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

[WorldWatcher]

Wow! You can't argue the merits of the argument, so now this?

Peachy

Your argument has no merits to argue against.


Silly? Yes. Merit? No. One the Kliens are making in their appeal? No. Therefore irrelevant to Oregon law.

>>>>

 

[mdk]

One of the Justices couldn't take the reality of that document and expired a few months after its crafting from the stress of what had to be unlivable impotence & frustration at being unable to stop it from happening.. 5 people telling 300 million

I am sure his years of diabetes, coronary artery disease, and obesity had nothing to do with his death. Gay marriage was the real culprit.

 

[Pop23]

Wow! You can't argue the merits of the argument, so now this?

Peachy

Your argument has no merits to argue against.


Silly? Yes. Merit? No. One the Kliens are making in their appeal? No. Therefore irrelevant to Oregon law.

>>>>

You've been lowered to the "cuz I said so argument"

Wowza

 

[WorldWatcher]

You've been lowered to the "cuz I said so argument"

Wowza

Nope. Because the law says so. Your contrived hypothetical isn't an issue in the case that was file on appeal.


>>>>

 

[bodecea]

The secularists want to make the government the final arbiter of religion. Rather than true freedom of religion where people judge their own sin, the government will do it for you. Christianity is okay, just as long as the government makes necessary adjustments. This is moving toward the state religion. A person can believe whatever they want, as long as what they want is what the government religion let's them have. Fortunately for secularists, there is Islam that will kill off Christians and Jews without expressions of individual sin. To the left, Islam will all become good little homo loving leftists as soon as the Christians are dead.

The only place a state has in "making adjustments" to a religion is if it causes real and proximate harm to others. The Kleins simply smiling and saying "sorry, we reserve the right to refuse to make you a wedding cake" was not them putting someone to death, hurling rocks, or slapping them in the face. It was simply their passive right to not play along. Even if government whittled away at religions until it was satisfied, a person's mere passive right to refuse to practice another person's religion that flies in the faith of theirs ("Church of LGBT gay marriage") would be the last whittle to go before there was nothing left.

So the Kleins didn't have a business license?

Doesn't matter, the kleins business licence doesn't obligate them to sell a niche product anymore then forces them to sell pineapples

Doesn't matter? Why doesn't it matter? They have sold wedding cakes as part of their business before...same would apply if they sold pineapples before.

You just want christer business owners to have special rights.

 

[bodecea]

Again, Obergefell came about in the exact same way that Loving came about. You agree with Loving, disagree with Obergefell. Sorry, but that leaves only one logical conclusion.

Just because I think SSM and OSM are drastically different compared to inter-racial relations doesn't make me a homophobe. I guess its just easier for you to dump me in a nice little folder.

You don't get to define reality. The reality is attraction to someone of the same sex is a biological detriment. That has nothing to do with morality. I honestly don't care who you like to bugger. It's when you decide to make everyone else care OR ELSE that I have an issue.

I'm not defining anything, just following the logical conclusion of your statements. The Loving decision and the Obergerfel decision came about in the EXACT same way but you think one was a bad ruling.

Race and sexual orientation are not the same thing, and there was no precedence for SSM compared to interracial marriages (or inter tribe marriages, or inter clan marriages).

A change that big, that is something new, not correcting something that was wrongly implemented, should not come from the courts, but from the legislatures.

Race and gender aren't the same either....are you going to assert that people can be discriminated against based on their gender?

What i am saying is if you want in on an institution like marriage, and you have no precedent for it, you appeal to the legislatures of the States to change the contract, you don't make up some right to it that never existed.

The right to be treated equally by laws never existed?

 

[Pop23]

You've been lowered to the "cuz I said so argument"

Wowza

Nope. Because the law says so. Your contrived hypothetical isn't an issue in the case that was file on appeal.


>>>>

Oh, now it's cuz you think so. That's much better.

Tell me exactly how someone who treats all sexualities exactly the same is violating the law.

 

[Pop23]

Just because I think SSM and OSM are drastically different compared to inter-racial relations doesn't make me a homophobe. I guess its just easier for you to dump me in a nice little folder.

You don't get to define reality. The reality is attraction to someone of the same sex is a biological detriment. That has nothing to do with morality. I honestly don't care who you like to bugger. It's when you decide to make everyone else care OR ELSE that I have an issue.

I'm not defining anything, just following the logical conclusion of your statements. The Loving decision and the Obergerfel decision came about in the EXACT same way but you think one was a bad ruling.

Race and sexual orientation are not the same thing, and there was no precedence for SSM compared to interracial marriages (or inter tribe marriages, or inter clan marriages).

A change that big, that is something new, not correcting something that was wrongly implemented, should not come from the courts, but from the legislatures.

Race and gender aren't the same either....are you going to assert that people can be discriminated against based on their gender?

What i am saying is if you want in on an institution like marriage, and you have no precedent for it, you appeal to the legislatures of the States to change the contract, you don't make up some right to it that never existed.

The right to be treated equally by laws never existed?

Do you think that homosexuals own the concept of same sex marriage?

 

[Pop23]

The secularists want to make the government the final arbiter of religion. Rather than true freedom of religion where people judge their own sin, the government will do it for you. Christianity is okay, just as long as the government makes necessary adjustments. This is moving toward the state religion. A person can believe whatever they want, as long as what they want is what the government religion let's them have. Fortunately for secularists, there is Islam that will kill off Christians and Jews without expressions of individual sin. To the left, Islam will all become good little homo loving leftists as soon as the Christians are dead.

The only place a state has in "making adjustments" to a religion is if it causes real and proximate harm to others. The Kleins simply smiling and saying "sorry, we reserve the right to refuse to make you a wedding cake" was not them putting someone to death, hurling rocks, or slapping them in the face. It was simply their passive right to not play along. Even if government whittled away at religions until it was satisfied, a person's mere passive right to refuse to practice another person's religion that flies in the faith of theirs ("Church of LGBT gay marriage") would be the last whittle to go before there was nothing left.

So the Kleins didn't have a business license?

Doesn't matter, the kleins business licence doesn't obligate them to sell a niche product anymore then forces them to sell pineapples

Doesn't matter? Why doesn't it matter? They have sold wedding cakes as part of their business before...same would apply if they sold pineapples before.

You just want christer business owners to have special rights.

They never sold same sex wedding cakes ever. It's a new niche market.

He would violate the law if he sold same sex wedding cakes to heterosexual couples and not homosexual couples. He chided to sell to neither.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Oh, now it's cuz you think so. That's much better.

Nope, not what I think. It's what the law says.

Tell me exactly how someone who treats all sexualities exactly the same is violating the law.

Again this case has nothing to do with your hypothetical. It has to do with what actually happened.

The baker denied service because it was a lesbian couple.

The Oregon Statute is listed below. There are three permutations

• Sells wedding cakes to mixed gender heterosexuals.
• Refuses to sell wedding cake to same gender homosexuals - violates the law on sexual orientation.
• Refused to sell wedding cake to same gender homosexuals - violates the law on sex

Either way advertising and selling wedding cakes as one of the goods and services offered by the business and refusing to sell either to a homosexual couple or a heterosexual couple still violates the law.


§ 659A.403¹
Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited
(1)Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is of age, as described in this section, or older.


>>>>

 

[AsherN]

For crying out loud!

Stop whining and bake the fucking cake

So, stop in here,

and ask them to make a cake celebrating Hitlers birthday

They could refuse that. It's a very different request than the one in this case. You people are horribly uninformed.

Is it?

You don't think the Christian couple find the gay wedding as distasteful as the other bakery finds Hitler?

You can refuse to put language on a cake. That's protected by the first amendment. But you can't refuse to sell them your product just because you hate folks like them.

You can refuse to put language on a cake.

By law, they would have to put a picture of Hitler on the cake if it was requested, but not his name?

Being stupid enough to want to celebrate Hitler's birthday is not a protected class.

 

[Pop23]

Oh, now it's cuz you think so. That's much better.

Nope, not what I think. It's what the law says.

Tell me exactly how someone who treats all sexualities exactly the same is violating the law.

Again this case has nothing to do with your hypothetical. It has to do with what actually happened.

The baker denied service because it was a lesbian couple.

The Oregon Statute is listed below. There are three permutations

• Sells wedding cakes to mixed gender heterosexuals.
• Refuses to sell wedding cake to same gender homosexuals - violates the law on sexual orientation.
• Refused to sell wedding cake to same gender homosexuals - violates the law on sex

Either way advertising and selling wedding cakes as one of the goods and services offered by the business and refusing to sell either to a homosexual couple or a heterosexual couple still violates the law.


§ 659A.403¹
Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited
(1)Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is of age, as described in this section, or older.


>>>>

They offer EXACTLY the same product to anyone that wants them, regardless of sexual orientation.

He also sells cakes to mix gender homosexuals.

 

[Seawytch]

Uh huh, of course it was. I guess we should be happy you're only homophobic and not racist. Yay?

how am I homophobic If i am ok with and even support marriage law being changed via State legislatures, and other States being forced to recognize said licenses even if they don't want to issue them?

Again, Obergefell came about in the exact same way that Loving came about. You agree with Loving, disagree with Obergefell. Sorry, but that leaves only one logical conclusion.

Just because I think SSM and OSM are drastically different compared to inter-racial relations doesn't make me a homophobe. I guess its just easier for you to dump me in a nice little folder.

You don't get to define reality. The reality is attraction to someone of the same sex is a biological detriment. That has nothing to do with morality. I honestly don't care who you like to bugger. It's when you decide to make everyone else care OR ELSE that I have an issue.

I'm not defining anything, just following the logical conclusion of your statements. The Loving decision and the Obergerfel decision came about in the EXACT same way but you think one was a bad ruling.

Race and sexual orientation are not the same thing, and there was no precedence for SSM compared to interracial marriages (or inter tribe marriages, or inter clan marriages).

A change that big, that is something new, not correcting something that was wrongly implemented, should not come from the courts, but from the legislatures.

No precedent? You're kidding, right?

Oh, please do explain how there was precedent for Loving and not Obergefell.

 

[Seawytch]

The secularists want to make the government the final arbiter of religion. Rather than true freedom of religion where people judge their own sin, the government will do it for you. Christianity is okay, just as long as the government makes necessary adjustments. This is moving toward the state religion. A person can believe whatever they want, as long as what they want is what the government religion let's them have. Fortunately for secularists, there is Islam that will kill off Christians and Jews without expressions of individual sin. To the left, Islam will all become good little homo loving leftists as soon as the Christians are dead.

The only place a state has in "making adjustments" to a religion is if it causes real and proximate harm to others. The Kleins simply smiling and saying "sorry, we reserve the right to refuse to make you a wedding cake" was not them putting someone to death, hurling rocks, or slapping them in the face. It was simply their passive right to not play along. Even if government whittled away at religions until it was satisfied, a person's mere passive right to refuse to practice another person's religion that flies in the faith of theirs ("Church of LGBT gay marriage") would be the last whittle to go before there was nothing left.

So the Kleins didn't have a business license?

Doesn't matter, the kleins business licence doesn't obligate them to sell a niche product anymore then forces them to sell pineapples

The customer wasn't buying a niche product, they were buying a wedding cake.

 

[Pop23]

The secularists want to make the government the final arbiter of religion. Rather than true freedom of religion where people judge their own sin, the government will do it for you. Christianity is okay, just as long as the government makes necessary adjustments. This is moving toward the state religion. A person can believe whatever they want, as long as what they want is what the government religion let's them have. Fortunately for secularists, there is Islam that will kill off Christians and Jews without expressions of individual sin. To the left, Islam will all become good little homo loving leftists as soon as the Christians are dead.

The only place a state has in "making adjustments" to a religion is if it causes real and proximate harm to others. The Kleins simply smiling and saying "sorry, we reserve the right to refuse to make you a wedding cake" was not them putting someone to death, hurling rocks, or slapping them in the face. It was simply their passive right to not play along. Even if government whittled away at religions until it was satisfied, a person's mere passive right to refuse to practice another person's religion that flies in the faith of theirs ("Church of LGBT gay marriage") would be the last whittle to go before there was nothing left.

So the Kleins didn't have a business license?

Doesn't matter, the kleins business licence doesn't obligate them to sell a niche product anymore then forces them to sell pineapples

The customer wasn't buying a niche product, they were buying a wedding cake.

You guys crack me up!

Times have changed and your heads are still stuck in the past!

Same sex marriage is not simply for gays (or are you just stupid)

It is completely legal for SAME SEX HETEROSEXUALS TO MARRY EACH OTHER!

This baker refuses to bake cakes for the NEW NICHE known as same sex married couples regardless of sexual orientation.

And I think there is an excellent reason for this...........

 

[Pop23]

Oh, now it's cuz you think so. That's much better.

Nope, not what I think. It's what the law says.

Tell me exactly how someone who treats all sexualities exactly the same is violating the law.

Again this case has nothing to do with your hypothetical. It has to do with what actually happened.

The baker denied service because it was a lesbian couple.

The Oregon Statute is listed below. There are three permutations

• Sells wedding cakes to mixed gender heterosexuals.
• Refuses to sell wedding cake to same gender homosexuals - violates the law on sexual orientation.
• Refused to sell wedding cake to same gender homosexuals - violates the law on sex

Either way advertising and selling wedding cakes as one of the goods and services offered by the business and refusing to sell either to a homosexual couple or a heterosexual couple still violates the law.


§ 659A.403¹
Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited
(1)Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is of age, as described in this section, or older.


>>>>

Wrong:

He sells wedding cakes to opposite sex homosexuals as well. He makes no such prohibition.

2. He offers no such service to ANY SAME SEX COUPLE REGARDLESS OF SEXUALITY

3. What law exist that makes a vendor supply a product simply because the law changes? Is this not fascism?

 

[Silhouette]

What i am saying is if you want in on an institution like marriage, and you have no precedent for it, you appeal to the legislatures of the States to change the contract, you don't make up some right to it that never existed.

Well apparently just some sexual orientations and lifestyles have access granted to marriage without states' permission, while others do not. Citing non-existent protections from the Constitution that never makes mention either of marriage or sexual orientation. The only way Obergefell makes sense is if the 5 Justices also ordered all 50 states to issue drivers' licenses to EVERYONE, regardless if they measured up to the necessities of safe driving. After all, it's a privilege to which no one must be denied! Including the blind and those whose drinking-orientations mean their blood alcohol is over the legal limit on a daily basis.

A marriage existed to provide children with both a mother and father, among other benefits to those involved. Now the word "marriage" excludes that benefit to children. Weird times we're living in where contracts can exist that hurt children..

If I was Judge Moore of Alabama, I'd order my people to disregard Obergefell too and follow state law; the only law that is applicable to marriages.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Wrong:

No actually I'm correct.

He sells wedding cakes to opposite sex homosexuals as well. He makes no such prohibition.

There is nothing against the law to sell the same product to same-sex or opposite-sex couples.

2. He offers no such service to ANY SAME SEX COUPLE REGARDLESS OF SEXUALITY

If he sells to opposite-sex couples and not same-couples, even with no consideration of the couples sexual orientation, then he is in violation of the "sex" provision of the law previously quoted. If a business refuses based on heterosexual or homosexual status of the customer, they are in violation of the "sexual orientation provision. If they base it on the male or female composition they are in violation of the "sex" provision.

3. What law exist that makes a vendor supply a product simply because the law changes? Is this not fascism?

None.

If the baker doesn't want to supply wedding cakes they don't have to. No aspect of the law requires them to sell wedding cakes to anyone if wedding cakes are not a good/service offered to the public. When the law was enacted by Oregon, the baker was free to remove wedding cakes from the items they offered. They continued to sell wedding cakes which means they were required to comply with the law.

Pretty easy really.

>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Requiring a Christian to supply a wedding cake knowingly to a gay wedding is the same as requiring a Jew to bake a "Nazi Pride Day" cake for a nazi. Legally, it is the same thing. It also the same thing as requiring a gay graphic designer to print a giant highway billboard sign for a Christian that says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God".

All three merchants would object passively based on ideological differences. And all three would be within their rights to do so. Homosexuality: behavior. Nazi: behavior. Christian: religion/behavior. Only one of the three though has specific Constitutional protections not to serve the customers in question in those specific situations.

Pretty easy really.

 

[Pop23]

Wrong:

No actually I'm correct.

He sells wedding cakes to opposite sex homosexuals as well. He makes no such prohibition.

There is nothing against the law to sell the same product to same-sex or opposite-sex couples.

2. He offers no such service to ANY SAME SEX COUPLE REGARDLESS OF SEXUALITY

If he sells to opposite-sex couples and not same-couples, even with no consideration of the couples sexual orientation, then he is in violation of the "sex" provision of the law previously quoted. If a business refuses based on heterosexual or homosexual status of the customer, they are in violation of the "sexual orientation provision. If they base it on the male or female composition they are in violation of the "sex" provision.

3. What law exist that makes a vendor supply a product simply because the law changes? Is this not fascism?

None.

If the baker doesn't want to supply wedding cakes they don't have to. No aspect of the law requires them to sell wedding cakes to anyone if wedding cakes are not a good/service offered to the public. When the law was enacted by Oregon, the baker was free to remove wedding cakes from the items they offered. They continued to sell wedding cakes which means they were required to comply with the law.

Pretty easy really.

>>>>

Your right, the law can't force a business to sell a product they don't offer. And no law can force a business to sell a product that was created by a law.

I've proven time and time again that the baker is willing to sell cakes to gays. And he likely has.

Now, prove that anyone has been discriminated on based on sexuality.

Let's see the sexuality test the state requires.