Bakers Ordered to Pay $135,000 for Refusing Gay Wedding Service

The original story made the news about a year ago, and now the court result is in. A couple who owns a bakery must now pay $135,000 to a gay couple for refusing to provide service at their gay wedding.

Source: christiannews.net...

According to comments posted on the article, the gay couple's personal contact information was posted on Facebook for all to see. It is not stated whether or not the gay couple had also posted the couples personal contact information or other Facebook material regarding the couple.

The first amendment is the freedom of speech. Service, or servitude, is is mentioned as the 13th amendment, which is the right human beings have to refuse to involuntarily serve others. On one hand what goes around comes around. During the 1960's, bakers were forced to involuntarily serve black people in bakeries. The Christians never made an uproar or mentioned, "gee, what if someone makes me serve a customer that I find offensive... that wouldn't be right". So, now they face the consequences, now that the tides have shifted against them.

But, two wrongs never, never, make a right. The US constitution correctly points out that service of any and ALL kinds is voluntary. It is up to each business which customers they serve. If a business chooses to be offensively and grossly unfair about ANY of their policies, then customers can simply leave and shop elsewhere. Problem solved, without any use of violence. Big stores all know what happens when they do things that are offensive. They piss off their customer base and lose loyalty.

The poorly phrased US 13th Amendment is simply phrased and simple to understand. And while we could go around all day thinking of rare exceptions, its a good rule and it works. So, making exceptions is a waste of time and revokes status as a right. If something has ANY exceptions whatsoever, its then a privilege. The well-phrased 1st Amendment gives every person the right to post other people's contact information. If you don't have a confidentiality agreement, you have an absolute right to post contact information. If you don't have that right, you are a subject of the government, not a citizen. So, which is it? Most people honestly have little appreciation for freedoms, and much more appreciation for self-righteous judgement of others.

Failing to be served by someone who doesn't approve of your actions is bad. Being forced to serve any other person in any situation is a crime against humanity, so much worse. We have a right to set our own values, or we are not a fully free people. Freedom is what gives us life. Without choices, we are simply robots. Freedom is one step back, but two steps forward.

Seriously a crime against humanity, oh poor christians, don't worry do jesus will save them lol.

Revelation 2:10
Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you life as your victor’s crown.

Your definition of involuntary servitude appears to differ wildly from the Supreme Court's definition.

Probably should take a look at that.

a reply to: Shamrock6

"Supreme Court'" LOL

originally posted by: wayforward
The first amendment is the freedom of speech. Service, or servitude, is is mentioned as the 13th amendment, which is the right human beings have to refuse to involuntarily serve others. On one hand what goes around comes around. During the 1960's, bakers were forced to involuntarily serve black people in bakeries. The Christians never made an uproar or mentioned, "gee, what if someone makes me serve a customer that I find offensive... that wouldn't be right". So, now they face the consequences, now that the tides have shifted against them.

Yes they did. Much of the rationale behind Segregation was steeped in Christian rhetoric. There were just as many Christians bitter at the time they had to serve blacks as there are today bitter that they have to serve gays.

But, two wrongs never, never, make a right. The US constitution correctly points out that service of any and ALL kinds is voluntary. It is up to each business which customers they serve. If a business chooses to be offensively and grossly unfair about ANY of their policies, then customers can simply leave and shop elsewhere. Problem solved, without any use of violence. Big stores all know what happens when they do things that are offensive. They piss off their customer base and lose loyalty.

ACTUALLY the Constitution says in the 14th Amendment that you aren't allowed to discriminate based on minority status. It's called the Equal Protection clause.

The poorly phrased US 13th Amendment is simply phrased and simple to understand. And while we could go around all day thinking of rare exceptions, its a good rule and it works. So, making exceptions is a waste of time and revokes status as a right. If something has ANY exceptions whatsoever, its then a privilege. The well-phrased 1st Amendment gives every person the right to post other people's contact information. If you don't have a confidentiality agreement, you have an absolute right to post contact information. If you don't have that right, you are a subject of the government, not a citizen. So, which is it? Most people honestly have little appreciation for freedoms, and much more appreciation for self-righteous judgement of others.

The 13th Amendment just abolished slavery... Are you suggesting that forcing a business to cater to gay people (or black people is slavery)? Because that is ridiculous, it's not like the business wouldn't be compensated for the service. The gay couple would still have to PAY to have their wedding catered, which renders the slavery point moot.

Failing to be served by someone who doesn't approve of your actions is bad. Being forced to serve any other person in any situation is a crime against humanity, so much worse. We have a right to set our own values, or we are not a fully free people. Freedom is what gives us life. Without choices, we are simply robots. Freedom is one step back, but two steps forward.

This is complete horsecrap. A business being forced to serve all customers equally is NOT slavery and you should feel ashamed for dishonoring REAL slaves who have to work WITHOUT compensation.

a reply to: wayforward

This is stupid!

Any person has the right to deny service to anyone that owns their own business!

If they don't want the money from gays, so be it....Why are the courts allowed to say different?

This is just stupid....

originally posted by: 9thWatcher
Revelation 2:10
Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you life as your victor’s crown.

It's so nice that Christians have a catch-all so they don't have to take responsibility for their awfulness. "We don't have to change our ways! See! It's predicted in our book that we will be persecuted for our beliefs!"

a reply to: 9thWatcher

Last I heard they're the ones that interpret and define laws.

Whether you like their interpretation or not is immaterial to that.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

There will be a war first.

a reply to: 9thWatcher

There are always wars. Again, it's a great catch-all.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Same goes for the bible.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The truth always is, thanks for acknowledging it.

a reply to: 9thWatcher

Perhaps you don't know what the meaning of the phrase "catch-all" is. It means it applies to all situations. You can't be perceived as wrong by saying it regardless if you are actually wrong or not.

The problem with all this "hate" legislation, is that there will always be people, serial victims for instance, waiting in the wings to exploit it to make a name for themselves, and maybe a bit of cash on the side as well.

Real freedom dictates that the bakery owners have the right, as a private business, to decide who they do business with. If others do not like it, then tough, get over it.

I see there have been a few similar cases in recent times and it smacks of deliberate targeting of those individuals or businesses by people who already know, or expect a particular response or outcome, and are simply using it to push their own agendas.

Where do you draw the line?
If I tried to join an exclusive country club and they refused because I'm deemed not rich or affluent enough, would that also be grounds to sue them in court for discrimination?

It's very simple. If you own a business that serves the PUBLIC, you must serve ALL members of the public.

And yes, you have the right to refuse service to anyone, so long as the reason for refusal is NOT that the person belongs to a protected group.

If a customer is acting like a general arseface and you refuse to serve them. That's your right.

If a customer is gay, disabled, black, catholic, etc, and you refuse to serve them for THAT reason, that's illegal.

It's really quite simple. If your business serves the public, you can't discriminate.

a reply to: 9thWatcher

Was there a war when gay marriage got legalized? Did I miss it?

originally posted by: Britguy
The problem with all this "hate" legislation, is that there will always be people, serial victims for instance, waiting in the wings to exploit it to make a name for themselves, and maybe a bit of cash on the side as well.

So what? There are ALWAYS people waiting to exploit ANY situation. This is nothing new and a poor reason not to legislate something.

Real freedom dictates that the bakery owners have the right, as a private business, to decide who they do business with. If others do not like it, then tough, get over it.

Then this country hasn't operated on real freedom for a LONG time.

I see there have been a few similar cases in recent times and it smacks of deliberate targeting of those individuals or businesses by people who already know, or expect a particular response or outcome, and are simply using it to push their own agendas.

Doesn't matter. The legal world only cares about being technically right.

Where do you draw the line?
If I tried to join an exclusive country club and they refused because I'm deemed not rich or affluent enough, would that also be grounds to sue them in court for discrimination?

You answered your own question, by including the adjective "exclusive" in front of country club, you just defined it as a private business, NOT open to the public at large. Private organizations like that ARE allowed to discriminate. That's why the Boy Scouts of America were allowed to continue to not let gays into the scouts when that big controversy went down.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Look at the world today, the war has begun, Homo Marriage was just another shot heard around the world.

a reply to: 9thWatcher

Sooo... Because gay people can marry in the United States now, a war has begun?

Nay, a war was ALREADY in full swing, and gay marriage was just another "shot" in that war?

Do you know what war is?

You keep saying that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.