Legal Workaround to Labor Forced by Homosexual Privilege

[Talisker]

I believe I have developed a simple, yet effective workaround to the new powers our government has handed homosexuals - specifically, the ability to force people to do labor against their religious beliefs (I never in a million years thought I would write such a sentence in America).

The solution is to identify the specific kind of issues over which homosexuals are likely to invoke their involuntary servitude powers, and separate those issues into a private Christian club.

An example: Christian bakeries would now put up a sign stating that they no longer make wedding cakes. Any wedding cakes, for anybody. They make all sorts of other cakes, including birthday cakes, but not wedding cakes - even for Christians.

Then, they would advertise a separate, private business: the Christian Wedding Cake Club. It would take a nominal fee to join ( say, five bucks), and also require the person to be a member in good standing of an affiliated Christian Church - one that has already been vetted and accepted into the club. Then, for those members only, the bakery would make and sell Christian wedding cakes.

There would be no hiding here - the purpose of the club would specifically be to make wedding cakes only for certain people affiliated with certain churces of a certain religious tradition. But those people would all have to join the club to get their cakes. And all of the members of the church would not have to join, and people who wanted a wedding cake would not have to join until they wanted their special wedding cake.

This is completely legal, and takes very little time to set up. All a Christian baker would have to do is call around to various pastors and confirm the “type” of Christianity they practice, let them know what the club is, and exchange confirmation letters. The actual club itself would be informal and non-profit.

That’s it. And it would also help with advertising, and there could be special discounts and sales at times for members of the club - whatever. And it can be done with any type of business, and any number of churches, and can even be run from the Web.

The principle here is that the bakery would be serving the needs of the club - and the club would need wedding cakes for its duly admitted Christian members. That way, nothing associated with wedding cakes would have anything to do with being “open to the public,” nor the general sales of the bakery.

In the Sherlock Holmes story “The Blue Carbuncle,” one of the characters puts up a coin every week at his local pub so that come Christmas, he can afford a goose. The pub runs a “goose club” for this purpose. You cannot come into the pub and buy a goose unless you are a member of the goose club. This is the same idea.

To get rid of this method, the government would have to get rid of private clubs altogether. I’m not saying they won’t try, since homosexuality now seems to be superior to the entirety of the Constitution. Nevertheless, until then, this is a clear, safe and easy way to refuse to comply with this new totalitarianism while staying completely legal.

And, of course, if a homosexual is a member in good standing in one of the affiliated Christian churches, they too can have a wedding cake made for them. So it’s all perfectly fair.

[discostu]

I know what The Bible SAYS their religious principle is supposed to be. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

See I don’t need to clean up the world, you’re a dying breed. Not the least of which because you get yourself all hypered into a frenzy that’s going to lead to a heart attack. Really 99% of the Christians are not bothered by this. It’s just the Westboro Baptist types that think screaming is useful that are mad, largely because mad is the only emotion they’ve got.

The Muslims are making lots of mistakes. They keep killing children, and often trees get destroyed, both of which are against the jihad rules.

[melsec]

Thanks KC - We see on the foundation stone of almost every church “Dedicated to the Glory of God...”. How can we then let things happen inside that show Him disdain? I think it behooves us to find ways of preventing it from happening. That may eventually mean we just stand up and take the consequences but in the meantime maybe we should listen to Jesus’ words Matt 10:16 “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.

Mel

[Ransomed]

“Any idiots here are the ones thinking refusing to bake a cake is religious principle. It’s grandstanding idiocy.”

Imagine suing someone for not baking a cake for you because they don’t believe that participating in ‘gay marriage’ with their bakery business is conducive to the faith they practice.

I don’t know, I’m not sure I would apply the grandstanding idiot label to the business. I mean come on.

Freegards

[RinaseaofDs]

“They’re not actually standing on religious principles.”

So, there’s absolutely no connection between forcing a doctor to provide abortions, or forcing pharmacists to provide RU-278, or forcing Halal and Kosher delis to sell pork, and forcing a Christian baker to bake a cake for sodomites.

There is no relationship there at all, besides of course slavery. You are forcing me to provide a service I don’t want to provide. If I refuse, then I could be sued out of business.

Take God out of the equation here. If I don’t want to sell you something, anything, and I’m a private business, then I shouldn’t have to sell it to you, or show cause why I have a right not to.

From my work, a known pedophile was granted a home loan in a prominent neighborhood by a bank in the Atlanta area. It hit the paper and people went nuts and wondered what pack of morons would give a mortgage to a pedophile in an upscale neighborhood less than a mile from an elementary school.

Now, we figured out which bank it was.

Do you think the bank deserved that hell they got when we publicized the fact that they had been the ones who did it?

Are banks obligated to provide loans to every strictly qualified individual that applies for a loan?

Should a private bank be forced by the USG to make loans to people they know can’t pay them back?

What rights do private companies and private individuals have over the goods and services they market, in your mind?

A free-enterpriser would even be OK with businesses withholding their services and goods to blacks, women, white people, short people, etc.

This is because the market tends to sort this stuff out for itself. CNN discriminates against conservatives all the time with impunity from prosecution or civil suit. The even lie about them using public frequencies. They are circling the drain as we speak.

The NFL refused to run some advertisements during the Super Bowl. They get a pass?

So, again, should we reinstate slavery legally here in the USA? Make me a cake or I’ll sue you out of existence sounds pretty close to slavery to me.

And I shouldn’t have to lie, compromise my 1st amendment rights, design an arcane corporate structure, or quietly submit to the litigious terrorism of a couple of sodomites or tribadists.

And don’t bother lifting a finger to help defend these folks. By the time somebody is holding a gun to your head there will be plenty of caring folks left to come to your defense.

It could never happen here, after all.

[Legatus]

I don’t have to know much about Christianity to know that wedding cakes are not religious, and also to know that sinners buy them.

Should a Protestant baker be forced by law to provide a Marian themed wedding cake to a Catholic couple? Should a Protestant photographer be forced by law to attend and photograph a Catholic Nuptial Mass?

I'm Catholic and I say no to both.

[GladesGuru]

“We as a conservative, return to the Constitution movement would be best pursuing one mindedly that purpose, not refusing to treat or serve people whose sins are more apparent.

Or else change your line of work to one where you don’t deal with the public at all.”

As usual, you raise an interesting issue. What of Muslims? Does the Jewish owner of a range have to allow Muslims to shoot at his range? Does the Jewish instructor have to give firearms instruction to Muslims?

The above question is predicated upon American law not yet taking cognizance of the hard fact that Islam is a war cult rather than a religion.

Could a case be made that as Islam is antithetical to America's Founding Documents, and irreconcilable with them, that the Islamic demand that all Muslims fight for sharia law make Muslims walking, talking treason?

[WMarshal]

all you need to do is say that the groom-groom decoration is special order and very expensive. There are many ways to keep from doing what goes against your conscience without have to outright say “no”.

I do like the observation of going to a gay printer and having them print out “gay conversion therapy” literature.

[discostu]

They aren’t participating in a gay marriage, they’re making a cake. Just like I said to somebody else: did they not provide cakes to atheist weddings? If you’re taking the strict Christian view of marriage and what it should be and what it’s for atheists’ weddings are just as far removed from those rules as gay weddings.

[discostu]

You erected a strawman. There’s a difference between product/ service selection and customer selection. People who bake wedding cakes bake wedding cakes, picking and choosing your customers based on whether or not you consider it a wedding is at best silly. What if I want a wedding cake from you because I like wedding cakes? Am I now not eligible because there’s not going to be any kind of wedding?

Not forcing anybody to provide a service you don’t want to provide. You’re in the wedding cake making business, that is a service you have agreed to provide, you are advertising that you provide it. Now you’re saying “well not that wedding”, that’s discrimination whether or not those customers are in a protected class.

Assuming the home placement didn’t violate any laws on the proximity of sex offenders to schools the bank did the right thing. A valid customer wanted a service they provide, so they provided it.

They shouldn’t be forced to make loans to people that can’t pay, or that can’t legally live there. But that should be the limit of their discrimination, anybody that can’t pay the loan back isn’t a valid customer, anybody that can’t legally live there also isn’t a valid customer, anybody else is valid, make the loan.

The can pick the goods and services they provide, customer discrimination needs to be based on validity of the customer. Thieves, people who can’t pay, people disrupting other customers are out. Everybody else is in. For one thing it’s just good business, they have money and you want it, that’s why you opened a business.

CNN doesn’t use public frequencies.

The NFL has set rules about what can and can’t be associated with their brand, generally revolving around avoiding controversy. They want to annoy as few people as possible. Which is a version of kicking out customers that disrupt other customers, annoy too many people ratings suffer and the other advertiser aren’t getting what they paid for.

Nobody is reinstating slavery, we’re pointing out common sense.

[RinaseaofDs]

So the word ‘wedding’ doesn’t have any religious connotations to it that would merit the one making the cake to object to their participation?

You’re right about CNN, I should have said PBS, and they’d be out of business if I weren’t sending them my tax dollars.

A wedding cake baker bakes cakes for weddings. He can decide not to make cakes for black masses, the pledging of 65 year old muslim men to 11 year olds, to polygamists, sodomites, tribadists, or even Protestants, if the baker happens to be Catholic and thinks the Protestants rewrote the Bible to be hip about homos.

No straw man here. If I don’t like you, I shouldn’t have to serve you, and I shouldn’t have to give you a reason why I don’t want to. Anything else is indentured servitude, or at worst tortious terrorism.

You think its right to force a doctor to treat patients for $6.65 an hour? That’s the law of the land right now.

You think its legal to tell a business it has to pay $15 an hour minimum to its employees or face legal action?

It’s all fascism - the desire of the state to directly control all forms of commerce.

Telling insurers what the must and mustn’t cover is a form of it. If I have a crucifix on the outside of my hospital, and my CEO is a Catholic nun, why should that hospital be required to suck viable human beings from their mother’s wombs or face legal action?

Why as a taxpayer should I be required to fund it?

[Ouderkirk]

I know a bad idea when I see one.

And yours is a gimmick that won’t end well.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

Thanks for your reply, but you answered neither of my questions.

I would assume that a Christian Baked Goods Club could be organized one of two ways:

1) It could be a bunch of amateurs baking cakes for one another, in which case you aren't going to help any local Christian bakers stay in business. If anything you would hurt their business as the amateurs would most likely start baking other types of baked goods to share among themselves and not just wedding cakes, or

2) A member who happens to run a Christian bakery and a bunch of non-bakers. In this case the only way to help the Christian baker compensate for loss of business would be if he ended up pocketing most of the club dues. This might be seen by the feds as a false front tax dodge and the whole thing shut down.

In the case of the baker there might not be any need to get money to him. It could be that 99.9% of his business is baking things other than wedding cakes. However, there are other businesses which are much more dependent on weddings to keep themselves afloat. What if a tuxedo rental shop, wedding dress manufacturer, florist, or photographer decided to be part of forming such a club? What if his open and proud membership in this club cost him some of his regular customers who were put off by what the press told them was a cynical con to get around serving gays? Those business owners would need to collect most of the dues in order to make up for lost income. The IRS might be interested in investigating such clubs.

But let's say that your club idea works for companies that provide products and services to weddings. What about those companies that provide a hall? I don't see how you could form a club such that the hall could end up being rented out for anything but gay weddings and gay wedding receptions. I was hoping you could think of a valid way to protect such organizations as well.

In one of your earlier posts you implored Freepers to think more deeply and clearly about these issues. I hope it is now obvious that I have done some deep and clear thinking on these issues and I would appreciate a true response and not just a restatement of your original post.

[Ransomed]

“Just like I said to somebody else: did they not provide cakes to atheist weddings?”

I have no idea. In any case seems to me the determining factor isn’t up to any one else. Taking someone to court for not baking a cake for you is what seems to be idiotic grandstanding to me.

Does a Satanist wanting a cake celebrating a black Mass have to get served too?

Freegards

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Go ahead. Explain.

Easy. I wasn't responding to you or the article you posted.

I was responding to Ouderkirk's post #2. Ya see, there's a little clue at the bottom of my post #3:

| To 2 |

So don't go getting your panties in a bunch.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

How do they lay of pitches that close?

Hehe...good one.

I dunno. Ask John Kruk.

[Talisker]

Yaelle: Wedding cakes are cakes. They are not religious.

discostu: They aren’t participating in a gay marriage, they’re making a cake.

This issue seems to be ya'lls bottom line. And it's flawed in two ways.

First, the bakers would and did sell homosexuals anything else in the bakery, including birthday cakes.

So here's the question: what is the difference between a birthday or other cake, and a wedding cake? Not, as you two keep obsessing over, the word "cake." No, if you're really observant, you'll notice that the word that changes, the single concept here, is the word "wedding." So we can subtract the "cake" part, because that does not cause the distinction in the baker's willingness to sell. Got it?

So your arguments boil down to the idea that a wedding is not a religious event.

I suppose that you might then argue that because weddings can be done in civil ceremonies, that therefore they are not religious events - because civil ceremonies are not religious events. But for that to be true, you would have to make civil ceremonies the only source of weddings - meaning you'd have to subtract weddings from religion.

Now, since every single religion in the world has at least two things in common - worship of God and the marriage ceremony under their particular beliefs, you're going to have, oh, I don't know, a fairly dificult time selling the idea that marriage is not a religious event for someone affiliated with a specific religion that just so happens to believe that, yes, marriage is a religious event. And what is a wedding? Come on, you can do it - that's right, it's the marriage ceremony that is that particular religious event we're talking about here.

So where are we now? Weddings are acknowledged worldwide as religious events, and that cake isn't the thing being objected to.

That means that wedding cakes are wedding cakes only because they are part of a religious event, when that marriage is not being done by a civil ceremony. And, there are religions that do not consider civil ceremonies binding, and only accept marriage in their church as valid. Like, lots of religions. Like, most religions, if not all religions. And why? Because, surprisingly enough, people who are members of religions actually believe that God needs to be involved in a wedding ceremony. And being extremely perceptive, they have noticed that God is specifically not involved in a civil ceremony.

So the conclusion here is that your fundamental argument is utterly without merit. Further, it goes against the religious traditions and history of the entire human race, and denies the personal beliefs of almost all of the seven billion people on the planet. In addition, even a child recognizes the connections between these terms (i.e. "wedding" and "wedding cake," if you've forgotten), and that's why no one has ever had to write this all out before. Because before now, no one would dare present such an insultingly stupid argument as you two have done - and continue to do, like two insolent children enjoying their insolence.

But of course, there's a lot of money behind this agenda, and I'm sure you are both well paid to put out the stupidest, most insultingly obviously wrong possible arguments, in order to create a mess out of subjects your employers told you to make a mess out of, in order to block clear thinking about them.

Your problem is that neither of you are very good at what you do.

[Ouderkirk]

You have already accepted the idea of “gay marriage” by accepting the idea that they are having a “wedding”.

A couple of dykes or a couple of faggots want to have some ceremony and call it a wedding to torque you off. They might as well call it a circus, because that’s what it is.

To refuse to sell them a cake for such an event because they are homo’s isn’t sound business and it makes for a hostile environment for all businesses.

for example:

You don’t want to sell cakes to homo’s for their circus’.

does any one of your other suppliers reserve the right then to surcharge your order by 20% for anything you buy to make anything? What about the guy downstream from him who is a friend of yours, and so on.

This idea that Talisker is embarking on does not end well for all of us. It is balkanizing the country and nothing good comes from it.

All the left knows how to do is destroy. And that’s what they are doing and you are helping them.

[Yaelle]

It is my belief that there is some line, however grey, that allows for peaceable assembly and disagreement with the government yet does stop the anti government activity when violence is threatened. So I feel that is already taken care of — we just have to enforce it. But there is some scary grey: madrasahs would be allowed anywhere but terrorist training camps not. However, there ARE training camps here somehow.

Free countries by their nature have danger. We need freedom above safety so we need a strong, wise populace.

Obama and the socialists are aiming for a dumb populace that runs to the govt for safety. It’s the opposite of freedom.

[Yaelle]

Oh my goodness. Such a long, nonsensical post. Your syllogism doesn’t pass the test.

Wedding cakes lead to weddings which lead to religions. Therefore a wedding cake is religious.

Slippers are worn by sick people who sometimes die so slippers are part of or cause death. Nope.

A cake is a sweet confection, and sinners buy them. Don’t sell cakes if you don’t want them sold to sinners. If you making a wedding cake for sinners is too horrible to contemplate, don’t do it.

Jesus washed the feet of sinners, though, so you might need to think on this.

[Some Fat Guy in L.A.]

I’d bake the cake but seed it with saltpeter - goodbye honeymoon!