Bakers fined for not working homosexual "wedding" continue fighting for their freedoms

[WorldWatcher]

The issue of whether public accommodation laws can be applied to off site venues isn't decided. It's on appeal. Stop saying that sexual orientation is protected under Oregon's PA laws because that hasn't been decided.

Really where?

Not a question on appeal by the Klein's. Here is the link to their appeal, none of the questions presented on appeal have to do with differentiating between onsite goods and services and goods and service delivered to a different site.

A tow truck driver can refuse to provide towing services to a black motorist because the motorists car broke down on the highway and not the drivers business lot?

) )

https://firstliberty.org/wp-content...5-Kleins-Opening-Brief-FINAL-w-Appendix-1.pdf


>>>>

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The fine the Kleins are to pay is in a blocked account until the issue is decided.

 

[Silhouette]

The fine the Kleins are to pay is in a blocked account until the issue is decided.

And it will be decided thus: vv

Or how they're bulimic, or addicted to heroin. Problem is that of all those behaviors, only religion is protected Constitutionally as an unchallengeable right. Hively v Ivy Tech (7th circuit, federal court of appeals 2016)..

Ya, tell that to gun owners. "Hey you, your religion can't be challenged, but we can challenge your ability to own a gun." or "Hey, journalist your free speech is a challegable right."

But again, that behavior is SPECIFICALLY PROTECTED by name (2nd Amendment).. Bulimia, heroin addiction and homosexuality isn't...

BTW, all law has something to do with other law if it can be cited in support or opposition by precedent...idiot...

And sexual orienation is protected under Oregon Public Accommodation law.

Not if the protection for that (unreferenced) behavior is an erasure of other enumerated protections in the Constitution which supersede it...

 

[OKTexas]

The requested service extended outside the physical walls of the business, you can't force association outside the walls of the business. The poor faghadist didn't ask for an in store pick up.

Fail. If you bake and deliver for couple A, you can't refuse to do so for couple B, simply because they are (fill in protected class here...black, Muslim, gay, etc)

Sure you can, just tell the faghadist you're fully booked for that day or you taking that day off. There are more than one way to skin a cat. But I'm glad to see you fascist side coming out, thinking you can force people to associate with people they find objectionable outside their place of business.

If you're lying about why you're denying service, you've got nothing to worry about...well except for the lying being a sin.

Well it all comes out in the wash, the faghadist are lying about being born that way.

So when did you choose? How did you choose? Coin flip?

Biology made my choice, I was born with Tab A, which goes in Slot B, not in Hole C.

 

[Silhouette]

Biology made my choice, I was born with Tab A, which goes in Slot B, not in Hole C.

And lesbians were "born" with strapon A which goes in Slot B...wait...they're really not into men?????????????

 

[Pop23]

But it's protected under the constitution.

And sexual orienation is protected under Oregon Public Accommodation law.

But, now, what happens when two heterosexual males say they want a same sex wedding cake, tell the baker they are heterosexual, and the baker refuses service?

Perplexing, aye?

Not in the least.

If he refuses service for some other reason "We don't do wedding cakes for anyone", "I'm out of town that week and we are not taking any orders", etc. - not a problem.

If he refuses service because they are heterosexuals engaging in a perfectly legal action (entering into Civil Marriage), then that is a discrimination based on sexual orientation an they would be in violation of the law.

Not perplexing at all.


You seem to think it's about the customer - that is incorrect. It is the basis for the action by the business owner.

>>>>

Oh my, sexual orientation would not be the reason then would it?

Two heterosexual males are not attracted sexually to each other would they?

They aren't a protected group then are they?

The Oregon marriage law makes no mention of sexual attraction (orientation) as a requirement to have a valid licence.

Interesting. Isn't it?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Oh my, sexual orientation would not be the reason then would it?

Two heterosexual males are not attracted sexually to each other would they?

They aren't a protected group then are they?

The Oregon marriage law makes no mention of sexual attraction (orientation) as a requirement to have a valid licence.

Interesting. Isn't it?

Interesting?

No,

You trying to play games?

Yes.


>>>>

 

[Pop23]

Oh my, sexual orientation would not be the reason then would it?

Two heterosexual males are not attracted sexually to each other would they?

They aren't a protected group then are they?

The Oregon marriage law makes no mention of sexual attraction (orientation) as a requirement to have a valid licence.

Interesting. Isn't it?

Interesting?

No,

You trying to play games?

Yes.


>>>>

What?

I think we've established quite clearly that the baker is treating "sexual orientation " equally.

1. He would bake the cake for a hetrosexual opposite sex couple

As he would an opposite sex couple with both participants being gay (lesbian/gay)

As he would if the male was bisexual and the female straight

In fact, he would bake the cake for any combination of sexual orientations that the opposite sex couple are.

^^^^ all of the above treat couples equally.

2. He would not bake the cake for a same sex gay couple

He would not bake a cake for a same sex heterosexual couple.

As he would not bake a cake if one of the same sex couple was a bisexual and the other straight.

In fact, he would not bake a cake for any same sex couple with any combination of sexual orientation.

^^^^ all of the above treat these couples equally based on sexual orientation.

You can sleep well tonight realizing that the baker treats all sexual orientations equally.

And clearly, sexual orientation is not a requirement of a valid marriage license anyway.

 

[martybegan]

"The poll is biased" in your opinion.

All polls are biased in a away, due to the nature of how people react to questions, and how polls are conducted.

It also doesn't ask how people think the legalization should be achieved.

Repeated polls have all indicated that a majority of Americans now support gay marriage

Do you agree?

Polls that asked the very specific question about the SCOTUS ruling show a majority in favor of the ruling so they are okay with HOW it was legalized.

Poll: Majorities back Supreme Court rulings on marriage, Obamacare

Still does not make them right about it.

Uh huh...shift those goal posts. The majority agree with the opinion which is what you originally asked about.

Not shifting anything, just stating the obvious.

The majority of (white) people in the South thought Plessey was freaking awesome. They were wrong as well.

 

[Seawytch]

Fail. If you bake and deliver for couple A, you can't refuse to do so for couple B, simply because they are (fill in protected class here...black, Muslim, gay, etc)

Sure you can, just tell the faghadist you're fully booked for that day or you taking that day off. There are more than one way to skin a cat. But I'm glad to see you fascist side coming out, thinking you can force people to associate with people they find objectionable outside their place of business.

If you're lying about why you're denying service, you've got nothing to worry about...well except for the lying being a sin.

Well it all comes out in the wash, the faghadist are lying about being born that way.

So when did you choose? How did you choose? Coin flip?

Biology made my choice, I was born with Tab A, which goes in Slot B, not in Hole C.

Biology made mine too. If you believe I chose that can only be because you feel you did. I know I didn't, but if you did you might want to consider the fact you're bisexual. I'm not, I'm plain old vanilla gay. Obviously you chose not to act upon your bisexualness. I chose to act on my being gay. That's the only choice ever made, whether to act upon your natural or god given (depending upon what you believe) sexual orientation.

 

[Pop23]

Sure you can, just tell the faghadist you're fully booked for that day or you taking that day off. There are more than one way to skin a cat. But I'm glad to see you fascist side coming out, thinking you can force people to associate with people they find objectionable outside their place of business.

If you're lying about why you're denying service, you've got nothing to worry about...well except for the lying being a sin.

Well it all comes out in the wash, the faghadist are lying about being born that way.

So when did you choose? How did you choose? Coin flip?

Biology made my choice, I was born with Tab A, which goes in Slot B, not in Hole C.

Biology made mine too. If you believe I chose that can only be because you feel you did. I know I didn't, but if you did you might want to consider the fact you're bisexual. I'm not, I'm plain old vanilla gay. Obviously you chose not to act upon your bisexualness. I chose to act on my being gay. That's the only choice ever made, whether to act upon your natural or god given (depending upon what you believe) sexual orientation.

Biology has one helluva sense of humor.

Gave you a standard equipment package, BUT NO USERS MANUAL!

 

[Seawytch]

All polls are biased in a away, due to the nature of how people react to questions, and how polls are conducted.

It also doesn't ask how people think the legalization should be achieved.

Repeated polls have all indicated that a majority of Americans now support gay marriage

Do you agree?

Polls that asked the very specific question about the SCOTUS ruling show a majority in favor of the ruling so they are okay with HOW it was legalized.

Poll: Majorities back Supreme Court rulings on marriage, Obamacare

Still does not make them right about it.

Uh huh...shift those goal posts. The majority agree with the opinion which is what you originally asked about.

Not shifting anything, just stating the obvious.

The majority of (white) people in the South thought Plessey was freaking awesome. They were wrong as well.

Those same southern white folks thought Loving was a horrible decision...just like you think Obergefell is. Things that make you go "hmmmmmmmm".

 

[Iceweasel]

Repeated polls have all indicated that a majority of Americans now support gay marriage

Do you agree?

Polls that asked the very specific question about the SCOTUS ruling show a majority in favor of the ruling so they are okay with HOW it was legalized.

Poll: Majorities back Supreme Court rulings on marriage, Obamacare

Still does not make them right about it.

Uh huh...shift those goal posts. The majority agree with the opinion which is what you originally asked about.

Not shifting anything, just stating the obvious.

The majority of (white) people in the South thought Plessey was freaking awesome. They were wrong as well.

Those same southern white folks thought Loving was a horrible decision...just like you think Obergefell is. Things that make you go "hmmmmmmmm".

Homosexuality isn't a race. Sexuality is subjective, race isn't.

 

[martybegan]

Repeated polls have all indicated that a majority of Americans now support gay marriage

Do you agree?

Polls that asked the very specific question about the SCOTUS ruling show a majority in favor of the ruling so they are okay with HOW it was legalized.

Poll: Majorities back Supreme Court rulings on marriage, Obamacare

Still does not make them right about it.

Uh huh...shift those goal posts. The majority agree with the opinion which is what you originally asked about.

Not shifting anything, just stating the obvious.

The majority of (white) people in the South thought Plessey was freaking awesome. They were wrong as well.

Those same southern white folks thought Loving was a horrible decision...just like you think Obergefell is. Things that make you go "hmmmmmmmm".

I thought loving was correct, and my reasons for not liking Obergefell is again with the process, not the end result.

 

[BlindBoo]

My oldest brother was in the draft lottery for Vietnam, you were saying how the fed don't have the authority to force people to.......

And you notice how the federal government has since corrected that?

BTW it is a State Law that the baker broke, nothing remotely federal about the case.

The point (that you either are struggling to grasp or are disingenuously ignoring) is that the state isn't empowered by the 10th Amendment to violate the U.S. Constitution or the rights of the people - as they have done.

And you think they don't hold the power to re-institute it in case of a war?

PA laws are constitutional.

PA laws are for whoever walks through the door gets served. They can sit at a table and get all the cookies they want.

The second the baker has to extend beyond that which is baked and ready for sale it's not PA anymore. It is slavery.

If they sell special order wedding cakes to the public they cannot deny the same to the gay couples.

 

[martybegan]

Polls that asked the very specific question about the SCOTUS ruling show a majority in favor of the ruling so they are okay with HOW it was legalized.

Poll: Majorities back Supreme Court rulings on marriage, Obamacare

Still does not make them right about it.

Uh huh...shift those goal posts. The majority agree with the opinion which is what you originally asked about.

Not shifting anything, just stating the obvious.

The majority of (white) people in the South thought Plessey was freaking awesome. They were wrong as well.

Those same southern white folks thought Loving was a horrible decision...just like you think Obergefell is. Things that make you go "hmmmmmmmm".

Homosexuality isn't a race. Sexuality is subjective, race isn't.

And besides that, race restrictions on marriage were an add-on. Saying two people of the same sex can get married is such a radical change that only legislative changes to the contract should be valid.

 

[Iceweasel]

And besides that, race restrictions on marriage were an add-on. Saying two people of the same sex can get married is such a radical change that only legislative changes to the contract should be valid.

Yep, they are too far gone to understand that treating men differently isn't the same thing as recognizing how and why opposite genders united in matrimony for the entire history of mankind, regardless of culture or religion. To not understand it means it's been brainwashed away.

 

[Pop23]

My oldest brother was in the draft lottery for Vietnam, you were saying how the fed don't have the authority to force people to.......

And you notice how the federal government has since corrected that?

BTW it is a State Law that the baker broke, nothing remotely federal about the case.

The point (that you either are struggling to grasp or are disingenuously ignoring) is that the state isn't empowered by the 10th Amendment to violate the U.S. Constitution or the rights of the people - as they have done.

And you think they don't hold the power to re-institute it in case of a war?

PA laws are constitutional.

PA laws are for whoever walks through the door gets served. They can sit at a table and get all the cookies they want.

The second the baker has to extend beyond that which is baked and ready for sale it's not PA anymore. It is slavery.

If they sell special order wedding cakes to the public they cannot deny the same to the gay couples.

I've demonstrated above that they don't. Because the government created a new niche market does not create a duty upon a merchant the requirement to supply goods to that market.

It's also important to note that if a retailer feels that carrying a certain product opens them up to civil suit, they are better to not carry that product.

 

[Seawytch]

Polls that asked the very specific question about the SCOTUS ruling show a majority in favor of the ruling so they are okay with HOW it was legalized.

Poll: Majorities back Supreme Court rulings on marriage, Obamacare

Still does not make them right about it.

Uh huh...shift those goal posts. The majority agree with the opinion which is what you originally asked about.

Not shifting anything, just stating the obvious.

The majority of (white) people in the South thought Plessey was freaking awesome. They were wrong as well.

Those same southern white folks thought Loving was a horrible decision...just like you think Obergefell is. Things that make you go "hmmmmmmmm".

I thought loving was correct, and my reasons for not liking Obergefell is again with the process, not the end result.

The same "process" followed in Loving was followed in Obergefell. Same EXACT process except gays had to wait until they were "popular".

 

[martybegan]

And besides that, race restrictions on marriage were an add-on. Saying two people of the same sex can get married is such a radical change that only legislative changes to the contract should be valid.

Yep, they are too far gone to understand that treating men differently isn't the same thing as recognizing how and why opposite genders united in matrimony for the entire history of mankind, regardless of culture or religion. To not understand it means it's been brainwashed away.

They wanted to use the courts as an "easy button". instead of the proper procedure which is to petition the State legislatures to change the marriage contract, and then make the feds force states to recognize all marriage licenses, even if they dont meet the in state requirements (full faith and credit)