Christian Bakers Fined, Gagged in Gay Cake Case

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Active Member
But what happens if you are lesbian?
Lol
If its a "Christian" court
Anyway we are not to swear
If a court does its job, what my so called sexual orientation is won't matter as it's the spirit of the Law which must be satisfied. The question therefore becomes, which spirit is being served?
 
I don't think they should have turned the other cheek and baked it. Can you imagine Jesus turning water into wine at a homosexual wedding. I can't.

And rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's does not apply here. God created marriage. It belongs to Him.
 
Active Member
This made me so angry when I first read about it. Now the gag order....
I'm just curious, what would this judge do if a church asked a homosexual owned bakery to make a cake with the writing "Sodomy Is A Sin" ? Would the church be able to sue when the bakery would most likely refuse to make it ?
Do not let it make you angry my friend, the battle is not ours.:wink:

I laughed at your second line comment, I could almost see you looking through a directory :grin: Meant as fun :thumbsup:

Jesus Loves you, we do too.
 
Active Member
I am not an expert either, and I'll admit that my claim is only as strong as the veracity of my source; however, one must admit that stories sometimes get spun to meet an agenda. When this happens, we often find ourselves believing things that out-of-line with the true nature of events, and in-line with what we would have them be instead.

Consider the following excerpt from a recent article:

What is widely known is that the anti-gay Christian bakers discriminated against the same-sex couple by denying them full and equal access to a place of public accommodation, which is against the law in Oregon, and presumably anywhere else in the U.S. that includes sexual orientation as a protected class.

What is not widely known, is that after the lesbian couple filed their original complaint, the Christian bakers published the lesbian couple’s personal information on social media, with terrifying and heart-breaking consequences.

After the publication of their personal information, the couple received death threats from many “concerned Christians,” threats that terrorized the couple and nearly caused them to lose custody of their foster children.

In its final order issued last week, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries found the Kleins liable for the threats made by others against the couple and awarded them to pay “$60,000 in damages to Laurel Bowman-Cryer and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer for emotional suffering.”

Now, consider the excerpt from the news source Reuters:


An Oregon judge has ruled that the owners of a Portland-area bakery who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple should pay the couple $135,000 in damages, state officials said Tuesday.

Administrative Law Judge Alan McCullough issued a proposed order last week that could mean Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery owners Aaron and Melissa Klein will have to pay $60,000 in damages to Laurel Bowman-Cryer, and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer, for emotional suffering.

No where does Reuters state that the owners of the bakery should pay $135,000 because they refused service. On the contrary, they were ordered to pay the amount for emotional suffering. One cannot simply jump to the conclusion that the bakery owners were ordered to pay such an inordinate amount because they refused service. That is a gigantically dangerous assumption conveniently in-line with the anti-gay agenda.

God bless.

Very interesting, but what we do not know is whether the judge 'considered' the refusal to make the cake was included in his final consideration. It may have been, it may not have been, we do not know.

We know more than we did which tells us more about the massive sums of money but, Reuters news source may also not know the judges final considerations.

What we do know however is there is a warning here for others not to go down the same road.

We also know as stated earlier in this thread...
That in May this year a bakers in Northern Ireland was fined for refusing to make a cake for a gay couple. The fine imposed was very small but it was the start and we may see more and as we do we can be pretty sure, I think, the fines will get bigger.
'Gay cake' row: Judge rules against Ashers bakery - BBC News 'Gay cake' row: Judge rules against Ashers bakery - BBC News
 
Brother-Paul, you are right, it is not our battle. :thumbsup:
But why would I be looking at a directory ? For a homosexual owned cake shop ?
I'm sure your joke was funny though... :smile:
 
Active Member
And also, I will never call it being gay. Gay means happy. I call it homosexuality, for I will not sugar coat it as when people call abortion pro choice.
I too call it homosexuality not gay. Yes to me gay means happy. :grin:

Gay Gordon's was a dance.

If a husband or wife are unfaithful they now say they are cheating! That is not as I understand it, now or in the past.

The world is forever changing the labels, giving things a more acceptable new name, more acceptable to them maybe; lies, adultery, sodomy are the same in God's eye's and in His Word.

They are all SIN! :crying: and the wages of sin is death.
 
Active Member
Brother-Paul, you are right, it is not our battle. :thumbsup:
But why would I be looking at a directory ? For a homosexual owned cake shop ?
I'm sure your joke was funny though... :smile:
I 'tried' to add a little humour because you seemed 'curious' and turned the issue round, it is always good to try see both sides, so I turned your comments round also :wink:

You said... I'm just curious, what would this judge do if a church asked a homosexual owned bakery to make a cake with the writing "Sodomy Is A Sin" ? Would the church be able to sue when the bakery would most likely refuse to make it ?

I'm sure your joke was funny though... :smile: God gave us a sense of humour, maybe I just got a small portion today, I was just trying :thumbsup: my wife confirms at times I can be very trying. :grin:

God Bless you, Jesus is Lord
 
Moderator
Staff member
Greetings,

I am not an expert either, and I'll admit that my claim is only as strong as the veracity of my source; however, one must admit that stories sometimes get spun to meet an agenda. When this happens, we often find ourselves believing things that out-of-line with the true nature of events, and in-line with what we would have them be instead.

Consider the following excerpt from a recent article:

What is widely known is that the anti-gay Christian bakers discriminated against the same-sex couple by denying them full and equal access to a place of public accommodation, which is against the law in Oregon, and presumably anywhere else in the U.S. that includes sexual orientation as a protected class.

What is not widely known, is that after the lesbian couple filed their original complaint, the Christian bakers published the lesbian couple’s personal information on social media, with terrifying and heart-breaking consequences.

After the publication of their personal information, the couple received death threats from many “concerned Christians,” threats that terrorized the couple and nearly caused them to lose custody of their foster children.

In its final order issued last week, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries found the Kleins liable for the threats made by others against the couple and awarded them to pay “$60,000 in damages to Laurel Bowman-Cryer and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer for emotional suffering.”

Now, consider the excerpt from the news source Reuters:


An Oregon judge has ruled that the owners of a Portland-area bakery who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple should pay the couple $135,000 in damages, state officials said Tuesday.

Administrative Law Judge Alan McCullough issued a proposed order last week that could mean Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery owners Aaron and Melissa Klein will have to pay $60,000 in damages to Laurel Bowman-Cryer, and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer, for emotional suffering.

No where does Reuters state that the owners of the bakery should pay $135,000 because they refused service. On the contrary, they were ordered to pay the amount for emotional suffering. One cannot simply jump to the conclusion that the bakery owners were ordered to pay such an inordinate amount because they refused service. That is a gigantically dangerous assumption conveniently in-line with the anti-gay agenda.

God bless.

@tomatobeta
I was quoting from the court transcript / order (it's about 132 pages long and bypasses the media bent that you mention).
Whichever way you cut it, the media nearly always words things to get readers attention, give them a 'new' take and usually twist everything enough in order to put a certain bias.
The things you quoted are typical of this and it doesn't really matter who quotes what. Even the news releases from the department that resided over the case presented a different picture from what their legal paperwork stated.

It appears that you might be presenting a report which suggests much the same as the anti Christian media has been presenting?

As I said before, we all NEED the forgiveness of the LORD.
The LORD offers all His forgiveness.
Some accept and receive with gratitude and humility.
Some reject outright.
The day is coming when ALL must stand before Him and receive according to that which they accept or reject measured out according to the forgiveness they reciprocate.

Did you know that no amount of money paid or received will, nor can it, provide restoration or redemption.

Jesus Christ has paid with His precious blood.
God's own Son suffered for the sins of the complaintants and the respondents.

Let us fill the temple with praise and reject all hatred and bitterness.

Bless you ....><>
 
Moderator
Staff member
Greetings,

Very interesting, but what we do not know is whether the judge 'considered' the refusal to make the cake was included in his final consideration. It may have been, it may not have been, we do not know.

We know more than we did which tells us more about the massive sums of money but, Reuters news source may also not know the judges final considerations.

What we do know however is there is a warning here for others not to go down the same road.

We also know as stated earlier in this thread...
That in May this year a bakers in Northern Ireland was fined for refusing to make a cake for a gay couple. The fine imposed was very small but it was the start and we may see more and as we do we can be pretty sure, I think, the fines will get bigger.
'Gay cake' row: Judge rules against Ashers bakery - BBC News 'Gay cake' row: Judge rules against Ashers bakery - BBC News
@Brother Paul
I think you'll find that the damages awarded were not a fine.

The awarding of damages were for the 'damage' which resulted from the refusal and it was through a 'court' that has nothing to do with fining for breaking the law.
Quite simply,whether anyone agrees or cares or not, the people who were refused took the refusal quite hard and reacted and were awarded fairly in accordance to how everyone is treated if they have a valid complaint.
Most surely, if the case involved a different set of people where professing Christians and same sex marriage candidates were not involved, most people would see no problem with damages being awarded. The problem lies in sin, it's called judging others as if we never had sin, and stripping people of all rights if we can pin sin on them.

And, by the way, it also appears that the 'gagging' is actually a prevention 'order' , prohibiting the bakers from advertising in any way that they don't do same sex wedding cakes and the like.
As many have pointed out, to do so would be somewhat a case of having to either turn a blind eye on everyone else's sin or else the bakers would also have to advertise that after interrogation of all customers, customers may be refused service if the bakers in all good and honest and fair faith and conscience deemed the potential customers to be wanting to use the service and product for what the bakers understanding of the Bible would be at that time considered as a sinful act.

Sometimes we react according to our flesh and often we wish we didn't. Hindsight always pops up after we bloop it!

Bless you ....><>
 
Active Member
@Br. Bear

Greetings

You say sometimes we act according to our flesh, sadly we do, it is so easy for us all to fall into this trap.

Although I accept what you say in your post above, I have one difficulty, nothing to do with yourself my friend, or anything you have said, it is the world we currently live in and the tie we currently live in. Sue, sue, sue is the big issue, because so often sue, sue, sue, means what is in it for me, what can I get out of this financially, money without working for it. You hurt me, I will make you pay for that!!! OK a wrong may have been done which should be 'forgiven', not to say lets first see what money is in it for me then I will forgive.

Forgive us our debts/sins as we forgive our debtors/those who sin against us. Unless we forgive others God cannot forgive us.

What we are seeing with the bakers situation, is that yes they did wrong, but whilst one person is damaged another is being rubbished. As stated above... You hurt me, I will make you pay for that!!!
 
That is the problem with Liberal ideology, I never said anything about homosexual thoughts, now did I? We are talking about professing homosexuals. There is no such thing as a homosexual, claiming themselves a Christian, with Jesus Christ in them, and be non-repentant about their sin. A homosexual, struggling with their sin and possessing a repentant heart is a completely different situation.
 
RJ,
First I must give you some backround Information. I used to on the local Tea Party Board. I do still believe what they say, but after much praying God let me know that is our Job to Love our brothers. In doing so I stay away from labels such as Liberal and Conservative. There are lost in both circles politicians and media figures stirring hate to remain in control. I believe we should all be ready to suffer for our Lord Jesus Christ and if they want to fine us. I would politely say I will shutdown first, if you care to through me in Jail for Christ they by all means. Now back to the Gay thing. I may have an opinion and my beliefs but only to the point I believe they are hurting themselves. I do not hate them and do not treat them bad, but will I not endorse their lifestyle. As far as Judging them, Only an all knowing all Loving God can Judge.
I am not God and at the points in my life where I was trying to play god all I was getting was g.o.d(grumpy old dude) Hand it all over to the one true God.
Only God can change a Heart.
May the Peace and Love of Our Lord Jesus Christ be with you Forever and Ever. Amen.
 
Loyal Member
Loving them and approving of what they do are two different things.

I'm not a baker, but if I was... and homosexuals came to support my business, that would be great.
I would sell them cakes, brownies, donuts, or just about anything they wanted.
However, if they wanted me to make them a rainbow cake with a same sex couple of the top, I would not.
I can love them without supporting or approving of what they do.

We will be held accountable for supporting and encouraging others to do things that we ourselves think is wrong.
In this particular case, I know there are at least 3 dozen bakeries in the Portland area. This is a fairly large city we are talking about.
Why did they pick this particular one with a cross and Bible verses?

Homosexuals who are genuinely interested in Jesus, changing their lifestyles, and supporting my business, by all means lets love them.
Homosexuals who are out to make a statement about their lifestyle and sue me because I don't support it aren't really looking for my love.

Besides, what shows more love..?? Knowing they are going to hell and not telling them the price of their choices.
Or talking the time to invite them in, share a few donuts and coffee, and tell them where the Bible says homosexuals will end up.

Romans 1:26; For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
Romans 1:27; and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

Obviously this passage is about homosexuality,

Romans 1:28; And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
Romans 1:29; being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
Romans 1:30; slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
Romans 1:31; without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
Romans 1:32; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

The Bible goes on to include these people with "haters of God".
Verse 32 goes on to say, not just who practice such things are worthy of death, but even those who give approval to those who do practice these things.
 
Active Member
Romans 1:26; For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
Romans 1:27; and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

Obviously this passage is about homosexuality,

Romans 1:28; And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
Romans 1:29; being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
Romans 1:30; slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
Romans 1:31; without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
Romans 1:32; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

The Bible goes on to include these people with "haters of God".
Verse 32 goes on to say, not just who practice such things are worthy of death, but even those who give approval to those who do practice these things.
Well covered B-A-C

And in these times we can also expect

2 Timothy 3:1-9 (KJV)
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.

Jesus said He told us of these things ahead of time.

PLT To God be the Glory, Jesus is Lord
 

Similar threads

Top