Kern County judge rules against State of California in case against Tastries Bakery

[Frank Cannon]

Hot?  Or not?

Hot until she talks. If her voice was any deeper it would sound like a Harley idling.

[Hoodat]

There are no "same-sex wedding cakes".  Just vanilla and chocolate ones.   

But seriously, she advertised "wedding cakes".  How was the customer to know that her service applied to everyone else's wedding but his?   That's textbook discrimination.

The California Constitution defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.  So by definition, the cake in question wasn't a wedding cake. 

And to insinuate that the baker advertised to sell same-gender wedding cakes is textbook lying.

[Bigun]

[IsailedawayfromFR]

There is no "law of God" that demands that any Christian act like an arsehole towards his customer.   The baker made her promise; she should stay true to her word.

Hey, @Hoodat , time to say the magic word here. 

[thackney]

"Gay marriage" is solely a creation of the civil law.  It has no religious significance whatsoever.

Romans 1:26-28

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

1 Timothy 1:8-11

Among others

[roamer_1]

The baker arbitrarily refused to provide the service she advertised to provide.  That makes her an arsehole.  Whether that makes her a lawbreaker will be up to the court to decide.   

I arbitrarily refuse to perform service I advertise all the time, and for any number of reasons.
AN ADVERTISEMENT IS NO PROMISE WHATSOEVER.

[Hoodat]

The owner didn't act like an bleep. The owner even recommended another vendor.

The baker also offered to sell other products she makes.  Jazzhead knows all of this already, but he chooses to lie about it instead.

[Sanguine]

The baker also offered to sell other products she makes.  Jazzhead knows all of this already, but he chooses to lie about it instead.

In all fairness, it's looking like he didn't read the article.

[roamer_1]

The baker also offered to sell other products she makes.  Jazzhead knows all of this already, but he chooses to lie about it instead.

Right. Just like the advertsement==promise shtick.

[Hoodat]

Here it is again. From the lead post:

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (KBAK/KBFX) — A Kern County judge on Monday night ruled in favor of the owner of Tastries Barkery, who the State of California argued in court engaged in unlawful discrimination when she decided not sell a custom wedding cake to a gay couple.

A professing Christian, Cathy Miller says she will sell gay people anything else in her bakery, but will not be made to celebrate a ceremony her faith finds objectionable.

Just in case someone thinks about lying again.

[Hoodat]

In all fairness, it's looking like he didn't read the article.

In fairness, he was given fair warning here.

[HoustonSam]

The baker should bake the cake,  because that's what he promised he'd do, secure in the knowledge that it's God's job, not his, to punish this couple for daring to want to be happy.

Tried to stay out of this one since I made my position clear in an earlier thread, but @Jazzhead this is an egregiously dishonest supposition on your part.  Please provide evidence that the baker desired to punish anyone or wished to make anyone unhappy.

Furthermore, recognizing that vengeance is The Lord's does not require us logically or spiritually to join in what we understand to be sin.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

In all fairness, it's looking like he didn't read the article.

Being ignorant is a pretty lame excuse when we all know that this is simply an agenda-driven drivel from him.

[roamer_1]

The baker arbitrarily refused to provide the service she advertised to provide.  That makes her an arsehole.  Whether that makes her a lawbreaker will be up to the court to decide.   

I arbitrarily refuse to perform service I advertise all the time, and for any number of reasons.
AN ADVERTISEMENT IS NO PROMISE WHATSOEVER.

To expand upon the idea:
A guy walks into my shop requesting service. He's a homo, which I may or may not know.
I size him up, like anyone I am going to do business with, and decide I don't like the cut of his jib (no pun intended). I am uneasy, and decide to refuse service.

1) Does that make me a bigot?
1a) Let's say I do know for a fact he's a homo. THEN does it make me a bigot?

2) Turns out the guy is offended by my refusal. He enters into a suit against me for discrimination. How do I prove I am not discriminating (I actually am discriminating by definition, just not because he is a homo), but just didn't think it would be a good idea to do business with the guy (turns out I was right)?

[INVAR]

Non-acceptance is not hate. Even shunning is not hate.

Don't play their game by being led to change the argument to justify what they charge you with.

They say non-acceptance and refusal to acknowledge homosexual marriage as good, righteous and normal is 'hate' - then fine - we HATE IT.  Same as eschewing a drug addict's behavior is said to be 'hate' by the legalize Drug bunch.

Fine.  We hate homosexual behavior.  It's perverted, deviant and wicked.  We hate it.

Now - what do they intend to do about it?  Keep empowering the government to destroy businesses and people who will not acknowledge homosexuality as a thing we must serve with willingness because it is a protected behavior?  Yes.  Yes they will.  Good.  Let them.

At some point - the tyranny becomes overt despotism and we have an inalienable right to refuse to comply with such evil - by use of force even when shoved in our faces under the color of law.

Such "laws" that contravene the clear laws of God are not laws we are obligated to obey in the eyes of God or the Founders themselves.  We instead have a duty to defy them.

[GtHawk]

I don't think that is anatomically possible. 

And, it's clear you know you've lost the argument when you resort to obscenity to attempt to make your case.

Was it pointless, or a Freudian slip of a deep held fantasy?


@Sanguine

[Bigun]

[Cyber Liberty]

It'll go on for at least another 15 pages, where Jazz will insist there were advertisements that he neither saw nor will reproduce for us.  Just making shit up.

[Jazzhead]

In all fairness, it's looking like he didn't read the article.

Of course I did.  The baker's services include wedding cakes.   She refused to provide a wedding cake to a customer because she was gay.   That's discrimination based on sexual orientation, regardless of whether she would sell the customer gingerbread men.   The customer wanted the service she advertised to provide, and she refused.  The only fact of which I'm not aware is whether she refused because of specific issues with the customization (which she may well refuse to accommodate if deemed offensive),  or whether she refused to provide any wedding cake, under any circumstances.   If the latter, that's a textbook violation of the law.     

[Jazzhead]

It'll go on for at least another 15 pages, where Jazz will insist there were advertisements that he neither saw nor will reproduce for us.  Just making shit up.

If it goes on for 15 pages, it will be because folks respond to my posts.  You can always decline to respond, or to refrain from phony complaints that I am participating in this thread.   I was pinged to come here; what fun what it be if I disappointed you all?     

[Cyber Liberty]

If it goes on for 15 pages, it will be because folks respond to my posts.  You can always decline to respond, or to refrain from phony complaints that I am participating in this thread.   I was pinged to come here; what fun what it be if I disappointed you all?   

I agree.  They're not going to suddenly start agreeing with you, and the place would be dull if they did.  Carry on with the circle talk, everybody needs a hobby.   

[TomSea]

Our country had marriage between a man and a woman for 235 years, I guess in all that time, we were being prejudiced! 

The argument doesn't hold up that now the Christian bogeyman is used, what a joke.  It really says something about one's perspective.

[INVAR]

Of course I did.  The baker's services include wedding cakes.   She refused to provide a wedding cake to a customer because she was gay.   That's discrimination based on sexual orientation, regardless of whether she would sell the customer gingerbread men.   

Yes, good.

Now what do you and the rest of your tyrannical pervert brigades intend to do about it when open defiance and resistance becomes more than just a few cherry-picked passive Christians you people like to bully?

[Suppressed]

It's too bad that threads are not a living thing. I would take this one into the alley and shoot it between the eyes.

You're free to not click on the thread.

The fact that you'd like to shut down others' free discussion speaks volumes.

@Frank Cannon

[WingNot]

You're free to not click on the thread.

The fact that you'd like to shut down others' free discussion speaks volumes.

Yeah Right....No one could ever shut you up you daft broad.