Is it because his artistry is so much better than all those others?

Gay people timeline...

1985. We want tolerance!

2005. we want equal rights!

2015. (puts gun to head) bake the F**KING CAKE BIGOT !!

You are correct!

At the end of the day they get couple could have respected the bakers beliefs and walked away.
But they could respect the bakers beliefs.
It's really ironic. The whole situation.

But it will never happen that way.
Even if the SCOTUS rules against Jack Phillips and says that his creative artistry is not protected enough to refuse to make a cake for homosexuals, they will never target a Muslim bakery.
Just like the average leftist doesn't make fun of Mo-ham-head and calls him "a great profit" and with the same breath blasphemes Jesus. They won't target Muslims because they know some Muslims will declare jihad and try to kill them for it.
There may be some conservatives who intentionally call up a Muslim bakery to order something "non-Sharia compliant."
I just hope SCOTUS has enough sense to uphold the First Amendment. I really think these "discriminated minorities" like homosexuals are scapegoats being used to cause all of use to lose more of our rights.

I hear a lot of people say that, but I've never heard any proof that that's the case.

Unless there's proof that that's the case, it's pointless to speculate. Like you said, they were in Colorado to celebrate their marriage (which was in Massachusetts).

So if the store owner was a black man and refused to make a cake for a gay couple, he would still be labeled as a bigot? I have my doubts.

Definitely.

I doubt it as well. Also this is America. Land of the free. Not land of controlling the white guy to conform to your every complaint. Live and let live. Love and hate what you want. Spend money where you can or spend it where they take it. Also if you are a bigot, ots your right, just don’t expect good outcomes if you make your bigotry public knowledge.

This country spent the better part of the last 200 years discriminating against people with dark skin. Now that people are getting called out on it you'll are crying foul? You can't have it both ways.

They aren't just being called out on issue that happened generations ago, they're being forced to apologize a million times over for atrocities from decades ago. Grind is right you can't call a black man a bigot in this country. I had a black guy call me "boy" a few times. However if I called him that we'd be talking about the job I used to have.

Why are we talking about this? Because discrimination is still happening. This homophobic baker is just one example. The police shootings are another.

Yes, he would.

Name one semi-well known black bigot. Name one. If nobody knows him/her, it doesn't count. The truth is there are a lot of minority bigots that target their bigotry towards whites.

All members of BLM are racists.

whether or not a bigot is well known does not define whether or not they are in fact a bigot

And atop that, lets say that black people couldn't be bigots, why is that?
Is it due to black people being more open minded than white people?

You have 2 options, either accept that he was a bigot for his actions not his appearance, or admit to the hypocrisy of hill billies believing that black people are worse in every way

so which will you give up first?
Homophobia or racism?

So I'll reply to your first sentence cuz the rest is idk.

What you said is true about them being a bigot regardless of being well known. The point is that a black store owner wouldn't be labeled a bigot because he wouldn't have drawn the attention to himself the way the white store owner did. The media wouldn't have treated them the same.

Louis Farrakhan is black and he's a bigot. What's your point?

That's the best you could do? Nobody knows who that is without googling him. The point is that American culture only recognizes white bigotry, which is what this chain of replies is about.

Maybe, but nobody would know because the media wouldn't report on that. Right now there is a war on whites so every opportunity to make white people look like bigots is exploited to the fullest.

That's... needlessly exaggerated. Almost sounds like neo-nazi victim complex propaganda. (I'm willing to accept that white people are generally considered acceptable targets, but a "war on whites" stinks to me of something you read on /pol/).

But it's okay when blacks are the targets? Because it's been like that for too long. Iit's not even close to the way it's been for them and you're uncomfortable. How would you like the roles completely reversed? Think about it...

The pastor/evangelist is named Joshua Feuerstein.
Did those bakers have the right to refuse to create a cake with that message on it? According to what I'm hearing from people who say Jake Phillips had no right to refuse to make a specialty cake for the gay couple, no these pro-LGBT bakers had no right. OR they don't want them to have a right to refuse service based on the bakers morals, conscience, or feelings toward the message the customer wants promoted.

Yes, I'm all too aware of that train wreck known as Josh Feuerstein. Yes, the LGBT bakery was entitled to refuse to bake that cake, just like Jack Phillips was entitled to do what he did. It's a silly analogy, though, because the wedding cake they wanted was not decorated with a negative message like Feuerstein's intentionally negative cake request. But yes, both bakeries were allowed to refuse to make those respective cakes.

You didn't really answer my question:
Where the pro-LGBT bakers being bigots for refusing him service?
You said,"LGBT bakery was entitled to refuse to bake that cake, just like Jack Phillips was entitled to do what he did."
If they were both entitled to refuse service then why post a meme earlier that says, "He's (Jack Phillips) not a bigot because he's white but because he refused them service because of who they are"???

The cake doesn't have to contain words or designs that are against his beliefs/conscience because the cake itself is the center of a celebration of a ceremony that is against his beliefs/conscience. The cake stands for something, it has meaning just like his creative artistry has meaning. Is that concept really that hard to grasp?

I would not say the LGBT bakery people were being bigots in the Feuerstein example, because they didn't turn him away because of his race or religion. I would be hard-pressed to even say they turned him away for his viewpoint. They turned him away because the message he wanted on the cake was intentionally negative. A black baker turning away a customer for wanting a racist message on a cake is not the same as them turning away the customer because they're white. A message is not a protected category like race or sexual orientation or religion, even IF that message is based on someone's religious beliefs. There might be some gray area, like if someone wanted a cake that said "homosexuality is a sin," because that message (in my opinion) is a borderline religious belief.

Since when does being a cake maker put someone on such a moral high ground anyway?

In case this one doesn't get featured:
This ruling came 2-7-18:
i.imgflip.com/245joc.jpg (click to show)

Pointless to speculate huh? So much for science.

They went down to another bakery and ultimately got someone else to make them a cake.

Spicy!! B)

Suppose you owned something and didn’t want to sell it to me because you didn’t like me (news flash: you don’t!)? Would I be able to sue because you wouldn’t do business with me?

Why don't I like you?

In case this one doesn't get featured:
This ruling came 2-7-18:
i.imgflip.com/245joc.jpg (click to show)

This man is Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop.
This incident first happened in 2012 before same sex "marriage" was even legal in Colorado. The couple wanted the cake for their ceremony in anther state. He told them he would sale them a premade cake but would not make the custom cake they wanted. So they came back with a news crew and lawsuits ensued.
The government in CO really tried to mess up the baker's life.
The Supreme Court is hearing his case right now.
Alliance Defending Freedom is arguing his case.

The government can't for anyone to make anything they don't want to. How is this a problem? If the court rules against the baker, then I'm going to make all musicians put my name in their songs, otherwise that's discrimination towards me.

Sorry, unless you are considered a "protected minority" it won't work. Ask any leftists or Social Justice Warrior and they will tell you that straight white men can't be discriminated against. If you're a white woman maybe, just maybe, but probably not.

I'm not white. I'm native American. Oglala Sioux to be exact. And I believe in civil liberties. That being that someone cannot be forced to do something they don't want to.

That's great that you believe in civil liberty.
I am a straight white male so my social justice victim status in non-existent. Keep standing up for civil liberty.

I like how you show someone bending over in your meme. Because nothing says civil liberties like a white male complaining about the oppressed trying to stand up for their rights...

Nice :)

He already offered to sell them cakes he already made. So... He doesn't have to make anyone anything if he doesn't want to for any reason.

Also, his business is on private property. Therefore, enforcing his right to refuse business with a customer.

If someone refused my money, I'll take it to their competitor. And tell my friends about how he refused to sell to me and then maybe that'll hurt his business. But, I don't think there should be a law that forces him to make me anything he doesn't want to.

No one said he had to be forced to do it. But it's still discrimination. Besides, who wants day old cake for a wedding?

Gay or straight most wdding cakes are a day or two old anyway. But im a cakist and no one gets my cakes. White Flour, White Flour!!

My wedding cake was made the morning of... just saying...

I wish I could upvote this twice. Too funny!

Just because it's discrimination doesn't make it a legal or social matter. It makes him an asshole, but that's it.

Ummm he has to adhere to new rules now. It's a governmental force. Not physical.

Who said anyone was getting physical?

Nobody.

I guess we'll never see that guy make a gay wedding cake.

Life is horrid.

Yeap.

Are the gay cakes in your country more creamy than straight cakes? Do they come with more sprinkles? If I go to your country how could I tell if a cake is straight or gay?

And just how are rules imposed by the government enforced? I guess nothing happens to anyone who refuses to pay taxes?

Legal ramifications. You could easily look all this up, for yourself. Thank you, bye.

What is "legal ramifications"? And how are these ramifications enforced? Look, I will spell this out for you, plain as day, so you do not have to strain yourself by thinking. If you don't comply with the law, the government keeps escalating until you finally submit, or you are dead. That is the exact opposite of "not physical'.

When the term “legal ramifications” is used it means that there may be consequences or results obtained under the law. For example, not paying your rent on time with your landlord may have the legal ramifications of having to pay a late fee, being evicted or removed from the dwelling or place of residence.

Opposite of not physical, is physical.

What I want to know, that is also being left out of the picture, is the content of the cake. Why was a regular cake not good enough? Did the cake they wanted made had gay content on it? Perhaps a picture of one dude sucking the other dude's p**is? What was it that they wanted to make on that cake that was SO special that made the cake maker refuse to make it?

From what Phillips has said himself, "When I design and make a unique cake that is a celebration of the marriage ceremony."
He did not want to use his artistic talent to celebrate in something he does not believe in. That is his and every American citizen's protected First Amendment right. He was not refusing to serve them a cake, he offered to sell them a pre-made cake. He was refusing to use his creative artistic talent to celebrate or take part in their marriage.

Well, to confirm. Can we have the gay couple and the press go to a Muslim bakery and ask them to make a special gay wedding cake? Can we arrange that to make it happen? I will pay to see that on national television. Let's get them phone calls started.

It will be so much fun to watch. I can already see it. Season 1, "Being gay and buying gay cakes at Senegal and Jordan"!

I'd be interested to see the response at this Halal place up the street...

I don't know for sure but it seems his problem wasn't with the cake itself, but with who was buying it.

I think it is important material being left out. Does anyone knows for certain or do we have a bunch of people here arguing about something they don't have all the facts about?

It's still an active news item. The cakemaker is out in Colorado.

Comparing gay marriage to the Nazis is often a fallacy I see. How many gay people have set up laws against Christians again?

More like the other way around. Nazis were the ones persecuting Jews. Christians are the ones persecuting gays...

Hitler attacked the whole religion of judaism = bigot. Gay in not a religion but in fact a sin In religious beliefs. Not bigotry but def dumb but hey thats another amendment. Freedom of religion

And is this "sin" dangerous?

I think there are certain behaviors that stirred up feelings in them that made them uncomfortable... with themselves...

It can be. I mean, the Bible or other things doesn't declare things a sin without reason. Gays can contract AIDS, so can heterosexuals, but that's not the point. Humanity was never naturally meant to have homosexuals, otherwise, I believe that guys would've been born with the ability to grow in a va**na instead of a p**is. (sorry if that sounded offensive, it was not meant to be)

Gays didn't invent AIDS. Heroin addicts and heterosexuals can contract AIDS, too. If this guy wants to use religion as his excuse to discriminate, he's also in violation of what the Bible says. Love thy neighbor as thyself, judge not lest ye be judged. He's trying to blame Jesus when really *he* doesn't like gay people. Suicide used to be a sin deeming one's soul to hell. Now the Pope says the church understands about mental illness. Religion changes with the times. It always has. The court will decide if he violated any laws or was denying them their civil rights.

God doesn't like gay people but says tolerate. It doesn't say anything about contributing to they're degeneracy.
God says to let the little things go, but the big things you got to stick up for.

78% of aids carriers are gay, so I could make a solid argument that it is.
On a side note you're masturbating with a buttblug in your butt, to this thread right now aren't you myrian. Lol

I think in many cases religion is used as an excuse for bigotry and intolerance. Mormonism, for example has racism built into the fabric of the religion to where they only had their first African-American deacon in the early 90's. But all of our constitutional freedoms have their limitations. We do have laws against discrimination.

All this religion is bad talk and calling out different religions with not one mention of Islam.
Interesting.
Typical radical liberal behavior haha

Oh jeez... Do you mean radical Islam? Don't we get enough discussion about that everywhere we look? I thought most people understood about radical Islam. Plus the homophobic cake baker is Christian so....

In your comment above you're making broad statements in general and I noticed you're the first one to jump on the Mohammed bandwagon. Plus I don't like you.

Lol Mohammad bandwagon? WTF is that? ????????????

You tell me.

I have no idea. I'm not a fan of Islam in general because it's too sexist. I'm a Christian but I'm not thrilled with a lot of things Christians do either.

I always notice you're defending everything but Christianity.

I don't think that attacking someone necessarily makes you the bad guy. (Sorry if you were meaning that). Sometimes, it is definitely necessary to attack first rather than let your enemy grow, but that's not really the point here.

Basically, you can't really blame someone for attacking someone... if they are right. You don't really have to believe what I say, but it is very important to remember that no matter what you say, there's the other side to the argument.

Exactly.

Hitler did nothing wrong

To be fair, the business owner is getting into their business as the gay couple would never have forced him to bake a cake in the first place. Bringing it up as a way to discriminate isn't a way of staying out of their business.

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of a group which has said all those slogans for decades about "not forcing them to do whatever" and "stay out of our lives" who want to force others to do what they want instead of just leaving those others alone who don't want to celebrate in their lives.

And this wouldn’t be a discussion if homosexuality was still categorized as the mental disorder it is.

Cheers...I’m out before the flaming starts. Have fun bashing a guy who isn’t here. :p

In case this one doesn't get featured:
This ruling came 2-7-18:
i.imgflip.com/245joc.jpg (click to show)

I think the message, as stated by Jack Phillips, is, "I don't want to celebrate in a ceremony that I don't agree with, and when I design and make a cake my artistry is a celebration of that ceremony."
I think ADF looks for cases like Phillips' and takes them on for the individual and the values, rights, and liberties at stake.

Would he still make a wedding cake if it was for the 3rd wedding of that person?

What values are the ADF defending in this case then? Would they do it for Muslims?

He didn't refuse them service, like a racist restaurant owner saying to a black person, "We don't serve your kind around here."
The baker told the gay couple that he would sell them a premade cake, hence he did not refuse them service. He refused to make them a unique specialty cake in celebration of their same sex "marriage." He was well within his Constitutional rights as a citizen and artist. The state of Colorado messed up.

He refused to make them a cake for their gay wedding. That was refusing to serve them. That's where he screwed up. He could've just said he was out of eggs or something. But he made a point of saying he was against their lifestyle. It's the same as telling them to ride in the back of the bus.

This is not about them feeling discriminated against.
It is about a state using threats of force of violence to compel a certain type of speech from a citizen.
People who don't understand that have zero idea of the abuses they are attempting to open themselves up to.
The man is an artist and his hand crafted confections are protected free speech.
It was his Christian moral principles that precluded him from lying and saying, "Oh, I'm out of eggs," or using his protected freedom of speech and expression to celebrate in a ceremony that he wanted no part of.

His religion says to treat others the way he wants to be treated and not to judge others. He's clearly not doing that. He's a homophobe hiding behind his religion and using that to be a d*ck. If he wants to have the balls to use his "artistry" as a tool to discriminate, then he can explain himself in court. One judge has already ruled that he broke the law. The Supreme Court might side with him anyway so....

My reaction whenever someone tells me how a Christian should live out what my religion teaches and I know they have no idea what they are talking about.

I know exactly what I'm talking about because it's my religion too. There's a lot of hypocrisy especially when people start judging others based on their lifestyles.

That's not how proper interpretation and application of Scripture works.

So in your version of "Christianity" what do you do with Scriptures like 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Ephesians 5:11?

In case this one doesn't get featured:
This ruling came 2-7-18:
i.imgflip.com/245joc.jpg (click to show)

wonder what he'd've done back in the 60's if the plaintiff was black. would'e 'ave done any different?

You ever hear of the boycotts of the food counters at many large chain stores/restaurants/cafeterias in the Civil Rights Era?
Do you know why those segregation laws had to be enacted and enforced?
Because the owners of many of those food counters/restaurants/cafeterias would have gladly served people of color. But the leaders of those states (mostly leftists) wanted everyone to segregate and discriminate against blacks! Therefore they enacted and enforced segregation laws.

Just like the owners of the cafeterias would have served people of color, their are secular bakers and even other Christian bakers who will create cakes for same sex weddings.

It is sad that you are trying to associate some individual Christians living and running their businesses in accordance with their sincerely held religious beliefs with state enforced segregation and discrimination.

Why do you want the state represented by this judge to discriminate against the sincere beliefs of this Christian?

you ever hear of the boycotts of chick-fil-a?
what gives the idea that leftists were behind segregation? martin luther king was a liberal. most segregation took place in southern states, where most rightists live now.

not all business owners had to segregate.

~you ever hear of the boycotts of chick-fil-a?~
That's called a 'red herring' and is totally irrelevant to the conversation.

~what gives the idea that leftists were behind segregation?~
Look up who the governors, senators, representatives, and lawmakers of those segregationist states were at that time and find out for yourself.

~martin luther king was a liberal~
I know that he was a liberal theologian (but that has different connotations) bu if he was a political liberal then why were all the government officials who opposed him and the Civil Rights movement Democrats?

~most segregation took place in southern states~
Most doesn't mean "all" and those states were run by the left.

~where most rightists live now~
"most" lol
i.imgflip.com/249z1k.jpg (click to show)

~not all business owners had to segregate~
Why were there segregation laws in place then if they didn't have to segregate? The laws compelled businesses to segregate whether or not they wanted to, especially in the Democratic run South.

i don't align with the democratic party, let alone any party, who were the ones responsible for the jim crow laws. why do you suppose i defend democrats?

if you look at the map, most of the blue states are in the northern and western states, where there are more people per square mile. secondly, you can't count on an electoral college map to account for population as it runs on a winner-takes-all system.

martin luther king jr's opponents, if they were democrats, were democrats because the democratic party and liberalism aren't connected. people are complicated.

while i don't align with the democratic party at all, i am aware of the political shift, as the democratic party is now supportive for granting civil rights too all americans. rightists will deny the political shift, but still admit it, as they criticize old democrats for hating blacks, but then criticize modern democrats for hating whites.

You still didn't answer "why were there segregation laws in place then if they didn't have to segregate?"

Ah, yes, the "political shift." So, when did that happen exactly? Was it during the Civil Rights era? i.imgflip.com/23yz6v.gif (click to show)

Are you familiar with the "Dixiecrats"? Do you know how many Dixiecrats left the Democrat party and became and remained Republicans?

Eventually no rights for anyone will remain, including the "disadvantaged" minority populations.

Nailed it!

His First Amendment right which protects his speech, expression, and association. He feels like he was targeted based on his religious convictions but that is secondary to the state of Colorado violating his protected free speech by forcing him to use his creative talents to take part in (celebrate) an an event he wanted to have nothing to do with.

There is no problem here with freedom of speech

The problem is as I stated, his right to deny service, which he does not have, freedom of speech is not the same thing as the right to deny service

His artistic designs are protected speech.
He didn't refuse service (offered to sell them a pre-made cake) he refused to use his artistry to celebrate in their ceremony.

The state of Colorado used threats of force of violence to compel him to a certain type of speech that he did not consent to (baking and designing the "wedding" cake for the same-sex ceremony.) Colorado broke the law, not the baker.

His service / product is the creation of his artistry in the form of cake, and they were not asking him to halt his creative expression, they were asking him to continue it for a particular purpose, thus there is no right being violated

also displaying an image of blatant situational bias does nothing to help your credibility

Prohibiting speech is just as bad and unconstitutional as *COERCING speech. They used *force of government* to coerce this baker into speech/expression he did not agree with.

The last image was not "situational bias" because I have not attributed anything to the motives of the couple who sued the baker. It is not the LGBT couple or community wielding the gun (or club in this image) it is the government wielding the implements of force. In these cases on the behalf of the LGBT community to compel/coerce a certain type of speech/expression.

Do you believe in freedom of speech and expression? Do you agree that artistry is speech/expression that should be protected?

I do believe in freedom of speech and that it should be protected and the it is quite likely that the gay couple sought out trouble for attention which they should not have done.

However, he still doesn't have a right to deny service (or suggest alternatives etc.). As requiring someone to complete a service for payment is not the coercion or prohibition of speech or expression. Ideally, we wouldn't have any reason to have this conversation if the couple had sought to avoid trouble or if the baker hadn't held preference or whatever variable you wish to change.

You said, "As requiring someone to complete a service for payment is not the coercion or prohibition of speech or expression."

That is an assertion on your part. It is your subjective opinion. Nothing more.
This man's protected artistic expression/speech was coerced by the State of Colorado. That is why the case is before the Supreme Court.

I said that it wasn't coercion, that doesn't mean the inverse is also true and it does not mean that it was ethically right.

I addition, what stops me from saying that what you have said is your subjective opinion?

From what I've researched.

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- the federal law which prohibits discrimination by private businesses which are places of public accommodation -- only prevents businesses from refusing service based on race, color, religion, or national origin.

In case this one doesn't get featured:
This ruling came 2-7-18:
i.imgflip.com/245joc.jpg (click to show)

In case this one doesn't get featured:
This ruling came 2-7-18:
i.imgflip.com/245joc.jpg (click to show)

I have nothing against gays on a personal level, whereas, personally I despise anyone who tries to use force of violence (government coercion in this case) on anyone else. That includes straight Christian people (like myself) who try to legislate our personal morality on anyone else.

Something on which you and I agree

I was joking I was seeing whether or not you would actually take me seriously. I do that with every political meme, liberal or conservative.

In case this one doesn't get featured:
This ruling came 2-7-18:
i.imgflip.com/245joc.jpg (click to show)

No, they wouldn't and if you knew anything that the ADF says for themselves instead of what propagandists say about them you would know why.

Why do you assume I get my information from "propagandists"? I'm quite familiar with ADF and what they stand for. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy because they would happily defend a homophobic bigot on Christian conviction grounds but they wouldn't defend a racist bigot on Christian conviction grounds.

You are the one who tried to associate ADF with actual hate groups and it's the SPLC that has labeled them as a "hate group" because of their stance on First Amendment issues.
How do you know that Jack Phillips has an irrational fear of homosexuals? Which would be the actual definition of "homophobia," instead of being a catch all term for anyone who disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle.
Why does disagreeing with that lifestyle and not wanting to celebrate it make him, me, and millions of other American citizens "bigots?"
So, let me get this straight, he was willing to sell them products he had already made but he did not want to use his artistic talents (which are protected under the First Amendment) to celebrate in their ceremony, but he is still a bigot?

The actual definition according to Merriam-Webster:
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

Hell no hes not a bigot then. He was going to sell them a cake, just not make a custom cake from scratch. Its not like he refused a race or skin tone, it was a lifestyle. Born with it or not, its still a choice. They choose to practice homosexuality and the baker chooses to not like it. Now one should be persecuted or forced into liking a particular lifestyle. It does gross me out but if it grosses someone else out thats fine too. I know im never in my life going to practice homosexuality and many other things people do because i choose not to. Doesn’t make me a bigot.

No one says he has to like what they do behind closed doors. It's none of his business what they do with the cake after it leaves the store, though. He's imposing his "morality" or bigoted views on others by deeming his custom made cakes too good for them; they can have one of the old ones. This type of treatment was used against other races for a long time in this country. And up until 35-40 years ago, we might be having this same conversation only instead of homosexuals, we would be talking about African-Americans. It's the same kind of discrimination.

Do you ever stop to think they are discriminating against him by trying to force their beliefs on his?

You don't understand the issue!
So many people, even the Christians arguing about "religious liberty" don't understand the issue.
The issue is protected speech and expression under the First Amendment which is for everyone, religious or not.
The way the law is set up, due to the civil rights movement, is that a citizen is entitled to a product that a business produces but not an artist's creativity!
He was going to sell them a cake, but he did not have to use his art to celebrate in and honor their "marriage." It is that simple. Colorado broke the law, not the baker.

"You are the one who tried to associate ADF with actual hate groups"

I never associated ADF with any hate groups. In fact I pointed out that they *wouldn't* defend an openly racist person.

"How do you know that Jack Phillips has an irrational fear of homosexuals? Which would be the actual definition of "homophobia," instead of being a catch all term for anyone who disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle."

I use homophobia in the colloquial sense of aversion to or dislike of gay people.

"Why does disagreeing with that lifestyle and not wanting to celebrate it make him, me, and millions of other American citizens "bigots?""

I don't know what you mean when you call homosexuality a "lifestyle". Do all gay people eat the same foods, do the same hobbies and wear the same clothes? What does that term even mean? Are you engaged in a "heterosexual lifestyle"?

"So, let me get this straight, he was willing to sell them products he had already made but he did not want to use his artistic talents (which are protected under the First Amendment) to celebrate in their ceremony, but he is still a bigot?"

Yes, in my opinion. Let me make a comparison. Imagine if a diner owner said "I'll serve black people coffee, but not an actual meal. They can only have coffee at my diner." He is willing to serve black customers...up to a point, but not treat them the same as everyone else. Would you say that's racist? Or does he love black people, as Jack Phillips says he loves gay people?

So if I asked an Islamic bakery to make me a cake with Mohammed on it and bacon, because I self describe as an anarchist. That would be bigoted to right?

Hey Octavia. I like your style. But can we take it a little further? I mean, why stop with Christians? Why don't we take gay couples to Muslims bakeries and make gay cakes and force them to be accepting as well? Let's do it! Can I hold you accountable to make that happen Octavia? Think about the entertainment value. Time to make some money!

Seems like they target the least violent group they feel protected, but not the group that will actually stone them without even thinking and hanging their mutilated body parts as trophies. Good job Gay Totalitarianism. Targeting the ones you know you are safe, back in my days it was called bullying.

One of my favorites!

I never said that Christian bakers should be forced to make things they don't agree with. I have said the exact opposite.

In case this one doesn't get featured:
This ruling came 2-7-18:
i.imgflip.com/245joc.jpg (click to show)

Parents made the kid stop complaining.

I don't even argue with myrian. He has a mental disorder. Thinks he's another gender. And Octavia things a woman Can have her cock sucked.
This is who we're dealing with.

In case this one doesn't get featured:
This ruling came 2-7-18:
i.imgflip.com/245joc.jpg (click to show)

Right, but does the Bible really say anything about homosexuality? Sodom and Gomorrah attacked rapists, not gays.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

The person who wrote the Corinthians, knowns as Paul, never met Jesus. What did Jesus himself have to say on homosexuality?
Secondly, is the slight mention of homosexuals in the Bible a reason not to bake a friggin' cake for them? Let alone the fact that Miller may have still made a cake for the other people listed. May have, not saying she did it.

These cases aren't about baking "a friggin' cake" but being able to live with a clear conscience as informed by one's religious beliefs.

Try to get this concept: the bible doesn't say anything about reading the newspaper or watching mainstream media news. But if I get worried or angry or in a bad mood every time I watch/read the news and my conscience is not clear because of that reaction to the news, I should avoid it for my conscience sake.

(Not to mention all the lies, deceit, propaganda, and social engendering going on i.e. the reasons I don't watch the news.) ;)

I was that way for 10 years with Rock music. I used to listen to the most outrageous rock music but when I became a Christian I couldn't listen to any rock music, not even "Christian rock." My conscience used to associate the rock n' roll beat with the lifestyle that I lived while I was not a Christian. After 10 years I matured past that "personal conviction" and now I love to listen to rock music, especially when I exercise. I don't listen to the vulgar stuff full of blasphemy and sexual innuendo, but the beat and the music no longer effects my conscience the way it once did.

There are Christians that have no moral qualms or conscience issues about baking cakes or arranging flowers or taking photos for homosexuals. Other Christians who do just want to live their lives and run their businesses with clear consciences.

Anyone who commits any of these continuous, habitual, lifestyles of sin will not inherit the kingdom of God i.e. they are not Christians. "but such WERE some of you."

Why is Miller only selling to Christians? Isn't that bigotry, or a form of belief in supremacy?

Let me guess the crusades are just as bad a jihads

XD