Bakery Owners Refuse to Pay Gay Extortionists

[bodecea]

A court never ordered it. A commission did

Great point. Petty bureaucrooks have no business extorting fines.

Avakian, the left loon that ordered it is a jackass. He looks like a little beady eyed weasel

You do, understand, that the law required that he order the damages? That the law in Oregon, passed by the people's representatives, bans discrimination in public accommodation based on sexual orientation.

Or on religion too. The same law in Oregon caused a business a few years back to pay more than 300K dollars to a christian couple they discriminated against. Where were the anti-PA people then?

 

[bodecea]

i'd rather have her near my kid than you. *shrug*

Pound sand, you're annoying

and you're a bigoted rightwingnut cow.

i'll pick annoying. thanks, with the full knowledge that i'm only annoying you because i'm right.

I reiterate.... i'd never have wanted my kid around bigots like you. I had no problem with my son around my gay friends.

If you don't want your kids around her type...you must be a bigot.

really? once again, muddy....butt backwards as always. it is not bigotry to point out anothers' bigotry. but i sure as hell wouldn't want her simmering hatred to rub off on my child.

By showing your own bigotry in the defense of people who are the worst bigots on the planet........next to Muslims that is.

Makes sense.

Hyperbole...the despair of the Right made vocal.

 

[martybegan]

ALL Public Accommodation laws are u just and improper.

Right. It is much more just and proper to allow a business to benefit from all of the protections society gives it, for which every member of that society pays, and let that business refuse service to some of those in society.

So you would force a Catholic store to sell a Jesus figure to a Satanist who would perform a profane ritual on it, and tells the store's owner he/she would be doing it?

How would the store owner know they were selling an icon to a satanist?

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.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.[/QUOTE]

Not specifically address to me, but I think this is a great argument.

I certainly don't want to hurt anyone's feelings...which is the reason I am often reluctant to enter these discussions.

But there has to be an accommodation where all sides rights are protected.

This is really something new, and if you have an analogous situation, I'd love to hear it.

One groups rights are pitted equally against another groups rights.

And this isn't Loving v. Virginia...that Homosexual unions are a sin before God has been spelled out with utmost clarity in the Bible for almost 2,000 years. Cor 6:9 and Gal 5:19.

Coupled with Thes 5:21-22 "But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil." and 1 Tim 5:22 "Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure."

The question is, how to accommodate both parties.[/QUOTE]
"to fight pervasive widespread discrimination that took a whole class of people and made them 2nd class citizens. " Like the discrimination gay people have suffered from for centuries? The law is designed to deter discrimination. Seems to be working pretty damn well in Oregon.

 

[bodecea]

Liberals rush in to vilify civil disobedience in 3...2...1...

Oh they can civily disobey all they want. What happens next? Are you saying that Oregon's PA law is unjust?

Yes.

Did you feel the same way when years before Oregon used the same PA law to fine a business over 300K for refusing to serve a Christian couple?

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"

Now...here's the point.....WHY didn't you hear about it? Hmmmmm?

 

[martybegan]

Not specifically address to me, but I think this is a great argument.

I certainly don't want to hurt anyone's feelings...which is the reason I am often reluctant to enter these discussions.

But there has to be an accommodation where all sides rights are protected.

This is really something new, and if you have an analogous situation, I'd love to hear it.

One groups rights are pitted equally against another groups rights.

And this isn't Loving v. Virginia...that Homosexual unions are a sin before God has been spelled out with utmost clarity in the Bible for almost 2,000 years. Cor 6:9 and Gal 5:19.

Coupled with Thes 5:21-22 "But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil." and 1 Tim 5:22 "Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure."

The question is, how to accommodate both parties.

Progressives don't want to accommodate anyone they disagree with. It's "bake the fucking cake" or else.

 

[bodecea]

A court never ordered it. A commission did

Great point. Petty bureaucrooks have no business extorting fines.

Avakian, the left loon that ordered it is a jackass. He looks like a little beady eyed weasel

You do, understand, that the law required that he order the damages? That the law in Oregon, passed by the people's representatives, bans discrimination in public accommodation based on sexual orientation.

He still looks like a beady eyed weasel. Now go away, you'll end up getting all butt hurt and then start your attacks. I'm not in the mood

You WILL have to share with us your experience with beady eyed weasels.....or is that getting too personal?

 

[bodecea]

The fascist "gag order" is political overreach at its worst.

Did you feel the same way when years before Oregon used the same PA law to fine a business over 300K for refusing to serve a Christian couple?

I do. I believe any business should refuse to be enslaved.

i agree. having to obey the laws against discrimination isn't slavery.

thanks for your input.

Being forced by law to work for someone you choose not to work for is slavery under any definition.

So...what have you actively been doing to get PA laws repealed in your state?

 

[bodecea]

Liberals rush in to vilify civil disobedience in 3...2...1...

Oh they can civily disobey all they want. What happens next? Are you saying that Oregon's PA law is unjust?

Yes.

Did you feel the same way when years before Oregon used the same PA law to fine a business over 300K for refusing to serve a Christian couple?

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.

 

[Anathema]

You may think that but the law says otherwise. They benefit from society. They can go to court if they need be. They have police and fire protection. While they may pay taxes, so do other people. And those people support the institutions and infrastructure that allow them to succeed in their business. Allowing them to benefit from society but exclude portions of society simply based on their ignorant bigotry is an evil that our laws can justly and properly remedy.

I answer to a Higher Law, a Moral Law, before and in place of any man-made statute.

Ao we're agreed that each group has paid their share; so why should one group get to choose who to associate with and not the other.

In my mind this is the same az forcing me (a gun owner) to frequent a restaurant or bar that doesn't allow me to carry a firearm into their business. I CHOOSE to avoid such places. They have every right to tell me not to bring a gun onto their property and I have the right to not frequent their business.

 

[paddymurphy]

The fascist "gag order" is political overreach at its worst.

Did you feel the same way when years before Oregon used the same PA law to fine a business over 300K for refusing to serve a Christian couple?

I do. I believe any business should refuse to be enslaved.

i agree. having to obey the laws against discrimination isn't slavery.

thanks for your input.

Being forced by law to work for someone you choose not to work for is slavery under any definition.

So...what have you actively been doing to get PA laws repealed in your state?

No one is forced to work for anyone else. They are paid to bake a cake. They get paid for baking it. You did realize, didn't you, that slaves don't get paid.

 

[paddymurphy]

You may think that but the law says otherwise. They benefit from society. They can go to court if they need be. They have police and fire protection. While they may pay taxes, so do other people. And those people support the institutions and infrastructure that allow them to succeed in their business. Allowing them to benefit from society but exclude portions of society simply based on their ignorant bigotry is an evil that our laws can justly and properly remedy.

I answer to a Higher Law, a Moral Law, before and in place of any man-made statute.

Ao we're agreed that each group has paid their share; so why should one group get to choose who to associate with and not the other.

In my mind this is the same az forcing me (a gun owner) to frequent a restaurant or bar that doesn't allow me to carry a firearm into their business. I CHOOSE to avoid such places. They have every right to tell me not to bring a gun onto their property and I have the right to not frequent their business.

Your higher law has no jurisdiction. Move somewhere that it does. Iran would be a good choice.

 

[daws101]

What happens to any person or business who doesn't pay court ordered damages?

A court never ordered it. A commission did

Your point? An authorized commission has the same powers as a court.

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

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4468603/proof-us-house-republican-tyranny


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

 

[bodecea]

Great point. Petty bureaucrooks have no business extorting fines.

Avakian, the left loon that ordered it is a jackass. He looks like a little beady eyed weasel

You do, understand, that the law required that he order the damages? That the law in Oregon, passed by the people's representatives, bans discrimination in public accommodation based on sexual orientation.

He still looks like a beady eyed weasel. Now go away, you'll end up getting all butt hurt and then start your attacks. I'm not in the mood

So, you don't understand that he followed the law. Thought as much. Odd you complaining about attacks when all you can add to this discussion is an attack on the looks of the commissioner.

Go away....or I shall simply ignore you....it's no loss as you offer nothing of substance

Here's the deal here....If you don't like a conversation because it's not going your way....YOU stop replying...YOU don't order someone else to leave. You have no power over others and what and where they want to post. Don't like it........YOU go away, little girl.

 

[bodecea]

Oh they can civily disobey all they want. What happens next? Are you saying that Oregon's PA law is unjust?

ALL Public Accommodation laws are u just and improper.

What have you don't to get them repealed in YOUR state?

 

[daws101]

Right. It is much more just and proper to allow a business to benefit from all of the protections society gives it, for which every member of that society pays, and let that business refuse service to some of those in society.

So you would force a Catholic store to sell a Jesus figure to a Satanist who would perform a profane ritual on it, and tells the store's owner he/she would be doing it?

How would the store owner know they were selling an icon to a satanist?

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..

 

[Anathema]

Your higher law has no jurisdiction. Move somewhere that it does. Iran would be a good choice.

That Higher Law is the ONLY Law that has jurisdiction.

I have to take the fact that ig ired ny question to mean you WOULD agree that people like me should be forced to frequent and thereby financially support businesses that don't support our RTKBA.

 

[Ernie S.]

Oh they can civily disobey all they want. What happens next? Are you saying that Oregon's PA law is unjust?

Yes.

Did you feel the same way when years before Oregon used the same PA law to fine a business over 300K for refusing to serve a Christian couple?

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.

 

[daws101]

You may think that but the law says otherwise. They benefit from society. They can go to court if they need be. They have police and fire protection. While they may pay taxes, so do other people. And those people support the institutions and infrastructure that allow them to succeed in their business. Allowing them to benefit from society but exclude portions of society simply based on their ignorant bigotry is an evil that our laws can justly and properly remedy.

I answer to a Higher Law, a Moral Law, before and in place of any man-made statute.

Ao we're agreed that each group has paid their share; so why should one group get to choose who to associate with and not the other.

In my mind this is the same az forcing me (a gun owner) to frequent a restaurant or bar that doesn't allow me to carry a firearm into their business. I CHOOSE to avoid such places. They have every right to tell me not to bring a gun onto their property and I have the right to not frequent their business.

oh no not the I answer to a higher power ploy!

 

[Missourian]

Good for them!!

The owners of an Oregon bakery are refusing to pay $135,000 in state-ordered damages to a same-sex couple who were denied service.

Melissa and Aaron Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, cited religious beliefs when they refused to bake a wedding cake for Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer more than two years ago.

The couple were awarded the damages in July by Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian for emotional suffering, saying the owners had violated the women’s civil rights by discriminating on the basis of their sexual orientation. They were also slapped with a gag order that prohibited them from speaking publicly about their refusal to participate in or bake wedding cakes for same-sex marriages.

Oregon bakery owners refuse to pay damages in gay wedding cake case
​

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

And interest can accrue till hell freezes over. It's a civil case so no jail for them is possible. They can continue to thumb their noses forever. Their credit will be shit, but if they pay cash for everything they can ignore it forever.

Yes, they can. That they would go to such lengths to demonstrate their Un-Christian intolerance is really sad.

Christians are supposed to be intolerant of sin.

Liberals rush in to vilify civil disobedience in 3...2...1...

Oh they can civily disobey all they want. What happens next? Are you saying that Oregon's PA law is unjust?

I don't know what happens next. Yes, I think it is unjust to force people to violate their strongly held religious beliefs.

so a muslim can go to work in a non-kosher, non-halal butcher shop and refuse to serve pork? or go to work for an airline and try to force the airline not to serve me liquor on my flight?

You are talking about businesses requirement for employment, not the government forcing a business owner.

A Muslim can OWN a non-kosher, non-halal butcher shop and refuse to serve pork. If they own the plane, they can certainly refuse to serve you liquor. These people OWN the bakery.