Reply With Quote
More same-sex couples ought to use these Christian haters as ATMs.
Gawd is proud of usPAXTON, Illinois, March 30, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- A Christian couple in rural Illinois vow they will never host same-sex “marriages” or civil unions at their bed and breakfast, despite having just been docked $80,000 in damages to a same-sex couple they turned away in 2011.
Jim and Beth Walder were looking for a low-stress occupation when they opened the TimberCreek B&B in Paxton, Illinois in 2003. They never got their wish, having been flooded out three times since then and watched as half the trees on their pastoral property were torn down by a gale.
But worse was to come. Hard on the heels of Illinois recognizing same-sex civil unions, a sexual couple, Todd and Mark Wathen, inquired as to whether they would be hosting civil unions. “No,” responded Jim Walder. “We only do weddings.” At this point the Wathens had already been turned down by one B&B. *
But Walder didn’t just turn them down, the couple later complained. He hurt their feelings when he emailed them that, “We will never host same-sex civil unions. We will never host same-sex weddings even if they become legal in Illinois. We believe sexuality is wrong and unnatural based on what the Bible says about it. If this is discrimination, I guess we unfortunately discriminate.”
The Wathens then threatened Walder with prosecution under a state law prohibiting any business from discriminating. Walder replied that the Bible “trumps Illinois law, United States law and Global law should there ever be any. Please read John 3:16.”
Though the Wathens complained immediately to the Illinois Human Rights Commission it took until last December for it to rule. The Wathens, supported by the American Civil Liberties Union, based their case on state human rights legislation while the Walders invoked the state’s recent law protecting religious freedom. Their lawyers also argued their B&B was not a public facility and that they hadn’t refused service directly but merely described their operation.
But a judge ruled there was “substantial evidence” of discrimination based on sexual orientation. A week ago came the award of $15,000 each to the aggrieved sexuals and $50,000 for their lawyers. As well came an order to cease all discrimination.
The Wathens, who eventually had their ceremony in their own backyard, were pleased, as was the ALCU, whose spokesman Ed Yohnka told reporters, “We’ve seen this in other states, but this is now the clear interpretation of Illinois public accommodation laws. We hope that no other bed-and-breakfast and no other business in Illinois would be so bold as to discriminate.”
However the Walders, so far, are not surrendering. They issued a statement that says, in part, “We cannot host a same-sex wedding even though fines and penalties have been imposed by the Illinois Human Rights Commission. Our policy will not be changing.”
“In our opinion, neither the state of Illinois nor the U.S. Supreme Court has the authority to tamper with the definition of marriage. God alone created marriage and declared thousands of years ago that it was to be between a man and a woman. Not two men. Not two women.”
....
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.lif...g-to-host-gay#
More same-sex couples ought to use these Christian haters as ATMs.
, I'd get a friend and go to that B&B pretending like we wanted to get married. Free money.
No kidding
Lol. You got ing owned in this thread cuck got.
Lol your opinion means 0, dumb
Why no response from my earlier post:
"From what I read, he lost the suit due to embarrassing the couple online instead of for their not making them a cake. The verdict was for emotional injury, not gay rights."
Why are you guys ignoring the relevant facts of the case? He made online derogatory statements about them. This is what the case was won over. Not his refusal to bake the cake. He was wrong, and I support that court decision.
As usual you don't link anything.
Op: "family bakery owned by a Christian cannot refuse to make wedding cakes for sexual couples, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled Thursday."
I did in the past in a different thread. Resurrecting a thread so many months later gets confusing. The Gresham Oregon court case was won because of the things he or his wife said on social media, demeaning the gay couple. It started as a complaint for being gay vs. Christians not serving them, but that isn't what won the case. I know I have linked the facts, so it must have been in a different thread. My earlier link in this thread is not the specifics of the Gresham couple. Post 136 tripped me up looking back, because this thread is about a Colorado case. Not the Oregon case.
Yeah well you shouldn't wonder why nobody responded. Nobody wants to keep up with your for you
No problem. Worst cake ing ever.
Liething complicates the baking of a cake.
You mean ing cake, not cake ing. Don't confuse what is already a messy business.
Leviticus had nothing to say about liething with cakes as one would lieth with a women.
By my interpretation.
Last edited by pgardn; 04-03-2016 at 11:15 PM.
Depends. Why don't you describe exactly what you'd do to the cake if you were him.
Hmmn.
What could straights force a gay bakery to make?
a cake? you're such an idiot
^^^take a Midol.
I mean could they force them to quote scriptures denouncing sexuality on the cake.
A stone tablet cake from God with the Leviticus proclamation etched on the surface.
Then add part C section II (3b) concerning women liething with women if one made business with lesbian bakers.
Edit: Holy as I look up the polytroll read my mind.
No. What other things can you think of tho
when you are selling a cake....make the ing cake. stop worrying about other . your making a ing living....don't worry who eats the er.
So the gay bakery gets to discriminate against them?I mean could they force them to quote scriptures denouncing sexuality on the cake.
Again, the question of artisans' rights is being completely glossed over in the current debate. Making laws prohibiting people from denying a generic service is understandable. Making laws forcing people to create works that endorse or promote ideas or actions go against their political/religious/philosophical leanings is a bigger issue. If that line between generic cakes and custom cakes isn't drawn, it could be a big issue.
Can a liberal baker refuse to make a Trump design on a cake? Before all this started, I would have believed yes pretty easily. Now, I can't justify that belief. And that scenario is SOOOO benign compared to other possible ones.
maybe like an eclair stuffed through a doughnut? idk. what about a blueberry muffin shaped like a man having sex with rye bread.
Sure, why not
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
