# Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats



## eHav (Sep 4, 2013)

> A family-owned Christian bakery, under investigation for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple, has been forced to close its doors after a vicious boycott by militant homosexual activists.
> 
> Sweet Cakes By Melissa posted a message on its Facebook page alerting customers that their Gresham, Ore. retail store would be shut down after months of harassment from pro-gay marriage forces.
> 
> ...







[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVqwuAW9BZM[/YOUTUBE]

Would you look at that, the LGBT being worse than the religious.

Nice seeing them put their newfound "freedom" to such a great use.


----------



## Wolfarus (Sep 4, 2013)

I know that the gay-lesbian and trans people have allot of work cut out for them in order to secure their own deserved rights and whatnot..

But the phrase "militant homosexual activists" just makes me chuckle for some reason


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Sep 4, 2013)

Chrestian bakery ??? People shouldn't be surprised. It's like a gay couple insist to be married in a Church.


----------



## Lina Inverse (Sep 4, 2013)

tsk


----------



## abc123 (Sep 4, 2013)

> The lesbian couple filed a discrimination with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries and told their story to local newspapers and television statements.
> 
> To make matters worse, the Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries announced last month they had launched a formal discrimination investigation against the Christian family.
> 
> ...


This is fucking retarded.


----------



## Unimportant (Sep 4, 2013)

What the hell is happening to our right to refuse service?
I don't think a good reason is needed; this is a simple and necessary freedom.


----------



## Roman (Sep 4, 2013)

I sympathize with the former owners of the bakery for the fact they were forced to shut down after being threatened. That's not how a minority should win people's support and instead only works to make them out to be the bad guys. The couple could've just as easily gone somewhere else to get a wedding cake instead of making such a sensational deal out of this one.

However, I also think the bakery had no practical reason to reject their request given they're a business, not a church. In the end, they're making money. Granted, this is trivial compared to what has been done to the bakery and forcing them to close down was not an appropriate response.


----------



## Garfield (Sep 4, 2013)

I'm a little apprehensive about the veracity of these death threats though. Seems a tad too dramatic.


----------



## ThunderCunt (Sep 4, 2013)

This is two different kind of wrong. And homosexual militants? that is something completely new.


----------



## Gin (Sep 4, 2013)

Pathetic.

They could just go to another shop.   But no, far better to ruin someone's livelihood because my beliefs =/= your beliefs.


----------



## abc123 (Sep 4, 2013)

Freedan said:


> However, I also think the bakery had no practical reason to reject their request given they're a business, not a church. In the end, they're making money.


Regardless of what type of institution you own, people tend not to want to sell their morals for money.


----------



## Ao Thurston (Sep 4, 2013)

Unimportant said:


> What the hell is happening to our right to refuse service?
> I don't think a good reason is needed; this is a simple and necessary freedom.



I have never heard of a right to refuse service. I thought that one of the fundamentals of USA was freedom and equality for people.

What if they refused to bake a cake for a black couple? Would you have said the same?

What if they told hebrews to fuck off?


----------



## eHav (Sep 4, 2013)

Ao Thurston said:


> I have never heard of a right to refuse service. I thought that one of the fundamentals of USA was freedom and equality for people.
> 
> What if they refused to bake a cake for a black couple? Would you have said the same?



Its actually something pretty important when you have a private business. Doesnt matter if its a black, an asian, or an old lady. They only have to serve who they want  to serve. Of course, doing that will not help them get any more costumers, but its their right. Just like a club can choose who they let inside, or can invite costumers to leave

might be dif in the US or something tho


----------



## Al Mudaari (Sep 4, 2013)

lmaaooooooo how embarrassing


----------



## Ao Thurston (Sep 4, 2013)

eHav said:


> Its actually something pretty important when you have a private business. Doesnt matter if its a black, an asian, or an old lady. They only have to serve who they want  to serve. Of course, doing that will not help them get any more costumers, but its their right. Just like a club can choose who they let inside, or can invite costumers to leave



They cannot. 

I have yet to learn the details, but it seems clear that USA prohibits any discrimination when offering services.


----------



## Gin (Sep 4, 2013)

Ao Thurston said:


> What if they refused to bake a cake for a black couple? Would you have said the same?


Not the same scenario.   My guess is that if a gay person walked into the store, announced that they were gay and asked for a regular cake, they would have sold it to them.

I don't believe they were refusing to serve them because they were gay, but that they didn't want to contribute to a "gay event" because it conflicted with their religious beliefs.


----------



## Cromer (Sep 4, 2013)

Well now, more proof that human beings are human beings, regardless of belief i.e. massive sacks of shit.


----------



## Ao Thurston (Sep 4, 2013)

Frost said:


> Not the same scenario.   My guess is that if a gay person walked into the store, announced that they were gay and asked for a regular cake, they would have sold it to them.
> 
> I don't believe they were refusing to serve them because they were gay, but that they didn't want to contribute to a "gay event" because it conflicted with their religious beliefs.



Then why only against LGBT? Have they refused to service couples which were made of one or two people that divorced? Have they refused service to atheist or agnostic couples marrying?


----------



## Gin (Sep 4, 2013)

Ao Thurston said:


> Then why only against LGBT? Have they refused to service couples which were made of one or two people that divorced? Have they refused service to atheist or agnostic couples marrying?


You'll have to ask them.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 4, 2013)

This whole story sounds suspect, especially since it's only taking the bakers' account of it, which would already be skewed based on their views in the first place. Much like a similar story that was posted here before, where you wound up ultimately having a few anonymous individuals make some terrible comments, but everyone else pretty much handling the situation as the best they could have.


----------



## Vynjira (Sep 4, 2013)

Stopped reading after FOX/opinion...

Christians claiming to be victims because someone told them they're not the center of the universe.


----------



## dr_shadow (Sep 4, 2013)

I wish my name was "Christian Baker".


----------



## Narcissus (Sep 4, 2013)

eHav said:


> Would you look at that, the LGBT being worse than the religious.


Religious people have consistently done things far worse than what this story is claiming, which is so easily demonstrable that it is amazing that  you would make such an idiotic and ignorant comment.


----------



## Agmaster (Sep 4, 2013)

*In other words, Christians who live and work in Oregon must follow man’s law instead of God’s law. But in a show of benevolence, the state is willing to rehabilitate and reeducate Christian business owners like the Kleins.
*~~~~~
Well that sounds like it's for 'The Greater Good' and won't ruin lives.


On the other hand.


*Klein said it’s becoming clear that Christians do not have the “right to believe what we believe.”  In other words, gay rights trump religious rights.*
~~~~
Way to needlessly conflate.


----------



## Sarry (Sep 4, 2013)

Oh well, i guess the victim card wasn't used this time by LGBT community. 

I still don't get why they didn't go to another bakery. Oh well, attention whores gonna seek attention.


By my guesstimate: there would be more news similar to this one, at an even worse scale.


----------



## HolyHands (Sep 4, 2013)

The family certainly didn't deserve death threats, but at the same time I don't see what's wrong with shutting them down.

It's a basic part of capitalism that the people have every right to boycott and deny business to anyone they disagree with. And it's a basic part of American business that the right to refuse service to anyone does NOT extend to denial based on race, gender, religion, and orientation. If there was a business that didn't "believe" in serving black people, they would be shut down all the same, and rightfully so. Your rights end where another person's begins.


----------



## soulnova (Sep 4, 2013)

*Reads first sentence*

"militant homosexual activists-"

 Let's see what's the source of this....

Yep, Fox News. 




> Klein said it?s becoming clear that Christians do not have the ?right to believe what we believe.?



You can still believe they are wrong... while baking a cake.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Sep 4, 2013)

Frost said:


> Not the same scenario.   My guess is that if a gay person walked into the store, announced that they were gay and asked for a regular cake, they would have sold it to them.
> 
> I don't believe they were refusing to serve them because they were gay, but that they didn't want to contribute to a "gay event" because it conflicted with their religious beliefs.



But they are lesbian.  And so maybe she wanted the name of Mary or whatever her partner is called on her cake.   It's sad when other people have no respect for lesbian love.  And gotta respect the law, guys!  Change yourself! 

I completely disagree with threats though. It was a step too far! So uncivilised. I wonder why the cops aren't looking into death threats?


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Sep 4, 2013)

Ao Thurston said:


> I have never heard of a right to refuse service. I thought that one of the fundamentals of USA was freedom and equality for people.
> 
> What if they refused to bake a cake for a black couple? Would you have said the same?
> 
> What if they told hebrews to fuck off?



You can't choose to be black or a Hebrew. Homosexuality is a ideological difference.



Ao Thurston said:


> Then why only against LGBT? Have they refused to service couples which were made of one or two people that divorced? Have they refused service to atheist or agnostic couples marrying?



Lol Someone's jimmies are getting rustled. If the roles where switched it would a whole other story. People would be praising owners/peoples who turned away Christians from their business. That will be a scary day indeed when that happens.


----------



## Brotha Yasuji (Sep 4, 2013)

Ao Thurston said:


> I have never heard of a right to refuse service. I thought that one of the fundamentals of USA was freedom and equality for people.
> 
> What if they refused to bake a cake for a black couple? Would you have said the same?
> 
> What if they told hebrews to fuck off?



Actually, all establishments have he right to refuse service for any (Or even no) reason, with exceptions.

They can't refuse service to anyone based on sex, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc. cos that would be discrimination, and thus illegal. But, they can refuse you service for just about any other reason in truth, since that's _their_ establishment.

Now, with this case I'm not sure. They didn't refuse the lesbian couple cos they were gay, but cos they didn't want to make a cake to celebrate a gay wedding. So I'm not sure where that would fall honestly.


----------



## Vynjira (Sep 4, 2013)

Brotha Yasuji said:


> Actually, all establishments have he right to refuse service for any (Or even no) reason, with exceptions.
> 
> They can't refuse service to anyone based on sex, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc. cos that would be discrimination, and thus illegal. But, they can refuse you service for just about any other reason in truth, since that's _their_ establishment.
> 
> Now, with this case I'm not sure. They didn't refuse the lesbian couple cos they were gay, but cos they didn't want to make a cake to celebrate a gay wedding. So I'm not sure where that would fall honestly.


I don't want to make cakes to celebrate Jewish and Black weddings.

Yea.... no, it's very clear where this one falls...


----------



## Enclave (Sep 4, 2013)

Unimportant said:


> What the hell is happening to our right to refuse service?
> I don't think a good reason is needed; this is a simple and necessary freedom.



Pretty sure if this bakery refused to bake a cake for an interracial wedding you wouldn't have said something like this.


----------



## Roman (Sep 4, 2013)

Vynjira said:


> I don't want to make cakes to celebrate Jewish and Black weddings.
> 
> Yea.... no, it's very clear where this one falls...



I gotta go with this tbh. Refusing to provide their services to the couple because they didn't want to contribute to a gay wedding is basically discrimination. If they didn't want to contribute to any wedding, then yeah, it wouldn't be. But they refused because they didn't want to contribute specifically to a gay wedding and their religious beliefs, according to them, go against homosexuality. If that weren't the case, they'd have definitely made the cake.

I'm not saying this to justify the verbal attacks on the bakery, btw. I'm only saying this because their reasoning was pretty clear.


----------



## eHav (Sep 4, 2013)

Narcissus said:


> Religious people have consistently done things far worse than what this story is claiming, which is so easily demonstrable that it is amazing that  you would make such an idiotic and ignorant comment.



funny that you would call me ignorant while completelly failing to understand what i said


----------



## Ao Thurston (Sep 4, 2013)

narutoXhinata=love said:


> You can't choose to be black or a Hebrew. Homosexuality is a ideological difference.



Yeah, like when I get hard whether I watch gay porn or straight porn, it's because I CONTROL MY OWN ERECTION! 

WAIT WHA-



Freedan said:


> I gotta go with this tbh. Refusing to provide their services to the couple because they didn't want to contribute to a gay wedding is basically discrimination. If they didn't want to contribute to any wedding, then yeah, it wouldn't be. But they refused because they didn't want to contribute specifically to a gay wedding and their religious beliefs, according to them, go against homosexuality. If that weren't the case, they'd have definitely made the cake.
> 
> I'm not saying this to justify the verbal attacks on the bakery, btw. I'm only saying this because their reasoning was pretty clear.



If they didn't make cakes for "not-religious" weddings then there is a pattern there and it may be somehow reasonable. But if they are doing it exactly because it's a lesbian couple, then nope.


----------



## navy (Sep 4, 2013)

It's just a cake.


----------



## Vasto Lorde King (Sep 4, 2013)

Rothwell said:


> This is fucking retarded.



I second that. 

I'm all for gay tolerance. However that doesn't mean that* you need to like it *.  You just need *to tolerate* thier existance *and vice versa*. People are either straight or gay because they *prefer* something over something else right? Then  shouldn't it be reasonable to honor that on both sides?  And simply not fuck them up or bash them because of thier sexual orientation. If A Christian bakery doesn't want to spend all the effort making a cake for a lesbian couple then that should be possible. They simply prefer to not associate themselves with lesbians.  Just everybody has thier right to keep thier bussines to themselves so should it be with situations like this. They are a Christian Bakery for God's Sake. What do you expect? 

It's not like you are denying them thier right to life or work or something.


----------



## Toroxus (Sep 4, 2013)

> has been forced to close its doors after a vicious boycott by *militant *homosexual activists.


----------



## navy (Sep 4, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> This whole story sounds suspect,



No shit. Read the first line. 

Anyways, now that I look back at it they closed because they were boycotted the fuck out of. Not because they feared for their lives. Nothing of value was lost.


----------



## Saishin (Sep 4, 2013)

I support the rights of the LGBT but in my opinion those lesbian couples have exaggerated,the response of this so called 'act of discrimination' was disproportional,even the protestors have threated others vendors in case of a support to the bakery, I don't like these boycott  tactics,it's not the right way to solve these kind of problems,now a family is without job,and all this just for a cake.
But also the owners of the bakery have their part of responsibility,business is business,when you open a commercial activity you do so because you want earn money thus you can't refuse to give the service to the clients no matter who they are,money are money,so their refusal can't be justified,they had to put aside their religious beliefs.
I think both sides are in wrong no one of them is in the right.


----------



## baconbits (Sep 4, 2013)

adee said:


> I'm a little apprehensive about the veracity of these death threats though. Seems a tad too dramatic.



No, its entirely believable.  People tend to make death threats about issues this petty when they become newsworthy.



Ao Thurston said:


> I have never heard of a right to refuse service. I thought that one of the fundamentals of USA was freedom and equality for people.



That's what a right to refuse service is - a freedom.



Ao Thurston said:


> What if they refused to bake a cake for a black couple? Would you have said the same?



Well being black myself yes, they still have that right.  They'd be wrong to exercise that right but they'd still have that right, just as the freedom of speech gives them the right to say "^ (use bro)".



Ao Thurston said:


> What if they told hebrews to fuck off?



That right shouldn't change because of the demographic they're addressing.



Vynjira said:


> Stopped reading after FOX/opinion...
> 
> Christians claiming to be victims because someone told them they're not the center of the universe.



Yeah, then you didn't read the relevant part of the story.

I don't see any claims that anyone is the center of the story so... you're making another ignorant assertion?





Narcissus said:


> Religious people have consistently done things far worse than what this story is claiming, which is so easily demonstrable that it is amazing that  you would make such an idiotic and ignorant comment.



Religious people do worse than this?  Is this supposed to justify what happened in the story?  I'm not seeing what the point of your commentary is.


----------



## Agmaster (Sep 4, 2013)

So...people yucking it up over militant homo activists also believe feminazi is not a term with validity as well, right?


----------



## HolyHands (Sep 4, 2013)

Keep in mind that the right to refuse service to protected groups doesn't hold up if you're a public-serving business (i.e. restaurant, market, bakery). Any type of business that provides services to the public is by definition required to obey any non-discriminatory laws. The Civil Rights Movement existed for a reason you know...

In the state of Oregon, it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation, so what this bakery did was illegal. Not only that, but the bakery owners don't seem to be very devout Christians, as they have been previously shown to be perfectly fine with creating cakes for out-of-wedlock couples, divorced couples, and stem cell researchers wanting to celebrate. Christian bakery my ass....

Link for those interested:


----------



## Hitt (Sep 4, 2013)

Saishin said:


> But also the owners of the bakery have their part of responsibility,business is business,when you open a commercial activity you do so because you want earn money thus you can't refuse the service to the clients no matter who they are,money are money,so their refusal can't be justified,they had to put aside their religious beliefs.
> I think both sides are in wrong no one of them is in the right.



Exactly.  Truett Cathy is a big time homophobe but even he understands what kind of disaster it would be if he put "NO HOMOS" signs in his Chick Fil'a restaurants.



baconbits said:


> Well being black myself yes, they still have that right.  They'd be wrong to exercise that right but they'd still have that right, just as the freedom of speech gives them the right to say "^ (use bro)".



Civil Rights Act says otherwise.  You know, the law the generation before you fought so hard to get?

Your rights stop when they infringe on others' rights.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Sep 4, 2013)

I wondered about the frequent references to the fact that they were Christian and the article bitching about how people are forced to follow man's law and not God's. Then I saw that Faux News was the source and suddenly it made sense.


----------



## Hitt (Sep 4, 2013)

Onomatopoeia said:


> I wondered about the frequent references to the fact that they were Christian and the article bitching about how people are forced to follow man's law and not God's. Then I saw that Faux News was the source and suddenly it made sense.



If we are to "follow God's law", than as it's written in the Bible we need to execute millions of people for working on Saturday 

Oh wait that's right, Christians will gladly say that doesn't apply anymore for <insert reason here>.

But Leviticus verses about homosexuals being an abomination?  OH YES THAT STILL APPLIES.


----------



## Vynjira (Sep 4, 2013)

baconbits said:


> Yeah, then you didn't read the relevant part of the story.


Which is? Since I missed it?





> I don't see any claims that anyone is the center of the story so... you're making another ignorant assertion?


Then you didn't read the relevant part of the story...

Which was that they're claiming their religious freedoms were violated.
(which makes it that much more hilarious, when you try to spin rights to refuse service)

They specifically state, ?I?m happy to be serving the Lord and standing up for what?s right.?

?Be prepared to take a stand. Hopefully, the church will wake up and understand that we are under attack right now.?

Shit the article flat out states this is about Christians being forced to follow man?s law instead of God?s law. Which is a great evil in their eyes, and demonstrates exactly what I said.





> Religious people do worse than this?


Yes.





> Is this supposed to justify what happened in the story?


Setting aside the dispute about whether or not their actions were wrong in the first place...

The comment was attacking the comparison, not an attempt to justify their actions. It's blatantly dishonest to misrepresent it in this way.





> I'm not seeing what the point of your commentary is.


Not surprising, but I just explained it for you.

It's about the comparison, which trivializes the fucking deaths of homosexuals to Christians.

It's fucking uncalled for, to claim that getting Christians in trouble with the law, is worse than getting Homosexuals killed.


----------



## Linkofone (Sep 4, 2013)

Christians are the victims ... didn't see that coming. Goddamn it just go to another store for Christ's sake.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Sep 4, 2013)

Since when are opinion pieces news?  Especially ones from Fox.


----------



## Hitt (Sep 4, 2013)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Since when are opinion pieces news?  Especially ones from Fox.



One reason and one reason only:


----------



## Gino (Sep 4, 2013)

1 page in and already gay and black comparisons. 


Thread doesn't disappoint.

If this is indeed the case fuck those twats they had the right to go somewhere else but no life is never really that simple.


----------



## HolyHands (Sep 4, 2013)

Gino said:


> 1 page in and already gay and black comparisons.
> 
> 
> Thread doesn't disappoint.
> ...



The reason why black/gay comparisons exist is because they're valid, _especially_ in this case since Oregon has laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation. And even if it was legal, it's still well within the people's rights to boycott the company and give them crap for it (with the exception of death threats of course).


----------



## WT (Sep 4, 2013)

*This response has been filtered due to its disgustingly homophobic nature*

~NF Staff

NB You've been warned White Tiger, homophobic remarks on this scale again will result in a permanent ban.


----------



## Gino (Sep 4, 2013)

HolyHands said:


> The reason why black/gay comparisons exist is because they're valid, _especially_ in this case since Oregon has laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation. And even if it was legal, it's still well within the people's rights to boycott the company and give them crap for it (with the exception of death threats of course).



Sigh.......The Gay and Black struggle are two different struggles I'll just leave it at that.


White Tiger wtf??..........


----------



## Ennoea (Sep 4, 2013)

This sounds like bullshit to me.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Sep 4, 2013)

White Tiger said:


> *This response has been filtered due to its disgustingly homophobic nature*
> 
> ~NF Staff
> 
> NB You've been warned White Tiger, homophobic remarks on this scale again will result in a permanent ban.



Jesus fucking Christ you are full of prejudice. Every one of your posts are ultra pro Muslim and religion in general and ultra anti-LGBT!

And calm the fuck down, dude! Your insults are bordering on crazy sociopath. People have feelings. Respect them! Learn to use the light side of the force more often when deal with people! Learn sensible political correctness.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Sep 4, 2013)

I WANNA KNOW WHAT WT SAID!!!


----------



## baconbits (Sep 4, 2013)

Vynjira said:


> Which is? Since I missed it?



You missed the death threats part?



Vynjira said:


> Which was that they're claiming their religious freedoms were violated.
> (which makes it that much more hilarious, when you try to spin rights to refuse service)



Traditionally you do have a right to refuse service for any reason.  For example you can go to a McDonalds and they don't have to serve you.  You could have slept with the owner's wife and he could refuse to let you buy a burger, for example.  You can go to a mechanic and he can refuse to work on your car because he hates you, for example.

Now I don't think its good policy to turn down business - I wouldn't do this - but they have the right to refuse service, for no reason whatsoever.  It makes no sense to say "you have the right to refuse service... unless its because of religious reasons.  Then we use the power of the state to destroy you personallly."

Second, even if they refused service there's no defense for the death threats that occurred after that.



Vynjira said:


> -snip-



When did you become Narcissus?  I realize you follow on his coattails but let him respond to the points I made to him.



Hitt said:


> Civil Rights Act says otherwise.  You know, the law the generation before you fought so hard to get?
> 
> Your rights stop when they infringe on others' rights.



You should have a right to have someone make you a cake?  That isn't a right.  That's an economic decision.  I personally would have no problem making money off of a gay couple, but if these people feel they morally can't do so they should have the right to be ignorant and lose that money.


----------



## Zaru (Sep 4, 2013)

Ruining someone's life work because you couldn't get a cake

Remove the christian and lbgt aspects from this and see it for what it is: Absolutely inappropriate degree of response.


----------



## Gino (Sep 4, 2013)

So is this thread gonna die and people are gonna pretend this shit didn't just happen?Usually any other thread of this nature would have 7+pages by now.


----------



## sadated_peon (Sep 4, 2013)

so..... what did white tiger say....


----------



## WT (Sep 4, 2013)

I'll get in trouble guys :S


----------



## HolyHands (Sep 4, 2013)

Gino said:


> So is this thread gonna die and people are gonna pretend this shit didn't just happen?Usually any other thread of this nature would have 7+pages by now.



What's there to say? The bakery broke a law by denying service based on sexual orientation, which is illegal in Oregon. Bakeries are considered a public-serving business, and therefore must follow the law. They are not a private club, and therefore can't just refuse anyone they want.

In addition, it's a basic part of capitalism that customers have a right to boycott and ruin the business if they don't get the service they want. Don't want your life's work ruined? Don't piss off your customers then.

The only thing the LBGT group did wrong was threaten the bakery with violence. If the law wants to go after those people then fine by me, but I see nothing wrong with them putting a business under. Welcome to capitalism.


----------



## Gino (Sep 4, 2013)

Capitalism deez nuts. Nothing was okay with how they handled this shit period.


----------



## navy (Sep 4, 2013)

Everything was okay besides the threats from anonymous individuals. 

Dont like it? Move to Russia and keep Snowden company.


----------



## Gino (Sep 4, 2013)

[YOUTUBE]SB3C-bIwatQ[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## HolyHands (Sep 4, 2013)

Gino said:


> Capitalism deez nuts. Nothing was okay with how they handled this shit period.



Honestly we don't even know if it was an official LBGT group that sent threats. Most likely it was just a couple of random trolls who tossed the threats in, which is really no different than any other outrage in the history of the internet.


----------



## Vynjira (Sep 4, 2013)

baconbits said:


> You missed the death threats part?


Sounds like an appeal to emotion. 


> Traditionally you do have a right to refuse service for any reason.


Sounds like an appeal to tradition.

..but it doesn't even need to go that far..

Oregon has it's own laws regarding businesses.. as an advocate of states rights you should respect them. Further as business owners in Oregon they should know the laws regarding what policies they can enforce.

This isn't an issue of selective enforcement based on religious beliefs. They were not shut down by the government, they refused to obey the government's laws.

Their rights were not violated in any way.





> It makes no sense to say "you have the right to refuse service... unless its because of religious reasons.


Refer to above, their religious rights were not violated in any way.





> Then we use the power of the state to destroy you personallly.


They didn't use the power of the state to destroy anyone. This is your imagination running wild.





> Second, even if they refused service there's no defense for the death threats that occurred after that.


I'm sorry, sounds like you're accusing the lesbians of death threats.. Since when are they responsible for the actions of others?

Can I accuse you of all the death threats I've gotten from Christians?





> When did you become Narcissus?


When did you become hugiboo and vice versa you amazing fucking hypocrite.

Wow, you are a real piece of work.

Grant that was some time ago, but it didn't seem to bother you then.. but it bothers you when someone else does it?


----------



## navy (Sep 4, 2013)

Zaru said:


> Ruining someone's life work because you couldn't get a cake
> 
> Remove the christian and lbgt aspects from this and see it for what it is: Absolutely inappropriate degree of response.


----------



## Hitt (Sep 4, 2013)

baconbits said:


> You should have a right to have someone make you a cake?  That isn't a right.  That's an economic decision.  I personally would have no problem making money off of a gay couple, but if these people feel they morally can't do so they should have the right to be ignorant and lose that money.



It all depends on the reason.

It is certainly acceptable to refuse to serve someone cause you just don't like them.  Or they're being an asshole and disruptive.

But this was a classic case of "We don't serve your kind here."  Which is outright discrimination.

Come on Bacon!  As a black man you should be able to sympathize with this.  Members of your own family have very likely suffered this same kind of treatment not that long ago, with the same justifications.


----------



## navy (Sep 4, 2013)

Black people dont like it when you compare gays to them. Argumentative tip.


----------



## Gino (Sep 4, 2013)

Hitt said:


> It all depends on the reason.
> 
> It is certainly acceptable to refuse to serve someone cause you just don't like them.  Or they're being an asshole and disruptive.
> 
> ...



...........


----------



## Bioness (Sep 4, 2013)

Gino, the black issues and gay issues are VERY comparable, GET OVER IT.


----------



## Gino (Sep 4, 2013)

Bioness said:


> Gino, the black issues and gay issues are VERY comparable, GET OVER IT.



Just because you say so? If I recall you we're a self hating black person during your early years on NF so I don't wanna hear shit from you.


----------



## WT (Sep 4, 2013)

Bioness said:


> Gino, the black issues and gay issues are VERY comparable, GET OVER IT.



homosexuality is an issue with the mind. Being black is a physical thing. Being black is normal. Being a homosexual is not.

Completely different.


----------



## Gino (Sep 4, 2013)

Don't go there WT.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 4, 2013)

navy said:


> Black people dont like it when you compare gays to them. Argumentative tip.



It's a hilarious bit of irony considering this is how many minority groups often treated issues pertaining to blacks in the past. Look no further than the Irish, and how they were initially treated in the U.S.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Sep 4, 2013)

baconbits said:


> *Traditionally you do have a right to refuse service for any reason.*  For example you can go to a McDonalds and they don't have to serve you.  You could have slept with the owner's wife and he could refuse to let you buy a burger, for example.  You can go to a mechanic and he can refuse to work on your car because he hates you, for example.



Actually no you don't.  You have to have a legitimate interest in refusing service to that person.  You could for example refuse service to gang members out of fear that they may cause actual harm to your business, you could also refuse service to someone who is underage, for example if you have a bar you can refuse service to people under the age of 21 for obvious reasons.

You can't refuse service based on things like race or gender.  Things like sexual orientation while not specifically outlined in things like the civil rights act still require that you show a legitimate interest in keeping those people out of your business, you can't just say "we don't take kindly to your kind around here".

I'm not sure where the law stands on the matter if you have a personal feud with the person in question but I know that I sure as hell wouldn't want one of my personal enemies working on my car or preparing my food.


----------



## Godly Giraffe - King of the Uverworld (Sep 4, 2013)

Gay activism sure does go out of its way to attest to its being a piece of stinking dog shit.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 4, 2013)

Really, the only people that are going to swarm over this story are the ones that want to believe the movement for LGBT rights in general is illegitimate to begin with.


----------



## Godly Giraffe - King of the Uverworld (Sep 4, 2013)

A family really shouldn't have to shut down its literal bread and butter because a couple that could've just hired someone else got fumy and pissed.


----------



## HolyHands (Sep 4, 2013)

Ken said:


> A family really shouldn't have to shut down its literal bread and butter because a couple that could've just hired someone else got fumy and pissed.



The bakery shut down due to loss of business which was prompted by negative word of mouth. If you anger your customers, you lose your company. Don't see why this is so hard to understand.


----------



## Vermin (Sep 4, 2013)

White Tiger said:


> homosexuality is an issue with the mind. Being black is a physical thing. Being black is normal. Being a homosexual is not.
> 
> Completely different.


and here we go


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 4, 2013)

zyken said:


> and here we go



And he's supposed to be one of the moderate Muslims on this section.


----------



## Godly Giraffe - King of the Uverworld (Sep 4, 2013)

HolyHands said:


> The bakery shut down due to loss of business which was prompted by negative word of mouth. If you anger your customers, you lose your company. Don't see why this is so hard to understand.



Death threats don't really equate much of an impeccable environment, and if some Chinese joint refused, say, a Mexican were he to fulfill demands they'd have made to anyone else, it wouldn't be much of an issue as this. So... yeah. Gay activism raises ridiculous uproars and this is a drop in that bucket.


----------



## Deleted member 222538 (Sep 4, 2013)

Nothing of worth was lost. Also, wtf is up with WT?


----------



## HolyHands (Sep 4, 2013)

Ken said:


> Death threats don't really equate much of an impeccable environment, and if some Chinese joint refused, say, a Mexican were he to fulfill demands they'd have made to anyone else, it wouldn't be much of an issue as this. So... yeah. Gay activism raises ridiculous uproars and this is a drop in that bucket.



The death threats were unwarranted, nobody here is denying that. On the other hand, I'm somewhat skeptical over how many threats they were actually getting. It's not exactly hard for a random internet troll to make a threat. I wouldn't be surprised if they simply took a couple troll comments and made it seem like they were being "oppressed". I can guarantee that the owners won't get a single scratch on them.

If your issue is simply that gays are too loud, then just give them their rights and marriage privileges already. They're loud because they have to be. Squeaky wheel gets the grease after all.


----------



## Godly Giraffe - King of the Uverworld (Sep 4, 2013)

HolyHands said:


> The death threats were unwarranted, nobody here is denying that. On the other hand, I'm somewhat skeptical over how many threats they were actually getting. It's not exactly hard for a random internet troll to make a threat. I wouldn't be surprised if they simply took a couple troll comments and made it seem like they were being "oppressed". I can guarantee that the owners won't get a single scratch on them.



Normally when I'm thrown a paragraph or two because of digression on subjects as this I'd just walk away, but we've actually spoken on this matter before last month and I wrote a fair amount there. So this will be as sincere as I can bother with, much of a drag as it is.

Firstly, it's raised enough of a stink that LGBT activism itself was brought up numerous times. It's clearly swollen out of the proportions of some internet troll BS and while the family might've exaggerated things, they weren't the only ones 'feeding the troll,' and they still didn't deserve to have their source of income deprived. Nor did a lesbian couple simply needing to find another of what's probably hundreds of bakeries in their location to bake their fricken wedding cake worth all this worthless ruckus.



> If your issue is simply that gays are too loud, then just give them their rights and marriage privileges already. They're loud because they have to be. Squeaky wheel gets the grease after all.



My issue is that they're disproportionately loud and don't deserve such attention that a private affair, never mind one of such menial significance as this, causes this kind of idiotic riot - and that's exactly what gay activism is a great chunk of the time. And on that note, I also can easily point out/speculate that part of this whole deal is that a _Christian_ family business told a pair of homos to look elsewhere, but given their shitty beef with the religious or conservatives, it's not too doubtful this wouldn't be such a big deal if they weren't religious. 

So yeah, that makes them a whiny upstart and I see no reason to play favorites and give them an excuse others won't be getting for the same overreaction.


----------



## navy (Sep 4, 2013)

Ken said:


> Death threats don't really equate much of an impeccable environment, and if some Chinese joint refused, say, a Mexican were he to fulfill demands they'd have made to anyone else, it wouldn't be much of an issue as this. So... yeah. Gay activism raises ridiculous uproars and this is a drop in that bucket.



Bad example. Refusing someone based on race and actually saying it was about race is sure to cause a stir.


----------



## Godly Giraffe - King of the Uverworld (Sep 4, 2013)

navy said:


> Bad example. Refusing someone based on race and actually saying it was about race is sure to cause a stir.



Irrelevant because it's been shown that a lack of mention of racially insensitive motives hasn't impeded race riots any. (My state and others with high Hispanic or black populations themselves testify to that.) Not only that, but even protests over things like gas station beefs where "^ (use bro)" was specifically uttered are pretty tame compared to this bullshit, and taking a minute or two of your time to read the first post duly makes that evident. 

And really, the fact that they've threatened to shut down and boycott other people's family property (directly tied to their welfare) because they deal with a bakery in their town? Hardly makes a lackluster example invalidating, all things considered.


----------



## Godly Giraffe - King of the Uverworld (Sep 4, 2013)

I've gotten fed up at a few points with conservative mules before, but compared to the homosexual community and straight-edge left wing blatherers they're hardly intolerable.


----------



## Xyloxi (Sep 4, 2013)

A man who squirts cream into buns for a living has no right to call anybody gay.


----------



## Godly Giraffe - King of the Uverworld (Sep 4, 2013)

Your people rewrote what it meant to be gay when you dragged thousands of male chefs to colonies across the world.


----------



## navy (Sep 4, 2013)

Ken said:


> Irrelevant because it's been shown that a lack of mention of racially insensitive motives hasn't impeded race riots any. (My state and others with high Hispanic or black populations themselves testify to that.) Not only that, but even protests over things like gas station beefs where "^ (use bro)" was specifically uttered are pretty tame compared to this bullshit, and taking a minute or two of your time to read the first post duly makes that evident.
> 
> And really, the fact that they've threatened to shut down and boycott other people's family property (directly tied to their welfare) because they deal with a bakery in their town? Hardly makes a lackluster example invalidating, all things considered.



This hasnt blown up besides an opinion article on fox news. Where as a race riot from hispanics or blacks would at least make the papers, so to speak.This? Not even Chick fil A worthy. 

Do I need to quote drake again? Business is business. Nothing wrong with the gay activist boycotting the fuck out this business. The only think unwarranted is the death threats they claimed to receive. 

Besides, these things have a way of backfiring. Wont be long till the conservative crowd starts the donation fund and the family is flowing with money and orders for christian cakes. 

That's if the story is as relevant as you claim. If not? Into the abyss of no fucks given from both sides a month from now.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Sep 4, 2013)

Businesses need greater protection against mad left wingers. If you don't like a business find another; don't fucking destroy it! Businesses are the life of the economy! The way the LGBT community is putting people out of work like this just makes me feel really sick!


----------



## iander (Sep 4, 2013)

I am totally fine with what happened.  As a small business owner, I can attest that if you screw over your customers, your business won't last long.  They decided to be bigoted and customers decided to go elsewhere so they lost their business.  Conservatives are usually ok with this but since it involves homosexuality, they will naturally be opposed.

Besides market dynamics, they also were breaking state law. When you start a business, you agree to follow the laws regulating businesses in your state. They obviously chose the wrong state. There are many states (especially in the South) that don't care if you discriminate against gays even if doing that in my opinion is despicable.


----------



## Godly Giraffe - King of the Uverworld (Sep 4, 2013)

I'm not saying it's reached the violence levels of a Hispanic or black riot, but its significance is menial compared to some of the things that _usually_ start them and that example of black riots tending to be more tame on personal feuds hasn't been invalidated. Last year an Asian male who ran a gas station was exchanging racial slurs after a certain dispute and specifically added in the word ^ (use bro), but you switch those sides around with a conservative saying "^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)" and other homosexual slurs and it's immediately magnified. People haven't had their lives endangered but that doesn't undermine how much bullshit and fluff this has written all over it. Threats, boycotting, vigilante punishment by association? I don't say this often, but give me a break.

Besides, you're taking a more uppity tone than I and the "business is business" ain't cloaking the expressed emotion in the previous sentence. Nor has anyone here been saying much (if at all) that shows this is worth this ridiculous drama, and using gay rights as pretense still is left-wing liberal nonsense at best because race riots occur not nearly as often. If they do, it's not over a phone call or two where some people refused to deal for their personal convictions. I know few people of color who'd fuss over things like this because someone didn't take well to them asking for a cake, so that makes these losers a bunch of disgruntled trainwrecks that deserve no pity. There should be no safeguard, no "buts" about decadence like this.


----------



## Bioness (Sep 4, 2013)

Gino said:


> Just because you say so? If I recall you we're a self hating black person during your early years on NF so I don't wanna hear shit from you.





Also critical of the black community =/= hateful of them


----------



## Gino (Sep 4, 2013)

Bioness said:


> Also critical of the black community =/= hateful of them



[YOUTUBE]Y7N9L7W8jfI[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]hR5PA8613KQ[/YOUTUBE]

Whatever......


----------



## Nep Nep (Sep 4, 2013)

Hm.. 

Personally I think Christians and people of other faiths should be able to say no to such things if they feel the need, I don't agree with it of course even as a Christian just let them do what they want to do, you get money, they get cake. 

On one hand the Christians are passively being offensive on the other I find it odd that gay people who have long suffered intolerance from others would be so harsh now that they pretty much have their tolerance. 

I don't know I think it was a bit harsh from the gays and a bit too stingy for the Christians. Just because you bake them a cake doesn't mean you're contributing to anything, they're gonna have a cake whether you make it or not, just make it and move on.  

I feel both sides reacted too strong.


----------



## iander (Sep 4, 2013)

Kyokkai said:


> Hm..
> 
> Personally I think Christians and people of other faiths should be able to say no to such things if they feel the need, I don't agree with it of course even as a Christian just let them do what they want to do, you get money, they get cake.
> 
> ...



How is it harsh to boycott a business that refuses to serve you?


----------



## Gin (Sep 4, 2013)

I'm not religious, I don't know what their thought process is when such situations come up.

Maybe they thought it would be equivalent to spitting in the face of their God to contribute to something that (in their interpretation of Christianity) was a sin.   Who knows?

Regardless of their reasons, the people in question should have just gone to another bakery and let everyone get on with their lives.   Seems like attention seeking to me.

And this is *not* the same as refusing a black/hispanic couple of the same gender.


----------



## Godly Giraffe - King of the Uverworld (Sep 4, 2013)

iander said:


> How is it harsh to boycott a business that refuses to serve you?



When you rally up to involve people because of their nigh complete lack of involvement.


----------



## Gin (Sep 4, 2013)

iander said:


> How is it harsh to boycott a business that refuses to serve you?


Ruining someone's livelihood because they disagree with your lifestyle.   Yes, that's perfectly reasonable.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 4, 2013)

Frost said:


> And this is *not* the same as refusing a black/hispanic couple of the same gender.



Except it is.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Sep 4, 2013)

Frost said:


> Ruining someone's livelihood because they disagree with your lifestyle.   Yes, that's perfectly reasonable.



You're in no way required to give them your money.  I sure as hell don't want to shop at a bakery that discriminates against people like that.  If that cripples their business that's their own damned fault.


----------



## Bioness (Sep 4, 2013)

Gino said:


> [YOUTUBE]Y7N9L7W8jfI[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> [YOUTUBE]hR5PA8613KQ[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> Whatever......



Wikipedia and other credible sources> Random black people on youtube

But if you want a video how about one that doesn't just shown a single person?

Like oh I dunno...a popular talk show?

[YOUTUBE]P601_LU0j1Y[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Patchouli (Sep 4, 2013)

I swear, these threads bring out the most idiotic sides of people. Please stop assuming this small group of idiots represents an entire community. 

Take this shit to the debate section if you want to argue about whether LGBT stuff is similar to the Civil Rights movement. Get that shit out of here.


----------



## Gino (Sep 4, 2013)

Bioness said:


> Wikipedia and other credible sources> Random black people on youtube
> 
> But if you want a video how about one that doesn't just shown a single person?
> 
> ...



That's what I thought you were gonna do fun fact.:They're both gay they both disagree.

Trya banks you fucking serious.Popularity has nothing to do with how valid a opinion is.


----------



## HolyHands (Sep 4, 2013)

Frost said:


> Ruining someone's livelihood because they disagree with your lifestyle.   Yes, that's perfectly reasonable.



This is the risk that all businesses take. It doesn't matter if that business is your meal ticket or not, if you piss off your customers, say goodbye to your income. You are not entitled to have customers.

Maybe the owners should have thought of that before refusing service.


----------



## Godly Giraffe - King of the Uverworld (Sep 4, 2013)

Still out of the line, now that it's gone so far as to involve this guy's business partners.

If you have thin skin, grow some backbone while you're at it. Can't go that distance and you're more or less an insult to discipline and placidity.


----------



## Bioness (Sep 4, 2013)

Gino said:


> That's what I thought you were gonna do fun fact.:They're both gay they both disagree.



Fun fact, that's irrelevant.


----------



## Gin (Sep 4, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Except it is.


I believe it even said in the article that they didn't have a particular problem with the fact that they were gay, but they didn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding.

Had they said "we won't serve you because you're gay", you'd have a point.   However, it was more like "we won't make a cake for a gay wedding, because we disagree with gay marriage".   Bit of a difference there, and one which is not applicable to blacks or Hispanics.


----------



## Bioness (Sep 4, 2013)

I think Mormons have it in their book somewhere that being black is a "curse from God".


----------



## Hitt (Sep 4, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Except it is.



I'm waiting for the "Lifestyle choice" excuse.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Sep 4, 2013)

Bioness said:


> I think Mormons have it in their book somewhere that being black is a "curse from God".



It was a teaching of mormonism until 1978 when (coincidentally while public backlash was forming about it) one of the church leaders received a "revelation" that told him they should stop believing that.


----------



## dynasaur (Sep 4, 2013)

Bioness said:


> I think Mormons have it in their book somewhere that being black is a "curse from God".


But ALL Christians =/= Mormons.


----------



## Gino (Sep 4, 2013)

Bioness said:


> Fun fact, that's irrelevant.


Nice dodging the ownage.



Bioness said:


> I think Mormons have it in their book somewhere that being black is a "curse from God".



That's true.The mark of cain it's still in the book.


----------



## navy (Sep 4, 2013)

Bigotry, ignorance, or racism hidden by the veil of religion is still bigotry, ignorance, and racism. 

It was just a cake though. If it was a cake that had the couple plastered on it then I can see their disagreement. If it was just a routine cake on the other hand then they shouldnt care about what the buyer does with it.


----------



## Godly Giraffe - King of the Uverworld (Sep 4, 2013)

Lifestyle choice to be a whiny bitch with higher sensitivity than a virgin clitoris made of sclera.


----------



## Fiona (Sep 4, 2013)

I wasnt sure how i felt until i read this. 



> “Better is a poor man who walks in integrity than a rich man who is crooked in his ways,” read a posting from Proverbs on the bakery’s Facebook page.





> “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman,” he said. “I don’t want to help somebody *celebrate a commitment to a lifetime of sin.*”





Zero sympathy from me. 

Just because someone doesnt follow your beliefs doesnt mean you can refuse them a service you offer to every other person that walks in the door. 

Im sorry that their bakery was shut down, but if they had just acted like human beings and treated them with the respect they deserve then nothing would have happened. 



> “As a man of faith, I am in good spirits,” he said. “I’m happy to be serving the Lord and standing up for what’s right.”



As if what the couple is doing is wrong. 



> “The Bible tells us to flee from sin,” she said. “I don’t think making a cake for it helps. I guess in my mind *I thought we lived in a lot nicer of a world where everybody tolerated everybody.*”



That quote made me laugh out loud. 

The amount of hypocrisy and irony in that statement is laughable.

You arent allowed to say anything about tolerance when you are actively discriminating against someone.


----------



## Nep Nep (Sep 4, 2013)

iander said:


> How is it harsh to boycott a business that refuses to serve you?



Is it really that big of a deal? If I go to Wal-Mart and they tell me I can't enter or purchase anything well I'll just go to Target or Winn-Dixie.. Publix, Sedanos.. I can go on forever. 

There's no need to make drama out of everything, so they're ignorant, let them be stuck in their ways there's plenty of places to get cake. 

Yeah I know what you're going to say "Just let them discriminate?" NO. The way they went about it was bad though, do you know how simple it is to just spread the word of how intolerant or ignorant someone is? 

I'm pretty sure they'd lose a great deal of business from that alone there was really no need to make a fuss, one person can go on TV and simply say NOTHING offensive and just say I disagree with gay people, a simple statement of belief and everyone is up in arms. 

So imagine if they simply spread the word of the intolerance? It would have been just as effective. If they wanted they could even go in once more and say you brought this upon yourselves if they felt like rubbing it in. 

I don't agree with the way EITHER party handled it. The Christians should have just baked them a cake, as I said I'm also Christians it's hardly contributing to "sin".  

The way those Christians were thinking was stupid I mean honestly every action we make affects one or more people, if all Christians think the way they do then they are always contributing to sin. 

That's not how it is so I think the Christians were foolish and I think the gays could have handled it in a less dramatic manner. 

That's fine if you disagree I don't like the actions of either party though. 

Besides if you disagree with an establishment then you shouldn't care about whether they will conduct business with you.


----------



## Ceria (Sep 4, 2013)

Frost said:


> Pathetic.
> 
> They could just go to another shop.   But no, far better to ruin someone's livelihood because my beliefs =/= your beliefs.



But see that's how democrats think from my experience, they don't like something and they try to make it so that you can't have it either. 

I think there are only a few reasons a business could deny service but religious beliefs shouldn't come into play, unless it's someone wanting you to do something unethical or illegal.

From a business perspective it was foolish and cost them their business, so was it really worth it? No. They should've made the baked product(s) and then confessed about it in church. That way everyone would be happy and they'd still be in business, grin and bear it, because gay marriage isn't going away.


----------



## Hitt (Sep 4, 2013)

Frost said:


> Had they said "we won't serve you because you're gay", you'd have a point.   However, it was more like "we won't make a cake for a gay wedding, because we disagree with gay marriage".   Bit of a difference there, and one which is not applicable to blacks or Hispanics.



Sorry but it is.  It's just a new way to discriminate, when the lifestyle choice bullshit can't work anymore.  After all, these SAME ARGUMENTS were used to disallow mixed marriages.  Exact same.  Look it up!


----------



## Gin (Sep 4, 2013)

Bioness said:


> I think Mormons have it in their book somewhere that being black is a "curse from God".


I think that was native Americans, but yeah, you're bound to find some stranger beliefs in some of the cults.

Regarding mainstream Christianity however, they believe no such thing.

I'm not defending their decision particularly, but religion is a powerful compulsion.   It is implied that they would have served the couple in a general sense, but did not want to contribute to a gay marriage because they believed they would be partaking in sin.

Again, I don't agree with their belief, but I'm trying to look at it from their perspective.   They didn't do what they did out of malice, they did it because they literally believed they would be doing wrong if they made the cake (statement sounds ridiculous as I'm writing it, I know ).


----------



## HolyHands (Sep 4, 2013)

Ken said:


> Lifestyle choice to be a whiny bitch with higher sensitivity than a virgin clitoris made of sclera.



Considering that your whole argument boils down to how "mean" gays are, I'd say you're the sensitive one here.


----------



## navy (Sep 4, 2013)

Ceria said:


> Any business owner has the right to deny service to anyone.



Who keeps telling people this lie?


----------



## Bioness (Sep 4, 2013)

Gino said:


> Nice dodging the ownage.



What ownage? Unless them being black and gay magically makes them an expert at civil rights and history.


----------



## Fiona (Sep 4, 2013)

Ken said:


> Lifestyle choice to be a whiny bitch with higher sensitivity than a virgin clitoris made of sclera.



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0WvJrEuJTk[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## HolyHands (Sep 4, 2013)

navy said:


> Who keeps telling people this lie?



People who haven't heard of the Civil Rights Act apparently...


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Sep 4, 2013)

navy said:


> Who keeps telling people this lie?



A lot of people seem to think those "we reserve the right to refuse service" signs are legally binding.


----------



## Gino (Sep 4, 2013)

Bioness said:


> What ownage? Unless them being black and gay magically makes them an expert at civil rights and history.



It's okay bro it's all opinions at the end of the day but the statement itself is still bullshit majority be damned.


----------



## Godly Giraffe - King of the Uverworld (Sep 4, 2013)

HolyHands said:


> Considering that your whole argument boils down to how "mean" gays are, I'd say you're the sensitive one here.



I'm meaner than pretty much anyone, that don't mean few things won't get under my skin as much as wanton whining and the refusal to acknowledge the other side of the argument in the very debate about your rights. And my patience for idiocy also isn't unlimited.


----------



## Fiona (Sep 4, 2013)

Ken said:


> I'm meaner than pretty much anyone, that don't mean few things won't get under my skin as much as wanton whining and the refusal to acknowledge the other side of the argument in the very debate about your rights.



What other side of the argument?


----------



## Patchouli (Sep 4, 2013)

I miss when trolls were actually not shit-tier. Did the good trolls here just stop making dupes?


----------



## Patchouli (Sep 4, 2013)

Wait, what the fuck.

My post got wormholed.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 4, 2013)

Frost said:


> I believe it even said in the article that they didn't have a particular problem with the fact that they were gay, but they didn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding.
> 
> Had they said "we won't serve you because you're gay", you'd have a point.   However, it was more like "we won't make a cake for a gay wedding, because we disagree with gay marriage".   Bit of a difference there, and one which is not applicable to blacks or Hispanics.



What kind of idiot falls for that kind of rhetoric? If they had nothing against them being gay then making a cake for them would never have been an issue to begin with.


----------



## Godly Giraffe - King of the Uverworld (Sep 4, 2013)

So ITT it's pretty much a private debate between Holyhands, navy and myself with others of little creativity or significance in between.


----------



## Gin (Sep 4, 2013)

Look at it this way, suppose I went to a paint store owned by a gay guy, and said I was a member of the Westboro Baptist Church and wanted to purchase their paint to make signs with charming slogans such as "god hates ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)" and go protest a gay funeral.

You think they'd serve me?

Before you say "lesbians aren't doing anything wrong, Westboro are evil cunts", I recognize this.   But gay marriage is an affront to these people's strongest beliefs, so contributing to that gay marriage is probably to them as bad as Westboro is to a gay person.

I bet people will still quote me saying "YOU THINK GAYS ARE AS BAD AS WESTBORO OMG?", but I'm trying to impress upon you the enormity of a person contributing to something that goes against their religion.


----------



## Gino (Sep 4, 2013)

Frost said:


> Look at it this way, suppose I went to a paint store owned by a gay guy, and said I was a member of the Westboro Baptist Church and wanted to purchase their paint to make signs with charming slogans such as "god hates ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)" and go protest a gay funeral.
> 
> You think they'd serve me?
> 
> ...



It's good for business don't wanna piss off your customer just make the signs.


----------



## Patchouli (Sep 4, 2013)

Hello Cafe. I speak to you from the hidden cave section. I don't know why my posts are going to the Cafe. Fix this Mbxx.


----------



## Godly Giraffe - King of the Uverworld (Sep 4, 2013)

Left-wings aren't particularly the accepting type, man.


----------



## Fiona (Sep 4, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> What kind of idiot falls for that kind of rhetoric? If they had nothing against them being gay then making a cake for them would never have been an issue to begin with.



Pretty much this.


----------



## Godly Giraffe - King of the Uverworld (Sep 4, 2013)

Did Kaiba edit the latter sentence in or was it in to begin with?


----------



## Ceria (Sep 4, 2013)

Tsukiyomi said:


> A lot of people seem to think those "we reserve the right to refuse service" signs are legally binding.



There are some people you just can't help, we had this one guy who brought a motor to us several times but kept screwing with the carburetors himself and then complaining to us that we didn't fix it right, we even went as far as to mark it with a grease pencil and sure enough the next time the mark had been broken and we said enough and told him to get his motor and never come back, what's the point of trying to help someone who keeps going behind our work and changing things and then crying foul at us? 

I think that's an example of denying service after the fact and that's what i meant, there are some you can't help despite themselves. 

The bakery should've taken the job then confessed about it in church or not even at all, this situation isn't going away.


----------



## HolyHands (Sep 4, 2013)

Frost said:


> Look at it this way, suppose I went to a paint store owned by a gay guy, and said I was a member of the Westboro Baptist Church and wanted to purchase their paint to make signs with charming slogans such as "god hates ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)" and go protest a gay funeral.
> 
> You think they'd serve me?
> 
> ...



The WBC is a hate group. Refusing them is really no different than refusing a person from a gang because groups that revolve around hate and violence are actually very good grounds for refusing service.

A better example would be a person denying service to a white/black couple because they don't believe in interracial marriage. Even if that person doesn't "hate" blacks, the fact remains that you're still denying service based on a person's skin color.


----------



## Fiona (Sep 4, 2013)

Your beliefs should be respected to a point. 

Once they start making you discriminate against other people for no legitimate reason then your beliefs are gonna be tossed out the window as they should be. 

Treating other human beings like crap because the magical book says so is ignorant beyond belief.


----------



## Godly Giraffe - King of the Uverworld (Sep 4, 2013)

So can it even be that people not gripe over what's akin to gays marrying, and rather actually refute the point about them making an overly big deal?

For sure I made comparisons between this and race riots, but so far a grand total of no-one's properly addressed the part about this exploding out or proportion.


----------



## Gino (Sep 4, 2013)

HolyHands said:


> The WBC is a hate group. Refusing them is really no different than refusing a person from a *gang because groups that revolve around hate and violence are actually very good grounds for refusing service*.
> 
> A better example would be a person denying service to a white/black couple because they don't believe in interracial marriage. Even if that person doesn't "hate" blacks, the fact remains that you're still denying service based on a person's skin color.



So I should be denied service because I'm 7-4?.........Protip I don't hate anyone.


----------



## Gin (Sep 4, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> What kind of idiot falls for that kind of rhetoric? If they had nothing against them being gay then making a cake for them would never have been an issue to begin with.


They did not want to make a cake for a gay wedding because they would be contributing to something they considered a sin.   This doesn't necessarily mean they "hate" gays.   I have relatives who are religious, while I am not.   Do they consider the fact that I am not somewhat "sinful"?   Probably.   Do they "hate" me for it?   Doubtful, they do a good job hiding it if they do.


----------



## Kanga (Sep 4, 2013)

What happened to loving your fellow man, and letting God be the judge?

Geez. Just make the damn cake, and let them be. You're running a business, not an anti LGBT rally.


----------



## navy (Sep 4, 2013)

Your example was fine Ceria, but the statement of you can deny anyone for anything is just plain false. Maybe you didnt mean it that way, but it's not the first time I've heard it. 

The bakery doesnt have to take the job if it required them to somehow change the way they did business, but if it was just baking a cake then they ruined themselves for the wrong reason.


----------



## Gin (Sep 4, 2013)

Fiona said:


> Your beliefs should be respected to a point.
> 
> Once they start making you discriminate against other people for no legitimate reason then your beliefs are gonna be tossed out the window as they should be.
> 
> Treating other human beings like crap because the magical book says so is ignorant beyond belief.


It goes against their religion.   That's a reason.   They're not making a cake, not "treating them like crap".

Calm down.


----------



## Gino (Sep 4, 2013)

ITT:Next time you better make that damn cake or else.


----------



## navy (Sep 4, 2013)

Curious...could a single person buy a cake from them?


----------



## Fiona (Sep 4, 2013)

Frost said:


> They did not want to make a cake for a gay wedding because they would be contributing to something they considered a sin.   This doesn't necessarily mean they "hate" gays.   I have relatives who are religious, while I am not.   Do they consider the fact that I am not somewhat "sinful"?   Probably.   Do they "hate" me for it?   Doubtful, they do a good job hiding it if they do.



Sure they can deny them the service. 

We saw what happened as a result of that choice. 

Closing the bakery down is a sad result, but it shouldnt have reached that point to begin with. 

If you discriminate your customers for no legitimate reason then you dont deserve to be in business


----------



## Godly Giraffe - King of the Uverworld (Sep 4, 2013)

People who quote religious verses are called hypocrites on the spot, but gays who raise up a stink that others won't plainly to vent against the religious, they usually let people who bring up their "treatment" of conservative America fall on deaf ears.


----------



## Fiona (Sep 4, 2013)

Frost said:


> It goes against their religion.   That's a reason.   They're not making a cake, not "treating them like crap".
> 
> Calm down.



They said that they couple was trying to commit their lives to sin and denyed them a service. 



> “I don’t want to help somebody celebrate a commitment to a lifetime of sin.”



Thats treating someone like crap just because their books say so.

That is ridiculous and has no place in our society.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 4, 2013)

Frost said:


> They did not want to make a cake for a gay wedding because they would be contributing to something they considered a sin.   This doesn't necessarily mean they "hate" gays.   I have relatives who are religious, while I am not.   Do they consider the fact that I am not somewhat "sinful"?   Probably.   Do they "hate" me for it?   Doubtful, they do a good job hiding it if they do.



They are running a business, that makes cakes. The only thing here is that their consumers happened to be gay. They were not active participants in the wedding. It was of no concern to them except when they chose to make it so.

They think it's a sin, so obviously they consider these people morally inferior to themselves.


----------



## Gin (Sep 4, 2013)

Fiona said:


> Sure they can deny them the service.
> 
> We saw what happened as a result of that choice.
> 
> ...


Their reason is that they believe being homosexual is sinful.   They can live and let live, and not subject gays to hatred, but *contributing* to a gay union is evidently crossing the line for them.   I don't believe in their reasons, but I do believe in their right to act according to their beliefs.

Just go to another shop.


----------



## Ceria (Sep 4, 2013)

navy said:


> Your example was fine Ceria, but the statement of you can deny anyone for anything is just plain false. Maybe you didnt mean it that way, but it's not the first time I've heard it.
> 
> The bakery doesnt have to take the job if it required them to somehow change the way they did business, but if it was just baking a cake then they ruined themselves for the wrong reason.



I'll go back and edit that, but yeah, they see it as an affront to their faith so they dig in and resist instead of making the logical choice and make the product.


----------



## navy (Sep 4, 2013)

Ken said:


> People who quote religious verses are called hypocrites on the spot, but gays who raise up a stink that others won't plainly to vent against the religious, they usually let people who bring up their "treatment" of conservative America fall on deaf ears.



You speaking gibberish. Need a nap?

This story in particular? Non news worthy. Even Fox had to throw it in the opinion section. But you shouldn't tolerate injustice, regardless if it is veiled behind religion. You shouldnt make death threats either. Unless we talkin Nazis and terrorist.


----------



## HolyHands (Sep 4, 2013)

Frost said:


> Just go to another shop.



That's pretty much what everybody did. Word spread that the bakery refuses service to gay couples, so customers responded by going to another shop, and now the bakery is out of business.

Some of the threats they got were out of line, but people DID speak with their wallet, just as you wanted.


----------



## The Great Oneddd (Sep 4, 2013)

Retards are retards acting in a retarded way. You don't screw over people because you don't like something about them. You do what's right and go on about your business.


----------



## Nep Nep (Sep 4, 2013)

Fiona said:


> They said that they couple was trying to commit their lives to sin and denyed them a service.
> 
> 
> *
> ...



The Bible doesn't say anything at all about treating "sinners" like crap, that's just idiots who have zero reading comprehension and access to a book far beyond their level. 

Don't blame the book, blame the fools who derive what they want to suit their needs from the book and use it as an excuse.


----------



## Fiona (Sep 4, 2013)

Frost said:


> *Their reason is that they believe being homosexual is sinful.   They can live and let live, and not subject gays to hatred, but contributing to a gay union is evidently crossing the line for them.*   I don't believe in their reasons, but I do believe in their right to act according to their beliefs.



If thats actually how they saw it then they are even more ignorant than that story portrays. 

Because clearly giving cake to a gay couple will condemn them in the eyes of their deity. 

Because that cake is now an instrument of the devil and will be consumed by heathens living their life of sin. 

Its a cake. 

Just bake it and worship your diety in peace. Dont discriminate against people for no reason.


----------



## Spock (Sep 4, 2013)

Alot of people do not realize how embarrassing and humiliating it is to be refused service. I've received shit service due to my skin color and obvious ethnic features that alludes to my cultural background, and I gotta say it was pretty humiliating. However it is not something to start a war over with the business owner, he may have lost you as a customer but you've gained nothing by sabotaging his business.


----------



## navy (Sep 4, 2013)

The Great One said:


> Retards are retards acting in a retarded way. You don't screw over people because you don't like something about them. You do what's right and go on about your business.



No. Otherwise you cant bring about change. If you want to screw someone over in this case a business you do it by refusing to buy their product and telling others who agree not to buy their product. There is nothing wrong about that. That is how you can bring about change to a business. Simply letting them go leads them to continue their ways.


----------



## Gino (Sep 4, 2013)

The LGBT community is undeserving of cake the message was quite clear.



Spock said:


> Alot of people do not realize how embarrassing and humiliating it is to be refused service. I've received shit service due to my skin color and obvious ethnic features that alludes to my cultural background, and I gotta say it was pretty humiliating. However it is not something to start a war over with the business owner, he may have lost you as a customer but you've gained nothing by sabotaging his business.



Similar thing happened to me in a Donut Shop Greenville Mississippi dude just straight up said he don't serve blacks I shrugged My uncle said fuck you then we left.


----------



## Gin (Sep 4, 2013)

HolyHands said:


> That's pretty much what everybody did. Word spread that the bakery refuses service to gay couples, so customers responded by going to another shop, and now the bakery is out of business.
> 
> Some of the threats they got were out of line, but people DID speak with their wallet, just as you wanted.





> Within days, militant homosexuals groups launched *protests* and boycotts. Klein told me he received *messages threatening to kill his family*. They hoped his children would die.


A lot more than just "going to another shop".   Absolutely disgusting behavior.

Deny a cake, receive death threats.   Must be a really good cake.


----------



## Spock (Sep 4, 2013)

Frost said:


> Deny a cake, receive death threats.   Must be a really good cake.



Interesting of you to say, *Frost*


----------



## Fiona (Sep 4, 2013)

I think the threats were too far but the boycott of the shop was perfectly justified.


----------



## Gin (Sep 4, 2013)

Spock said:


> However it is not something to start a war over with the business owner, he may have lost you as a customer but you've gained nothing by sabotaging his business.


This essentially.   In addition to their reason for not serving them going beyond mere prejudice.


----------



## Godly Giraffe - King of the Uverworld (Sep 4, 2013)

navy said:


> You speaking gibberish. Need a nap?
> 
> This story in particular? Non news worthy. Even Fox had to throw it in the opinion section. But you shouldn't tolerate injustice, regardless if it is veiled behind religion. You shouldnt make death threats either. Unless we talkin Nazis and terrorist.



Hardly gibberish in the sense that it's unintelligible or incoherent (other than being a comma splice)

What problem I have is that, like I said several pages back? (and unsurprisingly it got to be this long because of gay issues)

I couldn't care less for a gay couple feeling offended and discriminated. I also couldn't care less if this family "paid" for their actions, and learned those consequences the hard way. If it were only between the two of them it's just maybe a single household and a half's worth, and matters not. They make no difference. But like I said it's  a drop in the bucket of similar, and more austere incidents, about all of which are caused by personal disagreements between conservatives and gays. I want no part of it, neither do the ones getting threats of having their family businesses boycotted for dealing with this bakery. That's meager or nonexistent involvement, but they pay by association when they don't deserve to.

They leave me, and those others wrongly involved, alone. I go back to zero fucks being given on the tangent. They would too. Otherwise, they're the pests raising trouble and that is annoying.


----------



## navy (Sep 4, 2013)

Fiona said:


> I think the threats were too far but the boycott of the shop was perfectly justified.


This. I mean it was just cake...


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 4, 2013)

Frost said:


> A lot more than just "going to another shop".   Absolutely disgusting behavior.
> 
> Deny a cake, receive death threats.   Must be a really good cake.



Having a few idiots go out of line isn't nearly enough for them to go out of business, it's just like the wedding venue from a story a while back. Which is why I asked you what kind of idiot falls for the rhetoric they spout. They say they don't hate gays, but it's clear that they think them inferior, and that there's a lot of passive-aggressiveness behind it. People caught wind of it, stopped going to the shop, and capitalism did its thing.


----------



## Gin (Sep 4, 2013)

"It was just a cake" can be used on both sides.   One side had nothing to lose from going elsewhere, the other had their peace of mind that acting according to their religious beliefs brought them.


----------



## Mider T (Sep 4, 2013)

Freedan said:


> However, I also think the bakery had no practical reason to reject their request given they're a business, not a church. In the end, they're making money. Granted, this is trivial compared to what has been done to the bakery and forcing them to close down was not an appropriate response.



They're a private business, they reserve the right to refuse service.


----------



## HolyHands (Sep 4, 2013)

Well the thing is, if you decide to stop going to a store, you are in essence "sabotaging" their business.

It seems like gays are being put into a lose-lose situation here. If they go to a store, then they get refused service. If they don't go to a store, then they get attacked for "sabotaging" businesses. It seems like you guys just want to them keep quiet about it and not tell anyone, which I don't really understand. Word of mouth is, and has always been, one of the most omnipresent and important forms of advertisement for a company.

If your problem is that SOME of them sent death threats, then yes I agree that is going too far, but everything else is fair game.


----------



## The Great Oneddd (Sep 4, 2013)

navy said:


> No. Otherwise you cant bring about change. If you want to screw someone over in this case a business you do it by refusing to buy their product and telling others who agree not to buy their product. There is nothing wrong about that. That is how you can bring about change to a business. Simply letting them go leads them to continue their ways.



Really?  Are you kidding me? People were protesting because someone decided not to bake them a cake. So what you do is tell others not to go there and funnel business elsewhere. Not stand out in front of it and intimidate customers.


----------



## Fiona (Sep 4, 2013)

navy said:


> This. I mean it was just cake...



HEY FUCK YOU NAVY YOU PIECE OF SHIT. 

IT WAS A WEDDING CAKE! 

YOU THINK THATS UNIMPORTANT?! 

ILL CUT YOUR FACE OFF WITH A SPOON


----------



## Spock (Sep 4, 2013)

HolyHands said:


> Well the thing is, if you decide to stop going to a store, you are in essence "sabotaging" their business.
> 
> It seems like gays are being put into a lose-lose situation here. If they go to a store, then they get refused service. If they don't go to a store, then they get attacked for "sabotaging" businesses. It seems like you guys just want to them keep quiet about it and not tell anyone, which I don't really understand. Word of mouth is, and has always been, one of the most omnipresent and important forms of advertisement for a company.
> 
> If your problem is that SOME of them sent death threats, then yes I agree that is going too far, but everything else is fair game.



Strawmanning it up, eh? Sabotaging by not returning is different than sabotaging by forcing a business to close down.


----------



## Gino (Sep 4, 2013)

HolyHands said:


> Well the thing is, if you decide to stop going to a store, you are in essence "sabotaging" their business.
> 
> It seems like gays are being put into a lose-lose situation here. If they go to a store, then they get refused service. If they don't go to a store, then they get attacked for "sabotaging" businesses. It seems like you guys just want to them keep quiet about it and not tell anyone, which I don't really understand. Word of mouth is, and has always been, one of the most omnipresent and important forms of advertisement for a company.
> 
> If your problem is that SOME of them sent death threats, then yes I agree that is going too far, but everything else is fair game.



Hey you answer my question.........


----------



## Godly Giraffe - King of the Uverworld (Sep 4, 2013)

The death threats are unlikely to be carried out, but still illegal and call for appropriate charges. What actually irks me is that people of zero relevance to this incident were also given the brunt of their idiocy because they dealt with this bakery. And like always the amount of hateful letters, among them death threats, does show they went out of the line and then some.


----------



## Gin (Sep 4, 2013)

Deciding to not go yourself is fine.   Even telling close friends.   But informing the press, starting movements and encouraging protests, over a cake.   That's when it gets petty.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 4, 2013)

The Great One said:


> Really?  Are you kidding me? People were protesting because someone decided not to bake them a cake. So what you do is tell others not to go there and funnel business elsewhere. Not stand out in front of it and intimidate customers.



They didn't you ignoramus. 

As it appears, the threats they've been receiving have been on their facebook and website...



THOSE MILITANT GAY ACTIVISTS SO INTIMIDATING


----------



## Fiona (Sep 4, 2013)

Spock said:


> Strawmanning it up, eh? Sabotaging by not returning is different than sabotaging by forcing a business to close down.



If you dont return. 

The business doesnt make as much money. 

Thus forcing the business to close down


----------



## navy (Sep 4, 2013)

Ken said:


> Hardly gibberish in the sense that it's unintelligible or incoherent (other than being a comma splice)
> 
> What problem I have is that, like I said several pages back? (and unsurprisingly it got to be this long because of gay issues)
> 
> ...



More gibberish. When you post a decent left wing centered post, get back to me. 


*Spoiler*: __ 



Dude, nobody is denying the gay activist took what could have been a simple boycott overboard. But's let's not pretend like the initial boycott wasn't justified and the refusal of a damn cake was okay. They obviously gave this story enough juice for conservatives to use against them, had it just been a boycott I assure you this story or better yet opinion article by someone opposed to gay militants would have never seen the light of day.


----------



## HolyHands (Sep 4, 2013)

Spock said:


> Strawmanning it up, eh? Sabotaging by not returning is different than sabotaging by forcing a business to close down.



They didn't force the business to close down. The business lost customers and they closed down themselves. And keep it mind that it is illegal in the state of Oregon to refuse people based on orientation, so forcing the business to close would have been possible too.


----------



## Fiona (Sep 4, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> They didn't you ignoramus.
> 
> As it appears, the threats they've been receiving have been on their facebook and website...
> 
> ...



Kaiba come on man 

You cant post that kind of violence on the forum  

Reported.


----------



## Gino (Sep 4, 2013)

:ITT It was just cake.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 4, 2013)

Fiona said:


> Kaiba come on man
> 
> You cant post that kind of violence on the forum
> 
> Reported.



I heard they also gave away free cupcakes. Obviously part of the militant gay agenda.


----------



## Gino (Sep 4, 2013)

Fuck whoever 3 starred the thread.


----------



## navy (Sep 4, 2013)

That picture shows what I've been saying. I dont think for a second this story was big newsworthy. Just had some bad eggs that got reported and took over the whole story.


----------



## Spock (Sep 4, 2013)

HolyHands said:


> They didn't force the business to close down. The business lost customers and they closed down themselves. And keep it mind that it is illegal in the state of Oregon to refuse people based on orientation, so forcing the business to close would have been possible too.



That's not quite true, they were bombarded by mob tactics as stated. B2B establishments were threatened by LGBT organisations should they do business with Sweet Cakes. Thus in a sense, the business was sabotaged intentionally.

It is illegal? Well then the business should have faced persecution by the law not the mob.


----------



## Fiona (Sep 4, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I heard they also gave away free cupcakes. Obviously part of the militant gay agenda.



Those fiends. 

Did they smile and say "Your Welcome" after the people took them? 

Thats when you know they are out to kill you.


----------



## Godly Giraffe - King of the Uverworld (Sep 4, 2013)

navy said:


> More gibberish. When you post a decent left wing centered post, get back to me.



You know what it meant and you also know the subject of the matter, stop being petty there man. 



> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 4, 2013)

Spock said:


> That's not quite true, they were bombarded by mob tactics as stated. B2B establishments were threatened by LGBT organisations should they do business with Sweet Cakes. Thus in a sense, the business was sabotaged intentionally.
> 
> It is illegal? Well then the business should have faced persecution by the law not the mob.



No, the owner of the store claims that, but they also claim that death threats and harassment on *Facebook* forced them to shut down. Not to mention their message on their store window dripping with passive-aggressiveness. It was the fault of "the gays", and not an archaic business model the community caught wind of.


----------



## HolyHands (Sep 4, 2013)

Spock said:


> That's not quite true, they were bombarded by mob tactics as stated. B2B establishments were threatened by LGBT organisations should they do business with Sweet Cakes. Thus in a sense, the business was sabotaged intentionally.
> 
> It is illegal? Well then the business should have faced persecution by the law not the mob.



All of those things are basic boycott tactics, so I don't really see the problem. Mob tactics are a problem when it comes to the legal system, not with businesses.

EDIT: And as Kaiba showed with the picture, it was hardly a "mob" in the first place


----------



## Daxter (Sep 4, 2013)

> “I don’t want to help somebody celebrate a commitment to a lifetime of sin.”




Aaaaaaand any potential sympathy dissipates. 

Also lolFox. Fox articles are allowed to be posted? Well then.

Whatever, as I said in the last thread of this nature, if these people don't know how to run a business (ie. stfu and make a profit), then they deserve to close down, regardless of their beliefs. 

Aside from that, the interview video was just sad. They make me sad. "We feel discriminated against" - wow, they actually had the balls to say that. Wow.




Seto Kaiba said:


> They didn't you ignoramus.
> 
> As it appears, the threats they've been receiving have been on their facebook and website...
> 
> ...




 That language.... such cruel and angry language they used to protest... this is like Westboro level.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 4, 2013)

Daxter said:


> Aaaaaaand any potential sympathy dissipates.
> 
> Also lolFox. Fox articles are allowed to be posted? Well then.
> 
> ...



*LOANS NOW!!!*


----------



## Gino (Sep 4, 2013)

Yes let's all shit up the thread in harmony.


----------



## Godly Giraffe - King of the Uverworld (Sep 4, 2013)

The family is most definitely a moronic bunch. People who write death threats over this really need a chill pill though.


----------



## Fiona (Sep 4, 2013)

Gino said:


> Yes let's all shit up the thread in harmony.



The thread was shit the moment it was posted


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 4, 2013)

This is exactly the problem I have had with this section lately, since when was it permissible to post opinion pieces as a news source? Not to mention, as evident with the OP and those of his ilk, they didn't even bother to do their research on the matter. They simply went to the most available source that catered to their already existing views on the matter, and people too lazy or too inept, to notice that.

The threats they got were on FACEBOOK. The protests, like the one above, are pretty much all there were. With the way the owners describe it, you'd think a riot broke out. No, this is more of the same old same old, of Christians with their archaic beliefs crying foul because the times are leaving them behind.


----------



## Donquixote Doflamingo (Sep 4, 2013)

Its a cake. 

Make it and bring in some cash. 

Besides that point.

1. The owners have the right to make a cake for whoever they dame well please. 

2. What happens because of the owners or workers actions happens. 

Got to weigh the Pros and Cons people.


----------



## Fiona (Sep 4, 2013)

Donquixote Doflamingo said:


> 1. The owners have the right to make a cake for whoever they dame well please.



Except they dont. 

You cant offer a service and then discriminate against your customers based on some random belief on how you think they should be living their lives. 

Thats called discrimination and thats illegal.


----------



## Godly Giraffe - King of the Uverworld (Sep 4, 2013)

Pretty much all that's left to settle is where they were threatening to shut down those other people's shops tbh.

All that other crap about whether it's right to refuse people is meh.


----------



## Daxter (Sep 4, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> *LOANS NOW!!!*




Tbf, I'd love for this Christian couple to call this place for a loan to restart their fail business and these loan now people to be like 'we hope you understand, but we don't want to support a business committed to ignorance rooted in Christian faith' and then I'd love to see what they'd say.


----------



## Gino (Sep 4, 2013)

Guilty by association


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Sep 4, 2013)

Fiona said:


> Except they dont.
> 
> You cant offer a service and then discriminate against your customers based on some random belief on how you think they should be living their lives.
> 
> Thats called discrimination and thats illegal.



Like death threats?


----------



## Ceria (Sep 4, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> *LOANS NOW!!!*



*ANTIQUE JUNGLE *


----------



## navy (Sep 4, 2013)

Lee-Sensei said:


> Like death threats?



If they got death threats. Might have just been some douche bags saying they hoped the business owners died. Which isnt a threat. Legally.


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Sep 4, 2013)

navy said:


> If they got death threats. Might have just been some douche bags saying they hoped the business owners died. Which isnt a threat. Legally.



I have no reason to believe that they didn't get death threats.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 4, 2013)

Lee-Sensei said:


> I have no reason to believe that they didn't get death threats.



Online. Even they admit to that.


----------



## Mider T (Sep 4, 2013)

Fiona said:


> Except they dont.
> 
> You cant offer a service and then discriminate against your customers based on some random belief on how you think they should be living their lives.
> 
> Thats called discrimination and thats illegal.



They can't discriminate against them for being gay, they can refuse to make them a cake because they don't believe in gay marriage.


----------



## navy (Sep 4, 2013)

Lee-Sensei said:


> I have no reason to believe that they didn't get death threats.



Well the article started with homosexual militants so excuse me for being skeptical.


----------



## eHav (Sep 4, 2013)

Fiona said:


> Except they dont.
> 
> You cant offer a service and then discriminate against your customers based on some random belief on how you think they should be living their lives.
> 
> Thats called discrimination and thats illegal.



This bothers me tho. If a hobo went there smelling like ass, would they not want him to leave? If a drunk guy went in there, would they not want him to leave? Would you argue the hobo and the drunk have every right to go there and the owners have to put up with it? So why is it illegal when its someone the owner thinks doesnt belong there? Or someone that made them uncomfortable?

At least here you can deny service to anyone and present them the complaints book and if they are still not happy with it, then they can go bother someone else higher up on the scale.

Also, why is it that a club can deny to let someone get in on it, and a cake shop cant? serious question


People keep saying that fox is biased and thats why i put up another link in the op. mentions things in a more impartial way, tho no one bothered to read it i supose


----------



## navy (Sep 4, 2013)

Mider T said:


> They can't discriminate against them for being gay, they can refuse to make them a cake because they don't believe in gay marriage.



It might not hold up in court. Unless the cake required them to put up two bridesmaids or something on it.


----------



## Ben B (Sep 4, 2013)

Was all of this really necessary tough when there is a far easier alternative (in this case, going to a different shop on part of the homosexuals)?

I have about as much intellectual respect for religion as someone like Dawkins but this tendency amongst some atheist and LGBT activists to campaign against every single insignificant little thing that hurts their feelings (as another example, campaigning against formalisms that have little to no bearing on everyday life) seems to be a complete waste of time and unnecessary pedantry. 

It is also tends to make people lose sympathy for you; some forms of atheist and LBGT activism now resembles third wave feminism in its obsession to destroy anything and everything that fails to meet its group demands. Not every single being in the country is going to like you, deal with it.


----------



## Godly Giraffe - King of the Uverworld (Sep 4, 2013)

I've thought that very same thing about third wave feminists since it became politically incorrect to say ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) and gay.


----------



## MCTDread (Sep 4, 2013)

It's just sad. Why did it have to come to this


----------



## Gino (Sep 4, 2013)

MCTDread said:


> It's just sad. Why did it have to come to this



It was either gonna end with cake or with blood.......


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Sep 4, 2013)

navy said:


> Well the article started with homosexual militants so excuse me for being skeptical.



*Anyone* can be militant.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 4, 2013)

eHav said:


> This bothers me tho. If a hobo went there smelling like ass, would they not want him to leave? If a drunk guy went in there, would they not want him to leave? Would you argue the hobo and the drunk have every right to go there and the owners have to put up with it? So why is it illegal when its someone the owner thinks doesnt belong there? Or someone that made them uncomfortable?
> 
> At least here you can deny service to anyone and present them the complaints book and if they are still not happy with it, then they can go bother someone else higher up on the scale.
> 
> ...



Fucking uneducated...

it's because the drunk presents a safety issue, and it's illegal to be intoxicated in public to begin with, and the hobo that hasn't bathed presents a hygiene and sanitation issue. Being homosexual presents no issue in regard to health or safety of the individual or the public.


----------



## navy (Sep 4, 2013)

Lee-Sensei said:


> *Anyone* can be militant.



Because that's the point.......


----------



## Godly Giraffe - King of the Uverworld (Sep 4, 2013)

Hobos wouldn't have somewhere that'd let them bathe to begin with...


----------



## Kanga (Sep 4, 2013)

@eHav 

Its exactly what Seto said. 

There's a difference between dismissing someone for inappropriate behavior/misconduct as opposed to their sexual orientation, race, etc. One is justifiable, while the other isn't.


----------



## navy (Sep 4, 2013)

God provides rain so hobos can shower.


----------



## Godly Giraffe - King of the Uverworld (Sep 4, 2013)

Showering fully clothed is like having condom sex with someone who puts about 40 diaphragms in her pussy.


----------



## eHav (Sep 4, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Fucking uneducated...
> 
> it's because the drunk presents a safety issue, and it's illegal to be intoxicated in public to begin with, and the hobo that hasn't bathed presents a hygiene and sanitation issue. Being homosexual presents no issue in regard to health or safety of the individual or the public.



its not illegal to be drunk around here tho, so i dont have to exactly know how it goes down there. and how do you know if some normal person hasnt bathed in a while anyway? can you say anyone smelling bad is a sanitation issue? can you kick someone out if they smell bad? or if they have mud in their shoes?

if they refused to serve someone white because they simply didnt feel good with them being in their establishment, what then?are the costumers feelings more important than the owners?


----------



## navy (Sep 4, 2013)

I dont where you got the idea business owners could do whatever it is they want when it comes to who they provide service, but you should just erase it now and accept that it is not reality.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Sep 4, 2013)

Spock said:


> Alot of people do not realize how embarrassing and humiliating it is to be refused service. I've received shit service due to my skin color and obvious ethnic features that alludes to my cultural background, and I gotta say it was pretty humiliating. However it is not something to start a war over with the business owner, he may have lost you as a customer but you've gained nothing by sabotaging his business.



That's a very mature way to handle racism.  Don't forget to complain though. Racism must not be tolerated anywhere. I am definitely pro boycotts, just against death threats. Thing about these experiences is they come back to haunt the perpertrators in some way.


----------



## Unimportant (Sep 4, 2013)

The owners are shown saying that they have served homosexuals with cakes before, in case you missed that in the video.
Their moral dilemma was with the wedding itself, which they didn't want to service. I feel that they are well within their rights to do this.
In fact, they could have simply refused without giving a reason.

As a business owner, I'll tell you for sure that I have refused to do business with people, and it is legal (they rub me the wrong way, come off as aggressive, demand special/extraordinary service or payment terms, etc...). Personally, I've never discriminated against anyone for race, political stance, sexual orientation, or frankly any stupid reason like that. However, the point remains.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Sep 4, 2013)

Unimportant said:


> The owners are shown saying that they have served homosexuals with cakes before, in case you missed that in the video.
> Their moral dilemma was with the wedding itself, which they didn't want to service. I feel that they are well within their rights to do this.
> In fact, they could have simply refused without giving a reason.
> 
> *As a business owner, I'll tell you for sure that I have refused to do business with people, and it is legal*. Personally, I've never discriminated against anyone for race, political stance, sexual orientation, or frankly any stupid reason like that. However, the point remains.



Again it depends on why you're refusing them service.  You have to have a legitimate reason to do so.  I assume you haven't refused to do business with someone specifically because of their race or sexual orientation have you?

The fact that they've sold cakes to gay people in the past doesn't change the fact that they were being denied service specifically because they were gay.  This place serviced people who get married, just not if you were gay and getting married.  That's illegal.


----------



## eHav (Sep 4, 2013)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Again it depends on why you're refusing them service.  You have to have a legitimate reason to do so.  I assume you haven't refused to do business with someone specifically because of their race or sexual orientation have you?
> 
> The fact that they've sold cakes to gay people in the past doesn't change the fact that they were being denied service specifically because they were gay.  This place serviced people who get married, just not if you were gay and getting married.  That's illegal.



its a lil different to refuse service because "you're gay", than it is because "i dont want my business associated with your wedding"


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Sep 4, 2013)

eHav said:


> its a lil different to refuse service because "you're gay", than it is because "i dont want my business associated with your wedding"



Not when the only reason you don't want your business associated with the wedding is because "you're gay", nice try though.


----------



## eHav (Sep 4, 2013)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Not when the only reason you don't want your business associated with the wedding is because "you're gay", nice try though.



doesnt matter really. If a black guy went and got a cake for some party of his and the owners didnt want any association with it or their cake to be used in such a way, is it because the buyer was black? are they racist? 
its really easy to scream discrimitaion, but the truth is, they have every right to choose if they want their business associated with a gay wedding or not,just like they could not want their cake in some hetero person's wedding. but then it would be ok since you cant blame it on discrimination right?

its how things are nowdays isnt it..white guys beat up black/gay/asin/whatever minority and its a hate crime.
when it happens the other way around its just crime. feels like every way they can, the discrimination excuse always comes up. 

minority doesnt get their way? discriminated against. this shit is just as bad as those who discriminate on purpose


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 4, 2013)

eHav said:


> doesnt matter really. If a black guy went and got a cake for some party of his and the owners didnt want any association with it or their cake to be used in such a way, is it because the buyer was black? are they racist?
> its really easy to scream discrimitaion, but the truth is, they have every right to choose if they want their business associated with a gay wedding or not,just like they could not want their cake in some hetero person's wedding. but then it would be ok since you cant blame it on discrimination right?



If they say it's because he's black then of course. You're just rambling stupidity at this point; they refused service because the wedding was between gay individuals, and they have stated they object to homosexuality; they clearly view these individuals as being morally inferior to them.


----------



## Unimportant (Sep 4, 2013)

I don't think they refused to bake the cake because the patron was gay.
They simply didn't want to service a homosexual wedding due to their superstition.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Sep 4, 2013)

eHav said:


> doesnt matter really. If a black guy went and got a cake for some party of his and the owners didnt want any association with it or their cake to be used in such a way, is it because the buyer was black? are they racist?



If it is because he's black then  yes they are racist.  In this case they specifically said they didn't want to provide them service because they're two gay people getting married.



eHav said:


> its really easy to scream discrimitaion, *but the truth is, they have every right to choose if they want their business associated with a gay wedding or not*,just like they could not want their cake in some hetero person's wedding. but then it would be ok since you cant blame it on discrimination right?



And you're basing that on what exactly?  Again they can't deny service based solely on sexual orientation.  Its illegal.

What about that specifically are you having trouble with?


----------



## eHav (Sep 4, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> If they say it's because he's black then of course. You're just rambling stupidity at this point; they refused service because the wedding was between gay individuals, and they have stated they object to homosexuality; they clearly view these individuals as being morally inferior to them.



so if their problem is homosexuality only, how come they sell cakes to gay people?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 4, 2013)

Unimportant said:


> I don't think they refused to bake the cake because the patron was gay.
> They simply didn't want to service a homosexual wedding due to their superstition.



Their superstition reliant on the individuals being homosexual.


----------



## eHav (Sep 4, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Their superstition reliant on the individuals being homosexual.



being agaisnt gays is not the same as being against gay marriage.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 4, 2013)

They are against gay marriage because they find homosexuality immoral.


----------



## eHav (Sep 4, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> They are against gay marriage because they find homosexuality immoral.



Gay marriage isnt even legal in that state apparently. perhaps they dont want their cakes being associated with an ilegal wedding?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 4, 2013)

You'd have to be pretty thick to make that argument, especially since their reason is in the fucking article you posted; they object to gay marriage out of morality, not legality.

Who am I kidding? You only posted the article because you wanted something to affirm your pre-existing beliefs on this issue.


----------



## eHav (Sep 4, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> You'd have to be pretty thick to make that argument, especially since their reason is in the fucking article you posted; they object to gay marriage out of morality, not legality.



Maybe they find immoral to perform an ilegal wedding.
Point is, its quite easy to find reasons other than "we are agaisnt every gay" for them to have refused service, like not wanting to have their business associated with an ilegal wedding.

what existing beliefs? i think religions in general are a scam, and anyone that believes those fantasies is an idiot. and i dont care much about gays, gay marriage etc. 

what i care about is how discrimination is thrown around nowdays, and how people think they are entitled to anything because they feel they are discriminated. even when they arent.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 4, 2013)

You didn't even have a basic understanding of discrimination laws to make that argument.


----------



## Narcissus (Sep 4, 2013)

narutoXhinata=love said:


> ou can't choose to be black or a Hebrew. Homosexuality is a ideological difference.


No it isn't, because homosexuality is not a choice either.





eHav said:


> funny that you would call me ignorant while completelly failing to understand what i said


It's fucking clear what you said:“the LGBT being worse than the religious."​ And it was ignorant. Religious people have committed actual acts of violence against homosexuals, going so far as to kill them. This doesn't even begin to touch on what they have done to other groups. How dare you say the LGBT community is being worse when the extent of religious peoples' bigotry is so far beyond this story with a questionable source? Perhaps next time you put some actual thought into your comment before you post such garbage.


baconbits said:


> Religious people do worse than this?  Is this supposed to justify what happened in the story?  I'm not seeing what the point of your commentary is.


Well I'm glad you're agreeing that religious people do worse than what the story is claiming. But you fail at reading comprehension, which is unsurprising considering it's you.

The point is that the OP claimed this to be worse  than the religious, which is bullshit that can be easily demonstrated.


----------



## Aion Hysteria (Sep 4, 2013)

eHav said:


> Gay marriage isnt even legal in that state apparently. perhaps they dont want their cakes being associated with an ilegal wedding?



Oh.Please.
You're just going to pull out every excuse in the book aren't you?

They're against homosexuals, gays, ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".).

And to reply to the actual thread, boo fucking hoo.
Don't feel any sympathy for them.
​


----------



## Gino (Sep 4, 2013)

lol you emotional muthafucka's.


----------



## Godly Giraffe - King of the Uverworld (Sep 4, 2013)

_Unsurprisingly_, this thread became a huge shit by the time the religious vs. homos thing was focused on.


----------



## Sanity Check (Sep 4, 2013)

LGBT's boycott / harass a bakery.

As.

Westboro Baptist Church pickets the funerals of soldiers.

.

People aren't so dissimilar, after all.


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Sep 4, 2013)

> It's fucking clear what you said:
> “the LGBT being worse than the religious."
> And it was ignorant. Religious people have committed actual acts of violence against homosexuals, going so far as to kill them. This doesn't even begin to touch on what they have done to other groups. How dare you say the LGBT community is being worse when the extent of religious peoples' bigotry is so far beyond this story with a questionable source? Perhaps next time you put some actual thought into your comment before you post such garbage.



Not the ones in this article.


----------



## eHav (Sep 4, 2013)

Narcissus said:


> No it isn't, because homosexuality is not a choice either.It's fucking clear what you said:“the LGBT being worse than the religious."​ And it was ignorant. Religious people have committed actual acts of violence against homosexuals, going so far as to kill them. This doesn't even begin to touch on what they have done to other groups. How dare you say the LGBT community is being worse when the extent of religious peoples' bigotry is so far beyond this story with a questionable source? Perhaps next time you put some actual thought into your comment before you post such garbage.
> Well I'm glad you're agreeing that religious people do worse than what the story is claiming. But you fail at reading comprehension, which is unsurprising considering it's you.
> 
> The point is that the OP claimed this to be worse  than the religious, which is bullshit that can be easily demonstrated.



i see you still didnt understand what i said. usually the religious are the ones doing the harrassing and the bothering of others. this time it was the other way around. do you need a drawing perhaps?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 4, 2013)

Lee-Sensei said:


> Not the ones in this article.


----------



## Sanity Check (Sep 4, 2013)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> LGBT's boycott / harass a bakery.
> 
> As.
> 
> ...



ITT ↑

C'mon ppl.  Don't support the Westboro Baptist Church-esque actions of the LGBT militants.


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Sep 4, 2013)

I'm not missing the point at all.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 4, 2013)

eHav said:


> i see you still didnt understand what i said. usually the religious are the ones doing the harrassing and the bothering of others. this time it was the other way around. do you need a drawing perhaps?



Your point is based off your ignorance. The gay couple that were wronged are taking the appropriate action, the boycotts are appropriate actions; but a few anonymous individuals that harass someone online is nothing new nor noteworthy. I just provided a photo of the MILITANT HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS they were talking about, and the threats received were on their website and Facebook page. Other than that people simply stopped using their services when they caught wind of this story.


----------



## Fiona (Sep 4, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Your point is based off your ignorance. The gay couple that were wronged are taking the appropriate action, the boycotts are appropriate actions; but a few anonymous individuals that harass someone online is nothing new nor noteworthy. I just provided a photo of the MILITANT HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS they were talking about, and the threats received were on their website and Facebook page. Other than that people simply stopped using their services when they caught wind of this story.



This ^^^ 

Im not understanding how the hell so many people are missing this


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Sep 4, 2013)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> LGBT's boycott / harass a bakery.
> 
> As.
> 
> ...



WBC say, "God hates ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)!" That's not a threat. That's preaching the opinion of their god. As wrong as it is to say it, it's still a federally protected right.

LGBT boycott bakery. Good for them, that's perfectly normal expression of consumer power. They're crossing red lines when they threaten to kill the workers in the bakery as well as anyone who visits the bakery. That kind of action is criminal and certainly not protected by the law!

They need to be civilised. Problems can be resolved through calm dialogue. No need to go ape shit!

The LGBT community needs to be careful not to illegally manipulate the sympathy they're getting from people.

But you're right...people are still only human. Fucking replace them with machines! I've always dreamed of a machine-doll GF anyway! I wonder whether I'll one day be allowed to get married to a doll! No one understands human and machine love!  People like me are a minority within minorities!


----------



## Gino (Sep 4, 2013)

..............You're so fucked in the head I like it.


----------



## Jagger (Sep 4, 2013)

So all this fuss due a fucking cake? I have to say this is pretty retarded and pointless. Make them their cake, it's not like they're forcing them to attend the wedding nor to change their beliefs about sexuality, they're just requesting them what they work for; bake cakes.  There was literally no point in denying them.

And lol "Militant Homosexual activists"?


----------



## Narcissus (Sep 4, 2013)

Lee-Sensei said:


> Not the ones in this article.


The ones in this article still aren't anywhere near as bad as religious bigots.





eHav said:


> i see you still didnt understand what i said. usually the religious are the ones doing the harrassing and the bothering of others. this time it was the other way around. do you need a drawing perhaps?


I understand what  you said just fine. Your backpedaling doesn't change that.

 You specifically said  that  LGBT was being *WORSE* than religious people. And that is demonstrably false. You seem to be conceding the point, even if you don't admit it, which would be the only intelligent course of action you've taken in this thread.


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Sep 5, 2013)

> The ones in this article still aren't anywhere near as bad as religious bigots.



Which has nothing to do with the Christians in this article.


----------



## hadou (Sep 5, 2013)

Overreaction over the issue. Simple as that.


----------



## Narcissus (Sep 5, 2013)

Lee-Sensei said:


> Which has nothing to do with the Christians in this article.



I don't care about the Christians in this article. I  have no sympathy for them, and I was responding to a claim that the LGBT  community was being worse than religious people. Even if I considered the boycott to be bad, the claim was made in a general sense and is clearly false.


----------



## Godly Giraffe - King of the Uverworld (Sep 5, 2013)

I'm not really even sure if Narcissus actually has the ability to read or if he just cherrypicks.

If you scroll through the OP (which for some reason he's griping about, when I don't remember him posting that again), you'll see it was made in the present tense and specifically addressed this particular incident. Not past transgressions of gays having their asses handed to them.

edit: for that matter he even admitted right away that it's usually the religious who beat them up for being "^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)," what is there to be mad about?


----------



## Narcissus (Sep 5, 2013)

BTW, I will be ignoring Ken and advise others to do the same. He is a troll and his opinion is worthless. Besides which, I'm sure he's still upset about his ban.


----------



## Godly Giraffe - King of the Uverworld (Sep 5, 2013)

5 day ban ain't exactly 400 years, I ain't that emotional :/


----------



## Wilykat (Sep 5, 2013)

So about a dozen people are out job because they wanted to follow Bible and not offer service to LBGT.

Good job LBGT, I hope they considered financial hardship they caused to a few people.


----------



## Daxter (Sep 5, 2013)

The fault lies in the owners' faulty business strategies.


----------



## Roman (Sep 5, 2013)

Narcissus said:


> No it isn't, because homosexuality is not a choice either.It's fucking clear what you said:“the LGBT being worse than the religious."​ And it was ignorant. Religious people have committed actual acts of violence against homosexuals, going so far as to kill them. This doesn't even begin to touch on what they have done to other groups. How dare you say the LGBT community is being worse when the extent of religious peoples' bigotry is so far beyond this story with a questionable source? Perhaps next time you put some actual thought into your comment before you post such garbage.



Yes, religious societies, particularly Abrahamic ones, have done much worse than this to homosexuals throughout history. But make no mistake, this doesn't give homosexuals the right to go to such an extent when someone refuses to offer services. They were 100% correct in saying the store had no right to refuse to provide services given it was for discriminatory reasons, but this could've been dealt with much better with the couple reporting them to proper authorities/sue them/whatever is done in cases like these and go to another shop instead of making it such a sensational headline. 

Now instead, you have people not involved with the decision making regarding who to serve and who not to serve out of a job in a country where finding one has become extremely difficult.


----------



## Godly Giraffe - King of the Uverworld (Sep 5, 2013)

And to add to what Freedan said, how is making such a hassle out of a family's living that they were barred from it a suitable response? And how does that not make one militant? Even if the death threats weren't sent personally these vengeful people took retaliation to insurmountable heights.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Sep 5, 2013)

1. Businesses should have a right to refuse you service for any reason they see fit. 

2. You have a right to take your money elsewhere. 

3. You also have a right to protest. 

4. Protests shouldn't include personal threats. 

5. Gays need to stop assuming that everyone has to accept them for them to have rights, they keep fighting small battles like this where no one did them physical harm. They were refused a fucking service, one that was over priced and they would be paying people who are *fundamentally against them to do it*. Give your money to someone who likes you at least. 

6. Christians need to realize that flat out refusing to serve gays doesn't do the lord's work and all it does is make them lose money.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 5, 2013)

I don't believe there were actual death threats, probably just whiny bigots blowing things out of proportion just like the time that wedding venue refused to organize a wedding after they found out that their clients were gay.


----------



## Unimportant (Sep 5, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> 1. Businesses should have a right to refuse you service for any reason they see fit.
> 
> 2. You have a right to take your money elsewhere.
> 
> ...


End thread.


----------



## eHav (Sep 5, 2013)

Narcissus said:


> I don't care about the Christians in this article. I  have no sympathy for them, and I was responding to a claim that the LGBT  community was being worse than religious people. Even if I considered the boycott to be bad, the claim was made in a general sense and is clearly false.



except it wasnt and you seem to be the only one reading it wrong. so shut it already


----------



## Narcissus (Sep 5, 2013)

Freedan said:


> Yes, religious societies, particularly Abrahamic ones, have done much worse than this to homosexuals throughout history. But make no mistake, this doesn't give homosexuals the right


Ignoring the extremely biased and dishonest way in which the article is written, as well as  the source,  the lesbian couple acted within their rights. Besides which, no one said that the way religious people have treated the LGBT community gives them any right. It was said  refute the claim that they were acting worse than religious people.





> this could've been dealt with much better with the couple reporting them to proper authorities


That's exactly what they did.“the lesbian couple filed a discrimination with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries and told their story to local newspapers and television statements."​They reported them and exposed them. All of which they had the right  to do. They don't control how others respond to the news.

I'm sorry Freedan, but  I do not feel an ounce of sympathy for anyone who indulges in  discriminatory bigotry and then tries to play the victim card when exposed. It would be the same as if this was a racist business owner who refused service to a black couple, then cried about standing up for his beliefs when exposed as  racist when people stop supporting his business.





eHav said:


> except it wasnt and you seem to be the only one reading it wrong.


Clearly not, seeing as others agreed with me. Backpedaling doesn't help you.


----------



## PrimalRage (Sep 5, 2013)

♚Sōsuke Aizen♚ said:


> WBC say, "God hates ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)!" That's not a threat. That's preaching the opinion of their god. As wrong as it is to say it, it's still a federally protected right.
> 
> LGBT boycott bakery. Good for them, that's perfectly normal expression of consumer power. They're crossing red lines when they threaten to kill the workers in the bakery as well as anyone who visits the bakery. That kind of action is criminal and certainly not protected by the law!
> 
> ...



Not sure if you mean it that way, but the wording has been bothering me...

The LGBT is a diverse demographic of individuals and not a single-minded entity. You shouldn't see the actions of a few people who _happen_ to be LGBT and try and judge the entire community by it. Personally, if it was me in that situation, I wouldn't even give a darn; too much of a hassle to boycott.

To put it into perspective, look at how different heterosexuals are from each other. Religion, politics, race, social class, etc... it's the same for the LGBT. There are a few issues we have in common like wanting rights, coming out, and certain culture stereotypes that have gained a life of their own but for the most part everyone is different.


----------



## eHav (Sep 5, 2013)

Narcissus said:


> Clearly not, seeing as others agreed with me. Backpedaling doesn't help you.



who did? who else thought i ment it about every LGBT and every religious EVER? because they have some serious reading comprehension issues aswell then.


----------



## Roman (Sep 5, 2013)

Narcissus said:


> Ignoring the extremely biased and dishonest way in which the article is written, as well as  the source,  the lesbian couple acted within their rights. Besides which, no one said that the way religious people have treated the LGBT community gives them any right. It was said  refute the claim that they were acting worse than religious people.



Fair enough about them acting "worse" than religious organizations have in the past and the present to a lesser extent.



Narcissus said:


> That's exactly what they did.?the lesbian couple filed a discrimination with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries and *told their story to local newspapers and television statements*."​They reported them and exposed them. All of which they had the right  to do. They don't control how others respond to the news.



The bolded part is where it gets excessive. Maybe it was within their right to report it to the newspaper, but personal grievances with a business are best handled exactly that way: personally. Reporting them to the newspaper had consequences even for people not at all involved with the decision making process of the business and now have to struggle looking for work when they didn't deserve it. Reporting them to the authorities was all that was needed to be done. Reporting them to the newspapers was excessive.



Narcissus said:


> I'm sorry Freedan, but  I do not feel an ounce of sympathy for anyone who indulges in  discriminatory bigotry and then tries to play the victim card when exposed. It would be the same as if this was a racist business owner who refused service to a black couple, then cried about standing up for his beliefs when exposed as  racist when people stop supporting his business.Clearly not, seeing as others agreed with me. Backpedaling doesn't help you.



I agree with you about bigots who discriminate, but what I would like to know is why people not involved in making the decision not to serve them (the cooks, the waiters, any other staff member who would not make such decisions) also had to pay for the faults of the few. Suing them/reporting them to the authorities was already enough.


----------



## Ao Thurston (Sep 5, 2013)

Freedan said:


> Fair enough about them acting "worse" than religious organizations have in the past and the present to a lesser extent.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Newspapers did their job. 

In 20-30s, under the fascism and nazism, the most widespread way to discriminate was to refuse service. Outside shops, here in Italy, they displayed signs that banned whoever wasn't arian, or wasn't enough "italian".



There is no difference between discrimination against races and discrimination against orientation. We did not choose to be born not-straight. And even if we chose, our Constitution says we're all equal to law, whether we are commies, liberals, neoarchists or whatever, whether we are married or not, students, unemployed, workers, whatever.

So why tolerate a group which is doing exactly what fascism did to hebrews, whites did to other non-whites, and so on?

What's the difference between the theory of races, and the theory that homosexuality is a sin and must be persecuted?


Let me also quote Niem?ller;



> First they came for the communists,
> and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
> 
> Then they came for the socialists,
> ...


----------



## Hitt (Sep 5, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> 1. Businesses should have a right to refuse you service for any reason they see fit.


Except when the reason is due to race or (in Oregon) sexual orientation.  Civil Rights Act spells this out.



> 2. You have a right to take your money elsewhere.


Which they did.



> 3. You also have a right to protest.


Others did that.  The lesbian couple didn't.



> 4. Protests shouldn't include personal threats.


Those that made the threats were not necessarily the people that did the protesting.  Remember, facebook.  Land of the crap.



> 5. Gays need to stop assuming that everyone has to accept them for them to have rights, they keep fighting small battles like this where no one did them physical harm. They were refused a fucking service, one that was over priced and they would be paying people who are *fundamentally against them to do it*. Give your money to someone who likes you at least.


Take this paragraph, and replace "gays" with "coloreds".  Now go back to the 1960s.  This was the exact same thing said.  Exact same.



> 6. Christians need to realize that flat out refusing to serve gays doesn't do the lord's work and all it does is make them lose money.


And increasingly will cost you your business.  You won't get destroyed as badly as if you are openly racist...at least not yet, but as tolerance expands to LGBT as it has to minorities, this kind of story will become increasingly common.


----------



## HolyHands (Sep 5, 2013)

Freedan said:


> The bolded part is where it gets excessive. Maybe it was within their right to report it to the newspaper, but personal grievances with a business are best handled exactly that way: personally. Reporting them to the newspaper had consequences even for people not at all involved with the decision making process of the business and now have to struggle looking for work when they didn't deserve it. Reporting them to the authorities was all that was needed to be done. Reporting them to the newspapers was excessive..



Why is it excessive? You do realize that this is what people do ALL the time right? If a business provides bad service, you can bet your ass that they're going to get bad reviews and bad feedback that will rapidly spread across the media. And if that bad service is based on discrimination, you can bet your ass that that customer is going to make sure that the news is informed about it. Losing your business is the consequence of bad service. I find it very concerning that people complain about unfair businesses and not bat an eye, yet suddenly go berserk because it's a LGBT that does it.

If the couple had simply reported them to the authorities, then they would have gotten shut down, and those innocent cooks/waiters/etc. would lose their job anyway. Apparently it seems like most people in this thread are have only just realized that a company going out of business tends to have negative fallout for its innocent employees. If you want to blame someone, blame the business owners who let their religion get in the way of doing their job. They should have just given them the damn cake, or at the very least apologize when called out on it.

The lesbian couple did everything we advise ANY citizen to do when they encounter a discriminatory business. The only bad thing going public has done was make the bakery get a couple of online threats, which I can guarantee were the result of a couple trolls, and not the "evil gay agenda" that this article tries to make it out to be.


----------



## Roman (Sep 5, 2013)

Point taken. I concede my argument. It's true that even if it had not been reported to the public, the place would've been shut down anyways.


----------



## Ao Thurston (Sep 5, 2013)

HolyHands said:


> The lesbian couple did everything we advise ANY citizen to do when they encounter a discriminatory business. The only bad thing going public has done was make the bakery get a couple of online threats, which I can guarantee were the result of a couple trolls, and not the "evil gay agenda" that this article tries to make it out to be.



^
Like, you know, those kind of threats most LGBT receive everyday, which in Russia are also applied in real, specially thanks to the "so-called" police.


----------



## Godly Giraffe - King of the Uverworld (Sep 5, 2013)

Jesus christ, the colored folks vs. lgbt comparisons won't cease huh?

Once you have homosexuals being refused the right to be seated at the bus or train all over the country, to use sanitary restrooms provided to the general public, or be ran out of school so severely that the president takes action, it'd be valid. As it is now it's a pale comparison that the self-righteous and bitter dregs of the human race always make, and people focusing on a family business refusing service when the gay couple financially ruined them for a cake is honestly stupid. There's people that are defiled by authority figures and have copious evidence to back it up, and often they get the short end of the stick. You'd figure to raise up such discord, they'd have had their elbows hammered down or got tortured or mutilated or something.


----------



## Narcissus (Sep 5, 2013)

I'm glad to see this  thread is taking a much better direction. Nice to see so many people seeing the truth of the situation.





Freedan said:


> Point taken. I concede my argument. It's true that even if it had not been reported to the public, the place would've been shut down anyways.



I hate disagreeing with you Freedan. You're such a level-headed guy. However,  the only other point I want to make is that it is terrible that anyone who worked there and wasn't involved with the decision is now out  of a job. But I don't for a second blame the lesbian couple. I blame the bakery owners. It was their bigotry that resulted in the boycott and the bakery's closing, and if they cared enough about their employees they shouldn't have placed them in the situation with their discrimination. And the owners aren't even sorry about it.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Sep 5, 2013)

Ken said:


> Jesus christ, the colored folks vs. lgbt comparisons won't cease huh?
> 
> Once you have homosexuals being refused the right to be seated at the bus or train all over the country, to use sanitary restrooms provided to the general public, or be ran out of school so severely that the president takes action, it'd be valid. As it is now it's a pale comparison that the self-righteous and bitter dregs of the human race always make, and people focusing on a family business refusing service when the gay couple financially ruined them for a cake is honestly stupid. There's people that are defiled by authority figures and have copious evidence to back it up, and often they get the short end of the stick. You'd figure to raise up such discord, they'd have had their elbows hammered down or got tortured or mutilated or something.



Damn it! I was going to rep you for this post!


----------



## Godly Giraffe - King of the Uverworld (Sep 5, 2013)

♚Sōsuke Aizen♚ said:


> Damn it! I was going to rep you for this post!



People got into the habit of possing me to negate my massive red , mods took that all away. so no can do now


----------



## Roman (Sep 5, 2013)

Narcissus said:


> I'm glad to see this  thread is taking a much better direction. Nice to see so many people seeing the truth of the situation.
> 
> I hate disagreeing with you Freedan. You're such a level-headed guy. However,  the only other point I want to make is that it is terrible that anyone who worked there and wasn't involved with the decision is now out  of a job. But I don't for a second blame the lesbian couple. I blame the bakery owners. It was their bigotry that resulted in the boycott and the bakery's closing, and if they cared enough about their employees they shouldn't have placed them in the situation with their discrimination. And the owners aren't even sorry about it.



I still feel bad about the people not involved with the decision losing their job and that they have been wronged, but you are right that it's not the couple's fault for it. I agree that the ones who did wrong their workers were the owners. I did also say this before and in the previous thread dealing with this issue: it's bad business to refute anyone so it is on them in the end.


----------



## Ao Thurston (Sep 5, 2013)

Ken said:


> Jesus christ, the colored folks vs. lgbt comparisons won't cease huh?
> 
> Once you have homosexuals being refused the right to be seated at the bus or train all over the country, to use sanitary restrooms provided to the general public, or be ran out of school so severely that the president takes action, it'd be valid. As it is now it's a pale comparison that the self-righteous and bitter dregs of the human race always make, and people focusing on a family business refusing service when the gay couple financially ruined them for a cake is honestly stupid. There's people that are defiled by authority figures and have copious evidence to back it up, and often they get the short end of the stick. You'd figure to raise up such discord, they'd have had their elbows hammered down or got tortured or mutilated or something.



When you are a business you need to comply with the law. That business did not comply. It's their fault. There is no "tolerable discrimination". Discrimination is ALWAYS something bad.


----------



## Thor (Sep 5, 2013)

I'm not surprised. Why do you think 90% of the prison population are homosexuals??


----------



## Banhammer (Sep 5, 2013)

Oh look, a thread about gays full of people with a stick up their asses

World, you are such a beautiful place


----------



## Narcissus (Sep 5, 2013)

Ignore Ken and Thor. They're both (bad) trolls.





Freedan said:


> I still feel bad about the people not involved with the decision losing their job and that they have been wronged, but you are right that it's not the couple's fault for it. I agree that the ones who did wrong their workers were the owners. I did also say this before and in the previous thread dealing with this issue: it's bad business to refute anyone so it is on them in the end.


Assuming they don't share their boss's views, I feel bad for them too. And there are legitimate reasons to refuse business, but discrimination isn't one. So yeah, the fault falls on the owners and not the couple.


----------



## Banhammer (Sep 5, 2013)

Also, source: Foxnews

Mugga, please


----------



## Unimportant (Sep 5, 2013)

Thor said:


> I'm not surprised. Why do you think 90% of the prison population are homosexuals??


Wow, that was witty.


----------



## Godly Giraffe - King of the Uverworld (Sep 5, 2013)

Ao Thurston said:


> When you are a business you need to comply with the law. That business did not comply. It's their fault. There is no "tolerable discrimination". Discrimination is ALWAYS something bad.



Sure it's bad. But if I simply yelled, "get fucked!" it'd be telling the guy off. If I went through the trouble of sodomizing him with a broom (disgusting as that is), it'd be an actual assault. If they refused the cake, they just showed their religion teaches gay weddings are bad, and they're unwilling to change their ways. If they corrective raped the lesbians they do belong in ruins. (And 6 years in jail) Simple. You don't go and get arrested for throwing a punch if you don't actually punch them. Punishment should fit the severity of the crime.


----------



## Banhammer (Sep 5, 2013)

I also feel bad for all the jews who lost their job once the "My Little Nazi" factory closed down, but you know what, factories close down all the time when at the hands of incompetent managers, and people who manage a product for a social event should have half a fucking brain when managing a social issue


----------



## Banhammer (Sep 5, 2013)

I'm rather curious though, how did the LGBT manage to close down a bakery?

Did they quietly stole in to their donut section one morning, all in white hoods and fashionable shoes and just as a wholesome family went in to get their breakfast, started FUCKING EACH OTHER IN THE ASS?


----------



## mlc818 (Sep 5, 2013)

Threats are completely inappropriate, and should be investigated as such, but the simple fact is that as a business they are legally prohibited from discriminating.  The threats can't really be used to tar the LGBT movement or even the boycotts, as the threats are inappropriate actions by individuals taking things too far and would never be supported or advocated by most of these activists.

If this man can refuse service because of his beliefs, then another man can refuse service to religious or ethnic minorities because he doesn't like them.  No one would be defending the business owner if he had refused to bake for an interracial couple due to not believing in miscegenation, so if you look at the issue that way you'll realize that it is indeed appropriate for this business to be legally compelled to treat all people equally.

As to his "right to refuse service," he moved beyond that right by making it clear that this refusal was due to his disagreement with the couple's sexuality and marriage which then makes this an issue of discrimination.  If he's too "Christian" to treat all people equally, then I personally couldn't care in the least if he loses his business or faces a lawsuit since he clearly is too "Christian" to operate a public business without illegally discriminating.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 5, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> Also, source: Foxnews
> 
> Mugga, please



Even worse an opinion piece. I think this thread is a good example of what damage an unreliable source can do to a discussion. It's evident that even the OP didn't read much more than the opinion piece, not to mention half the people that responded.


----------



## Banhammer (Sep 5, 2013)

eHav, of all people, doing a sub-par job on such an  intellectual exercise as discussing the news?
_Perish the thought_


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Sep 5, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> I'm rather curious though, how did the LGBT manage to close down a bakery?
> 
> Did they quietly stole in to their donut section one morning, all in white hoods and fashionable shoes and just as a wholesome family went in to get their breakfast, started FUCKING EACH OTHER IN THE ASS?



Well I don't think they did that and the sarcasm is very strong in this one. The report states they received threats they didn't release them oh well. I'm sure the words "militant homosexuals" makes you laugh but there are extremists in all aspects of life.


----------



## Banhammer (Sep 5, 2013)

Yeah, I'm sure their dumbass didn't just bankrupt and then they blamed the gays for it, that other thing where they wreck their entire way of life as a religious statement is way more legit


----------



## Gino (Sep 5, 2013)

Same ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) in the thread crying.


----------



## Hand Banana (Sep 5, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> I'm rather curious though, how did the LGBT manage to close down a bakery?
> 
> Did they quietly stole in to their donut section one morning, all in white hoods and fashionable shoes and just as a wholesome family went in to get their breakfast, started FUCKING EACH OTHER IN THE ASS?


----------



## Havoc (Sep 5, 2013)

Gays are destroying this country.


----------



## Godly Giraffe - King of the Uverworld (Sep 5, 2013)

Well when they destroy businesses they destroy the economy, no? Close enough.


----------



## Vasto Lorde King (Sep 5, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> I'm rather curious though, how did the LGBT manage to close down a bakery?
> 
> Did they quietly stole in to their donut section one morning, all in white hoods and fashionable shoes and just as a wholesome family went in to get their breakfast, started FUCKING EACH OTHER IN THE ASS?


----------



## Xyloxi (Sep 5, 2013)

narutoXhinata=love said:


> Well I don't think they did that and the sarcasm is very strong in this one. The report states they received threats they didn't release them oh well. I'm sure the words "militant homosexuals" makes you laugh but there are extremists in all aspects of life.



Get back to me when gays start throwing acid in the faces of clergymen and women just to get their message across.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Sep 5, 2013)

Xyloxi said:


> Get back to me when gays start throwing acid in the faces of clergymen and women just to get their message across.



Trivalising crimes by comparison to worse crimes. So basically you're saying it's ok to shoot 50 random people just as long as it's not as evil as the genocide of 6 million jews.


----------



## Ao Thurston (Sep 5, 2013)

It's quite good to know that trolls and worst are not an exclusive of european forums...



♚Sōsuke Aizen♚ said:


> Trivalising crimes by comparison to worse crimes. So basically you're saying it's ok to shoot 50 random people just as long as it's not as evil as the genocide of 6 million jews.



In the name of the militant homosexuals & co., I condemn you to be tolerated and loved 'till death!


----------



## Gino (Sep 5, 2013)

How about you guys stop calling people trolls and put them in the ground with your superior logic......


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Sep 5, 2013)

Gino said:


> How about you guys stop calling people trolls and put them in the ground with your superior logic......


Why waste your time? Thor doesn't even believe in the truth and Ken acts like a twelve year old who thinks just because his balls finally dropped that he's cool enough to say ^ (use bro) and ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) once a sentence in every post. 

Why engage these people?


----------



## Xyloxi (Sep 5, 2013)

♚Sōsuke Aizen♚ said:


> Trivalising crimes by comparison to worse crimes. So basically you're saying it's ok to shoot 50 random people just as long as it's not as evil as the genocide of 6 million jews.



Not exactly, my point was more so that LGBT activists can in some cases be annoying, but the term militant homosexuals applies just as well as militant atheists applies to people who write books and post on the internet.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Sep 5, 2013)

> A family-owned Christian bakery, under investigation for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple, *has been forced to close its doors after a vicious boycott* by militant homosexual activists



Yeah if they go with people have the right to not serve certain customers, customers have the right to not go buy things from them. Also lol at "militant"


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 5, 2013)

Tranquil you've got to understand, they were giving out free cupcakes in protest! Obviously the sign of unhinged extremists. It's devastating. They went too far.


----------



## Banhammer (Sep 5, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> I'm rather curious though, how did the LGBT manage to close down a bakery?
> 
> Did they quietly stole in to their donut section one morning, all in white hoods and fashionable shoes and just as a wholesome family went in to get their breakfast, started FUCKING EACH OTHER IN THE ASS?



Huge question you guys.


----------



## Banhammer (Sep 5, 2013)

I mean, how do blowjobs scare a baker so hard he'll close down his shop, but not hard enough that he'll bake a cake for them?


----------



## WT (Sep 5, 2013)

Serious post guys:

Did the shop owners outrightly refuse the gay couple because they were gay or did they refuse to make a cake with dicks on them? 

If it was the former, that's pretty fucking stupid. Personally, I wouldn't care whose buying stuff off me, everyone's welcome. If however, they asked personalised cakes with dicks on them, I'd simply reply by saying that we don't have the talent to do such things and leave it at that.

Yeah, I haven't read the OP tl;dr


----------



## Banhammer (Sep 5, 2013)

the dicks would have been pretty amazing, but
They're lesbians


----------



## Godly Giraffe - King of the Uverworld (Sep 5, 2013)

Eating a pussy cake when you have fresh, available pussy that's about to go on a honeymoon... sounds pretty desperate, I'd say.


----------



## Fiona (Sep 5, 2013)

> logs in during class to check something 

> Sees cafe 

This shit is still going on


----------



## Godly Giraffe - King of the Uverworld (Sep 5, 2013)

Banhammer won't let it die, but I'm unsubscribing.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Sep 5, 2013)

Fiona said:


> > logs in during class to check something
> 
> > Sees cafe
> 
> This shit is still going on


Yes, the Cafe's been going on for about 2005. It never stops.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Sep 5, 2013)

Dick cakes?Reminds me of that one episode of Friends with Ross and Rachel getting a cake for their daughter.


----------



## Fiona (Sep 5, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Yes, the Cafe's been going on for about 2005. It never stops.



It stops whenever their is a new Israel/LGTB/Muslim/Florida/Racism thread. 

Then the troll and degenerates go there to heckle the posters. 

With people like Ken, Ichi, and Thor the list of trolls and degenerates gets longer as the list of posters gets shorter 





Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Why waste your time? Thor doesn't even believe in the truth and Ken acts like a twelve year old who thinks just because his balls finally dropped that he's cool enough to say ^ (use bro) and ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) once a sentence in every post.
> 
> Why engage these people?



Im repping you for this


----------



## Banhammer (Sep 5, 2013)

Oh god, what if those lesbians had instead asked the man to bake




A cherry pie


----------



## Fiona (Sep 5, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> Oh god, what if those lesbians had instead asked the man to bake
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## WT (Sep 5, 2013)

Personally, I'd bake a vagina or tits for lesbians. Gays can fuck off. Yeah, I'm bigoted like that 

Lesbians are okay only if they're pretty.


----------



## Fiona (Sep 5, 2013)

White Tiger said:


> Personally, I'd bake a vagina or tits for lesbians. Gays can fuck off. Yeah, I'm bigoted like that
> 
> Lesbians are okay only if they're pretty.


----------



## Hand Banana (Sep 5, 2013)

As a troll, I take offense to all the troll hating when we also have and not limited to:


Far left and right
Feminists
Jews
Nationalists
Pedophiles
Muslims and people of terrorist descent
Blue
People who dickride china even tho they from Sweden

Gotta be careful when calling someone a troll.


----------



## Narcissus (Sep 5, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> eHav, of all people, doing a sub-par job on such an  intellectual exercise as discussing the news?
> _Perish the thought_


Precisely. Despite eHav's claims that he has no problem with the LGBT community, his posts in previous threads say otherwise. Those posts are so profoundly idiotic. Not to mention it's obvious what he was trying to do with this thread, even though he failed miserably.





Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Why waste your time? Thor doesn't even believe in the truth and Ken acts like a twelve year old who thinks just because his balls finally dropped that he's cool enough to say ^ (use bro) and ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) once a sentence in every post.
> 
> Why engage these people?


This as well. Thor is an obvious troll who is trying to stir up drama. Ken is someone who would have homosexuals in chains if he could. Thankfully, and much to his rage, the LGBT community has achieved such a state of acceptance that he is fighting a losing battle, and they are only gaining more acceptance. Thus, his intolerance is worthless.





Seto Kaiba said:


> Tranquil you've got to understand, they were giving out free cupcakes in protest! Obviously the sign of unhinged extremists. It's devastating. They went too far.


Seto.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Sep 5, 2013)

Hand Banana said:


> As a troll, I take offense to all the troll hating when we also have and not limited to:
> 
> 
> Far left and right
> ...



You forgot paranoid conspiracy theorists.


----------



## Doge (Sep 5, 2013)

I hope it was all worth ruining another person's livelihood.


----------



## The Great Oneddd (Sep 5, 2013)

kresh said:


> I hope it was all worth ruining another person's livelihood.



There are many members here on this forum that think it was justified.  But then I have to ask what if the situation were reversed.  Where it was a lesbian couple that owned a bakery but shut down due to customers being driven away because of a religious group constantly persuading customers to go elsewhere.


----------



## Banhammer (Sep 5, 2013)

If the lesbians refused to make a wedding cake for a straight couple? You bet your ass I'd be against them

false equivalence fallacy sweetie, your kung fu is too weak


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 5, 2013)

I think a certain level of intelligence is required before one attempts to 'turn the tables' in a discussion.


----------



## Gino (Sep 5, 2013)

If the situation was reversed it would not be getting the same amount of backlash let's cut the bullshit.


----------



## Thor (Sep 5, 2013)

The only good gay is a hot lesbian or Banhammer.


----------



## Fiona (Sep 5, 2013)

I came in expecting Thor to make a troll post. 

I was not dissappointed.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Sep 5, 2013)

It's kind of funny that Thor is so anti-gay when he's named himself after a big muscular, scantily clad, sweaty, Norseman. He probably secretly loves the gay.


----------



## Fiona (Sep 5, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> It's kind of funny that Thor is so anti-gay when he's named himself after a big muscular, scantily clad, sweaty, Norseman. He probably secretly loves the gay.



I think every single person who hates gay people do it because they find it tempting. 

Thats my actual view.

That or their deity and/or magical book says so. Which is even funnier.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Sep 5, 2013)

Fiona said:


> I think every single person who hates gay people do it because they find it tempting.
> 
> Thats my actual view.
> 
> That or their deity and/or magical book says so. Which is even funnier.


If I had a mind altering powers I would concentrate super hard when I go to bed at night just to put gay thoughts in Thor's head. I would make him thing of huge sweaty dudes with hairy bodies and huge vein riddled cocks coming at him from all angles.

This is why I can't have super powers.


----------



## ImperatorMortis (Sep 5, 2013)

I definitely support LGBT rights, but this is fucked up.

Also this is just gonna make them hate gays even more.

Plus they probably should have just made the damn cake, or at least spit in the batter while making it if they were that butt hurt.


----------



## Thor (Sep 5, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> It's kind of funny that Thor is so anti-gay when he's named himself after a big muscular, scantily clad, sweaty, Norseman. He probably secretly loves the gay.





Fiona said:


> I think every single person who hates gay people do it because they find it tempting.
> 
> Thats my actual view.
> 
> That or their deity and/or magical book says so. Which is even funnier.





Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> If I had a mind altering powers I would concentrate super hard when I go to bed at night just to put gay thoughts in Thor's head. I would make him thing of huge sweaty dudes with hairy bodies and huge vein riddled cocks coming at him from all angles.
> 
> This is why I can't have super powers.




Funny thing is that I suffer from Chronic random boners. Even the thought of naked old women is too weak to get these boners down. But whenever I think of naked men it becomes flacid sometimes even suffering shrinkage.


----------



## Ao Thurston (Sep 5, 2013)

Gino said:


> If the situation was reversed it would not be getting the same amount of backlash let's cut the bullshit.



Good thing that no lgbt seems to have ever done that.


----------



## ImperatorMortis (Sep 5, 2013)

Ao Thurston said:


> Good thing that no lgbt seems to have ever done that.



There are all kinds of people in this world. I wouldn't be surprised if this did/does happen.


----------



## Gino (Sep 5, 2013)

Ao Thurston said:


> Good thing that no lgbt seems to have ever done that.



The point remains.........


----------



## Ao Thurston (Sep 5, 2013)

Gino said:


> The point remains.........



Your point is not based on actual facts or statistics, lol. It's not an argument, it's your POV.


----------



## Gino (Sep 5, 2013)

Ao Thurston said:


> Your point is not based on actual facts or statistics, lol. It's not an argument, it's your POV.



What you just said before me is not based on facts or statistics either........ I don't have time to play this game with you.


----------



## Ao Thurston (Sep 5, 2013)

Gino said:


> What you just said before me is not based on facts or statistics either........ I don't have time to play this game with you.



Yes, yes. Exactly. You are making a point out of nothing.


----------



## Gino (Sep 5, 2013)

Ao Thurston said:


> Yes, yes. Exactly. You are making a point out of nothing.



So what good does it do in you in telling me this has your day.......dramatically improved?

What I said wasn't up for argument understand this next time no need to go point out the obvious.I'm still of the belief had this situation been reversed this wouldn't have had the same of amount of backlash what are you gonna do about it null me again?


----------



## Basilikos (Sep 5, 2013)

ITT: Unwarranted drama.


----------



## Totally not a cat (Sep 5, 2013)

Thor said:


> Funny thing is that I suffer from Chronic random boners. Even the thought of naked old women is too weak to get these boners down. But whenever I think of naked men it becomes flacid sometimes even suffering shrinkage.



So you indeed find yourself constantly thinking in naked men?


----------



## WT (Sep 6, 2013)

Fiona said:


> I think every single person who hates gay people do it because they find it tempting.
> 
> Thats my actual view.
> 
> That or their deity and/or magical book says so. Which is even funnier.



Dont hate gay people at all, most of them are fucking awesome.

What they do is up to them.

Lesbians are fine, but what gays do is pretty revolting.

Again its up to them.


----------



## Havoc (Sep 6, 2013)

White Tiger said:


> Dont hate gay people at all, most of them are fucking awesome.
> 
> What they do is up to them.
> 
> ...




Suck me, beautiful.


----------



## Taco (Sep 6, 2013)

Just find a new fucking bakery, what's the big deal????

Private businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone do they not? It's immature to whine over something so trivial.


----------



## Hitt (Sep 6, 2013)

Taco said:


> Private businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone do they not? It's immature to whine over something so trivial.



As has been said 100 times in this thread, no, they don't.  Civil Rights Act.  Can't discriminate on race, sex, religion, or disability.  Oregon (and several other states) added on sexual orientation.


----------



## GaaraoftheDesert1 (Sep 6, 2013)

Lets say I am into S&M. 
And me and my gf ask from the bakers to make a wedding cake with a couple chained and shit, they refuse.. so what do I do ? I should go and boycott them and ask for my Sadomasochist rights  I mean I didnt chose to be a sadomasochist .. its my "sex nature"..


----------



## navy (Sep 6, 2013)

GaaraoftheDesert1 said:


> Lets say I am into S&M.
> And me and my gf ask from the bakers to make a wedding cake with a couple chained and shit, they refuse.. so what do I do ? I should go and boycott them and ask for my Sadomasochist rights  I mean I didnt chose to be a sadomasochist .. its my "sex nature"..



Did they ask for a cake with a lesbian couple on it? 

And yeah, you can boycott them if you want. You want people to accept SM you got to start somewhere.


----------



## Thor (Sep 6, 2013)

What about p*d*p**** rights and beastiality rights? We can't leave them out too??


----------



## navy (Sep 6, 2013)

Nope. They can boycott as well.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Sep 6, 2013)

GaaraoftheDesert1 said:


> Lets say I am into S&M.
> And me and my gf ask from the bakers to make a wedding cake with a couple chained and shit, they refuse.. so what do I do ? I should go and boycott them and ask for my Sadomasochist rights  I mean I didnt chose to be a sadomasochist .. its my "sex nature"..



When did sex come into the equation? This is about a couple getting married. If a straight couple wants to have their favorite fetishes displayed on the cake, the bakers might refuse for obvious reasons, but that has nothing to do with sexual orientation.


----------



## Hand Banana (Sep 6, 2013)

This thread is done.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Sep 6, 2013)

Hmmmmm...

I really don't know how to feel about this.


----------



## Ennoea (Sep 6, 2013)

> What about p*d*p**** rights and beastiality rights? We can't leave them out too??



And the mentally retarded.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Sep 6, 2013)

And hairy people.


----------



## Cardoc (Sep 6, 2013)

I am pro LGBT community and pro choice but for me people from LGBT community threatning Christians for their beliefs is no different than Christians threatning pro choice people for their beliefs.  It can't be one way or the other.  Both sides have to respect the other's decisions.


----------



## Xyloxi (Sep 6, 2013)

GaaraoftheDesert1 said:


> Lets say I am into S&M.
> And me and my gf ask from the bakers to make a wedding cake with a couple chained and shit, they refuse.. so what do I do ? I should go and boycott them and ask for my Sadomasochist rights  I mean I didnt chose to be a sadomasochist .. its my "sex nature"..



Unless the couple getting married asked for a cake with them eating each other out on it, your comparison isn't exactly appropriate. I'd imagine, like most couples they'd want two people dressed for marriage on their cake rather than the depiction of a sex act, which wouldn't exactly go down well with their in laws.


----------



## Bishop (Sep 6, 2013)

How can this thread go on for so long? It's pretty simple: People in groups do things like this no matter the cause. You can't except the LGBT supporters to be all laid back no more than Religious. It's a sad and bigoted display of events (one can argue on both sides), but it happens.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Sep 6, 2013)

Ennoea said:


> And the mentally retarded.



Yeah! Our rights need to be protected too! I have a feeling that people just like exploiting us though! Sick fucks!


----------



## Basilikos (Sep 6, 2013)

GaaraoftheDesert1 said:


> Lets say I am into S&M.
> And me and my gf ask from the bakers to make a wedding cake with a couple chained and shit, they refuse.. so what do I do ? I should go and boycott them and ask for my Sadomasochist rights  I mean I didnt chose to be a sadomasochist .. its my "sex nature"..


I agree with this.

If the couple was offended by that bakery refusing to bake them a cake, the sensible response would have been to just find another bakery that would accept their request.  Making a huge scene and campaigning against that bakery was simply ridiculous, especially when you consider that the store owner had a family of multiple children to feed.



navy said:


> Did they ask for a cake with a lesbian couple on it?
> 
> And yeah, you can boycott them if you want. You want people to accept SM you got to start somewhere.


But it's obtuse to demand that everyone else should like S&M, approve of it, and celebrate it.  Not everyone is going to personally like or accept everyone else's sexual orientations/identity/preferences/fetishes/whatevers.  And it's inane to try and socially humiliate or alienate any and everyone who isn't a fan of your particular sexual orientation/fetish/identity/etc, whatever it might be.  So let's not pretend that there aren't double standards in play here when comparing someone identifying as a S&M person compared to someone identifying as homosexual.

Frankly, if I went to some shop or store and was refused service for whatever reason (race, age, religion, gender, political views, height, weight, hair color, nationality, or whatever) I would just be like "fuck you" and would walk out the door.  No drama.  No boycott campaigns.  No news articles.  Nothing.  Why?  Because it wouldn't be worth it.  There's no sense getting riled up over something that in the grand scheme of things is petty and menial.



Cardoc said:


> I am pro LGBT community and pro choice but for me people from LGBT community threatning Christians for their beliefs is no different than Christians threatning pro choice people for their beliefs.  *It can't be one way or the other.  Both sides have to respect the other's decisions.*


Pretty much this.  I'm so tired of people on the right and the left alike spewing their propaganda, skewed perspectives, and political agendas to try and coerce and brainwash the entire fucking country into thinking and believing as they do.  What makes this country so great is the intention that people of various different worldviews, backgrounds, ways of thinking, races, etc live and work together in a productive community of tolerance and innovation, despite stark differences in some areas.  It really seems like people have forgotten this and instead have gotten so caught up in their political and philosophical group think.

In essence: Live and let live.  It isn't difficult, people.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Sep 6, 2013)

I am finding it hilarious people commenting on a story they haven't even bothered to read.

1. What the company did was illegal under Oregon law.

2. All the couple did was file a legal suit against it for discrimination.

3. The threats were online, their website and Facebook.

4. The MILITANT GAY ACTVISTS were kids giving out free cupcakes

5. The reason they went out of business is because when the community caught wind of it, *they stopped going.*

Capitalism worked, they are out of business and that's end of that story.

The company owners say that they don't hate gay people but they clearly have a lot of passive-aggressive attitudes towards such individuals. They are trying to blame online trolls as the reason for their shutting down rather than their outdated business practices. It's just like the story on the wedding venue. The threats were online, but conservatives jumped on it like flies on shit and tried to act like the community (particularly THE GAYS) went into a violent riot over it when the truth of the matter the parties of actual influence conducted themselves appropriately for all that is known.


----------



## Daxter (Sep 6, 2013)

Seto, I don't think they get it yet, I mean we've people comparing S&M fanatics to homosexual persons and the discrimination against them.



Seto Kaiba said:


> I am finding it hilarious people commenting on a story they haven't even bothered to read.
> 
> *1. What the company did was illegal under Oregon law.
> 
> ...




Maybe that'll help people who have forgotten their specs.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Sep 6, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I am finding it hilarious people commenting on a story they haven't even bothered to read.
> 
> 1. What the company did was illegal under Oregon law.
> 
> ...



If things are as you say they are then I see no problems with what happened.


----------



## olaf (Sep 7, 2013)

what I find most hilarious in this thread is that people say that there should be law protecting hard working buisness owners form bad capitalistic boycotts

so they either want government to pass a law that makes it illegal i.e. to stop buying bread in bakery A after you bough it there n times. lol

or that government pay them money because normal customers decided they don't want to put their money in that buisness. so basicaly they want to give their own money to them, only not directly (I know that in cases of huge companies that happens, but sometimes it makes sense, only not so often and usualy in really huge companies)


----------



## Banhammer (Sep 7, 2013)

Basilikos said:


> In essence: Live and let live.  It isn't difficult, people.



Yes, yes, yes, to which my response is banhammer science



Banhammer said:


> I'm rather curious though, how did the LGBT manage to close down a bakery?
> 
> Did they quietly stole in to their donut section one morning, all in white hoods and fashionable shoes and just as a wholesome family went in to get their breakfast, started FUCKING EACH OTHER IN THE ASS?



to which apparently there's already an answer



> 1. What the company did was illegal under Oregon law.
> 
> 2. All the couple did was file a legal suit against it for discrimination.
> 
> ...


----------



## Pilaf (Sep 7, 2013)

I read an article about violent gays on the Naruto Forums.

I have now concluded that I must shun and hate all gays subsequently. This article has convinced me that they are a menace and should all be judged based on the actions of a few.

Am I doing it right? I'm trying to be a neo con.


----------



## Hand Banana (Sep 7, 2013)

olaf said:


> what I find most hilarious in this thread is that people say that there should be law protecting hard working buisness owners form bad capitalistic boycotts
> 
> so they either want government to pass a law that makes it illegal i.e. to stop buying bread in bakery A after you bough it there n times. lol
> 
> or that government pay them money because normal customers decided they don't want to put their money in that buisness. so basicaly they want to give their own money to them, only not directly (I know that in cases of huge companies that happens, but sometimes it makes sense, only not so often and usualy in really huge companies)



On a scale of 1 to 10 how hilarious do you actually find this? And how long did it take for you to type that post after you winded down from your episode of hysteria?


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Sep 7, 2013)

Pilaf said:


> I read an article about violent gays on the Naruto Forums.
> 
> I have now concluded that I must shun and hate all gays subsequently. This article has convinced me that they are a menace and should all be judged based on the actions of a few.
> 
> Am I doing it right? I'm trying to be a neo con.



Correction: All violent gay activists.

Who's hating on all gays as a result of this? Don't just make biased Mickey Mouse assumptions like a dickless mentally challenged tranny on steroids.


----------



## Hand Banana (Sep 7, 2013)

olaf said:


> I chuckled at the christian stupidity, I mean couldn't do they Orson S. Card? (hate gays but still not mind gays buying them) they could get their money and put it to good god's work
> 
> and somehow I didn't get hysterical. maybe because I realised long time ago that in reality people don't seem to know what they want from government especialy when it comes to money related laws



On the scale of 1 to 5 how would you rate your chuckle at Christianity's stupidity?


----------



## olaf (Sep 7, 2013)

somewhere between hah and heh


----------



## Hand Banana (Sep 7, 2013)

olaf said:


> somewhere between hah and heh



"hah" and "heh" are not valid choices, nor are they numbers.


----------



## Gino (Sep 7, 2013)

Pilaf said:


> I read an article about violent gays on the Naruto Forums.
> 
> I have now concluded that I must shun and hate all gays subsequently. This article has convinced me that they are a menace and should all be judged based on the actions of a few.
> 
> Am I doing it right? I'm trying to be a neo con.



 shut the fuck up.


----------



## A. Waltz (Sep 7, 2013)

Ao Thurston said:


> I have never heard of a right to refuse service. I thought that one of the fundamentals of USA was freedom and equality for people.
> 
> What if they refused to bake a cake for a black couple? Would you have said the same?
> 
> What if they told hebrews to fuck off?



here in California pretty much any business you go into has a sign saying "i/we have the right to refuse service to anybody"

it's probably a state thing.


----------

