Why are Christian businesses targeted .....

[Ken]

... by the homosexual community? The Christian baker who was exonerated by the Supreme Court has been dragged back into court by the Colorado officials. This is definitely persecution. There are Islamic bakeries that do not serve the homosexual community but they are not targeted. Just this Christian.

What are your thoughts regarding the reasons Christians are not targeted by the homosexual community and not the Muslims?

Maybe because it didn't happen?

The Colorado baker you are referring to isn't being dragged back into court by Colorado officials. He is suing to challenge a previous ruling from 2018 that the Colorado Supreme Court finally agreed to hear. He is dragging himself back into court, not the other way around.

And the Colorado wedding web site designer who's case made it to the Supreme Court? She turned out to be a liar. She was never a professional wedding web site designer in the first place and she lied to the courts about gay couples asking her to design wedding web sites. Which never happened because she didn't have a wedding web site business in the first place. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/03/us/p ... court.html

I realize you think that because this is MennoNet and not a court or a newspaper, it doesn't matter whether you post accurate information. But the article you linked to does not support your claim that she lied, or that she told the court that gay couples had asked her to design wedding web sites. Maybe you are just as much of a liar as she was? Or more?

She introduced into court a filing stating that she had been approached to make a gay wedding web site for a gay couple.

That turned out not to be true. The person listed on the form she submitted to court was actually a straight man who is married to a woman and says he never made any such request. From the first two paragraphs of the article:

After the Supreme Court ruled last week that a Colorado graphic designer has the right to refuse to create websites for same-sex marriages, critics of the decision raised questions about a form included in court papers in the case that appeared to show that a gay couple had sought the services of the designer, Lorie Smith.

The man who supposedly submitted the form said he was unaware of its existence until a reporter for The New Republic called him. He is, moreover, straight, married to a woman and a supporter of gay rights. The apparent falsehoods, critics said, undermined the court’s decision.

That was the ONLY evidence that Lorie Smith's attorneys ever presented that she had ever even been approached by a gay couple to design a web site. Nor did they ever show any evidence that she was ever even a professional wedding web site designer. No evidence that she had ever done a single wedding web site of any kind for hire.

So yes, the notion that this woman was a business being targeted by LGBT people was entirely made up. As is the whole notion that Christian businesses are being "targeted" but not Muslim businesses. It seems that no businesses are being targeted.

Do a little math. There are something like between 40,000 and 80,000 bakeries in the US. Not all do wedding cakes but some portion do, probably well into the thousands. And since a majority of Americans (63%) profess to be Christian that means thousands of them are owned and operated by Christians.

How many have been challenged legally for refusing to bake cakes? I can only find two examples. The one in Colorado and one in Oregon. That is it. So not only are LGBT people not targeting Muslims, they don't appear to be targeting anyone to speak of. The Colorado case was from 2012 and the Oregon case was from 2013. Both more than 10 years ago.

[Josh]

Could you explain to us why Masterpiece Cakeshop has been targeted multiple times? (Not to mention a literal pizza delivery place in Indiana - as if gay people seriously would cater a wedding with pizzas.)

[Ken]

Could you explain to us why Masterpiece Cakeshop has been targeted multiple times? (Not to mention a literal pizza delivery place in Indiana - as if gay people seriously would cater a wedding with pizzas.)

Multiple times? There is one case from 2012 and another case from 2017. Those are the only cases I can find. Do you have anything from this decade?

There are literally thousands of bakeries across the country. If Christian bakers are actually being persecuted for their faith you would think that you could find a case from this decade, no?

And not have to make up cases out of thin air such as was the case with Lorie Smith.

[ken_sylvania]

Maybe because it didn't happen?

The Colorado baker you are referring to isn't being dragged back into court by Colorado officials. He is suing to challenge a previous ruling from 2018 that the Colorado Supreme Court finally agreed to hear. He is dragging himself back into court, not the other way around.

And the Colorado wedding web site designer who's case made it to the Supreme Court? She turned out to be a liar. She was never a professional wedding web site designer in the first place and she lied to the courts about gay couples asking her to design wedding web sites. Which never happened because she didn't have a wedding web site business in the first place. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/03/us/p ... court.html

I realize you think that because this is MennoNet and not a court or a newspaper, it doesn't matter whether you post accurate information. But the article you linked to does not support your claim that she lied, or that she told the court that gay couples had asked her to design wedding web sites. Maybe you are just as much of a liar as she was? Or more?

She introduced into court a filing stating that she had been approached to make a gay wedding web site for a gay couple.

That turned out not to be true. The person listed on the form she submitted to court was actually a straight man who is married to a woman and says he never made any such request. From the first two paragraphs of the article:

After the Supreme Court ruled last week that a Colorado graphic designer has the right to refuse to create websites for same-sex marriages, critics of the decision raised questions about a form included in court papers in the case that appeared to show that a gay couple had sought the services of the designer, Lorie Smith.

The man who supposedly submitted the form said he was unaware of its existence until a reporter for The New Republic called him. He is, moreover, straight, married to a woman and a supporter of gay rights. The apparent falsehoods, critics said, undermined the court’s decision.

That was the ONLY evidence that Lorie Smith's attorneys ever presented that she had ever even been approached by a gay couple to design a web site. Nor did they ever show any evidence that she was ever even a professional wedding web site designer. No evidence that she had ever done a single wedding web site of any kind for hire.

If in fact she received that request, even if it was from some crank somewhere, then she did not lie to the court by saying that she had received it. She even included a copy of it in evidence so that it was crystal clear that the request wasn't even a definate request for a website.

Why did you say she told the court that [multiple] gay couples had asked her to design wedding web sites? Do you have some kind of proof that she told the court she had received multiple requests?

[Ken]

I realize you think that because this is MennoNet and not a court or a newspaper, it doesn't matter whether you post accurate information. But the article you linked to does not support your claim that she lied, or that she told the court that gay couples had asked her to design wedding web sites. Maybe you are just as much of a liar as she was? Or more?

She introduced into court a filing stating that she had been approached to make a gay wedding web site for a gay couple.

That turned out not to be true. The person listed on the form she submitted to court was actually a straight man who is married to a woman and says he never made any such request. From the first two paragraphs of the article:

After the Supreme Court ruled last week that a Colorado graphic designer has the right to refuse to create websites for same-sex marriages, critics of the decision raised questions about a form included in court papers in the case that appeared to show that a gay couple had sought the services of the designer, Lorie Smith.

The man who supposedly submitted the form said he was unaware of its existence until a reporter for The New Republic called him. He is, moreover, straight, married to a woman and a supporter of gay rights. The apparent falsehoods, critics said, undermined the court’s decision.

That was the ONLY evidence that Lorie Smith's attorneys ever presented that she had ever even been approached by a gay couple to design a web site. Nor did they ever show any evidence that she was ever even a professional wedding web site designer. No evidence that she had ever done a single wedding web site of any kind for hire.

If in fact she received that request, even if it was from some crank somewhere, then she did not lie to the court by saying that she had received it. She even included a copy of it in evidence so that it was crystal clear that the request wasn't even a definate request for a website.

Why did you say she told the court that [multiple] gay couples had asked her to design wedding web sites? Do you have some kind of proof that she told the court she had received multiple requests?

She wasn’t a wedding website designer. She told the court that she wasn’t. So why would anyone contact her to do that? I’m not a frozen chicken wholesaler. So curiously I don’t get random requests for container loads of frozen chicken.

She could have sent the request to herself. That’s the most likely story. But who knows. We know it was fictitious. They probably thought no one would even check. And no one even did until it got to the Supreme Court.

Either way the entire case was a complete fiction. She wasn’t a wedding web site designer then. And she still isn’t now a year after the Supreme Court has given her a license to discriminate.

[ken_sylvania]

She introduced into court a filing stating that she had been approached to make a gay wedding web site for a gay couple.

That turned out not to be true. The person listed on the form she submitted to court was actually a straight man who is married to a woman and says he never made any such request. From the first two paragraphs of the article:



That was the ONLY evidence that Lorie Smith's attorneys ever presented that she had ever even been approached by a gay couple to design a web site. Nor did they ever show any evidence that she was ever even a professional wedding web site designer. No evidence that she had ever done a single wedding web site of any kind for hire.

If in fact she received that request, even if it was from some crank somewhere, then she did not lie to the court by saying that she had received it. She even included a copy of it in evidence so that it was crystal clear that the request wasn't even a definate request for a website.

Why did you say she told the court that [multiple] gay couples had asked her to design wedding web sites? Do you have some kind of proof that she told the court she had received multiple requests?

She wasn’t a wedding website designer. She told the court that she wasn’t. So why would anyone contact her to do that? I’m not a frozen chicken wholesaler. So curiously I don’t get random requests for container loads of frozen chicken.

She could have sent the request to herself. That’s the most likely story. But who knows. We know it was fictitious. They probably thought no one would even check. And no one even did until it got to the Supreme Court.

Either way the entire case was a complete fiction. She wasn’t a wedding web site designer then. And she still isn’t now a year after the Supreme Court has given her a license to discriminate.

So are you admitting that you have absolutely no proof that she lied to the court?
Do you admit that your claim that "she told the court that [multiple] gay couples had asked her to design wedding web sites" was a lie?

[Ken]

If in fact she received that request, even if it was from some crank somewhere, then she did not lie to the court by saying that she had received it. She even included a copy of it in evidence so that it was crystal clear that the request wasn't even a definate request for a website.

Why did you say she told the court that [multiple] gay couples had asked her to design wedding web sites? Do you have some kind of proof that she told the court she had received multiple requests?

She wasn’t a wedding website designer. She told the court that she wasn’t. So why would anyone contact her to do that? I’m not a frozen chicken wholesaler. So curiously I don’t get random requests for container loads of frozen chicken.

She could have sent the request to herself. That’s the most likely story. But who knows. We know it was fictitious. They probably thought no one would even check. And no one even did until it got to the Supreme Court.

Either way the entire case was a complete fiction. She wasn’t a wedding web site designer then. And she still isn’t now a year after the Supreme Court has given her a license to discriminate.

So are you admitting that you have absolutely no proof that she lied to the court?
Do you admit that your claim that "she told the court that [multiple] gay couples had asked her to design wedding web sites" was a lie?

She and her lawyers submitted documents to the court that were fraudulent. There is no question about that. They claimed that a gay couple requested a wedding web site from her and that was a lie. The person she claimed requested a wedding web site says no, the whole thing didn't happen. In fact he isn't even gay, he is happily married.

Everything about the entire case was made up.

[MaxPC]

Could you explain to us why Masterpiece Cakeshop has been targeted multiple times? (Not to mention a literal pizza delivery place in Indiana - as if gay people seriously would cater a wedding with pizzas.)

Just recently the cake shop was dragged back to court yet again by the same individuals who received a reprimand from the Supreme Court. Those prosecuting (and persecuting) the owner have a vested interest in supporting homosexuality for multiple reasons. It makes me wonder why they have not targeted the Muslim catering service as well. Perhaps they think Christians are soft targets to force an issue?

[ken_sylvania]

She wasn’t a wedding website designer. She told the court that she wasn’t. So why would anyone contact her to do that? I’m not a frozen chicken wholesaler. So curiously I don’t get random requests for container loads of frozen chicken.

She could have sent the request to herself. That’s the most likely story. But who knows. We know it was fictitious. They probably thought no one would even check. And no one even did until it got to the Supreme Court.

Either way the entire case was a complete fiction. She wasn’t a wedding web site designer then. And she still isn’t now a year after the Supreme Court has given her a license to discriminate.

So are you admitting that you have absolutely no proof that she lied to the court?
Do you admit that your claim that "she told the court that [multiple] gay couples had asked her to design wedding web sites" was a lie?

She and her lawyers submitted documents to the court that were fraudulent. There is no question about that. They claimed that a gay couple requested a wedding web site from her and that was a lie. The person she claimed requested a wedding web site says no, the whole thing didn't happen. In fact he isn't even gay, he is happily married.

Everything about the entire case was made up.

So far there is no evidence that she or her lawyers knew that the form was a fake. If they thought it was genuine, then they didn't lie.

Everything about the entire case was made up.

Oh really? Including the law they were fighting about?

[Ken]

Could you explain to us why Masterpiece Cakeshop has been targeted multiple times? (Not to mention a literal pizza delivery place in Indiana - as if gay people seriously would cater a wedding with pizzas.)

Just recently the cake shop was dragged back to court yet again by the same individuals who received a reprimand from the Supreme Court. Those prosecuting (and persecuting) the owner have a vested interest in supporting homosexuality for multiple reasons. It makes me wonder why they have not targeted the Muslim catering service as well. Perhaps they think Christians are soft targets to force an issue?

No, they were NOT dragged back into court.

They appealed the decision from 2018 and 2021 and the Colorado Supreme Court finally agreed to hear the case. They are dragging themselves back into court. Not the State or anyone else. This is all about events that happened in 2017 and not anything recent: https://www.coloradopolitics.com/courts ... fa5aa.html