CENTER STAGE

[Debra K]

This is CENTER STAGE where the rule of law prevails. We are a nation of laws, not of men (not of righties or lefties or whatever). As such, the United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. People often disagree about the interpretation of the law and/or how it applies to a particular set of facts. When such a case or controversy exists, it is the duty of our courts to review and resolve the controversy. Some of us may not agree with some judicial decisions, but history has taught us that decisions based on error do not withstand the test of time and reason.

I would like to discuss the important issues of the day using the rule of law. Can you support your position based on the law and reason?

Let's start with the actual decision issued by a state agency in the case involving "Sweetcakes by Melissa". Rather than rely on media accounts or right wing or left wing hysteria, please read the decision yourself and think about it:

In the matter of Klein, dba Sweetcakes by Melissa

If you think the decision is based on legal error, where do you find the error? If the matter is appealed, what legal grounds or precedent will the reviewing court use to reverse the decision?

 

[Debra K]

Let's also study the opinion letter written by the Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton, regarding the rights of government officials involved with issuing marriage licenses and performing marriage ceremonies:

OPINION NO. KP-0025

It would be helpful if you also read these Supreme Court decisions:

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958)

EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch

Evaluate the actual content of the Texas AG's opinion letter. Was it based on the law and reason and/or did it encourage lawlessness and divisiveness?

 

[Debra K]

Furthermore what do you think members of the powerful elite are doing behind the curtain while the rest of us fall victim to stoked hate-mongering and divide and conquer tactics and squabble among ourselves. Who are benefitting from fueling the us vs. them, right vs. left dichotomy? Shouldn't we all stand on the center stage where the rule of law prevails?

 

[Jackson]

I read the entire file. It did not change my mind except to say, in this case I believe the fine is too small. I hope other businesses learn from this experience and people will finally see that they are not better than others.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I'll start with i'm not a church goer by any means.
But I do believe that people have a right to deny service to anyone they choose,whether it's religious convictions or the color of someones hair.
If public opinion of their refusal is negative to the point they go out of business then so be it. I see no reason why they couldnt have found another baker that would have happily made their cake and I believe the whole case was nothing more than an attempt to punish someone for their religious beliefs.
It's not the governments place to make these decisions.
And society has a way of leveling things in a way that suites the community.

As far as the legality aspect? I dont really care about it because this was purely political.

 

[Jackson]

I'll start with i'm not a church goer by any means.
But I do believe that people have a right to deny service to anyone they choose,whether it's religious convictions or the color of someones hair.
If public opinion of their refusal is negative to the point they go out of business then so be it. I see no reason why they couldnt have found another baker that would have happily made their cake and I believe the whole case was nothing more than an attempt to punish someone for their religious beliefs.
It's not the governments place to make these decisions.
And society has a way of leveling things in a way that suites the community.

As far as the legality aspect? I dont really care about it because this was purely political.

Actually, you;re wrong. Read the lawsuit and it's decision and you'll see they broke about three laws involving discrimination from a "place of public accommodation." It wasn't political, it was the law.

 

[norwegen]

This is CENTER STAGE where the rule of law prevails. We are a nation of laws, not of men (not of righties or lefties or whatever). As such, the United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. People often disagree about the interpretation of the law and/or how it applies to a particular set of facts. When such a case or controversy exists, it is the duty of our courts to review and resolve the controversy. Some of us may not agree with some judicial decisions, but history has taught us that decisions based on error do not withstand the test of time and reason.

I would like to discuss the important issues of the day using the rule of law. Can you support your position based on the law and reason?

Let's start with the actual decision issued by a state agency in the case involving "Sweetcakes by Melissa". Rather than rely on media accounts or right wing or left wing hysteria, please read the decision yourself and think about it:

In the matter of Klein, dba Sweetcakes by Melissa

If you think the decision is based on legal error, where do you find the error? If the matter is appealed, what legal grounds or precedent will the reviewing court use to reverse the decision?

To be sure, a nation of laws is a nation of righties.

Point one: if marriage is necessary because it gives children a sense of "permanency and commitment," then aren't all the illegitimate births in the US actionable?

Point two: the bakers refused to bake the cake as soon as they learned it would be for a same-sex wedding. No deception. No bait-and-switch. Nothing underhanded.

Point three: the baker didn't call the plaintiff an abomination, as the plaintiff's mother said.

Point four: the plaintiff was angry.


I stopped reading after that. Hotheads didn't like the baker quoting scripture. Boo-hoo.

If a refusal to serve equates to a denial of "accomodations, advantages, facilities and privileges," then indigents may some day put every business out of business.

 

[Jackson]

This is CENTER STAGE where the rule of law prevails. We are a nation of laws, not of men (not of righties or lefties or whatever). As such, the United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. People often disagree about the interpretation of the law and/or how it applies to a particular set of facts. When such a case or controversy exists, it is the duty of our courts to review and resolve the controversy. Some of us may not agree with some judicial decisions, but history has taught us that decisions based on error do not withstand the test of time and reason.

I would like to discuss the important issues of the day using the rule of law. Can you support your position based on the law and reason?

Let's start with the actual decision issued by a state agency in the case involving "Sweetcakes by Melissa". Rather than rely on media accounts or right wing or left wing hysteria, please read the decision yourself and think about it:

In the matter of Klein, dba Sweetcakes by Melissa

If you think the decision is based on legal error, where do you find the error? If the matter is appealed, what legal grounds or precedent will the reviewing court use to reverse the decision?

To be sure, a nation of laws is a nation of righties.

Point one: if marriage is necessary because it gives children a sense of "permanency and commitment," then aren't all the illegitimate births in the US actionable?

Point two: the bakers refused to bake the cake as soon as they learned it would be for a same-sex wedding. No deception. No bait-and-switch. Nothing underhanded.

Point three: the baker didn't call the plaintiff an abomination, as the plaintiff's mother said.

Point four: the plaintiff was angry.


I stopped reading after that. Hotheads didn't like the baker quoting scripture. Boo-hoo.

If a refusal to serve equates to a denial of "accomodations, advantages, facilities and privileges," then indigents may some day put every business out of business.

That's a foolish statement. Laura and Rachel were willing to pay for the services offered but were discriminated when the business refused after stating their lesbian marriage.

 

[norwegen]

This is CENTER STAGE where the rule of law prevails. We are a nation of laws, not of men (not of righties or lefties or whatever). As such, the United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. People often disagree about the interpretation of the law and/or how it applies to a particular set of facts. When such a case or controversy exists, it is the duty of our courts to review and resolve the controversy. Some of us may not agree with some judicial decisions, but history has taught us that decisions based on error do not withstand the test of time and reason.

I would like to discuss the important issues of the day using the rule of law. Can you support your position based on the law and reason?

Let's start with the actual decision issued by a state agency in the case involving "Sweetcakes by Melissa". Rather than rely on media accounts or right wing or left wing hysteria, please read the decision yourself and think about it:

In the matter of Klein, dba Sweetcakes by Melissa

If you think the decision is based on legal error, where do you find the error? If the matter is appealed, what legal grounds or precedent will the reviewing court use to reverse the decision?

To be sure, a nation of laws is a nation of righties.

Point one: if marriage is necessary because it gives children a sense of "permanency and commitment," then aren't all the illegitimate births in the US actionable?

Point two: the bakers refused to bake the cake as soon as they learned it would be for a same-sex wedding. No deception. No bait-and-switch. Nothing underhanded.

Point three: the baker didn't call the plaintiff an abomination, as the plaintiff's mother said.

Point four: the plaintiff was angry.


I stopped reading after that. Hotheads didn't like the baker quoting scripture. Boo-hoo.

If a refusal to serve equates to a denial of "accomodations, advantages, facilities and privileges," then indigents may some day put every business out of business.

That's a foolish statement. Laura and Rachel were willing to pay for the services offered but were discriminated when the business refused after stating their lesbian marriage.

Yea, obviously they would have paid.

So what.

 

[Jackson]

This is CENTER STAGE where the rule of law prevails. We are a nation of laws, not of men (not of righties or lefties or whatever). As such, the United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. People often disagree about the interpretation of the law and/or how it applies to a particular set of facts. When such a case or controversy exists, it is the duty of our courts to review and resolve the controversy. Some of us may not agree with some judicial decisions, but history has taught us that decisions based on error do not withstand the test of time and reason.

I would like to discuss the important issues of the day using the rule of law. Can you support your position based on the law and reason?

Let's start with the actual decision issued by a state agency in the case involving "Sweetcakes by Melissa". Rather than rely on media accounts or right wing or left wing hysteria, please read the decision yourself and think about it:

In the matter of Klein, dba Sweetcakes by Melissa

If you think the decision is based on legal error, where do you find the error? If the matter is appealed, what legal grounds or precedent will the reviewing court use to reverse the decision?

To be sure, a nation of laws is a nation of righties.

Point one: if marriage is necessary because it gives children a sense of "permanency and commitment," then aren't all the illegitimate births in the US actionable?

Point two: the bakers refused to bake the cake as soon as they learned it would be for a same-sex wedding. No deception. No bait-and-switch. Nothing underhanded.

Point three: the baker didn't call the plaintiff an abomination, as the plaintiff's mother said.

Point four: the plaintiff was angry.


I stopped reading after that. Hotheads didn't like the baker quoting scripture. Boo-hoo.

If a refusal to serve equates to a denial of "accomodations, advantages, facilities and privileges," then indigents may some day put every business out of business.

That's a foolish statement. Laura and Rachel were willing to pay for the services offered but were discriminated when the business refused after stating their lesbian marriage.

Yea, obviously they would have paid.

So what.

I was responding to this statement: "If a refusal to serve equates to a denial of "accomodations, advantages, facilities and privileges," then indigents may some day put every business out of business."

Indigents have little or no money.

 

[norwegen]

This is CENTER STAGE where the rule of law prevails. We are a nation of laws, not of men (not of righties or lefties or whatever). As such, the United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. People often disagree about the interpretation of the law and/or how it applies to a particular set of facts. When such a case or controversy exists, it is the duty of our courts to review and resolve the controversy. Some of us may not agree with some judicial decisions, but history has taught us that decisions based on error do not withstand the test of time and reason.

I would like to discuss the important issues of the day using the rule of law. Can you support your position based on the law and reason?

Let's start with the actual decision issued by a state agency in the case involving "Sweetcakes by Melissa". Rather than rely on media accounts or right wing or left wing hysteria, please read the decision yourself and think about it:

In the matter of Klein, dba Sweetcakes by Melissa

If you think the decision is based on legal error, where do you find the error? If the matter is appealed, what legal grounds or precedent will the reviewing court use to reverse the decision?

To be sure, a nation of laws is a nation of righties.

Point one: if marriage is necessary because it gives children a sense of "permanency and commitment," then aren't all the illegitimate births in the US actionable?

Point two: the bakers refused to bake the cake as soon as they learned it would be for a same-sex wedding. No deception. No bait-and-switch. Nothing underhanded.

Point three: the baker didn't call the plaintiff an abomination, as the plaintiff's mother said.

Point four: the plaintiff was angry.


I stopped reading after that. Hotheads didn't like the baker quoting scripture. Boo-hoo.

If a refusal to serve equates to a denial of "accomodations, advantages, facilities and privileges," then indigents may some day put every business out of business.

That's a foolish statement. Laura and Rachel were willing to pay for the services offered but were discriminated when the business refused after stating their lesbian marriage.

Yea, obviously they would have paid.

So what.

I was responding to this statement: "If a refusal to serve equates to a denial of "accomodations, advantages, facilities and privileges," then indigents may some day put every business out of business."

Indigents have little or no money.

True.

They have little or no money.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I'll start with i'm not a church goer by any means.
But I do believe that people have a right to deny service to anyone they choose,whether it's religious convictions or the color of someones hair.
If public opinion of their refusal is negative to the point they go out of business then so be it. I see no reason why they couldnt have found another baker that would have happily made their cake and I believe the whole case was nothing more than an attempt to punish someone for their religious beliefs.
It's not the governments place to make these decisions.
And society has a way of leveling things in a way that suites the community.

As far as the legality aspect? I dont really care about it because this was purely political.

Actually, you;re wrong. Read the lawsuit and it's decision and you'll see they broke about three laws involving discrimination from a "place of public accommodation." It wasn't political, it was the law.

You missed the whole point...the law is political.
If it's your business you should be able to refuse service to anyone you choose.
That may come back and bite you in the ass later but thats your problem.
The shoe will be on the other foot one day and then we'll see how gay people like it.
Thats just the way these things work.

 

[norwegen]

I'll start with i'm not a church goer by any means.
But I do believe that people have a right to deny service to anyone they choose,whether it's religious convictions or the color of someones hair.
If public opinion of their refusal is negative to the point they go out of business then so be it. I see no reason why they couldnt have found another baker that would have happily made their cake and I believe the whole case was nothing more than an attempt to punish someone for their religious beliefs.
It's not the governments place to make these decisions.
And society has a way of leveling things in a way that suites the community.

As far as the legality aspect? I dont really care about it because this was purely political.

Actually, you;re wrong. Read the lawsuit and it's decision and you'll see they broke about three laws involving discrimination from a "place of public accommodation." It wasn't political, it was the law.

You missed the whole point...the law is political.
If it's your business you should be able to refuse service to anyone you choose.
That may come back and bite you in the ass later but thats your problem.
The shoe will be on the other foot one day and then we'll see how gay people like it.
Thats just the way these things work.

That's not the way it works anymore, HWGA. The American way is no longer the American way. Government runs our businesses now.

 

[Jackson]

I'll start with i'm not a church goer by any means.
But I do believe that people have a right to deny service to anyone they choose,whether it's religious convictions or the color of someones hair.
If public opinion of their refusal is negative to the point they go out of business then so be it. I see no reason why they couldnt have found another baker that would have happily made their cake and I believe the whole case was nothing more than an attempt to punish someone for their religious beliefs.
It's not the governments place to make these decisions.
And society has a way of leveling things in a way that suites the community.

As far as the legality aspect? I dont really care about it because this was purely political.

Actually, you;re wrong. Read the lawsuit and it's decision and you'll see they broke about three laws involving discrimination from a "place of public accommodation." It wasn't political, it was the law.

You missed the whole point...the law is political.
If it's your business you should be able to refuse service to anyone you choose.
That may come back and bite you in the ass later but thats your problem.
The shoe will be on the other foot one day and then we'll see how gay people like it.
Thats just the way these things work.

That's not the way it works anymore, HWGA. The American way is no longer the American way. Government runs our businesses now.

Oh, to hear That's the American Way, sounds so nice. It was great while it lasted.

 

[norwegen]

I'll start with i'm not a church goer by any means.
But I do believe that people have a right to deny service to anyone they choose,whether it's religious convictions or the color of someones hair.
If public opinion of their refusal is negative to the point they go out of business then so be it. I see no reason why they couldnt have found another baker that would have happily made their cake and I believe the whole case was nothing more than an attempt to punish someone for their religious beliefs.
It's not the governments place to make these decisions.
And society has a way of leveling things in a way that suites the community.

As far as the legality aspect? I dont really care about it because this was purely political.

Actually, you;re wrong. Read the lawsuit and it's decision and you'll see they broke about three laws involving discrimination from a "place of public accommodation." It wasn't political, it was the law.

You missed the whole point...the law is political.
If it's your business you should be able to refuse service to anyone you choose.
That may come back and bite you in the ass later but thats your problem.
The shoe will be on the other foot one day and then we'll see how gay people like it.
Thats just the way these things work.

That's not the way it works anymore, HWGA. The American way is no longer the American way. Government runs our businesses now.

Oh, to hear That's the American Way, sounds so nice. It was great while it lasted.

I didn't say That's, but yes, it was a good run.

 

[Carla_Danger]

I'll start with i'm not a church goer by any means.
But I do believe that people have a right to deny service to anyone they choose,whether it's religious convictions or the color of someones hair.
If public opinion of their refusal is negative to the point they go out of business then so be it. I see no reason why they couldnt have found another baker that would have happily made their cake and I believe the whole case was nothing more than an attempt to punish someone for their religious beliefs.
It's not the governments place to make these decisions.
And society has a way of leveling things in a way that suites the community.

As far as the legality aspect? I dont really care about it because this was purely political.

Actually, you;re wrong. Read the lawsuit and it's decision and you'll see they broke about three laws involving discrimination from a "place of public accommodation." It wasn't political, it was the law.

You missed the whole point...the law is political.
If it's your business you should be able to refuse service to anyone you choose.
That may come back and bite you in the ass later but thats your problem.
The shoe will be on the other foot one day and then we'll see how gay people like it.
Thats just the way these things work.

As soon as you can place your own business on roads that are not tax payer funded, have your own fire and police department, you can make up your own rules. Until then, I suggest you get familiar with your state business laws.

 

[OKTexas]

This is CENTER STAGE where the rule of law prevails. We are a nation of laws, not of men (not of righties or lefties or whatever). As such, the United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. People often disagree about the interpretation of the law and/or how it applies to a particular set of facts. When such a case or controversy exists, it is the duty of our courts to review and resolve the controversy. Some of us may not agree with some judicial decisions, but history has taught us that decisions based on error do not withstand the test of time and reason.

I would like to discuss the important issues of the day using the rule of law. Can you support your position based on the law and reason?

Let's start with the actual decision issued by a state agency in the case involving "Sweetcakes by Melissa". Rather than rely on media accounts or right wing or left wing hysteria, please read the decision yourself and think about it:

In the matter of Klein, dba Sweetcakes by Melissa

If you think the decision is based on legal error, where do you find the error? If the matter is appealed, what legal grounds or precedent will the reviewing court use to reverse the decision?

Just like the T shirt company, in CO I believe, the baker can not be required to produce a product with a message they find offensive or morally repugnant. See the first Amendment, two clauses, free speech and free exercise of religion and I bet a good lawyer could get in a fourteenth Amendment argument or two in there also.

 

[Debra K]

I read the entire file. It did not change my mind except to say, in this case I believe the fine is too small. I hope other businesses learn from this experience and people will finally see that they are not better than others.

That's a nice sentiment, Jackson ... but that's all it is. If you read the administrative law decision in the "Sweetcakes by Melissa" case, then you would know that the commission did not impose a fine (which is a penalty). It awarded damages to the victims of discrimination to compensate them for their injury. What exactly do you hope other businesses learn from this case? Everyone is presumed to know the law and the consequences of their conduct. Why do you think Melissa Klein and her hubby believed that they were entitled to open a business, but not follow the laws that apply to all other businesses?

 

[Darkwind]

I'll start with i'm not a church goer by any means.
But I do believe that people have a right to deny service to anyone they choose,whether it's religious convictions or the color of someones hair.
If public opinion of their refusal is negative to the point they go out of business then so be it. I see no reason why they couldnt have found another baker that would have happily made their cake and I believe the whole case was nothing more than an attempt to punish someone for their religious beliefs.
It's not the governments place to make these decisions.
And society has a way of leveling things in a way that suites the community.

As far as the legality aspect? I dont really care about it because this was purely political.

Actually, you;re wrong. Read the lawsuit and it's decision and you'll see they broke about three laws involving discrimination from a "place of public accommodation." It wasn't political, it was the law.

You missed the whole point...the law is political.
If it's your business you should be able to refuse service to anyone you choose.
That may come back and bite you in the ass later but thats your problem.
The shoe will be on the other foot one day and then we'll see how gay people like it.
Thats just the way these things work.

As soon as you can place your own business on roads that are not tax payer funded, have your own fire and police department, you can make up your own rules. Until then, I suggest you get familiar with your state business laws.

Does not pertain to the issue and is not relevant.

 

[Jackson]

I read the entire file. It did not change my mind except to say, in this case I believe the fine is too small. I hope other businesses learn from this experience and people will finally see that they are not better than others.

That's a nice sentiment, Jackson ... but that's all it is. If you read the administrative law decision in the "Sweetcakes by Melissa" case, then you would know that the commission did not impose a fine (which is a penalty). It awarded damages to the victims of discrimination to compensate them for their injury. What exactly do you hope other businesses learn from this case? Everyone is presumed to know the law and the consequences of their conduct. Why do you think Melissa Klein and her hubby believed that they were entitled to open a business, but not follow the laws that apply to all other businesses?

Obviously they were not educated in the rights and responsibilities of owning a business. Thank you for reminding me, the money was, in essence and "penalty'" rather than a fine.