YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Ya think?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Bakers Who Refused Lesbian Couple A Wedding Cake WILL Have To Pay $135,000
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
For everyone complaining about the amount of the fine, keep in mind that it wasn't just for refusing service to the gay couple. As the case was working its way through the Oregon system, the Aaron Kline (one of the bakers) went online and posted publicly the complaint form with the gay couple's names, addresses, and phone numbers, which led to immediate harassment (including death threats, and being cut off from family members) against the gay couple and national media attention that they did not want. IIRC, it got so bad they had to go "underground" for a while. Also, they were in the process of adopting two special needs foster children, and they were seriously afraid that it would affect their ability to adopt, or even keep them as foster children (they had been instructed by the state to keep the kids' information protected).
Also, Aaron Kline went on right-wing Christian radio and television (CBN) and declared that he and his wife would continue to refuse service to gay couples, no matter what. That violated another Oregon statute (legally, it's the equivalent of posting a "no gays served" sign outside the shop).
And finally, as someone else pointed out earlier, the Klines were given an opportunity to pay a smaller fine and apologize to the gay couple, and they refused.
So in sum, I believe the amount of the fine was justified.
Also, Aaron Kline went on right-wing Christian radio and television (CBN) and declared that he and his wife would continue to refuse service to gay couples, no matter what. That violated another Oregon statute (legally, it's the equivalent of posting a "no gays served" sign outside the shop).
And finally, as someone else pointed out earlier, the Klines were given an opportunity to pay a smaller fine and apologize to the gay couple, and they refused.
So in sum, I believe the amount of the fine was justified.
Last edited:
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Then you clearly never met my racist old granddaddy who swore up and down that the bible told him he should NOT have to interact with black people in his store. He considered forcing him to take down his NO COLOREDS ALLOWED and WE DON'T SERVE JEWS signs from his window an attack on his religious freedoms. Seems like some folks can use their religion to justify anything.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Unfortunately, it seems a lesson many never learned.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Again, so sorry that you are so easily insulted. But your 'opinion' that it is a valid comparison does not hold up to scrutiny. Suggesting that a baker who regularly bakes wedding cakes must be willing to bake such a cake for anyone who enters their establishment is NOT the same as saying that a restaurant that has never served pork must suddenly add pork to its menu. Surely you can see the difference between the two. If not then I have to question your ability to follow basic logic.
Again with the insults. Look, I'm not really insulted. I just don't see the need to be rude because someone has a different opinion than you do. If you don't agree with me, fine. I certainly wont lose any sleep over it. Relax.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
So sad that some people feel as if they are being attacked when others ask them to back up their opinions with actual facts. It's rather insulting that you think we should accept your 'opinion' without daring to question it.
the total injustice for a persons Religious beliefs. Christians are continually being harassed and sought out for civil lawsuits. A business can post a sign and say 'no shoes, no service'. Doesn't that violate a homeless person's rights?
ronandcarol
ronandcarol
****Moderation Post*****
Please be reminded of Rule 1:
1. Personal Comments About Members and Staff
Personal attacks and name-calling, whether direct or in the third person, are strictly prohibited on the forums. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff. Quoting a member's post in a separate/new thread without their permission to challenge or belittle them, or harassing staff members for performing moderation duties, will also be considered a personal attack.
Please be reminded of Rule 1:
1. Personal Comments About Members and Staff
Personal attacks and name-calling, whether direct or in the third person, are strictly prohibited on the forums. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff. Quoting a member's post in a separate/new thread without their permission to challenge or belittle them, or harassing staff members for performing moderation duties, will also be considered a personal attack.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
No. Conservative Christians are being told they can't discriminate when they serve the public. Again. This isn't harassing them or seeking them out for law suits. This particular group of Christians are demanding the be granted an exception to brake the law. And not only that, there is no law in all of the Bible that permits someone to refuse service to someone based on reason x. It also doesn't help their case when they have no history of denying service to those who have been divorced, adulterers, atheists, witches, or other religions. They are choosing, of their own volition, to deny service to homosexuals, and demanding they be granted exception to established law.
Notanumber
A Free Man
Speaking as an impartial Atheist it seems that Christians are an easy target in these situations.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Christians make themselves such targets. Want to flaunt or test the law then be ready for the consequences.
.
Not expecting you to accept or agree with me. But it is my opinion.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
No, as long as they apply the rule equally to all of their customers, there's no problem. Now if they refused to serve SOME people without shirts and shoes, then DID serve OTHER people without shirts and shoes THEN they'd be discriminating against the people they refused to serve. It's really not that complicated.
As for Christians being harassed and sought out for lawsuits, the ONLY Christians who face this problem are the ones who think that the laws that everyone else has to follow somehow doesn't apply to them. If these Christian don't want to be harassed or taken to court then all they have to do is stop breaking the law. Again, it's really not that complicated.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
I can't see how you could possibly expect anyone to accept or agree with you when you lack any valid arguments to back up your opinion. Continuing to hold an opinion that has been demonstrated to be obviously incorrect indicates that you have absolutely no respect for the truth. So sad.
I'm not arguing with you. Move along please.
InChrist
Free4ever
I did not have to meet your granddaddy to know there are plenty of people who use the Bible illegitimately in an attempt to support their own bias views in many areas. Although some, even many people, may have used the Bible to justify their personal racists attitudes, the Bible does not support racism and condemns the misuse of scriptures.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Except that the bible DOES very explicitly condone slavery and Christians have regularly used that fact to justify owning other people.
RedDragon94
Love everyone, meditate often
Too bad businesses are required by law to perform services to people even if the people that own the business deem it to be immoral. Or are they?
74x12
Well-Known Member
The law does not define the "limits of that freedom" They fought a war based on the belief that we were given "unalienable" rights from a Creator. So the idea that the constitution gives us our rights is not what was intended. The idea is that the constitution insures our God given rights from tyranny. Tyranny being defined as those who would take our God given rights from us. The rights are ours by nature; we're sovereign in this. At least according to the declaration of Independence.
You're right freedom isn't free which is why they fought a war over it.