Sadly, a majority of the western consciousness doesn't support religious freedom to an exercisable extent anymore. The option remaining for Christians is to bring most aspects of life inside the church.

How many of these cake stories are we going to hear?
It's a DAMN CAKE. Not a gun to your head!

If these women suffered an "ordeal", they brought it upon themselves.
They could simply say "each to their own" and go to another shop.

They aren't being denied participation in society.
Society is more than one cake shop.

I hope I win lotto soon, so I can send the Kleins a use-anytime-you-need-it credit card. (I won't send money. Big Brother will take it away.)
Not because I agree with their beliefs, but because I'm sick to death of this draconian approach to "tolerance/progress".

Where are the rights and liberties on the other side of the fence?
It's all one-sided.
Not-so-"liberals" want their cake and don't want you to eat yours too.

I am a true liberal and am disgusted by what is being done in that name.

Far and away the best thing about the gay marriage controversy is watching the likes of Ms Francis foaming at the mouth with outrage at the thought that someone else is happy about something she doesn't approve of.

Gay marriage in Australia is now politically inevitable, so I'll just grab my popcorn, sit on the couch and laugh at the hysterical ranting of the fogies, god-botherers and misfits.

PS. Do you really think using Tony Perkins of the so-called Family Research Council as a source helps your case?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Perkins_%28politician%29#Controversy
https://www.glaad.org/cap/tony-perkins

This has got nothing to do with religious freedom.
Should Sikhs be allowed to carry a knife on a plane?
Should JW Doctors be allowed to refuse to give or refer people for blood transfers?
should Muslims be allowed to have multiple wives.

I can go on, but the thing you need to get your head around is there is a difference in allowing you to have religious beliefs and how you exercise them in the public forum. It is a difficult balancing act between personal freedom and oppression.

This article is typical of right wing religious, full of self importance and caring of no one else. the old happy to see the state tell other people they can't do stuff just don't tell me want to do.

I have warned the religious members in this forum time and again:

No religious freedom is possible unless freedom isn't denied from anyone - saints and sinners alike: the price for our own freedom must be that sinners have their freedom too.

Do not expect secular government to respect religious freedoms because even if it wanted, it is blind and has no wisdom or tools to distinguish between religion and irreligion or even between good and evil. Do not consort with the devil, do not accept the state's services and privileges - or at your peril they will turn back against yourself.

Specifically, reject all "anti-discrimination" laws. Do not complain when others refuse to serve those of your religious persuasion - but let them and turn the other cheek, let everyone freely choose whom they serve and whom they allow on their private property which they happen to use for business.

If you are looking for justice - trust God, not the state!

---

That was my message for the religious. For everyone else, especially for the humanists among us, just remember that forcing someone to work against their will has a name: SLAVERY and forcing someone to give against their will also has a name: ROBBERY.

---

Dear Pat,

<<The option remaining for Christians is to bring most aspects of life inside the church.>>

What is a church? Just a big building with a big cross? Our own bodies, our own homes and our own businesses should be consecrated as churches, dedicated for the service of God!

The Kleins have not been asked to enter into a same sex relationship. How is their religious freedom at risk? Did they refuse to make cakes for couples who had previously lived together, were of mixed race, or were not virgins at the time of the marriage? How does somebody else not following your belief system disallow your right to practice the religion of your choice? This is a discrimination case, pure and simple.

I think the issue is freedom of association rather than freedom of religion.

The regressives think intolerance is a terrible thing, except of they're doing it, then it's wonderful and should be backed up by police and prisons.

It seems to me that the essay by Frederick Clarkson titled When The Exception Is The Rule: Christianity In The Religious Freedom Debate, puts the hysterical response of right-wing Christians (to almost everything about today's world) into a useful perspective.

As does the Political Research website on which it is featured.

Cobber the Hound,

Why do you hammer the "right wing religious" in the matter of homosexualiy? Does this group actually exist? Do you believe that all people who don't favour homosexual "marriage" hold their positions because of religion? Have you had any personal exposure to religious teaching? If not, what are your rules for life based on? How did you decide between moral behaviour and immoral behaviour?

Excellent questions, Carz - thank you!

<<The Kleins have not been asked to enter into a same sex relationship. How is their religious freedom at risk? Did they refuse to make cakes for couples who had previously lived together,...>>

Perhaps a saintly sage could tell what was in the Kleins' innermost heart-of-hearts when they refused their service, thus whether it was on religious grounds or otherwise, but neither yourself, nor do I - and certainly not any government, are in a position to make such judgements.

And therefore we should leave the matter, as Jardine just wrote, as an example of denying one's freedom of association.

Let all religious people therefore, strive and struggle as hard as we can for the universal freedom of association - yes, I'm aware that this also includes bikie-gangs and Muslim-Jihadists, but as that's the necessary price which we must pay for our freedom to worship God, we should gladly pay it.

Say a big YES to Cobber's questions!

@yuyutzu

i was under the impression that 'church' comes from the greek word 'ecclesia' meaning congregation or group of christians. I believed a temple is the building but the church is 'christian people in the world'. But I may be wrong, if not, wouldn't it mean that separation of church and state means separation of christians and state. It all get so confusing, lol

What I find curious is how some folks don't understand that saying, they don't make cakes for same sex weddings, is no different than saying we don't make cakes for folks from different ethnic backgrounds!

Given the darker of the two has the mark of cain on him or her and therefore offends our religious scruples, which could have been par for the course "Biblical" supported discrimination not that long ago.

Folks need to focus exclusively on their own morals rather than trying to police/judge those of others often on the back of patently misguided belief systems/value judgements.

I mean if one of the party had had gender reorientation surgery or dressed in drag and presented as a seemingly normal female or bewhiskered male, how would that make an ounce of a whit of a scaric of difference to the troubled cake maker; given nothing would had changed!

Except visual perception not the factual reality; and two people in love and wanting to spend their committed lives together in a sanctioned marriage! And poor buggers,finaly in genuine equality!

Could we ask for less than for our own son or daughter or sister or brother?

Rather than trying to punish/discriminate against them all of their long and lonely adult lives, for them daring to be born different!

Ask of yourself what you expect of them is doable for you, then consider these words from your bible!

Inasmuch as you do unto the least among you, you do also unto me!
Rhrosty.

I don't understand the Kleins. They seem unhappy that by their own standards they win.

""If we were to lose everything it would be totally worth it for our Lord who gave his one and only son, Jesus, for us! God will win this fight!""

Or do they think it insufficient justice and punishment they will be in heaven experiencing paradisiacal bliss for ever after whilst the Bowman-Cryer's are tormented in hell for eternity?

Maybe they are not True Christians™?

"We were just running our business the best we could -- following the Lord's example," Melissa told Todd [Starnes].

Instead of examples they could have chosen to follow a direct instruction from their Lord:

“Judge not, and ye shall not be judged. Condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned. Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven." [Luke 6:37]

Which would have seen both their religious belief and Oregon's public accommodations laws not violated.

Babette
The problem lies not with gay marriage but with the Oregon Equality Act of 2007. The bakery’s decision was petty, bigoted, immoral and stupid, and it deserves condemnation. But it should not have been illegal.

Gay people should have the right to get married. And bigots should have the right to refuse to bake them cakes.

shows clearly that most of the homosexual lobby has little interest in 'marriage equality'. They just don't want anyone disagreeing with what is obviously perversion. Unfortunately most people don't think enough to see that this advocates won't rest until your 5 year old kids are taught that sodomy is normal. Disgusting!

Dear Runner,

There is no such "homosexual lobby".

There are people out there, about whom this article is really about, who are not even homosexual and who in their personal life are probably as disgusted as yourself by sodomy, but what they do is to use the convenient tactical theme of homosexuality to trap the religious and forward their anti-religious agenda. It's not sodomy they are after - it's the souls of your children.

You need to realise that until and unless sinners are also legally allowed to pursue their sinful lifestyle, including even killing their babies, none of us will be permitted by the state to worship and follow God. That's the deal we are facing and you seem to refuse to look it in the face.

Thanks be to God that the shameful days of Church/State alliance are over - it was a disgrace to His holy name!

"Gay people should have the right to get married. And bigots should have the right to refuse to bake them cakes." - agreed.

It appears to me from what I've read on this case that the refusal was made prior to any order being accepted, that the owner was polite about the refusal and it was given as soon as the nature of the wedding was known. I've not seen any indication that the cake business received any kind of monopoly protection, government subsidies etc.

I do get the impression that the owners made some unwise choices later in the process in regard to what they put on line as many might do.

I strongly disagree with their choice but have no reason to believe that any government should be able to require them to provide service to something they oppose (nor should I be required to pay extra taxes and rates to subsidise the break given to churches).

R0bert

Cobber the hound "how you exercise them in the public forum"

Just because anyone can walk in the door does not make it "public".
It is private enterprise on private property.

The lawyers, lesbians and government did not sign the lease or pay the bills.
It's the Kleins' business.

"It is a difficult balancing act between personal freedom and oppression."

Apparently not.
If you're a cause favoured by leftists you have freedom.
If not, you deserve oppression.

The New Fascism hasn't eliminated oppression, just reversed it.
Now it's okay to oppress men, Christians, heterosexuals, Whites.

Yuyutsu "the price for our own freedom must be that sinners have their freedom too."

They do.
They're free to walk out the door.

Carz "How is their religious freedom at risk?"

How is the lesbians' identity/relationship "at risk" if this particular store doesn't bake a cake?

Rhrosty "is no different than saying we don't make cakes for folks from different ethnic backgrounds!"

Or dwarves. Or left-handers. Or people who pick their nose.
And why shouldn't they be able to say this?

If store X won't bake your cake, store Y will.
If *no* store will, you can get off your lazy butt and bake your own damn cake.

No real harm is done by someone not baking you a cake.
Cake is not a life necessity.

"rather than trying to police/judge those of others often on the back of patently misguided belief systems/value judgements."

Who is being "judged/policed" here?
The lesbians aren't being ordered to pay damages for negating religious freedom.

Defining yourself as a "lesbian" who wants to be "married" are beliefs/values just as much as the Kleins' Christian faith.

They should be free to choose those beliefs/values.
But others should also be free to not support their decisions.

Nobody can objectively/absolutely determine what beliefs/values are "misguided" (i.e. false/bad).
People of apparently greater intelligence than present generations understood this.
That is why "liberalism" was first invented.

Liberalism has now been distorted to mean illiberalism: an obligatory compliance to a particular values/beliefs orthodoxy.

17 generations of free thinkers are rolling in their graves.

Oh dear gods. The argument from cake design. Again.

I guess you can't teach old dogs new tricks.

"Why should they be excluded from such business opportunities particularly when there would only be a few homosexual civil weddings and these couples can easily organise their cakes, flowers and venues elsewhere?"

Quite so. And why should bakers who hate Aboriginals be excluded from business opportunities when there are only a few Aboriginals likely to come in and buy bread? Why should deli owners who hate amputees be excluded from business opportunities when only a few amputees are going to purchase prosciutto from them?

The answer is, because we're fortunate enough to live under a government and a legislature which has decided that making discrimination illegal is more important than catering to the sensibilities of people with irrational prejudices.

Get a new government and a new legislature to repeal those laws and renounce the principles behind them, and you can discriminate against your customers any way you like. Till then -- as the Kleins have discovered -- you have to obey the law and the spirit of the law like everyone else.

As I understood it, the Kleins refused to provide a particular service - similar to that of the Ashers Baking Company in Northern Ireland (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-32065233) - i.e. "discriminated" against products they would not sell or provide service, for whatever silly reason and with whatever silly justification, not against customers.

This is different from not selling e.g. an ordinary loaf of bread because the customer is gay, or of the wrong ethnicity, etc, which indeed would be an objectionable discrimination. See also http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17391#307198.

TTBN, what are you saying the only thing holding you back from raping and murdering people is a belief in God.

Sodomy occurs between different sex couples as well! All we can require of them is that they use a condom!

If the couple hadn't presented together how would the cake shoppe owner known that their religious scruples were being offended?

However, I agree if no money was exchanged nor contractual obligation given, then the service provider remains free to withhold service on any grounds they like? Say on the grounds that the intending couple were both left handed or cross eyed or had cleft palates, or spoke in foreign tongues?

The only actual choice anyone has is the thoughts they care to entertain in their minds, and through them their attitudes!

Not so long ago those who suggested that the world was not flat and not at the centre of a six thousand year old universe could have been excommunicated as heretics! Such was the foundational belief of the Church!?

And at one time it was okay to burn people at the stake for being unusually insightful like a legendary St Joan, or being born different!Or that meditation was the work of the devil!Could these mouth frothing fanatics be wrong yet again?

And that the only real choice we have is limited to our thoughts and through them our attitudes!?

The peasants are revolting highness! Well I think so to, let them all take a bath!

The people have no bread highness! Well let them eat cake! The cake shoppe owner is refusing to bake cakes highness! Well off with his head!

The moral of the story? Nobody should lose their head over whether or not someone will or won't bake a cake!
Rhrosty.

It's worth remembering that "homo-" is derived from the Greek.

While we are on the topic of Greeks, it's amazing that there seems not to have been any threads dealing with the financial crises in Greece and China.

I realise that, for comfortable professionals, academics and bureaucrats, these issues are nowhere near as important as the equality of marriage between homosexuals, but we may yet feel their repercussions.

Over the next few months, just keep your eye on:

* the fate of Greek academics and bureaucrats, and

* the price AND the quantity of Australian mineral being sold to China.

We are not immune to the misfortunes about to descend on our Greek and Chinese brethren.

Joe

Jon J "Why should deli owners who hate amputees be excluded from business opportunities when only a few amputees are going to purchase prosciutto from them?"

The owner is choosing to "exclude" those opportunities.
Why is that anyone's concern but theirs?

Customers refused have options elsewhere.
But the business owners have no options?
All the options are on one side of the counter.
A commercial "contract" is supposed to involve 2 voluntary parties, not 1.

You don't need to "renounce the principles behind" these laws to question the laws themselves.

It's all very "fortunate" when the law supports your agenda.
When it doesn't (Proposition 8, Arizona SB 1070, your friend's party drugs) there's *something wrong with the system*!

You wouldn't be bellowing the virtues of state law back in the days of Jim Crow and women-can't-vote, eh?
You are fair weather democrats.
Democracy is great, only as long as it supports your perspective.

Enjoy your Fortunate Fascism while you can.
The more you push, push, push, the bigger the "unfortunate" backlash will be.
You (and I, a homosexual and true liberal) will lose all the gains made and may never get them back.
No smug popcorn entertainment then.

Rhrosty "Sodomy occurs between different sex couples as well! All we can require of them is that they use a condom!"

Should we make condoms state-mandated too?
After all, it would be "fortunate" to not spread disease.

Sorry, your rude bits are now in the "public domain".
Big Brother knows what's best for us.

"If the couple hadn't presented together how would the cake shoppe owner known that their religious scruples were being offended?"

Yes, why *do* you need the world to know you're a lesbian couple who want a lesbian cake for your lesbian wedding?
Oh, and do you except Lesbian dollars from my lesbian purse?

It's a cake.
All they need to know is what size, flavour and colour.
It's *you* who needs the whole world to know you're lesbian.

We don't burn people at the stake anymore for affronting consensus reality.
We make them pay symbolic "high priestesses" $135,000.

Hi Joe

I agree "it's amazing that there seems not to have been any threads dealing with the financial crises in Greece and China", so i just started one, if you're interested.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6922

Cheers

How quickly the government and judiciary have turned on supporters of traditional marriage.

In Australia, eleven year ago, the opposition Labor Party under Mark Latham supported Prime Minister Howard's Marriage Act amendment to restrict the definition of marriage to being between a man and a woman.

In the United States, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama publicly pledged themselves to defend traditional marriage.

Now all of the above have performed a 180-degree about-turn, and they expect the public to obediently fall into line like soldiers!

Self-styled "moderate" (i.e., trendy) Liberals, such as Malcolm Turnbull and Christopher Pyne, are pleading with Abbott to be permitted to exercise a conscience vote on the issue.

A conscience vote? Why don't these politicians allow the public to be able to exercise THEIR conscience rights on the issue of same-sex marriage?

Too many politicians want to have one set of standards for themselves, but deny the same rights to the voting public.

Solon have you ever thought that Clinton and Obama have 'changed their minds' on the subject of gay marriage because they realise that the majority of the U.S. public now are ok with legalising gay marriage?

If it can happen that way in predominantly Catholic Ireland, it can happen anywhere.

And guess what? Heterosexual marriages have not been affected at all in those countries...and....the sky has not fallen in.

The recent Supreme Court decision is another example of the flawed nature of the US Constitution. This question should be put to a referendum and / or be the subject of a constitutional amendment which in the US involves the US Congress and a majority of the State Congresses to pass it.
This is very basic fundamental legislation that should never be decided by a majority of the Supreme Court. Two of the justices had a personal interest in the outcome and should have been required to recuse themselves.