the law, you wicked people! You are justifying someone shooting someone over an exchange of fowl words!

Turn down the histrionics, please. You're making Chicken Little blush.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 1:05:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 12:32:28 AM, iSpy wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:16:03 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:12:10 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:08:38 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Not saying that refusing service in the first place was the right thing to do.

I just think the way they retaliated was excessive and vile.

I assume you mean the way the bakery retaliated.


If you think that destroying these people's livelihood over a CAKE is justified... You're a piece of #$%^ in my opinion.

Destroying their livelihood? As it turns out, discrimination is way more profitable than baking cakes.

https://www.continuetogive.com...

$346,500.00!!!

How long did it take them to make that much money?
Accipiter
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 1:30:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The bible is a bigot making machine, it actively instructs people to discriminate.

The bible is all about creating divisions among people and it rules it's followers with terrorism.

The bible is cancer, I don't think the people who are followers can do anything about it and the rest of us are doomed to live with that.
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 5:29:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 11:21:49 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Second of all, I'd just like to point out that it is assinine to compare someone's sexual fetish with having black skin.
What gets me is the unabashed shameless way they demonstrate their gross ignorance with statements like the above.
They then don't understand why they are ridiculed unmercifully.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 6:53:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 10:02:50 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
..because they violated Oregon's non Discrimination Ordinance, and because they published the lesbian couple's personal information on Facebook (address, phone number, e-mail) while continually drawing attention to the complaint through the media.

"The Bowman-Cryers weren"t awarded $135,000 only for the pain and suffering they experienced as a result of being refused service based on their sexual orientation

I don't really think it was over the people's sexual orientation or choices. I may be wrong, but I believe I could have walked in there and asked for the same cake for the same reason, and they still would have refused.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."