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

[Silhouette]

Sexual orientation is specifically mentioned in the law which is the subject of this tread, the Oregon State Public Accommodation Law under which Melissa and Aaron Klein were fined for discriminatory business practices.

I said "in the law", I didn't say "in the Constitution".


>>>>

Oh, I mean when the standoff between local come-lately laws face off with the 1st Amendment. You know, the Klein case?...

Any local law that attempts to strip someone of their Constitutional rights is not law. Were you aware of that? That is why the Constitution was ratified, to stand timelessly-dominant to any local laws in any time frame that tried to come about to strip our fundamental rights; like freedom of association & speech & religion.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Oh, I mean when the standoff between local come-lately laws face off with the 1st Amendment. You know, the Klein case?...

Any local law that attempts to strip someone of their Constitutional rights is not law. Were you aware of that? That is why the Constitution was ratified, to stand timelessly-dominant to any local laws in any time frame that tried to come about to strip our fundamental rights; like freedom of association & speech & religion.

How'd the 1st Amendment claim about a local law work for the New Mexico Photographer? (Hint it didn't).

How'd the 1st Amendment claim about a local law work for Piggie Park Enterprises? (Hint it didn't.)



>>>>

 

[JoeB131]

And you haven't made any argument that they should be forced to perform a service they don't want beyond "I hate their guts and make stuff up about them" and "the gay couple's hurt feelings are more important that the bakers hurt feelings, because reason #1"

And your last point is argumentum ad absurdum, and notes instances of actual harm, not butthurt.

I've made an argument.

We have laws.
Everyone agreed those laws were sensible.
Someone arguing that an imaginary fairy in the sky doesn't like those laws aren't a good enough reason to overturn them. Otherwise, every crazy fuck saying "God Told Me To" could walk off from murder charges.

 

[martybegan]

And you haven't made any argument that they should be forced to perform a service they don't want beyond "I hate their guts and make stuff up about them" and "the gay couple's hurt feelings are more important that the bakers hurt feelings, because reason #1"

And your last point is argumentum ad absurdum, and notes instances of actual harm, not butthurt.

I've made an argument.

We have laws.
Everyone agreed those laws were sensible.
Someone arguing that an imaginary fairy in the sky doesn't like those laws aren't a good enough reason to overturn them. Otherwise, every crazy fuck saying "God Told Me To" could walk off from murder charges.

1. Arguing how, not why, a modified version of the Nuremberg defense
2. Wrong.
3. Agrumentum ad absurdum.

 

[Pop23]

True, one doesn't have to, but most claiming a religious belief do. So we have kind of a problem, don't we.

I don't have a problem at all since I haven't claimed that all classes in either Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act or Oregon State Law (the subject of this tread) have objective tests, nor that those bringing a case must meet these (theoretical) tests you say exist.

You claimed there is an objective test for someones religious beliefs (stating all protected classes in Title II have an objective test). You are the one with a problem. You have been unable to provide the objective test for religion. Religious beliefs are a personal belief, an individual does not have to confirm to a major religious organization for their individual beliefs to be religious.


So, what is the objective test that could have been applied to the owners of Piggie Park Enterprises that claimed his religious beliefs exempted him from Title II and therefore he didn't have to server negro's in his establishment?


>>>>

That's simply nonsense. I indeed gave you what could be an objective test that can easily determine a persons religious affiliation.

No, you have the problem, you have no way to objectively prove that there is a sexual orientation that may not simply be just a symptom of delusional thought or obsessive compulsive behavior.

Race can be objectively tested
National Origin can be objectively tested
Gender can be objectively tested
Religion can be objectively tested

Sexual Orientation - cuz the delusional says so?

What other delusional behavior do we need to protect? All - Some - None?

 

[Pop23]

And PA laws that have gone before were actual public accommodations, not "if money changes hands it's a PA"

From my perspective, this issue is less about the law than it is about culture.

The law is the law. The PA laws say they must provide their service as dictated, period. The only way that changes is if the law is changed. And that's the end of that story.

The law, however, does not come into effect unless and until it is leveraged. The offended party has a couple of choices when they are told that someone will not bake a cake for them because they are gay: They can (1) decide that they wouldn't want to do business with someone like that anyway and go somewhere else, or they can (2) decide to leverage the PA law and punish those people for their beliefs. Nothing happens until that specific decision is made.

Right now, we're in a period when some people are very punitive and are more than happy to punish others for their beliefs. That may change with time - hopefully - but not any time soon. Until then, the law is the law.
.

People have a duty to challenge laws they think are unjust, and others who agree said laws are unjust have a duty to support those people.

And that is exactly what is happening and will continue. These jokers forget about Windsor and Obergfell!

 

[JoeB131]

Race can be objectively tested
National Origin can be objectively tested
Gender can be objectively tested
Religion can be objectively tested

Sexual Orientation - cuz the delusional says so?

Race can be objectively tested? Then why does the census bureau keep coming out with different definitions every 10 years?

National Origin can be objectively tested? Better tell that to all those people who took Ancestry.com DNA tests and found out they were Scottish instead of German. (I personally think these tests are bullshit, because my niece took one and it came back with all sorts of things we know she isn't.)

Gender can be objectively tested? What about transsexuals? Or that .1% of the population who are born with ambigious genitalia?

Religion can be objectively tested? How? I know Jews who eat ham and Catholics who eat meat during Lent... I know people who claim to be a member of religions and never go to church.

So knowing who you are attracted to is a "delusion", but believing there is a magic pixie in the sky is "objective".

 

[JoeB131]

1. Arguing how, not why, a modified version of the Nuremberg defense
2. Wrong.
3. Agrumentum ad absurdum.

Somehow, making Mr. Wifebeater do what his company promised to do, and paying him money for it is hardly getting sent to the gas chamber.

So at what point does "God Told Me To" no become an acceptable defense for breaking the law?

here's the thing, you LIbertarian Children all say how the law oppresses you, I think it just keeps things reasonably fair. if it comes down to the Cryer-Bowman's hurt feelings and the Wifebeater-Klein's hurt feelings, then that's a simple one.

The Customer is always right.

 

[martybegan]

1. Arguing how, not why, a modified version of the Nuremberg defense
2. Wrong.
3. Agrumentum ad absurdum.

Somehow, making Mr. Wifebeater do what his company promised to do, and paying him money for it is hardly getting sent to the gas chamber.

So at what point does "God Told Me To" no become an acceptable defense for breaking the law?

here's the thing, you LIbertarian Children all say how the law oppresses you, I think it just keeps things reasonably fair. if it comes down to the Cryer-Bowman's hurt feelings and the Wifebeater-Klein's hurt feelings, then that's a simple one.

The Customer is always right.

When there is no actual harm.

The issue is they didn't want these people to BE customers. and no, the customer is not always right.

 

[WorldWatcher]

That's simply nonsense. I indeed gave you what could be an objective test that can easily determine a persons religious affiliation.

And as explained, religious affiliation is not a factor. Religious beliefs are.

You can have religious beliefs without being affiliated with a major denomination and your individual beliefs may be different then a religious organization to which you belong. For example google Catholics and birth control. You'll find that while the Catholic Church is against artificial birth control 82% of Catholics say it is morally acceptable and 98% of American Catholic females have used contraception.


>>>>

 

[Pop23]

Race can be objectively tested
National Origin can be objectively tested
Gender can be objectively tested
Religion can be objectively tested

Sexual Orientation - cuz the delusional says so?

Race can be objectively tested? Then why does the census bureau keep coming out with different definitions every 10 years?

National Origin can be objectively tested? Better tell that to all those people who took Ancestry.com DNA tests and found out they were Scottish instead of German. (I personally think these tests are bullshit, because my niece took one and it came back with all sorts of things we know she isn't.)

Gender can be objectively tested? What about transsexuals? Or that .1% of the population who are born with ambigious genitalia?

Religion can be objectively tested? How? I know Jews who eat ham and Catholics who eat meat during Lent... I know people who claim to be a member of religions and never go to church.

So knowing who you are attracted to is a "delusion", but believing there is a magic pixie in the sky is "objective".

Race can be objectively tested. If a Black male claims to be black, there are ways to prove they are.

National Origin: ancestry.com commercial simply proved they, and your relative didn't have the complete story, that's what affairs do. That affair could have happened generations ago, and no one might ever know

Transexuals? Just more delusions, but yes, gender is easily defined

Your examples of Religion are laughable, but that's what delusional thinkers do, don't they?, in your expert opinion.

 

[Pop23]

That's simply nonsense. I indeed gave you what could be an objective test that can easily determine a persons religious affiliation.

And as explained, religious affiliation is not a factor. Religious beliefs are.

You can have religious beliefs without being affiliated with a major denomination and your individual beliefs may be different then a religious organization to which you belong. For example google Catholics and birth control. You'll find that while the Catholic Church is against artificial birth control 82% of Catholics say it is morally acceptable and 98% of American Catholic females have used contraception.


>>>>

Says who, you need to deflect for your argument to work?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Says who, you need to deflect for your argument to work?

No deflections, I've been very consistent that there is no test for religious beliefs. You are the one that has been running away from your statement. There is is objective test for religious beliefs like you claimed.

You are the one trying to deflect by attempting to say affiliation and beliefs are the same thing. As I've shows: (a) affiliation does not mean beliefs are aligned with the religious organization, and (b) a person can have religious beliefs and not be affiliated with a large religious institution.


>>>>

 

[P@triot]

Oh, I mean when the standoff between local come-lately laws face off with the 1st Amendment. You know, the Klein case?...

Any local law that attempts to strip someone of their Constitutional rights is not law. Were you aware of that? That is why the Constitution was ratified, to stand timelessly-dominant to any local laws in any time frame that tried to come about to strip our fundamental rights; like freedom of association & speech & religion.

How'd the 1st Amendment claim about a local law work for the New Mexico Photographer? (Hint it didn't).

How'd the 1st Amendment claim about a local law work for Piggie Park Enterprises? (Hint it didn't.)

Well there is some fine liberal "logic".

How'd the justice system work out for Nicole Brown Simpson? (Hint: it didn't)

Oh...by that logic then....I guess it's ok to murder. You know, just because a few demented racists made their way onto a jury and wanted to ingratiate themselves to OJ Simpson, I guess we can conclude that murder is ok.

It doesn't matter what some progressive-stacked court says. The only thing that matters is the U.S. Constitution.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Well there is some fine liberal "logic".

How'd the justice system work out for Nicole Brown Simpson? (Hint: it didn't)

Oh...by that logic then....I guess it's ok to murder. You know, just because a few demented racists made their way onto a jury and wanted to ingratiate themselves to OJ Simpson, I guess we can conclude that murder is ok.

It doesn't matter what some progressive-stacked court says. The only thing that matters is the U.S. Constitution.

Try another tree for lifting that leg.

I've been a Republican since registering to vote in 1978, although this may be the first year I won't vote for the Republican Presidential noiminee (won't vote for Clinton either). Will probably end up putting Kasich as a write-in.



>>>>

 

[Pop23]

Says who, you need to deflect for your argument to work?

No deflections, I've been very consistent that there is no test for religious beliefs. You are the one that has been running away from your statement. There is is objective test for religious beliefs like you claimed.

You are the one trying to deflect by attempting to say affiliation and beliefs are the same thing. As I've shows: (a) affiliation does not mean beliefs are aligned with the religious organization, and (b) a person can have religious beliefs and not be affiliated with a large religious institution.


>>>>

No, you are definitely deflecting. And I have shown how membership in a religious organization can be objectively determined. And yet you consistently fail to supply the same for sexual orientation.

You are not allowed to determine what actions are required to believe in a higher being. A person may not be affiliated with a large religious organization, correct, he may be affiliated with a small one. In either case there may be, and in some cases, must be documents that back that up, or..............................OBJECTIVE PROOF

Now, name a single objective test to prove Sexual Orientation

 

[JoeB131]

When there is no actual harm.

The issue is they didn't want these people to BE customers. and no, the customer is not always right.

When you scream Bible shit at one's mother, that's actual harm, which is what Mr. Wifebeater did.

But good news, everyone... They finally closed and gave up!

Family Bakery Closes After Left-Wing Bullies Finally Get Their Pound Of Cake

 

[JoeB131]

Race can be objectively tested. If a Black male claims to be black, there are ways to prove they are.

National Origin: ancestry.com commercial simply proved they, and your relative didn't have the complete story, that's what affairs do. That affair could have happened generations ago, and no one might ever know

Unlikely... I know my side of the family got off the boat from Germany, and my Bro in Law got off the boat from Poland. But no German or Polish in this crackpot test.

Your examples of Religion are laughable, but that's what delusional thinkers do, don't they?, in your expert opinion.

Not at all... religion is a matter of self definition more than anything else. First 20 years of my life, I was Catholic. Last 30+ I've been an atheist. I made those determinations, not anyone else. But the law says I can't be denied service, even if I walk into a bakery with a "Jesus Never Existed" T-Shirt.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, you are definitely deflecting. And I have shown how membership in a religious organization can be objectively determined.

Belonging to a religious organization is not objective proof about someones religious beliefs and you don't have to be associated with a religouis organization to have religious beliefs.

Therefore belonging to a religious organization is not an objective test of religious beliefs.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Belonging to a religious organization is not objective proof about someones religious beliefs and you don't have to be associated with a religouis organization to have religious beliefs.

Therefore belonging to a religious organization is not an objective test of religious beliefs.



>>>>

1st protects freedom of an individual's religion/deeply held beliefs, association (& in the Klein's case, the right NOT to associate), and speech.