Couple denied service at cake shoppe due to being "abominations of the lord"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-02-2013, 10:52 PM
RE: Couple denied service at cake shoppe due to being "abominations of the lord"
"This is really awkward for me..."

No worries. We can set you up on a payment plan. Just have your people get in touch with mine to work out the details. Shy

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 11:17 PM
RE: Couple denied service at cake shoppe due to being "abominations of the lord"
(04-02-2013 06:53 PM)amyb Wrote:  This kind of bullshit that makes me sick to my stomach. It's a fucking cake, you don't have to watch the couple have sex or anything, you have to bake a fucking cake. The owners are christians, the cakes are not religious. Even if it's legal to do so, it still makes them assholes, and I see it on the same level as denying services to black people or asians.

If you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married. I don't think baking a cake for gay people even constitutes support of gay marriage. They should just shut up and realize gay people's money is as green as anyone else's. But no, they have to be loud and hateful, instead of merely hateful.


Baking a cake constitutes support for hungry people who like cake, that is all...

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2013, 04:38 AM
RE: Couple denied service at cake shoppe due to being "abominations of the lord"
My dad started that same bullshit about "It's the owner's right to deny service to anyone" when the whole Chick-fil-a issue hit the news. I can't help but wonder if these people (religious) truly believe this, or if it's simply because they're incredibly biased. If, say, a restaurant refused to serve food to anyone who believes in God; would people like my dad still be saying "It's the owner's right to discriminate"? Or would they - like I did with Chick-fil-a - refuse to eat their food?

I can only speculate as to the answer, but I think it's very telling that my dad - in the midst of the scandal - intentionally went out of his way to eat at Chick-fil-a.

Through profound pain comes profound knowledge.
Ridi, Pagliaccio, sul tuo amore infranto! Ridi del duol, che t'avvelena il cor!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2013, 10:01 AM
RE: Couple denied service at cake shoppe due to being "abominations of the lord"
"I can only speculate as to the answer, but I think it's very telling
that my dad - in the midst of the scandal - intentionally went out of
his way to eat at Chick-fil-a."


I certainly won't buy anything from Chic-fl-A and it's because of their bigoted stance so why can't your dad eat there more often because he agrees? That's the other side of the coin, as it were. They're free to be homophobes and I'm free to vote against their homophobia by handing my dollar to another vendor.

This may not apply to you but if it does then so be it... I find it interesting that those who agitate for forcing businesses to serve anyone (at the point of a gun) are the same people who become active when there's an organized boycott of a business. The reality is that it should be a two way street. They should be free to refuse to sell to gays and the consumer should be able to close their business down via trade with anyone other than them.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2013, 10:18 AM
RE: Couple denied service at cake shoppe due to being "abominations of the lord"
(03-03-2013 10:01 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  "I can only speculate as to the answer, but I think it's very telling
that my dad - in the midst of the scandal - intentionally went out of
his way to eat at Chick-fil-a."


I certainly won't buy anything from Chic-fl-A and it's because of their bigoted stance so why can't your dad eat there more often because he agrees? That's the other side of the coin, as it were. They're free to be homophobes and I'm free to vote against their homophobia by handing my dollar to another vendor.

This may not apply to you but if it does then so be it... I find it interesting that those who agitate for forcing businesses to serve anyone (at the point of a gun) are the same people who become active when there's an organized boycott of a business. The reality is that it should be a two way street. They should be free to refuse to sell to gays and the consumer should be able to close their business down via trade with anyone other than them.
The point is not who can and can't eat where and why. I'm simply wondering if the people who immediately jump to the side of the religious business owners would do the same if it was they who were being discriminated against. It's an attempt to call out what could be a double-standard on their part. My dad sides with a chicken sandwich over others' right to sexual freedom. However, would he still choose the chicken sandwich if it was him who was under the gun? If not, why?

Again, the fact that he goes out of his way to defy the fags in favor of the faithful is very telling. I wonder if this may be the case for all or most of those who side with a business owner for religious reasons.

Through profound pain comes profound knowledge.
Ridi, Pagliaccio, sul tuo amore infranto! Ridi del duol, che t'avvelena il cor!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2013, 10:35 AM
RE: Couple denied service at cake shoppe due to being "abominations of the lord"
"The point is not who can and can't eat where and why."

I understand what you're saying and we could only speculate, since not every religious person is like every other religious person. And yeah, it's not about who can eat where but it is about why. Not the why as in, it's my religion or it's my preference. It's the why as in, when you threaten Chic-fil-A with a gun, you've committed aggression against them. I exercise my right to not trade with them and they should be able to exercise their right to not trade with me, should I be someone they don't like.

I don't find many people who are happy that the state gave millions of tax dollars to the auto industry but in reality, that's the same thing as forcing you to buy a Chic-fil-A sandwich. The market voted against GM and Chrysler by not buying their products and the state forced the market to bail them out.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2013, 10:48 AM
RE: Couple denied service at cake shoppe due to being "abominations of the lord"
(03-03-2013 10:35 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  "The point is not who can and can't eat where and why."

I understand what you're saying and we could only speculate, since not every religious person is like every other religious person. And yeah, it's not about who can eat where but it is about why. Not the why as in, it's my religion or it's my preference. It's the why as in, when you threaten Chic-fil-A with a gun, you've committed aggression against them. I exercise my right to not trade with them and they should be able to exercise their right to not trade with me, should I be someone they don't like.

I don't find many people who are happy that the state gave millions of tax dollars to the auto industry but in reality, that's the same thing as forcing you to buy a Chic-fil-A sandwich. The market voted against GM and Chrysler by not buying their products and the state forced the market to bail them out.


You keep forgetting 'public accommodation'. When a business is open to the public, it means all of the public.

Don't like it? Don't open a business to the public.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2013, 10:55 AM
RE: Couple denied service at cake shoppe due to being "abominations of the lord"
"Don't like it? Don't open a business to the public."

Arguments from authority don't work.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2013, 11:04 AM
RE: Couple denied service at cake shoppe due to being "abominations of the lord"
(03-03-2013 10:55 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  "Don't like it? Don't open a business to the public."

Arguments from authority don't work.


I'm not arguing with you - I'm telling you. It's the fucking law.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2013, 11:10 AM
RE: Couple denied service at cake shoppe due to being "abominations of the lord"
"It's the fucking law."

Great. This isn't a thread about what is and isn't the law.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: