Bakery Owners Refuse to Pay Gay Extortionists

[martybegan]

No, it doesn't, or at least it shouldn't.

Your side loves tyranny when it punishes people you disagree with.

So it's not tyranny when you guys do it?

Please show me where I have advocated any form of "tyranny"

In 120 Years Republicans Only Cry Tyranny When the Black President Uses Executive Orders
In 120 Years Republicans Only Cry Tyranny When the Black President Uses Executive Orders
The hypocritical outrage over an African American President issuing executive orders was swift and absurd from Republicans within minutes of the President’s State of the Union, and there were accusations that the President is shredding the Constitution and circumventing Congress, but what Congress? Do Republicans mean the Congress that cannot do its Constitutional job and work for the general welfare of the people, or do they mean congressional Republicans shredding the Constitution by passing a preponderance of biblical laws targeting women for being women and gays for expecting protections guaranteed in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment

Proof US House Republican Tyranny | Video | C-SPAN.org


if you support any of the issues in these 2 articles you support tyranny.

No, it doesn't, or at least it shouldn't.

Your side loves tyranny when it punishes people you disagree with.

So it's not tyranny when you guys do it?

Please show me where I have advocated any form of "tyranny"

In 120 Years Republicans Only Cry Tyranny When the Black President Uses Executive Orders
In 120 Years Republicans Only Cry Tyranny When the Black President Uses Executive Orders
The hypocritical outrage over an African American President issuing executive orders was swift and absurd from Republicans within minutes of the President’s State of the Union, and there were accusations that the President is shredding the Constitution and circumventing Congress, but what Congress? Do Republicans mean the Congress that cannot do its Constitutional job and work for the general welfare of the people, or do they mean congressional Republicans shredding the Constitution by passing a preponderance of biblical laws targeting women for being women and gays for expecting protections guaranteed in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment

Proof US House Republican Tyranny | Video | C-SPAN.org


if you support any of the issues in these 2 articles you support tyranny.

The first article is nothing but a liberal rant. And considering your first one is crap, I'm not wasting my time on the 2nd.

How about you actually type your positions instead of copypasting someone else's??

that is my opinion .
why repeat myself? epic fail ....

Think for yourself, lemming.

 

[martybegan]

The Satanist would tell them. At that point, would you force the Store owner to sell the figurine?

Why would a satanist tell them.
Unlike evangelicals and other religious nutsacks.
Satanists and sane religious people don't feel the need to broadcast their beliefs.
A more realistic scenario might make your argument appear reasonable.

Answer the question without dodging please. In THIS scenario, should the store owner be forced to sell the figurine?

Yes or no will suffice.

it's not accurate or realistic scenario.
in the form it in no answer is possible.
in other words it's a rigged question..

Yes or no. Can the state force the person to sell the statue or not?

it's not accurate or realistic scenario.
in the form it in no answer is possible

Yes, there is an answer, yes, or no.

Answer the question you gutless hack.

 

[daws101]

To be honest, I never heard of that.
Actually I would have supported their right to refuse service on religious grounds. Sometimes what is right, feels wrong.
The First Amendment makes it clear that the government should place no limits on anyone's right to practice their religion.
If, for the sake of argument, a Muslim owned business refused service to a Christian based on some tenet of his faith, I would stand behind him.

Kind of like the quote mis-attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Actually, nothing a Christian believes would cause them to refuse service.....so your hypothetical doesn't fit.

But, if the Christians went to a Muslim butcher and demanded 50 lbs of pulled-pork....that's different.

IF the Muslim butcher had pork in the first place but refused to serve them because they were Christian you would be right.

BUT.....please don't insult our intelligence by using as an example a business that doesn't sell a certain product in the first place being forced to sell that product. It isn't the same......so stop pretending we would fall for that.

I'm not pretending anything. As I told you, I have never heard of the case you referred to. A link might help.

Bend dentist fined nearly $348,000 for required Scientology-based training, BOLI announces

Another case of excessive government overreach.

really how?

 

[daws101]

So it's not tyranny when you guys do it?

Please show me where I have advocated any form of "tyranny"

In 120 Years Republicans Only Cry Tyranny When the Black President Uses Executive Orders
In 120 Years Republicans Only Cry Tyranny When the Black President Uses Executive Orders
The hypocritical outrage over an African American President issuing executive orders was swift and absurd from Republicans within minutes of the President’s State of the Union, and there were accusations that the President is shredding the Constitution and circumventing Congress, but what Congress? Do Republicans mean the Congress that cannot do its Constitutional job and work for the general welfare of the people, or do they mean congressional Republicans shredding the Constitution by passing a preponderance of biblical laws targeting women for being women and gays for expecting protections guaranteed in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment

Proof US House Republican Tyranny | Video | C-SPAN.org


if you support any of the issues in these 2 articles you support tyranny.

So it's not tyranny when you guys do it?

Please show me where I have advocated any form of "tyranny"

In 120 Years Republicans Only Cry Tyranny When the Black President Uses Executive Orders
In 120 Years Republicans Only Cry Tyranny When the Black President Uses Executive Orders
The hypocritical outrage over an African American President issuing executive orders was swift and absurd from Republicans within minutes of the President’s State of the Union, and there were accusations that the President is shredding the Constitution and circumventing Congress, but what Congress? Do Republicans mean the Congress that cannot do its Constitutional job and work for the general welfare of the people, or do they mean congressional Republicans shredding the Constitution by passing a preponderance of biblical laws targeting women for being women and gays for expecting protections guaranteed in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment

Proof US House Republican Tyranny | Video | C-SPAN.org


if you support any of the issues in these 2 articles you support tyranny.

The first article is nothing but a liberal rant. And considering your first one is crap, I'm not wasting my time on the 2nd.

How about you actually type your positions instead of copypasting someone else's??

that is my opinion .
why repeat myself? epic fail ....

Think for yourself, lemming.

says the king lemming

 

[Ernie S.]

so they'll be held in contempt and interest will keep accruing. gee, that'll show 'em

Maybe, maybe not. They are planning on fighting this in court. Personally, I have no issue with same sex marriage. But I do have a problem with the excessive fine and the fascist "gag order" in this case.

I also have a problem with a potentially serious conflict of interest that exists.

The Daily Signal has exclusively learned that the government agency responsible for enforcing Oregon’s anti-discrimination law appears to be working closely with a powerful gay rights advocacy group in its case against Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa.

Communications between the agency, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, and the LGBT organization, Basic Rights Oregon, raise questions about potential bias in the state’s decision to charge the Kleins with discrimination for refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.

In April, a judge for the agency recommended the Kleins be fined $135,000.

Communications obtained through a public records request show employees of the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries—which pursued the case against the Kleins—participating in phone calls, texting, and attending meetings with Basic Rights Oregon, the largest LGBT advocacy group in the state.

Emails Raise Questions About Bias in Sweet Cakes Ruling
​

How is the fine "excessive" when a Christian couple in Oregon got over 100K more for the same kind of business discrimination.

Both fines were excessive. Did the commission issue a "gag order" in the other case too?

They issued no gag order in this case.

Read it yourself. http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet Cakes FO.pdf

Page 43.

Looks like a gag order to me...

 

[daws101]

Why would a satanist tell them.
Unlike evangelicals and other religious nutsacks.
Satanists and sane religious people don't feel the need to broadcast their beliefs.
A more realistic scenario might make your argument appear reasonable.

Answer the question without dodging please. In THIS scenario, should the store owner be forced to sell the figurine?

Yes or no will suffice.

it's not accurate or realistic scenario.
in the form it in no answer is possible.
in other words it's a rigged question..

Yes or no. Can the state force the person to sell the statue or not?

it's not accurate or realistic scenario.
in the form it in no answer is possible

Yes, there is an answer, yes, or no.

Answer the question you gutless hack.

false
it's a rigged question
that is my answer.

 

[jillian]

don't be ridiculous. *shakes head*

That's just as dumb as this case.

hi marty. I don't think its silly for a business to be forced not to discriminate. but no one was forcing the bakers to write "I love gay people". they had to bake a cake. that's what was silly about the proposed counter-example.

it's using a neutron bomb to kill a gnat.

PA laws were designed to fight pervasive widespread discrimination that took a whole class of people and made them 2nd class citizens. It wasn't designed to punish people for hurting other people's feelings, and what we have here is nothing but that.

i don't think people who lived through jim crow would agree with you, marty. embarrassing people and forcing them out of your business does the same thing as it did back in the day.

if you go into a service business you can't refuse to serve people for discriminatory reasons. in fact, i'd apply the same standards as i would apply to employment discrimination ..... .you can refuse to serve someone for any reason or no reason but not for a discriminatory/illegal reason.

You can't compare Jim Crow, which WAS systemic, mandated discrimination with a single bakery not wanting to supply a wedding cake for a gay wedding.

So the response to this, by your standard, is ruining people via government action, because you don't like their viewpoints? And spare me the "fairness" crap.

Embarrassment is not harm. If it seems that way, then go grow a freaking spine.

the minute you allow people to put signs on their businesses saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays", you've created a de facto system of segregation.

 

[jillian]

If you think that's civil disobedience you are ignorant.

"Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power."

Textbook example...now go away, before I make you look foolish a second time.

again, civil disobedience is generally used to expand rights or correct a wrong.

it is not generally used to support bigots.

 

[Zander]

Why would a satanist tell them.
Unlike evangelicals and other religious nutsacks.
Satanists and sane religious people don't feel the need to broadcast their beliefs.
A more realistic scenario might make your argument appear reasonable.

Answer the question without dodging please. In THIS scenario, should the store owner be forced to sell the figurine?

Yes or no will suffice.

it's not accurate or realistic scenario.
in the form it in no answer is possible.
in other words it's a rigged question..

Yes or no. Can the state force the person to sell the statue or not?

it's not accurate or realistic scenario.
in the form it in no answer is possible

Yes, there is an answer, yes, or no.

Answer the question you gutless hack.

He can't answer because he knows the answer is no, they should not be forced to sell the statue. Just like the baker should not be forced to bake a wedding cake for a same sex wedding.

 

[paddymurphy]

Who cares about the bible in civil law........or rather why do you want to force people to care about what your bible says in reference to civil law?

The First Amendment. Religious freedom.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble​

The Supreme Court had held that no law that is not targeted at religious exercise and is generally applicable to all citizens violates the First Amendment. Banning anyone who offers a public accommodation from discriminating in that does not impair the free exercise of religion. There are conservative Christian Sects that believe that the bible forbids interracial marriage. Should that belief allow discrimination based on race?

 

[martybegan]

Answer the question without dodging please. In THIS scenario, should the store owner be forced to sell the figurine?

Yes or no will suffice.

it's not accurate or realistic scenario.
in the form it in no answer is possible.
in other words it's a rigged question..

Yes or no. Can the state force the person to sell the statue or not?

it's not accurate or realistic scenario.
in the form it in no answer is possible

Yes, there is an answer, yes, or no.

Answer the question you gutless hack.

false
it's a rigged question
that is my answer.

Coward. If you are going to force people to perform commerce, it's in for a penny, in for a pound. You just know the answer you want to give makes you look like a moron.

 

[martybegan]

If you think that's civil disobedience you are ignorant.

"Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power."

Textbook example...now go away, before I make you look foolish a second time.

again, civil disobedience is generally used to expand rights or correct a wrong.

it is not generally used to support bigots.

Civil disobedience is refusing to conform to a government mandate, it has nothing to do with the content of the refusal.

 

[Anathema]

Well. Look at you!

Most of my State legislators' staffs probably know my phone number by now. It shows up on thier office phones weekly. Some like that and others don't.

 

[martybegan]

That's just as dumb as this case.

hi marty. I don't think its silly for a business to be forced not to discriminate. but no one was forcing the bakers to write "I love gay people". they had to bake a cake. that's what was silly about the proposed counter-example.

it's using a neutron bomb to kill a gnat.

PA laws were designed to fight pervasive widespread discrimination that took a whole class of people and made them 2nd class citizens. It wasn't designed to punish people for hurting other people's feelings, and what we have here is nothing but that.

i don't think people who lived through jim crow would agree with you, marty. embarrassing people and forcing them out of your business does the same thing as it did back in the day.

if you go into a service business you can't refuse to serve people for discriminatory reasons. in fact, i'd apply the same standards as i would apply to employment discrimination ..... .you can refuse to serve someone for any reason or no reason but not for a discriminatory/illegal reason.

You can't compare Jim Crow, which WAS systemic, mandated discrimination with a single bakery not wanting to supply a wedding cake for a gay wedding.

So the response to this, by your standard, is ruining people via government action, because you don't like their viewpoints? And spare me the "fairness" crap.

Embarrassment is not harm. If it seems that way, then go grow a freaking spine.

the minute you allow people to put signs on their businesses saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays", you've created a de facto system of segregation.

or you let people know what stores not to patronize, even if the refusal does not apply to them.

Let the market handle it. There is no reason for commissions that can ruin a person over not baking a cake.

 

[jillian]

so they'll be held in contempt and interest will keep accruing. gee, that'll show 'em

Maybe, maybe not. They are planning on fighting this in court. Personally, I have no issue with same sex marriage. But I do have a problem with the excessive fine and the fascist "gag order" in this case.

I also have a problem with a potentially serious conflict of interest that exists.

The Daily Signal has exclusively learned that the government agency responsible for enforcing Oregon’s anti-discrimination law appears to be working closely with a powerful gay rights advocacy group in its case against Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa.

Communications between the agency, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, and the LGBT organization, Basic Rights Oregon, raise questions about potential bias in the state’s decision to charge the Kleins with discrimination for refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.

In April, a judge for the agency recommended the Kleins be fined $135,000.

Communications obtained through a public records request show employees of the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries—which pursued the case against the Kleins—participating in phone calls, texting, and attending meetings with Basic Rights Oregon, the largest LGBT advocacy group in the state.

Emails Raise Questions About Bias in Sweet Cakes Ruling
​

How is the fine "excessive" when a Christian couple in Oregon got over 100K more for the same kind of business discrimination.

Both fines were excessive. Did the commission issue a "gag order" in the other case too?

They issued no gag order in this case.

Read it yourself. http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet Cakes FO.pdf

Page 43.

What are you referring to Zander? I only see an order that they stop publishing that they do not serve gays. so i'm wondering what gag order you mean.

 

[paddymurphy]

so they'll be held in contempt and interest will keep accruing. gee, that'll show 'em

Maybe, maybe not. They are planning on fighting this in court. Personally, I have no issue with same sex marriage. But I do have a problem with the excessive fine and the fascist "gag order" in this case.

I also have a problem with a potentially serious conflict of interest that exists.

The Daily Signal has exclusively learned that the government agency responsible for enforcing Oregon’s anti-discrimination law appears to be working closely with a powerful gay rights advocacy group in its case against Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa.

Communications between the agency, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, and the LGBT organization, Basic Rights Oregon, raise questions about potential bias in the state’s decision to charge the Kleins with discrimination for refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.

In April, a judge for the agency recommended the Kleins be fined $135,000.

Communications obtained through a public records request show employees of the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries—which pursued the case against the Kleins—participating in phone calls, texting, and attending meetings with Basic Rights Oregon, the largest LGBT advocacy group in the state.

Emails Raise Questions About Bias in Sweet Cakes Ruling
​

How is the fine "excessive" when a Christian couple in Oregon got over 100K more for the same kind of business discrimination.

Both fines were excessive. Did the commission issue a "gag order" in the other case too?

They issued no gag order in this case.

Read it yourself. http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet Cakes FO.pdf

Page 43.

Thanks. That is not a gag order. Nowhere in that does it say that they cannot discuss the case, their views on the case, their disagreement or anything to do with the case. It simply says that they cannot continue to tell people that they will violate the Oregon Public Accommodations law. Seriously. Did you read that before offering up as proof of a gag order? Cause it proves precisely what I have posted all along.

 

[paddymurphy]

To be honest, I never heard of that.
Actually I would have supported their right to refuse service on religious grounds. Sometimes what is right, feels wrong.
The First Amendment makes it clear that the government should place no limits on anyone's right to practice their religion.
If, for the sake of argument, a Muslim owned business refused service to a Christian based on some tenet of his faith, I would stand behind him.

Kind of like the quote mis-attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Actually, nothing a Christian believes would cause them to refuse service.....so your hypothetical doesn't fit.

But, if the Christians went to a Muslim butcher and demanded 50 lbs of pulled-pork....that's different.

IF the Muslim butcher had pork in the first place but refused to serve them because they were Christian you would be right.

BUT.....please don't insult our intelligence by using as an example a business that doesn't sell a certain product in the first place being forced to sell that product. It isn't the same......so stop pretending we would fall for that.

I'm not pretending anything. As I told you, I have never heard of the case you referred to. A link might help.

Bend dentist fined nearly $348,000 for required Scientology-based training, BOLI announces

Another case of excessive government overreach.

How did they overreach when they enforced a law passed by the legislature and signed into law by the Governor?

 

[jillian]

hi marty. I don't think its silly for a business to be forced not to discriminate. but no one was forcing the bakers to write "I love gay people". they had to bake a cake. that's what was silly about the proposed counter-example.

it's using a neutron bomb to kill a gnat.

PA laws were designed to fight pervasive widespread discrimination that took a whole class of people and made them 2nd class citizens. It wasn't designed to punish people for hurting other people's feelings, and what we have here is nothing but that.

i don't think people who lived through jim crow would agree with you, marty. embarrassing people and forcing them out of your business does the same thing as it did back in the day.

if you go into a service business you can't refuse to serve people for discriminatory reasons. in fact, i'd apply the same standards as i would apply to employment discrimination ..... .you can refuse to serve someone for any reason or no reason but not for a discriminatory/illegal reason.

You can't compare Jim Crow, which WAS systemic, mandated discrimination with a single bakery not wanting to supply a wedding cake for a gay wedding.

So the response to this, by your standard, is ruining people via government action, because you don't like their viewpoints? And spare me the "fairness" crap.

Embarrassment is not harm. If it seems that way, then go grow a freaking spine.

the minute you allow people to put signs on their businesses saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays", you've created a de facto system of segregation.

or you let people know what stores not to patronize, even if the refusal does not apply to them.

Let the market handle it. There is no reason for commissions that can ruin a person over not baking a cake.

again, you can't refuse to serve people for discriminatory reasons. You can like that or not. You can disagree with that or not. But it's the law. and like the county clerk in Kentucky, if you can't live with that, you're in the wrong line of work.

 

[daws101]

Answer the question without dodging please. In THIS scenario, should the store owner be forced to sell the figurine?

Yes or no will suffice.

it's not accurate or realistic scenario.
in the form it in no answer is possible.
in other words it's a rigged question..

Yes or no. Can the state force the person to sell the statue or not?

it's not accurate or realistic scenario.
in the form it in no answer is possible

Yes, there is an answer, yes, or no.

Answer the question you gutless hack.

He can't answer because he knows the answer is no, they should not be forced to sell the statue. Just like the baker should not be forced to bake a wedding cake for a same sex wedding.

false I will not answer the question in it's rigged and unrealistic form.
trying to shame , bully, cajole me into it' .besides being laughably ineffective and immature, it points up the subject of conservative tyranny extremely well.

 

[daws101]

Answer the question without dodging please. In THIS scenario, should the store owner be forced to sell the figurine?

Yes or no will suffice.

it's not accurate or realistic scenario.
in the form it in no answer is possible.
in other words it's a rigged question..

Yes or no. Can the state force the person to sell the statue or not?

it's not accurate or realistic scenario.
in the form it in no answer is possible

Yes, there is an answer, yes, or no.

Answer the question you gutless hack.

He can't answer because he knows the answer is no, they should not be forced to sell the statue. Just like the baker should not be forced to bake a wedding cake for a same sex wedding.

if that's the case the baker cannot do business with the public,