Christian Bakers Who Refused to Make Cake for Lesbian Wedding Found Guilty of Discrimination; Will Have to Pay Up to $150K

Incredible.

Christian owners of a bakery in Gresham, Oregon, who were forced to close their business in 2013 due to backlash over their refusal to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding based on religious objections, were found guilty of discrimination Monday and now have to pay the couple up to $150,000 in fines.

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries announced that the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery, Aaron and Melissa Klein, will have to pay the sapphic couple. Whether or not they pay the maximum $150,000 fine will be determined at a hearing on March 10 BOLI spokesman, Charlie Burr, told USA Today.

Laurel Bowman alleged in January 2013 that Sweet Cakes refused to sell her and her fiancée a cake for their upcoming wedding and that Aaron Klein called their relationship an “abomination unto the Lord.”

Later that year, Bowman filed an anti-discrimination complaint with BOLI charging that the Christian couple had violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007. Burr noted that although the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa are religious, the bakery is not recognized as a religious institution under law.

“Oregonians may not be denied service based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The law provides an exemption for religious organizations and schools, but does not allow private businesses to discriminate based on sexual orientation,” said Burr.

During a panel discussion at the Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C. last October, Aaron talked about the couple’s Christian faith and what Melissa’s bakery meant to her before they were forced to shut down after gay activists aggressively badgered and harassed their clients until they no longer wanted to do business with them.

“The boycotting, the harassment. I mean, quite frankly, they didn’t just harass us they harassed the other wedding vendors that we did business with,” Aaron told the audience. “It cut off our referral system; we had to shut the shop down. … We’re facing in excess of $150,000 in damages for this, just for simply standing by my First Amendment rights. … My attorney likens this — he calls it economic terrorism.”

That is exactly what it is.

Obama Calls Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ a ‘Story of Freedom’ in State of Union Address

Obama Calls Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ a ‘Story of Freedom’ in State of Union Address.

Figures…

“I’ve seen something like gay marriage go from a wedge issue used to drive us apart to a story of freedom across our country, a civil right now legal in states that seven in ten Americans call home.”

It still is a wedge issue that drives people apart; as for freedom, tell that to Christian bed and breakfasts, wedding cake bakers, wedding planners, etc., who have been persecuted, fined for refusing business of homosexual couples. No freedom there…

Christian-Owned Bridal Shop Under Fire for Declining to Schedule Lesbian Gown Fitting

Patriactionary

Christian-Owned Bridal Shop Under Fire for Declining to Schedule Lesbian Gown Fitting.

BLOOMSBURG, Pa. – A Christian-owned bridal shop in Pennsylvania is under fire for declining to schedule a gown fitting for two lesbian women.

According to reports, an unidentified woman called W.W. Bridal Boutique in Bloomsburg recently to schedule a gown fitting for herself and her lesbian partner. When the owner, Victoria Miller, declined by stating that the business could not accommodate the request, the woman took to Facebook to post about the matter.

“Unfortunately, she would not be able to schedule an appointment for us because they currently do not service same-sex couples — it’s just not something they do,” the unidentified woman said.

“We feel we have to answer to God for what we do,” Miller told reporters this week. “And providing those two girls dresses for a sanctified marriage would break God’s law.”

As previously…

View original post 646 more words

The Smoking Gun Turns On Marriage

What the last great culture war has to tell us about the new one.

The health of the individual was never the goal. No matter the public and private expenditure, 20 percent of the American population never seemed to get on board with anti-smoking zealotry (while 100 percent enjoyed it while drinking). People were content to leave the nonbelievers to their smoke-filled rooms. The advent of second-hand smoke campaigns, however, raised their consciences. Suddenly the actions of barroom enablers and individual users threatened the poor waitress.

The gay lobby has found that self-esteem is their secondhand smoke. Waitresses are turning ample tips into homophobic hatecrimes. Gay meth addicts murdered by their drug-dealing lovers are victims of homophobia. States that have experienced no wave of homophobic hiring practice despite the lack of anti-discrimination laws for gay people are at risk of mass-discrimination by quote-unquote religious people. And if your church preaches what every church—Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, hell, even Communism—preached for millennia, well then, you’re no different than the inhuman, diabolical douchebags draping “God Hates Fags” banners over military funerals.

The problem isn’t that the traditionalist view exists; the problem is that traditionalists exist. The new goal is to punish, not persuade, the individual, because of his potential threat to the community writ large.

NYT Reporter: Traditional Marriage Supporters ‘Unworthy of Respect,’ Deserve Incivility, Marriage Is Whatever Gov’t Says It Is

Figures.

Civil discourse has long been regarded as a necessary component of a well-functioning democracy. But a New York Times reporter believes that value should be abandoned in relations with those who disagree with him on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Josh Barro claimed that those who oppose redefining marriage to include same-sex unions are “unworthy of respect” and he is justified in being uncivil toward them in a Twitter debate with Ryan Anderson, William E. Simon Fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

The debate began when Barro tweeted on July 23 that “anti-LBGT attitudes” should be “ruthlessly” stamped out. Several conservative publications noticed the tweet and wrote about it (see here and here). They pointed out that in 2012 a gunman did try to “stamp out” the traditional marriage supporters at Family Research Council. Barro clarified that by “stamp out” he did not mean to “off people,” but “we should make anti-LGBT views shameful like segregation.”

On July 26, Anderson, who writes and speaks often in defense of the traditional definition of marriage, tagged Barro saying that “we may disagree, but no need to be uncivil.” To which Barro responded with the argument that segregationists should not be shown respect. He also described the expectation of civility in political discourse as “ridiculous.”

In a couple of different replies, Anderson argued that it is possible and preferable for those with disagreements to show respect for one another. Even those with deeply flawed thinking, such as segregationists, are deserving of respect due to the “innate human dignity” of every person, he added.

[…]

Anderson wrote about the exchange for a July 29 op-ed for The Daily Signal.

“Leave aside the dismissive way he refers to policy arguments for why marriage should be the union of a man and woman as ‘anti-gay’ (much like liberals deride pro-lifers as ‘anti-choice’ and welfare reformers as ‘anti-poor’),” he said. “The larger problem is that one of the country’s leading policy wonks and correspondent for The New York Times thinks that some people are ‘unworthy of respect.’ Not that some ideas are unworthy of respect, but that the people are.”

The Twitter debate also included a debate about the definition of marriage. Anderson has co-authored a book and several articles (here, here and here, for instance) presenting a case against changing marriage to include same-sex couples. The debate over marriage is not a debate about “equality,” Anderson says, because to know whether two things are equal, you first need to know what they are; so the debate over marriage is, at its core, a debate about what marriage is.

Barro argued that marriage is whatever government says it is. If that is true, Anderson responded, then “government could never define marriage wrongly,” so the real question is “how should government define it, based on what it is.”

“That’s part of our disagreement. You think the state creates marriage, I think the state recognizes marriage, based on human nature,” Anderson added.