Canadian Jeweler Shows Bigotry to Lesbian Couple

Here’s an appalling story out of Canada, where a jeweler is happy to make money from a lesbian couple for their wedding rings, but only if he can also torment them by putting up anti-gay signs in his business after they ordered the rings — and then refuse to refund their deposit.

A same-sex Canadian couple said this week that a jeweler in Newfoundland put up signs opposing gay marriage after they ordered their wedding rings, and then refused to give them a refund.

Nicole White and Pam Renouf told CBC that they purchased custom wedding rings from Today’s Jewellers several months ago.

“They were great to work with,” White recalled. “They seemed to have no issues. They knew the two of us were a same-sex couple.”

She said that she later referred some of her friends to the jeweler, who informed the couple that the store had begun displaying anti-gay signs after the wedding ring order had been placed. “The sanctity of marriage is under attack,” one sign warned…

White and Renouf said that they felt like the rings, which were meant to be a symbol of love, had been tainted by the store’s anti-gay beliefs. So, they asked for their money back.

But Today’s Jewellers co-owner Esau Jardon insisted to CBC that he was not going to be bullied into giving the women a refund.

“I have been posting different aspects of my religious beliefs the last 11 years, and I’ve never had one single problem with any of my customers,” he said. “Nothing in that shop or in these posters is against the law… There’s nothing there that means to discriminate or to hate anybody else.”

He can’t get away with actual discrimination in Canada, of course, so he acts all nice, takes their down payment and then publicly mocks their relationship. Sure, we’ll take your money, but then we’re going to demean you while you wait for your order, which you then have to pay for in full despite our mistreatment for you. That’s some serious bullshit.

"Makes me feel positively festive ...♪ ♫ Oh Schadenfreude, Oh Schadenfreude ... ♫ ♬"

Davis May Face Gay Man She ..."
"His indifference and immaturity are certainly problems, as are his ignorance and his narcissism, but ..."

Report: McMaster Called Trump a Childish ..."
"Luckily, God pre-cursed Australia with poisonous everything just in case they ever uncriminalized so-called "Gay" ..."

Swanson: God Will Punish Australia for ..."
"Don't forget that he/it has terrible aim."

Swanson: God Will Punish Australia for ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • colnago80

    Apparently, the miscreant jewelers have agreed to refund the deposit.

    http://goo.gl/3nCHuK

  • http://www.thelosersleague.com theschwa

    Clearly, that jeweler was not a TRUE Canadian.

  • theDukedog7 .

    It seems that the gay couple is free to do business or not to do business with Christians, but Christians are not free to do business or not do business with gay couples.

    How about: give the gay couple their money back–don’t force gays to do business with people who hold beliefs they object to.

    And vice versa. Don’t force Christians to do business with people who hold beliefs they object to.

    Equal protection of the law.

  • colnago80

    Re Egnorance @ #3

    Okay, I have a better analogy. If, as according to Egnorance, a jeweler in business should have the right to not do business with a gay couple seeking to buy wedding rings, then a gay couple operating a jewelery store should have the right not to do business with a Christian couple seeking to buy wedding rings. Egnorance’s analogy is comparing apples with pineapples.

    By the way Egnorance, how come you’re not in the operating room cutting some poor sucker’s head open. Most surgeons like to start their practice early in the morning.

  • NYC atheist

    @3

    Your ignorance is astounding. Anybody has the right to not spend money anywhere they choose. What you cannot do is refuse service to people. It’s really not that hard to understand.

  • John Pieret

    It seems that the gay black couple is free to do business or not to do business with Christians white people, but Christians white people are not free to do business or not do business with gay black couples.

    Yep. That’s the way it works sometimes.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @4:

    “a jeweler in business should have the right to not do business with a gay couple seeking to buy wedding rings, then a gay couple operating a jewelery store should have the right not to do business with a Christian couple seeking to buy wedding rings.”

    Of course. I defend the right of gays not to do business with Christians. I don’t like forcing people to do things they don’t believe in.

    If the Christian couple can’t get their ring in the gay jewelry store, they should thank the gay store-owner for his time, say they respect his belief, and go down the street to another jewelry store.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @6:

    Do you really mean that it is or should be legal for blacks to decline to do business with whites, but not vice-versa?

  • theDukedog7 .

    @5:

    There are two different conditions under which service can be refused: based on identity of customer, or based on the service the customer requests.

    The Christian bakers aren’t refusing to bake cakes for gays; they are refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay marriage.

    Should a Muslim baker be forced to bake a cake with an image of Mohammed?

    Why use force to compel people to violate their beliefs?

  • John Pieret

    Do you really mean that it is or should be legal for blacks to decline to do business with whites, but not vice-versa?

    Black people didn’t have to go to Lester Maddox’s lunch counter because no one has to deal with any business. Once a person opens a business of public accommodation with public assistance (maintaining roads to get there, fire protection, water service, etc., etc.) the public can insist that the business person has to treat all customers the same.

    Now, once Lester put down his axe handle, whether he could put up a sign saying “N*****s are ‘threatening “traditional racial relations’ would be a closer question.

  • colnago80

    Re Egnorance @ #7

    Well, under current Federal statutes, the gay jeweler would be in violation and subject to penalties so Egnorance is in favor of rescinding those statutes. Of course, if the Christian jeweler or the gay jeweler is the only game in town, the putative customers are shit out of luck.

  • Doug Little

    @Dukedog7,

    You do realize that refusing to shop somewhere is not the same as refusing service to certain groups of people. What gives?

  • colnago80

    Re Doug Little @ #12

    Of course, Egnorance knows the difference. He’s just a troll attempting to promote home runs.

  • John Pieret

    There are two different conditions under which service can be refused: based on identity of customer, or based on the service the customer requests. …

    Should a Muslim baker be forced to bake a cake with an image of Mohammed?

    Probably not. But s/he can be made to bake the cake and give them the tools to make the image themselves.

    The Christian bakers aren’t refusing to bake cakes for gays; they are refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay marriage.

    What, specifically, made it a “cake for a gay marriage”? Did they ask for an image of gay people fucking on the cake? Did they ask for 2 male or 2 female figurines? Did they ask for “Congratulations Joe and Bob” written icing? All those could be refused if the baker gives the couple the means to do them themselves. What other about the CAKE makes it a “cake for a gay wedding”?

  • theDukedog7 .

    @10,11,12:

    Should a Muslim baker be forced to bake a cake with an image of Mohammed?

  • Doug Little

    Why use force to compel people to violate their beliefs?

    It’s the law. The question you should be asking is why do those beliefs put me at odds with it? That’s right because they turn one into an antisocial douchebag that doesn’t belong in a modern society.

  • Doug Little

    I’m a bit behind here, why do you keep referring to Dukedog as Egnorance? It isn’t the real Egnor is it?

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    A “Canadian jeweler” is also a sex act. Be careful, though. If you don’t pay attention you’ll lose your loupe. True story.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @16:

    You’re entitled to your beliefs. Should hatred like yours be the basis for law and for the destruction of a person’s livelihood?

  • gshelley

    “Should a Muslim baker be forced to bake a cake with an image of Mohammed?”

    Probably not. Why do you think this is a relevant question?

  • Doug Little

    Dukedog7

    What is the difference between a gay wedding cake and a straight wedding cake? If I lined up 10 assorted wedding cakes could you tell which is gay and which is straight?

  • theDukedog7 .

    @20:

    [“Should a Muslim baker be forced to bake a cake with an image of Mohammed?”

    Probably not. Why do you think this is a relevant question?]

    Depictions of Mohammed and gay weddings are sacrilege to Muslims and Christians, respectively.

  • John Pieret

    Doug Little:

    There is rather strong indications that it is, indeed Michael Egnor, including, at one point, when I was having a side conversation with someone about Egnore, I mentioned that I thought he had retired, Dukedog came back and said he hadn’t since he still had children in college. Of course, it’s possible that someone is elaborately spoofing him but …

  • theDukedog7 .

    @21:

    [What is the difference between a gay wedding cake and a straight wedding cake?]

    Why not let the customer and the baker sort that one out, respecting each other’s freedom, and keep the police and the courts out of it?

  • Doug Little

    @19,

    Perhaps they shouldn’t be in the service industry then, it’s not for everyone. I’m just saying that if your deeply held beliefs cause you to break anti-discrimination laws you might to re-examine those beliefs.

  • Kermit Sansoo

    Doug Little says:

    @Dukedog7,

    You do realize that refusing to shop somewhere is not the same as refusing service to certain groups of people. What gives?

    .

    Right wing extremists, whether religious or secular, rarely have reasonable arguments for their positions. One of the ways in which they try to hide this is by characterizing two different sets of behaviors as one, by a deliberately less specific description. Hence, he calls both offering goods and services as well as buying them, as “doing business with”. Whether a particular post is doing this from dishonesty or stupidity is not always clear; both are common.

    .

    If I described both surgery and a mugging by knife as “Cutting somebody with a dangerous blade” I could (pretend to) dismiss the profound difference between healing and attacking and (pretend to) present an argument that surgery is evil, or that a vicious attack is respectable. It wouldn’t be convincing, of course, but then these people rarely are. They play at philosophical and scientific argumentation like children play house. They can mimic it superficially, but clearly lack real understanding and often are hilariously incoherent.

  • John Pieret

    Dukedog @22″

    Depictions of Mohammed and gay weddings are sacrilege to Muslims and Christians, respectively.

    The depiction of Mohammed would, in your scenario, be on the cake and part of the baker’s service. The gay wedding is not a part of the cake and, therefore, the refusal to bake it is based on the identity of the customer, as someone is going to have a gay wedding, rather than the refusal to provide a specific product.

    So is refusing business based on the identity of the customer ok?

  • Chiroptera

    John Pieret, #14: All those could be refused if the baker gives the couple the means to do them themselves.

    Are you sure about that? I would think that the anti-discrimination laws demand you provide the same services to protected groups that you provide to everyone else, including the figurines and writing the names.

    There was that one incident not long ago, but I thought that the legal principle was that refusing to write hate speech on a cake wasn’t discrimination; offering to provide the tools for the patron to finish it himself was legally irrelevant.

    Am I wrong?

  • colnago80

    Re Doug Little @ #17

    Egnorance admitted in a comment on PZ’s blog that he was Michael Egnor. I refer to him as Egnorance as that is how Larry Moran refers to him on his blog, reflecting Egnorance’s denial of evolution. Of course, like all right wing conservative assholes, Egnorance also denies AGW. To steal a quote from Richard Dawkins, one who denies AGW is either ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked (and unlike Dawkins I do want to consider that).

  • Doug Little

    @24,

    Because if a gay wedding cake is indistinguishable from a straight cake then it does not require the baker to decorate it in an offensive way. The baker could refuse to put two grooms or two brides on top of it but cannot refuse to bake the cake and decorate it in a non offensive manner.

  • Chiroptera

    theDukeDog7, #15: Should a Muslim baker be forced to bake a cake with an image of Mohammed?

    It might depend. Does the baker provide the same service for everyone else? If not, there is no discrimination.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @27:

    [So is refusing business based on the identity of the customer ok?]

    Refusal to bake a cake for a gay wedding is based on the nature of the activity, not the customer.

    Gays get cakes baked by Christian bakers all the time for a million reasons (birthdays, holidays, etc).If a gay man was marrying a woman (happens a lot), a Christian baker would not refuse to bake him a wedding cake.

    It is the gay wedding, not the gay, that Christians object to.

    The analogy to the Mohammed cake is obvious.

  • theDukedog7 .

    “The baker could refuse to put two grooms or two brides on top of it but cannot refuse to bake the cake and decorate it in a non offensive manner.”

    Why not let the baker and the customer work it out between themselves, without legal compulsion?

    Why do you advocate the use of force for such things?

  • whheydt

    Re: theDukeDog7 @ #15…

    If the baker advertises that he will put an image of your choice on a cake, then, yes, he should be required to put an image of Mohammed there if that is ordered.

    @ #22…

    *Some* Muslims and *some* Christians, but not all by any means.

    Perhaps you should re-check your beliefs, and look at the what has been said and written by the current head of your religion. Everyone can feel your “Christian love”…just oozing all over the ground.

  • Doug Little

    Thanks for the clarification on Egnor. I guess the practice must not be going to well.

  • Doug Little

    Why do you advocate the use of force for such things?

    I live in a society that is governed by laws. Why do you advocate for a set of beliefs that is discriminatory in nature?

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    theDukedog7 is right, but for the wrong reason. It’s not a religious liberty issue. It’s a safety issue. I work in a hospital, and since so-called “gay” so-called “marriage” was forced on us here, our wards are packed with bakers who have glitter lung.

  • whheydt

    Re: theDukeDog7 @ #24…

    IF the baker advertises that he makes wedding cakes, then–by public accommodation laws–he is obligated to make a wedding cake for anyone who pays for one. IF he doesn’t want to bake cakes for same-sex weddings, then he should quit advertising and baking wedding cakes for anyone.

  • jd142

    You can refuse service if the content is objectionable. The local baker can refuse to decorate a cake depicting an orgy with judicious use of white frosting splattered across the participants. The local baker cannot, however, refuse to bake me a simple angel food cake based on what I like to do on the weekend.

    Before digital cameras, photo development studios had lots of different rules about what they would and would not develop. They could refuse to develop my nude selfies, but they couldn’t refuse to develop landscape pictures just because I also took nude selfies.

    While I disagree with their stance, the bakery that baked a cake and let the couple decorate it threaded the needle the best they could.

  • http://twitter.com/#!/TabbyLavalamp Tabby Lavalamp

    ‘“The sanctity of marriage is under attack,” one sign warned…’

    Under attack? The anti-equality “sanctity” has been dead and buried in Canada for a decade now and society still hasn’t crumbled and straight couples are still tying the knot (or, as we say up here, “icing the puck”).

  • caseloweraz

    Colnago80: Apparently, the miscreant jewelers have agreed to refund the deposit.

    Well they might, else things would go very badly for them. They likely would end up as Yesterday’s Jewelers.

  • theDukedog7 .

    The only good that is coming out of this national debate about gay marriage is the clarification about who really supports freedom and respect for the beliefs of others.

  • John Pieret

    Dukedog @ 32:

    Refusal to bake a cake for a gay wedding is based on the nature of the activity, not the customer.

    Not the baker’s activity! That’s why it is unlike your attempted ‘image of Mohammed’ analogy. The Christian baker is objecting to what the customer is going to do, not what the baker is being asked to do.

    Could a Christian baker refuse to bake a cake that was going to be used in a celebration of Roe v. Wade?

  • Chris J

    In a different thread, Egnorance admitted that if a gay person simply didn’t tell a baker that the wedding cake was for a gay wedding, then there would be no issues and the baker would happily make one. Just thought I’d throw that out there.

    Refusal to bake a cake for a gay wedding is based on the nature of the activity, not the customer.

    A seller who sells cigarettes or alcohol is legally obligated to not sell if they happen to find out that the person buying them is going to be distributing them to minors. Apart from that sort of thing, there is no other case where sellers care about how their product is going to be used. Grocery stores do not refuse to sell produce, and they can’t refuse even if they grok that the produce is not going to be used for eating.

    What makes a wedding cake any different?

    The analogy to the Mohammed cake is obvious.

    Actually, no it isn’t, because you just spent an entire comment talking about how it’s about the activity the cake will be used for, and not about the person. And then you said:

    Gays get cakes baked by Christian bakers all the time for a million reasons (birthdays, holidays, etc).If a gay man was marrying a woman (happens a lot), a Christian baker would not refuse to bake him a wedding cake.couple/#ixzz3agy5w8HB

    So it’s not about the cake itself either. The Mohammed cake is most definitely about the cake itself, and has nothing to do with how that cake is going to be used.

    As I’ve said before, analogies; you are bad at them.

  • caseloweraz

    So the DukeDog7 supports the right of a business to let certain people pay for a service, then refuse to provide that service and still hold onto the payment?

  • Chris J

    Ignore that cake.couple bit at the end of that last blockquote. Apparently copy-pasting now sticks a whole bunch of extra crap in.

  • Chris J

    The only good that is coming out of this national debate about gay marriage is the clarification about who really supports freedom and respect for the beliefs of others.

    Nah. Like in many other cases, certain people are just learning to use, abuse, and appropriate progressive language to defend regressive views. What this debate proves is that those folks truly don’t understand what the words they’re using actually mean.

  • Mr Ed

    Internet Troll – A person whose sole purpose in life is to seek out people to argue with on the internet over extremely trivial issues. Such arguments can happen on blogs, Facebook, Myspace and a host of others.

    The best thing you can do to fight an internet troll is to not answer..or report them.

    I think one has wandered in, do not feed

  • caseloweraz

    theDukedog7: It is the gay wedding, not the gay, that Christians object to.

    Yet the Bible says that the abomination is two people of the same sex lying together as men and women do; i.e. having sexual intercourse. A strict interpretation, therefore, would be that providing any service to gays is as much an endorsement of this so-called abomination as baking a cake for a gay wedding.

  • John Pieret

    Chiroptera @ 28:

    I would think that the anti-discrimination laws demand you provide the same services to protected groups that you provide to everyone else, including the figurines and writing the names.

    These laws are not very specific. If you offer to give them the figurines and/or a pastry bag of icing and just refuse to do that yourself, the odds of being found to have violated the anti-discrimination law is low.

    I thought that the legal principle was that refusing to write hate speech on a cake wasn’t discrimination

    Since we don’t have hate speech laws in the US, what constitutes “hate speech” is a matter of opinion rather than a legal principle. A Christian could argue that s/he considers such things as hate speech. S/he would have given, it’s arguable, equivalent service.

  • gshelley

    @Dukedog

    So if the baker is a member of one of those churches that believes mixed race marriage is wrong, he can refuse that? Or if his church doesn’t any more, but he still holds on to the view that “God created the races separately and did not intend for them to mix”

    Or if he believes that disability is a consequence of karma from a past life and that disabled people should be shunned, he can refuse service?

    Or if he believes that marriage is a sacrament from God and secular marriage (or Hindu marriage, or muslim marriage, or Catholic marriage) is an offence to God, he can refuse those?

    Or he can just refuse any sort of service to anyone as long as he can say something about them is against his religion?

  • whheydt

    I find it interesting that theDukeDog7 is stirring things up only in threads that involve debates over whether or not religion-based bigotry is legally acceptable. Does anyone else get the feeling that his real concern is over his own career and the possibility that he may lose patients because of his publicly expressed views?

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    whheydt “Does anyone else get the feeling that his real concern is over his own career and the possibility that he may lose patients because of his publicly expressed views?”

    Doubtful. If I had a broken brain, I’d look for competence in brain surgerizing, not at whether I agreed with the surgeon on ideology.

    Unless I had a gay brain. Then he won’t draw Muhammad on it, or something.

  • colnago80

    Re whheydt @ #52

    he may lose patients because of his publicly expressed views?

    A consummation devoutly to be wished.

  • Hoosier X

    No, I think the most important element of the debate is how the committed christians look like assholes with nothing to offer except lame sophistry, further eroding the influence of religion as more and more Americans either flee the church or never get conned into it in the first place.

  • theDukedog7 .

    re:#54:

    It’s ironic that in this discussion about freedom and rights and the destruction of Christians’ livelihood because of their beliefs, commentors are musing about destroying my livelihood because of my beliefs.

    Why should I bother to comment, when you make my case for me?

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    theDukedog7, I’m not surprised colnago80/SLC is supporting your martyrdom. He’s a massive asshole. I am a little surprised, though, that you haven’t bumped in to each other at the annual convention, actually.

     

    I wouldn’t go to you again for completely rational reasons, primarily that you didn’t laugh half-heartedly when I joked “just take a little off the top, doc.” That and I’m cross-eyed now. Plus I’m pretty sure I didn’t go in to the operating room with tits.

  • dingojack

    Doggy – religion? Meh. Being an ignorant, smug, dishonest shit-stain, that will lose you friends, money and a job, every time.

    It couldn’t happen to a more deserving lap-dog!

    Dingo

  • marcus

    Dumbass @ 56 Why should I bother to comment…?

    Good question. Maybe you just like making egnorant, redundant, idiotic and useless arguments to people who despise you and every thing you stand for. All I can think of.

  • Hoosier X

    There should be a law forcing all Americans to do business with christianist bigots who wear their petty hatreds on their sleeves.

    Because RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!

  • abb3w

    Why not let the baker and the customer work it out between themselves, without legal compulsion?

    Because the baker and customer do not agree; a controversy remains. Resolution of controversies is the function of the judiciary.

    Additionally, this “let the merchant and the customer work it out between themselves” was tried back in the Jim Crow era. (Not all segregation was state mandated; some was demanded by businesses.) The results of the approach were deemed unacceptable, and the 1964 Civil Rights Act resulted.

  • theDukedog7 .

    [he may lose patients because of his publicly expressed views? A consummation devoutly to be wished…Being an ignorant, smug, dishonest shit-stain, that will lose you friends, money and a job, every time…It couldn’t happen to a more deserving lap-dog…people who despise you and every thing you stand for]

    It’s ironic that y’all use the parallel to Jim Crow. The architects of Jim Crow were Progressive Democrats, almost to a man. Orville Faubus, Hugo Black, J. William Fullbright, Lester Maddox, Bull Connor– all fine Progressives and Democrats to the bone. If you read the hate they spewed at blacks, you get the same taste that you get today from your hate at Christians (and blacks were and are among the most fervently Christian Americans).

    If you substitute “nigger” for “Christian” in your blog rants, you see that you haters are not much different from your Progressive Democrat segregationist ancestors. You even want to use the police and the courts–just like the Jim Crow folks–to impose your hate.

    It’s remarkable how little things have changed with you guys. Same hate, just different niggers.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    theDukedog7 has a point. Just like your Progressive Democrat predecessors you’re trying to use the Law to force businesses to serve an Unpopular Minority!

  • dingojack

    yep — it’s exactly the same – well apart from the whole ‘being totally different’ thing!

    Dingo

  • whheydt

    Re; theDukeDog7 @ #56…

    While the stated beliefs of some people–including some Christians–are abhorent, no one is making any attempt to prevent people from believing what they will. They may suffer consequences (such as ridicule) from expressing those beliefs, but no one is trying to prevent them from continuing to believe.

    The problem is when people–including some Christians–*act* on those beliefs in socially or legally unacceptable ways. I don’t really care if any given baker, photographer or florist is a bigoted asshole so long as that person serves all customers equally regardless of group identification. Once the decision is made to open a public business, it includes *all* the public.

    It has already been pointed out that the objections to providing services to gays in certain contexts is a *selective* discrimination. If it is Biblically wrong to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couples wedding, then consistency would require that same baker to reject similar business from divorced people, non-virgin brides, disobedient children and several other categories. Yet–with the exception of same-sex couples–there isn’t the slightest murmur of complaint.

    You–and your fellow travelers–are “cafeteria Christians”, and it reeks of hypocrisy.

  • theDukedog7 .

    [While the stated beliefs of some people–including some Christians–are abhorent…]

    The belief that marriage is inherently heterosexual is… abhorent? That was the belief of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and most of the Democrat Party until about a year ago. Did you vote for these people with these abhorent beliefs?

    Was Obama an “ignorant, smug, dishonest shit-stain” bigot during most of his presidency?

    Or was he just another lying pandering Democrat, saying whatever it takes to get elected?

  • colnago80

    Re Egnorance @ #62

    Hey, I don’t discriminate against born again Christians. I don’t like born agains of any stripe. I don’t like born again Christians, born again Jews, born again Muslims, born again Hindus, born again Shintos, born again Taoists, or born again Zoroastrians. If I left any significant group out, apologies on all sides.

  • colnago80

    Re Egnorance @ #66

    Actually, both Clinton and Obama stated that they had no objection to same sex civil unions, as did George W. Bush. I suspect that those 4 Rethuglicans in the Senate who came out in support of same sex marriage will be primaried by the Egnorances of the world at the next opportunity/

  • theDukedog7 .

    Obama and Clinton were of the opinion that marriage was heterosexual and divinely ordained through most of their political career, if they were telling the truth. They have only recently changed, publicly.

    Were they bigots for sharing the same viewpoint a year ago that devout Christians share today?

  • teele

    How the hell is a baker supposed to know if he’s putting an image of Mohammed on a cake or not? You can tell him it’s a picture of Mohammed, but since the dude died well before photography and presumably no statues or paintings of him exist, there’s no way to prove that the image you provide is an actual depiction of Mo himself. So I’m going with moot argument here — no baker CAN put an image of Mohammed on a cake, ’cause we don’t actually know what he looked like.

    By the way, DookieDawg, love how you couldn’t get through a whole troll cycle without losing it and reverting to type (type, in your case, not being someone tolerated in polite society). Better luck next time, li’l fella.

  • sharonb

    Ho-hum, inevitably dukes dog will in all troll-like sophistry and meritriciousness, repeatedly use the N word and attempt his ‘Democrats and Progressives are the real racists’ subversion. He’s apparently a one-trick pony in addition to being a bore.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    theDukedog7’s right. Other people have changed their minds. Checkmate, gay-marriageists!

  • dingojack

    Bwhahahahahaha!!

    Poor Lil’ DookieDawg* (#66) – he’s been smartly smacked on the nose by the rolled-up newspapers of the commenters here (yet again), but he just isn’t quite smart enough to figure out why.

    [Awwwww, bless.]

    😀 Dingo

    ———

    * so stealing that from teele (#70)

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Were they bigots for sharing the same viewpoint a year ago that devout Christians share today?

    News flash: not all devout Christians share that opinion today, nor did they ever share it. Why would you expect them to, when it doesn’t have all that strong a Biblical (or rational) grounding?

  • Lady Mondegreen

    Refusal to bake a cake for a gay wedding is based on the nature of the activity, not the customer.

    Gays get cakes baked by Christian bakers all the time for a million reasons (birthdays, holidays, etc).If a gay man was marrying a woman (happens a lot), a Christian baker would not refuse to bake him a wedding cake.

    It is the gay wedding, not the gay, that Christians object to.

    The analogy to the Mohammed cake is obvious.

    No it isn’t.

    A closer analogy would be a Muslim baker refusing to bake a cake intended for a “Draw Mohammed Day” party.

    But I suspect that analogy doesn’t work, either, because I think the rationale for insisting the Christian baker not discriminate includes recognition of LGBTQ people as a traditionally despised minority whose rights for that reason need special protection.

    So an even closer analogy might be this: should a Christian baker who believes Islam is unBiblical be obligated to bake a cake for a Muslim wedding?

    As previous commenters have noted, over and over, these Christian bakers, real and hypothetical, really don’t have a problem baking cakes that may be used for purposes the bakers find religiously offensive.

    Claiming that this isn’t discrimination against gays because, gee, you’d bake an everyday cake for a gay guy, is disingenuous. (Those southern conservative Democrats who thought it should be legal to refuse to serve blacks at lunch counters had no problem with selling things to blacks–frequently at inflated prices. It was allowing blacks to be equal members of society, integrated with whites, that offended them.)

    A refusal to bake gay wedding cakes is a way of registering disapproval of SSM. Being a way that is discriminatory, it is not acceptable. Express your disapproval all you want, but do your damn job and don’t discriminate against your customers.

  • NitricAcid

    Hasn’t this guy noticed that gay marriage has been perfectly legal in Canada for what? Ten years?

  • NitricAcid

    In this case, the guy isn’t refusing to serve the same-sex customers. In fact, he’s insisting on completing the transaction, despite putting up signs in his shop that seem intentionally designed to anger his customers. Yes, he’s got the right to put up such signs, but he can’t act surprised when people want to stop dealing with him.

  • marcus

    Dumbass Dog: “Were they bigots for sharing the same viewpoint a year ago that devout Christians share today?”

    I would hesitate to call them “bigots” I think “politicians” is more accurate. However, it can not be denied that those viewpoints were and are bigoted.

    I once favored civil unions over marriage. My reasoning was that I thought “civil unions” were an attainable goal that would give LGBT people a stepping stone to the full rights of marriage. I was wrong, in actuality it would have been an attempt to establish a status of “separate but equal” and is not the same thing at all as marriage equality.

    Equal is equal. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

  • John Pieret

    Obama and Clinton were of the opinion that marriage was heterosexual and divinely ordained through most of their political career, if they were telling the truth.

    And they probably, almost certainly, were not telling the truth. They were pandering to the bigot class. And why not? John Kerry lost the 2004 election almost certainly because the bigots came out heavily for Bush in Ohio, just as Karl Rove planned, to support that state’s SSM ban.

    But what they did not do is agitate for SSM bans, even if that would have (temporarily) helped their political careers. They never said that gays should be stoned to death or were spawn of Satan or agitated around the world for harsh laws to imprison and even execute gays simply because they are gay or any of the thousands of insults and injuries conservative Christians have visited on gays. Before you try to distance yourself from those conservative Christians, remember you’ve repeatedly tried to tar all “progressives” and Democrats with those who supported segregation. The tar baby is equally sticky for both sides and for every tit there is a tat.

  • militantagnostic

    The architects of Jim Crow were Progressive Democrats, almost to a man. Orville Faubus, Hugo Black, J. William Fullbright, Lester Maddox, Bull Connor– all fine Progressives and Democrats to the bone.

    Egnorance/Dumbdog By referring to the above right wing conservatives as “progressives” you have proven that you are either a complete idiot or a lying shitstain with the latter being the more likely case.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    militantagnostic, theDukedog7’s right. They were Progressive Democrats. Stop denying your racist past (and present). They were (and are) staunch Jim Crownian segregationists. Especially Hugo Black, of Brown v. Board of Education.

  • John Pieret

    Modus, you are our stealth missile of sarcasm!

  • colnago80

    Re Egnorance @ #69

    I would also point out that Egnorance’s fellow born agains also opposed same sex civil unions. In fairness, even Sarah Palin was quoted as saying during the 2008 campaign that she didn’t have a problem with civil unions.

    I would also point out that both Dubya’s mother and his wife support same sex marriage and that most observers consider his stated opposition as duplicitous as Clinton and Obama. That goes double for Cheney whose daughter is involved in a same sex marriage and whose phone calls convinced two Rethuglicans in Maryland’s lower house to support the bill legalizing same sex marriage in that state.

  • http://onhandcomments.blogspot.com/ left0ver1under

    “The sanctity of marriage is under attack”

    The sanctimonious are on the attack to disparage.

    May they go bankrupt from people’s disgust and refusal to give them any further business. And unlike the US where bigots might succeed at “gofundme” ripoffs, it’s not likely to work in Canada.

    ——————–

    And regarding the couple in the story, there’s a picture of them. Geez, they look happy together.

  • theDukedog7 .

    [May they go bankrupt from people’s disgust and refusal to give them any further business.]

    That’s perfectly legitimate. I would patronize them more, and I have contributed to the gofundme accounts, but it’s a free country, and if you don’t like Christians who exercise their religion in their work, don’t patronize their businesses.

    It’s the government force–the criminalization of differences of opinion– that I don’t like.

  • gshelley

    Were you complaining about that before the recent SSM cases – business being forced to serve blacks or Irish, or to accommodate the disabled?

    Are you advocating the repeal of all the laws that prevent businesses from refusing to serve classes of people the owner doesn’t like?

  • Kermit Sansoo

    theDukedog7 . says: It’s the government force–the criminalization of differences of opinion– that I don’t like.

    .

    Now, now, DD, don’t lie. Nobody has told you that you can’t express your opinions or declare your value system. What you object to is business people being told that they can’t be assholes to certain classes of their customers.

    .

    I’d be willing to let businesses discriminate if they were willing to forgo the services my tax dollars provide: streets, electricity, water, police and fire protection. When I lived in my father’s house I did as he said – up to and including the clothes I wore and the haircuts I got. I left after I graduated from high school when I was 18, so I could make my own decisions. Stop supporting freeloaders! Typical right winger…

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    It’s remarkable how little things have changed with you guys. Same hate, just different niggers.

    Yeah, because requiring merchants to treat all potential customers equally is EXACTLY THE SAME as terrorizing black people with impunity and forcibly preventing them from participating in any aspect of American society on an equal basis to the white majority.

    The fact that you would try to equate those two very different things, in any way, proves you’re either shamelessly dishonest and blithering in the worst of bad faith, or abysmally stupid. Either way, there’s no point in trying to engage with you.

  • Anri

    theDukedog7 @ 85:

    It’s the government force–the criminalization of differences of opinion– that I don’t like.

    Well, we tried it the other way for a long, long time, and it resulted in a shitty situation for people who The Right People didn’t care for. So, regardless of your distaste, we’re trying something that improves life for the disadvantaged. Feel free to take this message as all of the apology you will get, or deserve for your dislike of it.

    By the way, if you can’t tell the difference between opinion and action, you’re not smart enough for this discussion. if you can, you know conflating them is dishonest. Take your pick.