On Friday, July 17, 2015 at 2:31:21 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:


Do the same. Did they *ever* actually bake a cake for these people? No.
So no one was ever forced to bake a cake. You can't be forced to bake a
cake that never was. So where are you getting your forced cake baking
comment from? See, that knife cuts both ways, but I cut deeper. (-:

Only a lib would argue the nit that they were not actually forced
to bake a cake. Here is what I posted:

"I'm against anyone being forced to bake a cake period. Sounds like Stalin,
Kim Jung Un or Hitler to me. "

The analogy still applies. Of course they didn't force them to bake
*this* particular cake, because the wedding was long over.
Presumably the poor couple that was so horribly wronged didn't
suffer all that much because there were 1000 other bakers ready
to bake it, give them a free cake, etc. Bbut by fining the bakers $130K
and issuing a gag order, the govt is certainly forcing them to either
go out of business or bake the *next* gay cake. Good grief.
And I'm sure there will be a parade of the rainbow colored agitating
radicals in drag waiting in line demanding gay cakes.



The court found that they disobeyed the law in their state, and admitted
they would do it again, they advised others to break the law and they
damaged the gay couple's reputation through their derisive writings on
Facebook and other places. Then, miraculously, after collecting nearly
enough donations to cover the fines they incurred, they went private.

That's the choice they should have made knowing they were religious hard
liners who somehow thinking bake a cake for gay person is going to damn them
to hell. Does the Bible have gay baking rules?


Do you and the courts get to decide the religious rules?


If you go private, discriminate your "Christian" heart out. But when you
open your business to the public, you agree to abide by the law, plain and
simple. Don't like the law? Go private or work to get it changed. Break it
before it's changed and pay the fines. Problem solved. But apparently you
want to have your cake and to be able to eat it, too.

Sorry. This is a simple "do the crime, do the time" case despite what
people are trying to twist it into. Most of that financial penalty was
increased by the bakers' willful disregard of court orders. How is this not
simply using the cloak of religion to justify bigotry?

Because they aren't bigots, by all indications they just have deeply
held religious beliefs. If a Christian comes to a gay baker and wants
to have a cake made that says "Celebrating Traditional Man/woman Marriage"
and the gay baker refuses, should they be fined $130K and gag ordered
for being bigots?


How is this not
grandstanding in the fine old tradition of Al Sharpton?

Bizarre you'd even try to draw that comparison.



Considering how Roberts had voted in the past, I don't see the SC mustering
the votes to allow shop and innkeepers to refuse service on the basis of
their religious beliefs when the choice those merchants who feel the need to
discriminate have is to go private?

Well, then you're the only person in the universe who can understand
Roberts, because he just makes it up as he goes.




These bakers made bad business decisions - and then they made even worse
ones.

--
Bobby G.

It wasn't a business decision. It was a religious one.