When does personal belief get to be practiced and when not?

[Deleted]

Dec 30, 2015 9:20:15 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Dec 30, 2015 9:09:55 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Its interesting how people look at things so differently. I consider myself a Christian woman. To me, that means that I should love my neighbor. Making an excuse or lying to get out of selling them a cake....I don't know. That doesn't seem to me to be what I was taught. They weren't asking the baker to stand up and witness with them.  They weren't asking him/her to have a threesome. They wanted a cake. It's my feeling, as a Christian woman, that they get their cake without my judgment. That's not my job. Baking cakes is.

If your belief was that this was a form of participation, would you feel the same way? So again, where do we draw the line at when personal belief is allowed to be practiced and when is it not?

You don't get to force personal beliefs on others. The FACT is that baking and selling cakes is not a practice of religion. If selling cakes were against your religion you wouldn't own a bakery. 

[billisonboard]

Dec 29, 2015 17:54:22 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Dec 29, 2015 17:39:39 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

...
So when does personal belief get to be practiced and when does it not?

So is this a question of what the law states or is it asking for opinion?

Dec 29, 2015 18:26:28 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

...Asking an opinion...

Dec 30, 2015 8:56:58 GMT -5 Opti said:

...
Its pretty simple - is it against the law or not?
...

Yeah, but in a Billtopia the law would be ...

What would it be in Youtopia?

I think that is what the OP is asking.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Dec 30, 2015 9:20:15 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Dec 30, 2015 9:09:55 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Its interesting how people look at things so differently. I consider myself a Christian woman. To me, that means that I should love my neighbor. Making an excuse or lying to get out of selling them a cake....I don't know. That doesn't seem to me to be what I was taught. They weren't asking the baker to stand up and witness with them.  They weren't asking him/her to have a threesome. They wanted a cake. It's my feeling, as a Christian woman, that they get their cake without my judgment. That's not my job. Baking cakes is.

If your belief was that this was a form of participation, would you feel the same way? So again, where do we draw the line at when personal belief is allowed to be practiced and when is it not?

I don't know.  That isn't my belief and it's difficult to imagine that it is. I suppose that if I felt it was participatory, I would still make the cake because I'm in business and that's what you have to do. It is still my choice to own and run a bakery. If there are segments of the public I do not wish to sell to, I'm in the wrong line. As someone else said, there are certain protections given to business owners. There are also certain rules they have to abide by. If it bothered me that much and I felt my eternity was threatened, I'd go into a different like of work.  I am to abide my man's law as long as it isn't contradictive to God's law.  I don't see that it is in this particular case.

Now...is that fair?  It is to me, but again...that's subjective.

[Deleted]

I don't like other ladies seing me naked (i.e. Anyone seeing me naked) Did I try to make the Blue Lagoon in Iceland have all the ladies go away while I changed? Nope, just went in one of the private stalls provided  and changed. Just FYI, that was the only place ever in my life I saw tons of boobs and vjj just hanging out. 

Eta: I do think locker rooms probably provide the 'at some point' where the balance of each party being comfortable might be waged. However I don't know many people in this country who are completely comfortable in any locker room situation especially with strangers... So maybe rethinking the concept, private areas, is more an answer. 

[Opti]

Dec 30, 2015 9:19:03 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Dec 30, 2015 8:56:58 GMT -5 Opti said:

Its pretty simple - is it against the law or not?

For example say you practice voodoo and own a deli. Health dept laws are going to prohibit sacrificing chickens in the deli. Depending on your local animal cruelty laws it may be OK or not, to do so in the privacy of your own home or on your property.

Not really that simple since laws are usually showing what people in general find acceptable or not....

I disagree, it is simple. You can choose to go against the law, but you then accept the penalties of doing so.

I think some people are hung up on this specific example because they feel the rights of the bakers supercede those of the couple. I wonder if they would feel the same way if it was minor things going against what they believe. Many Muslims believe women's hair should be covered. Would it be OK for a Muslim shop owner to refuse service to women with uncovered hair because of their religion or to only serve them if they wear a head scarf in the store? Would  it be OK to refuse service to men who shaved their beards?

You might prefer a law that lets business owners discriminate against gays especially for wedding services, I do not.

[Deleted]

Maybe the bakery or any business for that matter, should have a disclaimer in present site that reads they are not responsible for the use of their products other than presenting their goods as edibles (or whatever the product's core use is)- Too, that the views of those patronizing do not represent the business's heart. No? 

As far as gender friendly restrooms- I would try and empty myself before going out. And if I am in a tight while I am out, I will do a google search and find a community bible believing church (That is open for the public. So many aren't) to relieve myself.   There is a way to get around laws we don't agree with, legally.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Dec 30, 2015 9:22:56 GMT -5 oped said:

Dec 30, 2015 9:20:15 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

If your belief was that this was a form of participation, would you feel the same way? So again, where do we draw the line at when personal belief is allowed to be practiced and when is it not?

You don't get to force personal beliefs on others. The FACT is that baking and selling cakes is not a practice of religion. If selling cakes were against your religion you wouldn't own a bakery. 

The FACT that baking the cake itself isn't religious isn't really the issue, it's if you view baking the cake as being a participant in what you are baking the cake for that is the issue. The purpose wasn't to get into a long, drawn out discussion of if the bakers should have baked the cake or not (because I honestly doubt anybody is really going to change their mind one way or another on the issue), it was meant to discuss the general concept of how we determine what causes harm and when a person belief gets to be practiced or not in general. I put in the transgender example because it is the most recent example I've seen in court cases where a person's personal belief IS being forced on others. So again, just a general discussion about how we determine which beliefs get to be forced on others and which ones do not.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Dec 30, 2015 9:25:57 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Dec 30, 2015 9:20:15 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

If your belief was that this was a form of participation, would you feel the same way? So again, where do we draw the line at when personal belief is allowed to be practiced and when is it not?

I don't know.  That isn't my belief and it's difficult to imagine that it is. I suppose that if I felt it was participatory, I would still make the cake because I'm in business and that's what you have to do. It is still my choice to own and run a bakery. If there are segments of the public I do not wish to sell to, I'm in the wrong line. As someone else said, there are certain protections given to business owners. There are also certain rules they have to abide by. If it bothered me that much and I felt my eternity was threatened, I'd go into a different like of work.  I am to abide my man's law as long as it isn't contradictive to God's law.  I don't see that it is in this particular case.

Now...is that fair?  It is to me, but again...that's subjective.

I'm trying to get a general discussion of how we do determine which beliefs get to be practiced or not.  Some say that as long as it doesn't cause "harm" to un-consenting others, but then we have to determine what is "harm."  I used two examples, not necessarily to determine what people think about each situation, but to promote a discussion about which personal beliefs get to be practiced (or forced on others) and which do not.  In the two examples I chose, it was basically one being told they could not and the other being told they could....so how do we make that determination?

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Dec 30, 2015 9:35:48 GMT -5 Opti said:

Dec 30, 2015 9:19:03 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Not really that simple since laws are usually showing what people in general find acceptable or not....

I disagree, it is simple. You can choose to go against the law, but you then accept the penalties of doing so.

Is a biological male who identifies as female going against the law?

I think some people are hung up on this specific example because they feel the rights of the bakers supercede those of the couple. I wonder if they would feel the same way if it was minor things going against what they believe. Many Muslims believe women's hair should be covered. Would it be OK for a Muslim shop owner to refuse service to women with uncovered hair because of their religion or to only serve them if they wear a head scarf in the store? Would  it be OK to refuse service to men who shaved their beards?

IMO, yes to both cases...it's their shop and if they don't want to make the sale for whatever reason, that's up to them.  However, in both of those cases, there wouldn't be a court case because none of those characteristics are considered to be protected. 

You might prefer a law that lets business owners discriminate against gays especially for wedding services, I do not. 

You got me

[Green Eyed Lady]

Dec 30, 2015 10:28:41 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Dec 30, 2015 9:25:57 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

I don't know.  That isn't my belief and it's difficult to imagine that it is. I suppose that if I felt it was participatory, I would still make the cake because I'm in business and that's what you have to do. It is still my choice to own and run a bakery. If there are segments of the public I do not wish to sell to, I'm in the wrong line. As someone else said, there are certain protections given to business owners. There are also certain rules they have to abide by. If it bothered me that much and I felt my eternity was threatened, I'd go into a different like of work.  I am to abide my man's law as long as it isn't contradictive to God's law.  I don't see that it is in this particular case.

Now...is that fair?  It is to me, but again...that's subjective.

I'm trying to get a general discussion of how we do determine which beliefs get to be practiced or not.  Some say that as long as it doesn't cause "harm" to un-consenting others, but then we have to determine what is "harm."  I used two examples, not necessarily to determine what people think about each situation, but to promote a discussion about which personal beliefs get to be practiced (or forced on others) and which do not.  In the two examples I chose, it was basically one being told they could not and the other being told they could....so how do we make that determination?

I'm getting that you feel your question isn't being answered.  The reason that might be is that there is no answer individually.  We don't get to individually decide.  For example, I don't get to say, should I own a bakery, that it causes me harm to sell a cake to a homosexual but it doesn't cause me harm to sell a cake to a heterosexual.  I don't get to make that decision.  My business is open to the public.  Once I opened that business...yes...I forfeited my right to unilaterally decide who I get to serve.  I don't think, if we are being honest, we'd want it any other way.

So...I don't know that there is an answer to your question because we don't get to individually determine which beliefs get practiced.  I laugh every time I read someone say something about beliefs "getting shoved down their throat".  You'd have to be one weak, pitiful individual to allow that to happen.  Privately, I get to decide if I want to bake a cake out of my home for a same-sex marriage.  Publically, if I own a business, I don't.  It's not something that's open to individual interpretations. 

I'm not saying that very well and I know that, but I don't think your question can be answered in the way you want it to be - with clear and concise guidelines other than what is legal and what is not.  We can't make that determination without considering that. 

[Shooby]

  If the baker refuses to bake a cake, then the "penalty" is implicit.  He/she loses that business.  And, the gay couple can reward another baker or advise other people not to use that baker, etc.  That is the free market not govt shoving it's fist up our arses.

[Green Eyed Lady]

I think the best guideline to answer your question has been given. It's decided according to the harm it may/does cause others. I don't know how else to answer.

[Opti]

Dec 30, 2015 10:38:34 GMT -5 Shooby said:

  If the baker refuses to bake a cake, then the "penalty" is implicit.  He/she loses that business.  And, the gay couple can reward another baker or advise other people not to use that baker, etc.  That is the free market not govt shoving it's fist up our arses.

So its OK for a business owner to shove a fist up a former customer's ass by publishing their home address on social media?

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Dec 30, 2015 10:38:07 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Dec 30, 2015 10:28:41 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

I'm trying to get a general discussion of how we do determine which beliefs get to be practiced or not.  Some say that as long as it doesn't cause "harm" to un-consenting others, but then we have to determine what is "harm."  I used two examples, not necessarily to determine what people think about each situation, but to promote a discussion about which personal beliefs get to be practiced (or forced on others) and which do not.  In the two examples I chose, it was basically one being told they could not and the other being told they could....so how do we make that determination?

I'm getting that you feel your question isn't being answered.  The reason that might be is that there is no answer individually.  We don't get to individually decide.  For example, I don't get to say, should I own a bakery, that it causes me harm to sell a cake to a homosexual but it doesn't cause me harm to sell a cake to a heterosexual.  I don't get to make that decision.  My business is open to the public.  Once I opened that business...yes...I forfeited my right to unilaterally decide who I get to serve.  I don't think, if we are being honest, we'd want it any other way.

So...I don't know that there is an answer to your question because we don't get to individually determine which beliefs get practiced.  I laugh every time I read someone say something about beliefs "getting shoved down their throat".  You'd have to be one weak, pitiful individual to allow that to happen.  Privately, I get to decide if I want to bake a cake out of my home for a same-sex marriage.  Publically, if I own a business, I don't.  It's not something that's open to individual interpretations. 

I'm not saying that very well and I know that, but I don't think your question can be answered in the way you want it to be - with clear and concise guidelines other than what is legal and what is not.  We can't make that determination without considering that. 

It's not an easy question to answer, and I'm not sure it's really a question people really think about much until cases like the above two happen.  However, it is a question that we do have to deal with as a society. 

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Dec 30, 2015 10:39:52 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

I think the best guideline to answer your question has been given. It's decided according to the harm it may/does cause others. I don't know how else to answer.

Do you think that guideline was/is consistent in the two examples above?  It's easy to say that, but trying to determine how it applies in different situations is the difficulty.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Dec 30, 2015 10:44:54 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Dec 30, 2015 10:39:52 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

I think the best guideline to answer your question has been given. It's decided according to the harm it may/does cause others. I don't know how else to answer.

Do you think that guideline was/is consistent in the two examples above?  It's easy to say that, but trying to determine how it applies in different situations is the difficulty.

I don't know since "harm" is obviously subjective, too. I'm glad I don't have to make the decisions!

[Chocolate Lover]

Dec 30, 2015 10:23:30 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Dec 30, 2015 9:22:56 GMT -5 oped said:

You don't get to force personal beliefs on others. The FACT is that baking and selling cakes is not a practice of religion. If selling cakes were against your religion you wouldn't own a bakery. 

The FACT that baking the cake itself isn't religious isn't really the issue, it's if you view baking the cake as being a participant in what you are baking the cake for that is the issue. The purpose wasn't to get into a long, drawn out discussion of if the bakers should have baked the cake or not (because I honestly doubt anybody is really going to change their mind one way or another on the issue), it was meant to discuss the general concept of how we determine what causes harm and when a person belief gets to be practiced or not in general. I put in the transgender example because it is the most recent example I've seen in court cases where a person's personal belief IS being forced on others. So again, just a general discussion about how we determine which beliefs get to be forced on others and which ones do not.

My question is, how do you KNOW if you have a transgender in the bathroom with you? I'm not talking gym, I'm talking restrooms. I've seen a lot of manly looking women in my time and I can only verify that ONE is actually female. I've known that one a long time.  Locker rooms.... I honestly joined the band in elementary school to get out of ever setting foot in a locker room with my own gender. I don't want to be in one with anyone for any reason. I suspect that most trans people would be looking for private spaces, for security if no other reason. I'd feel very unsafe being outnumbered when you don't know who thinks what. 

[djAdvocate]

Dec 30, 2015 8:49:48 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Dec 29, 2015 22:08:12 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

so long as it does not harm the person or property of non-consenting others, of course.

So what constitutes "harm to non-consenting others?" What about the case of the transgender person being able to use or not use the same facilities (i.e. showers, etc) as the gender they identify with? People want to talk about the religious aspect of one of the examples I used, but this isn't the right board for that; just pointing out two cases where the beliefs of one are considered to be protected and the beliefs of the other are not considered protected to practice. 

harm is defined by law.  anything that is not deemed "harm" is dismissed by the courts.

i really don't get what is so complicated about any of this.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 30, 2015 9:20:15 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Dec 30, 2015 9:09:55 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Its interesting how people look at things so differently. I consider myself a Christian woman. To me, that means that I should love my neighbor. Making an excuse or lying to get out of selling them a cake....I don't know. That doesn't seem to me to be what I was taught. They weren't asking the baker to stand up and witness with them.  They weren't asking him/her to have a threesome. They wanted a cake. It's my feeling, as a Christian woman, that they get their cake without my judgment. That's not my job. Baking cakes is.

If your belief was that this was a form of participation, would you feel the same way? So again, where do we draw the line at when personal belief is allowed to be practiced and when is it not?

when it runs afoul of the law.

in this case, the law in question is public accommodation.  anyone entering into a business that is governed by that set of laws should be familiar with them.  if not, that is THEIR problem.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 30, 2015 8:51:11 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Dec 29, 2015 22:47:23 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I'll take my previous comment one step further...

If you sell wedding cakes you must sell them to everyone that wants to buy them... BUT if you only sell "Bride & Groom" toppers for those wedding cakes then you can't be forced to sell "Bride & Bride" or "Groom & Groom" toppers....

Do you know why?

Because you don't carry them! It's not a saleable object/item you normally carry!



Basically, practice "Personal" belief on "personal" time. Once you get to work to serve the general public... serve the general public equally.

I doubt that would fly because I'm pretty sure the courts would have said it would not cause an unreasonable burden on the bakers to obtain different toppers.

no.  the government has no say in what toppers a business carries.  try to understand that.  it is actually important.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 30, 2015 10:38:34 GMT -5 Shooby said:

  If the baker refuses to bake a cake, then the "penalty" is implicit.  He/she loses that business.  And, the gay couple can reward another baker or advise other people not to use that baker, etc.  That is the free market not govt shoving it's fist up our arses.

the baker would never have been fined if she had not publicly shamed the couple.  did you know you were changing the subject, or did you do it on accident?

[Robert not Bobby]

So when does personal belief get to be practiced and when does it not?
_____________________________________________

I think you should always be guided by personal belief, but if you are serving the public you should treat everyone equally, no matter how offensive to you personally. We all have likes and dislikes...but that doesn't mean you only serve blue eyed blondes who are 5'6" and less than 120 Ibs? (actually, I like green eyed ladies)

In your private life, you can choose your friends based on whatever criteria you hold dear to you, but in the public realm, you should be respectful of everyone.

[Shooby]

Dec 30, 2015 10:42:14 GMT -5 Opti said:

Dec 30, 2015 10:38:34 GMT -5 Shooby said:

  If the baker refuses to bake a cake, then the "penalty" is implicit.  He/she loses that business.  And, the gay couple can reward another baker or advise other people not to use that baker, etc.  That is the free market not govt shoving it's fist up our arses.

So its OK for a business owner to shove a fist up a former customer's ass by publishing their home address on social media?

I don't know.  Not sure what you are talking about.

[Opti]

Dec 30, 2015 14:47:40 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Dec 30, 2015 10:42:14 GMT -5 Opti said:

So its OK for a business owner to shove a fist up a former customer's ass by publishing their home address on social media?

I don't know.  Not sure what you are talking about.

The business owner in the bakery case put court docs up on FB that had the former customer's address on it.

The former customers got harassed because the business owner did that. It wasn't just the cake.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 30, 2015 14:50:28 GMT -5 Opti said:

Dec 30, 2015 14:47:40 GMT -5 Shooby said:

I don't know.  Not sure what you are talking about.

The business owner in the bakery case put court docs up on FB that had the former customer's address on it.

The former customers got harassed because the business owner did that. It wasn't just the cake.

the fine would have been basically zero if it was just the cake.  the case might have been dismissed. 

the harm was in the harassing behaviour of the cake lady.

[Deleted]

Dec 30, 2015 8:51:11 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Dec 29, 2015 22:47:23 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I'll take my previous comment one step further...

If you sell wedding cakes you must sell them to everyone that wants to buy them... BUT if you only sell "Bride & Groom" toppers for those wedding cakes then you can't be forced to sell "Bride & Bride" or "Groom & Groom" toppers....

Do you know why?

Because you don't carry them! It's not a saleable object/item you normally carry!



Basically, practice "Personal" belief on "personal" time. Once you get to work to serve the general public... serve the general public equally.

I doubt that would fly because I'm pretty sure the courts would have said it would not cause an unreasonable burden on the bakers to obtain different toppers. But that is missing the point, in asking how to determine when personal belief is allowed to be practices and when is it not?

The bolded: It absolutely would fly. Because the defense would be "Would you, your Honor, require a Toyota Dealership to obtain a new Ford for a customer because the customer wished to purchase one there? The Toyota Dealer sells cars, and a Ford is just another type of car."

The unbolded: It is completely answered however in my last paragraph: "Basically, practice "Personal" belief on "personal" time. Once you get to work to serve the general public... serve the general public equally."

[Deleted]

Dec 30, 2015 10:23:30 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Dec 30, 2015 9:22:56 GMT -5 oped said:

You don't get to force personal beliefs on others. The FACT is that baking and selling cakes is not a practice of religion. If selling cakes were against your religion you wouldn't own a bakery. 

The FACT that baking the cake itself isn't religious isn't really the issue, it's if you view baking the cake as being a participant in what you are baking the cake for that is the issue. The purpose wasn't to get into a long, drawn out discussion of if the bakers should have baked the cake or not (because I honestly doubt anybody is really going to change their mind one way or another on the issue), it was meant to discuss the general concept of how we determine what causes harm and when a person belief gets to be practiced or not in general. I put in the transgender example because it is the most recent example I've seen in court cases where a person's personal belief IS being forced on others. So again, just a general discussion about how we determine which beliefs get to be forced on others and which ones do not.

If you "view" baking a wedding cake as "being participatory"... then you'd damn well better get the hell out of the wedding cake industry. I GUARANTEE if you bake wedding cakes that are for sale to the general public, for a living, that you have baked (or will bake) cakes for adulterers, for people that have had sex out of wedlock, for people that have had sex during a woman's time of month, and yes... for people that are gay/lesbian (they just didn't tell you).

[Deleted]

Dec 30, 2015 10:42:55 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Dec 30, 2015 10:38:07 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

I'm getting that you feel your question isn't being answered.  The reason that might be is that there is no answer individually.  We don't get to individually decide.  For example, I don't get to say, should I own a bakery, that it causes me harm to sell a cake to a homosexual but it doesn't cause me harm to sell a cake to a heterosexual.  I don't get to make that decision.  My business is open to the public.  Once I opened that business...yes...I forfeited my right to unilaterally decide who I get to serve.  I don't think, if we are being honest, we'd want it any other way.

So...I don't know that there is an answer to your question because we don't get to individually determine which beliefs get practiced.  I laugh every time I read someone say something about beliefs "getting shoved down their throat".  You'd have to be one weak, pitiful individual to allow that to happen.  Privately, I get to decide if I want to bake a cake out of my home for a same-sex marriage.  Publically, if I own a business, I don't.  It's not something that's open to individual interpretations. 

I'm not saying that very well and I know that, but I don't think your question can be answered in the way you want it to be - with clear and concise guidelines other than what is legal and what is not.  We can't make that determination without considering that. 

It's not an easy question to answer, and I'm not sure it's really a question people really think about much until cases like the above two happen.  However, it is a question that we do have to deal with as a society. 

I disagree. It's a very simple question to answer. Follow your personal beliefs on personal time. When you open a business you serve everyone.

And, as to the "transgender" issue... There are two solutions:
1> Transition ALL "facilities" to unisex and have a few "private/individual" rooms/stalls in each.
2> People use the room that corresponds to the physical attributes that they have - People with penises use the people with penises room, people with vaginas use the people with vaginas room.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 30, 2015 19:09:10 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Dec 30, 2015 10:23:30 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

The FACT that baking the cake itself isn't religious isn't really the issue, it's if you view baking the cake as being a participant in what you are baking the cake for that is the issue. The purpose wasn't to get into a long, drawn out discussion of if the bakers should have baked the cake or not (because I honestly doubt anybody is really going to change their mind one way or another on the issue), it was meant to discuss the general concept of how we determine what causes harm and when a person belief gets to be practiced or not in general. I put in the transgender example because it is the most recent example I've seen in court cases where a person's personal belief IS being forced on others. So again, just a general discussion about how we determine which beliefs get to be forced on others and which ones do not.

If you "view" baking a wedding cake as "being participatory"... then you'd damn well better get the hell out of the wedding cake industry. I GUARANTEE if you bake wedding cakes that are for sale to the general public, for a living, that you have baked (or will bake) cakes for adulterers, for people that have had sex out of wedlock, for people that have had sex during a woman's time of month, and yes... for people that are gay/lesbian (they just didn't tell you).

as well as rapists, pedophiles, drug addicts and......POLITICIANS!  (GASP)

seriously.  if you want to not bake shit for the "immoral", you are out of business.  don't even get started.  there are way more of us than there are of them. 

[zibazinski]

Dec 30, 2015 14:50:28 GMT -5 Opti said:

Dec 30, 2015 14:47:40 GMT -5 Shooby said:

I don't know.  Not sure what you are talking about.

The business owner in the bakery case put court docs up on FB that had the former customer's address on it.

The former customers got harassed because the business owner did that. It wasn't just the cake.

You mean the cake people publicly made a stink about the lesbian couple in retaliation for them making a stink about them not making a cake? So they "got even"