For those that say gays won't push or sue ministers for marriage

Posted 603 day(s) ago 2169 Views 84 Replies
Results 1 to 50 of 85
Page 1 of 2 1 2
  1. #1

    For those that say gays won't push or sue ministers for marriage

    If they are opposed to it, I submit the following.

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business...-wedding-cake/

  2. #2
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    12,392
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    If they are opposed to it, I submit the following.

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business...-wedding-cake/
    Religion =/= business.
    2 users like SpankyNek's post: Aurora, OnlyOneOklahoma


  3. #3
    VUGear's Avatar
    Posts
    1,532
    Join Date
    Nov 2011

    Cake-Fil-A?
    2 users like VUGear's post: Gonzo, KCRuf/Nek


  4. #4

    Re: For those that say gays won't push or sue ministers for marriage

    I don't think businesses are allowed to discriminate. Otherwise we would still have unironic whites only lunch counters.

    Plus, that is a state law which you should be fine with. If those business owners want to discriminate, they should move somewhere that allows them to do so.
    The following users like this post: Aurora


  5. #5
    KCRuf/Nek's Avatar
    Posts
    39,350
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Prairie Village, Ks.

    I seem to remember a bakery not making a **** themed cake for some kids birthday party. Of course that sort of discrimination is okay in the eyes of some.

  6. #6
    Aurora's Avatar
    Posts
    30,984
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    The Dark Side

    Comparing Gays to the ****s is super nice of you KC -__-

  7. #7

    Re: For those that say gays won't push or sue ministers for marriage

    Originally Posted by Aurora View Post
    Comparing Gays to the ****s is super nice of you KC -__-
    That is play numero uno for many cons.

  8. #8
    KCRuf/Nek's Avatar
    Posts
    39,350
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Prairie Village, Ks.

    Originally Posted by Aurora View Post
    Comparing Gays to the ****s is super nice of you KC -__-
    Was just saying that it has happened before and the people didn't have to make the cake. Whether they were ****s, gheys, midgets, dogs whoever didn't matter to me. It shouldn't matter who the offended party is to make it right or wrong(Although we know how that works).

  9. #9
    KCRuf/Nek's Avatar
    Posts
    39,350
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Prairie Village, Ks.

    Originally Posted by OnlyOneOklahoma View Post
    That is play numero uno for many cons.
    Oh please. If this were God fearing bunker lovers your tolerance level would be a bit different. As I just told AD I cited another instance where this happened. I wasn't comparing one group to another. Lose your agenda.
    4 users like KCRuf/Nek's post: Aurora, Irish_Sooner, soonerintn, Tundra


  10. #10

    Re: For those that say gays won't push or sue ministers for marriage

    Yeah because comparing **** cakes to gay cakes is totally not calling gays ****s.

  11. #11
    The level of discourse on this board is cratering.

    Discriminate against gay cake--problem

    Discriminate against **** cake--no problem

    Point being made that some types of discrimination are okay. Instead, point inferred is that gays = ****s.
    5 users like oucub23's post: Gonzo, Irish_Sooner, KCRuf/Nek, Stinger_1066, Tundra


  12. #12
    Sancho's Avatar
    Posts
    4,911
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Land of milk and honey

    Originally Posted by OnlyOneOklahoma View Post
    Yeah because comparing **** cakes to gay cakes is totally not calling gays ****s.
    Are you retarded? I am being serious.
    2 users like Sancho's post: ImTheDude, KCRuf/Nek


  13. #13
    McRib's Avatar
    Posts
    24,706
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    For those that say gays won't push or sue ministers for marriage

    Mmmm cake.
    3 users like McRib's post: Aurora, brokebacksooner, KCRuf/Nek


  14. #14

    Re: For those that say gays won't push or sue ministers for marriage

    I have no problem with the bakery in this case.

  15. #15
    Originally Posted by ArbySooner View Post
    I have no problem with the bakery in this case.
    Same. If the couple came in and the bakery wouldn't sell them a doughnut or a cup of coffee, I'd have a problem with that. Making a wedding cake is a much more involved process, and is tailored to the specific person.

  16. #16
    smot poker's Avatar
    Posts
    4,038
    Join Date
    Dec 2012

    I was denied a haircut in a black barber shop in Philadelphia, they told me and my friend that they don't cut white people hair. I should have contacted the ACLU.
    The following users like this post: Tundra


  17. #17
    .
    Last edited by soonerintn; July 19th, 2013 at 05:49 PM.

  18. #18
    KCRuf/Nek's Avatar
    Posts
    39,350
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Prairie Village, Ks.

    Originally Posted by smot poker View Post
    I was denied a haircut in a black barber shop in Philadelphia, they told me and my friend that they don't cut white people hair. I should have contacted the ACLU.
    No. Blacks disrespecting whites is okay. Payback is a ****.

  19. #19
    DIB's Avatar
    Posts
    4,550
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Tulsa

    For those that say gays won't push or sue ministers for marriage

    Originally Posted by soonerintn View Post
    It's not. You read have a comprehension problem.
    Funny

  20. #20
    Originally Posted by KCRuf/Nek View Post
    I seem to remember a bakery not making a **** themed cake for some kids birthday party. Of course that sort of discrimination is okay in the eyes of some.
    **** lovers aren't a protected class according to the law (Oregon Equality Law of 2007); gays are. The baker could also refuse to make a confederate flag cake or a gun cake and be within the law.

    There are plenty of bakers in Oregon who would be willing to make these ladies a cake, filing a complaint seem petty.
    3 users like brokebacksooner's post: Aurora, oucub23, Stinger_1066


  21. #21
    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    The level of discourse on this board is cratering.
    I agree. But the level of discourse in America is cratering, a lot coming from both sides.
    Discriminate against gay cake--problem

    Discriminate against **** cake--no problem

    Point being made that some types of discrimination are okay. Instead, point inferred is that gays = ****s.
    It has always been acceptable to discriminate against ****s since I have been around... Is the next GOP platform an unironic return to ****sm?

  22. #22
    KCRuf/Nek's Avatar
    Posts
    39,350
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Prairie Village, Ks.

    Originally Posted by brokebacksooner View Post
    **** lovers aren't a protected class according to the law (Oregon Equality Law of 2007); gays are. The baker could also refuse to make a confederate flag cake or a gun cake and be within the law.

    There are plenty of bakers in Oregon who would be willing to make these ladies a cake, filing a complaint seem petty.
    It's not about getting their cake made. It's about making noise about it.

  23. #23
    KCRuf/Nek's Avatar
    Posts
    39,350
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Prairie Village, Ks.

    Originally Posted by OnlyOneOklahoma View Post
    It has always been acceptable to discriminate against ****s since I have been around... Is the next GOP platform an unironic return to ****sm?
    Your friends at the ACLU seem to differ. Of course they stuck up for NAMBLA too.

    Someone learned a new word today and seem very proud to use it.

  24. #24
    Dexa's Avatar
    Posts
    3,184
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Moore

    Originally Posted by OnlyOneOklahoma View Post
    Yeah because comparing **** cakes to gay cakes is totally not calling gays ****s.
    It only is if you're a ****ing moron.

  25. #25
    smot poker's Avatar
    Posts
    4,038
    Join Date
    Dec 2012

    Originally Posted by Dexa View Post
    It only is if you're a ****ing moron.
    Leave me out of this.
    The following users like this post: oucub23


  26. #26
    KCRuf/Nek's Avatar
    Posts
    39,350
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Prairie Village, Ks.

    Originally Posted by OnlyOneOklahoma View Post
    Yeah because comparing **** cakes to gay cakes is totally not calling gays ****s.







  27. #27
    I would think bakers would want to get in on the lesbian cake business.

  28. #28
    Photogs now.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...ryn-jean-lopez

    New Mexico's Supreme Court ruled religious liberty doesn't exist when it prevents you from working a gay wedding.

  29. #29
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    12,392
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Photogs now.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...ryn-jean-lopez

    New Mexico's Supreme Court ruled religious liberty doesn't exist when it prevents you from working a gay wedding.
    Nothing new here. The photographer is not an officer of the church...same deal as the cake people.

  30. #30
    Originally Posted by SpankyNek View Post
    Nothing new here. The photographer is not an officer of the church...same deal as the cake people.
    Read the statements from the court. This is similar to what Hobby Lobby is engaged in.

    What does it being an officer of the church have to do w/anything? The Constitution guarantees individuals' rights--not institutions.

  31. #31
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    12,392
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Read the statements from the court. This is similar to what Hobby Lobby is engaged in.

    What does it being an officer of the church have to do w/anything? The Constitution guarantees individuals' rights--not institutions.
    Because there are legal eligibility requirement s for marriage.
    none exist for cake buying or photographer hiring afaik.
    is there a public option photographer?

  32. #32
    KCRuf/Nek's Avatar
    Posts
    39,350
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Prairie Village, Ks.

    So what happened to a privately owned business's right to refuse service? What's next - shirtless people suing restaurants?

  33. #33
    It's about individual rights--and we're only protecting some. We have the Constitutionally guaranteed right to freely practice and exercise our religion--this court decision says we don't. There is no Constitutional right to hire X photographer.

  34. #34
    Originally Posted by KCRuf/Nek View Post
    So what happened to a privately owned business's right to refuse service? What's next - shirtless people suing restaurants?
    Only if they're breast feeding, refuse to cover and are asked to leave.

  35. #35
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    12,392
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    It's about individual rights--and we're only protecting some. We have the Constitutionally guaranteed right to freely practice and exercise our religion--this court decision says we don't. There is no Constitutional right to hire X photographer.
    Certainly not in all places/arenas. Do we allow wiccans to perform nude ceremonies in public?
    No.
    Do we allow religious groups to perform animal sacrifices?
    No.
    Do we allow all churches that wish to marry homosexuals the right to do so?
    No.
    How is a refusal of mercantile opportunity even possibly constrained as an exercise of or practice of religion, even if your assertion of boundless religious freedoms was reality?

  36. #36
    catfishcurtis's Avatar
    Posts
    996
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    in a van down by the river

    Originally Posted by McRib View Post
    Mmmm cake.
    I prefer pie ......
    The following users like this post: McRib


  37. #37
    Originally Posted by SpankyNek View Post
    Certainly not in all places/arenas. Do we allow wiccans to perform nude ceremonies in public?
    No.
    Do we allow religious groups to perform animal sacrifices?
    No.
    Do we allow all churches that wish to marry homosexuals the right to do so?
    No.
    How is a refusal of mercantile opportunity even possibly constrained as an exercise of or practice of religion, even if your assertion of boundless religious freedoms were a reality?
    Implied harm

    Actual harm

    Yes, we do.

    How is refusal of mercantile opportunity lumped in with things that harm people or animals?

    If I'm not mistaken, the use of peyote is used in sweat lodge ceremonies in NM. Why? The use of peyote is against the law, isn't it? Because it's part of the religion.

  38. #38
    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    If I'm not mistaken, the use of peyote is used in sweat lodge ceremonies in NM. Why? The use of peyote is against the law, isn't it? Because it's part of the religion.
    This point only strengthens Spankys argument. Because homosexuality is not part of religion then they won't be forced to abide by it.

    And by your logic why do a lot of Catholic churches insist on only marrying Catholics? Any winning lawsuits against that?

  39. #39
    Originally Posted by SpankyNek View Post
    Certainly not in all places/arenas. Do we allow wiccans to perform nude ceremonies in public?
    No.
    Do we allow religious groups to perform animal sacrifices?
    No.
    Do we allow all churches that wish to marry homosexuals the right to do so?
    No.
    How is a refusal of mercantile opportunity even possibly constrained as an exercise of or practice of religion, even if your assertion of boundless religious freedoms were a reality?
    Implied harm

    Actual harm

    Yes, we do.

    How is refusal of mercantile opportunity lumped in with things that harm people or animals?

    If I'm not mistaken, the use of peyote is used in sweat lodge ceremonies in NM. Why? The use of peyote is against the law, isn't it? Because it's part of the religion.

  40. #40
    KCRuf/Nek's Avatar
    Posts
    39,350
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Prairie Village, Ks.

    Originally Posted by SpankyNek View Post
    Certainly not in all places/arenas. Do we allow wiccans to perform nude ceremonies in public?
    No.
    Do we allow religious groups to perform animal sacrifices?
    No.
    Do we allow all churches that wish to marry homosexuals the right to do so?
    No.
    How is a refusal of mercantile opportunity even possibly constrained as an exercise of or practice of religion, even if your assertion of boundless religious freedoms was reality?
    If the ceremonies weren't in the nude then yes.

    We don't allow animal sacrifices. It has nothing to do with it being a religious group.

    How is refusal of mercantile opportunity lumped in with things that harm people or animals?
    Spanky Logic 101

  41. #41
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    12,392
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Implied harm
    Based upon what Constitutional protection?
    Actual harm
    Animals have no Constitutional protections.
    Yes, we do.
    Really? How many have the Disciples of Christ married up there in OK? I can tell you how many they've married in TX....zero.
    How is refusal of mercantile opportunity lumped in with things that harm people or animals?
    If I'm not mistaken, the use of peyote is used in sweat lodge ceremonies in NM. Why? The use of peyote is against the law, isn't it? Because it's part of the religion.
    There is a tangential, yet rather pertinent, part of that...you must be a governmentally recognized "Indian" to get that "right"

  42. #42
    Securing the right to liberty. Inflicting harm on another intrudes on their liberty.

    I suspect there's a good chance that were a religious group to challenge the animal sacrifice thing in a court, they'd have a pretty good chance of winning. I also suspect that were they to do so, the bad press would be such that it wouldn't go well long term (I'm specifically thinking about Judaism, not Bob that wants to slaughter a goat.)

    I don't know who the Disciples of Christ are. I do know that if they want to marry someone, they won't be arrested. They won't be fined. And they won't be sued for doing it.

    So we now choose through the government which religions we recognize and defend the right to practice? The slope there should scare everyone.

  43. #43
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    12,392
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    There is a difference between inferred harm and implied harm. Are you arguing that they would be dancing naked out of spite? Do you think that his photographer might be doing the same?

    As they should.

    I don't see how the scope has changed on this at all...I agree with your presumptions...same as before the Supreme Court ruled.

    NOW? It has been his way since I can remember. There have been US denominations pushing for the state to recognize their marriages in the same manner as other denominations for years.

  44. #44
    oklahoma_kracker's Avatar
    Posts
    953
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Norman, OK - God's Country

    Conversation at an Oregon Lesbian Wedding - "DAMN Anna, this cake tastes like a$$!!!!"

    Someone being subjected to a wedding album in New Mexico - "Hey Steve, why are all of your wedding pictures only from the neck down and completely out of focus?"

    Even if the courts want to place a gun to a merchants head and tell them they are not allowed to refuse service to someone who offends them they have no room to tell them they have to do their best work. And if the courts decide someone can be sued for making a bad cake or taking terrible photos ... man am I in trouble.

  45. #45
    I would think that a person making a personalized cake or a person shooting photographs can refuse to enter into a contract for any reason stated or unstated. That alone should protect this cake company and should have protected the photographer.

    Now, if a black person or a gay couple walk into the bakery and ask to buy the loaf of bread behind the counter and the cashier says "no...we don't serve your kind here" that would be a problem to me.

    There is a difference, to me, between contractual business and point of sale business.

  46. #46
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    12,392
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by Teo9969 View Post
    I would think that a person making a personalized cake or a person shooting photographs can refuse to enter into a contract for any reason stated or unstated. That alone should protect this cake company and should have protected the photographer.

    Now, if a black person or a gay couple walk into the bakery and ask to buy the loaf of bread behind the counter and the cashier says "no...we don't serve your kind here" that would be a problem to me.

    There is a difference, to me, between contractual business and point of sale business.
    I haven't read the case yet, but my presumption is the contract was already entered into and was voided after the discovery of "gayness"...implying "we don't serve your kind"

  47. #47
    Originally Posted by SpankyNek View Post
    I haven't read the case yet, but my presumption is the contract was already entered into and was voided after the discovery of "gayness"...implying "we don't serve your kind"
    My understanding was they came in together and were told no prior to any contract being established--I don't know for sure though. The ruling by the Court though is troubling--more b/c of what will come of the wording than anything else.

  48. #48
    Originally Posted by SpankyNek View Post
    I haven't read the case yet, but my presumption is the contract was already entered into and was voided after the discovery of "gayness"...implying "we don't serve your kind"
    Right...in which case I would side with the gay-couple.

    But if we're going to have a court ruling, then it needs to be formed around a basis of contract vs. point-of-sale.

  49. #49
    SpankyNek's Avatar
    Posts
    12,392
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Houston (Cypress)

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    My understanding was they came in together and were told no prior to any contract being established--I don't know for sure though. The ruling by the Court though is troubling--more b/c of what will come of the wording than anything else.
    It is going to take a federal answer, I bet.

    I just don't see it happening at a church. Ministers don't function purely as an officer of marriage. Many only marry members, and membership of a specific church or denomination may have several things requisite. I just don't see how, in this regard, it is any different than it has been since 1789.

  50. #50
    Aurora's Avatar
    Posts
    30,984
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    The Dark Side

    If I opened a cake shop and only did cakes for gay people would this piss off straight people. I am just wondering

Similar Threads

  1. Push It To The Limit
    By usaosooner in forum Entertainment & Tech
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: June 13th, 2013, 06:06 PM
  2. Gays want in!!!!
    By okie52 in forum ThunderDome
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: May 28th, 2013, 05:48 PM
  3. can't cure da gays......
    By 87sooner in forum ThunderDome
    Replies: 110
    Last Post: December 24th, 2012, 11:16 AM