Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Does not pertain to the issue and is not relevant.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.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.
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.
The roads, fire, and police are not Germaine. It is what people call immaterial to the discussion. That is why Courts do not allow discussions of side issues such as this when they hear a case. They focus on the law in question.Does not pertain to the issue and is not relevant.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.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.
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.
Sure it does. Under Oregon law, businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation.
The roads, fire, and police are not Germaine. It is what people call immaterial to the discussion. That is why Courts do not allow discussions of side issues such as this when they hear a case. They focus on the law in question.Does not pertain to the issue and is not relevant.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.
Sure it does. Under Oregon law, businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation.
Besides, tax payer funded roads, fire, and police INCLUDES the business. Does it not?
Given the fact that Business pays more than individuals (on a peer viewed system i.e., one person, one business) then it would stand to reason that they have every right.
The real issue here is changing bad law. Bad laws are changed by controversy or push back. Laws should reflect the values of the people....NOT JUST THE MINORITY....
Besides...the OP is talking about administrative law, which is the most abusive type of law there is. Whole concepts and laws are created out of fantasy based upon the power brokers of the various departments that are in play.
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.
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.
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.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.
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?
Debra. you're good!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.
Please explain.
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?
I don't understand the relevance of your "point one" above. Marriage is a civil contract that may only be entered, maintained, or dissolved in accordance with state law. As a civil institution, marriage has many, many, many desirable attributes that benefit the marriage partners and their children. However, it is not an offense to forego those benefits and to have a child out of wedlock. The fact that children born out of wedlock are labeled "illegitimate", however, is stigmatizing.
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.
The linked decision clearly stated: "This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage. It is about a business's refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal." This case was about discrimination. It was not about fraud.
Point three: the baker didn't call the plaintiff an abomination, as the plaintiff's mother said.
Melissa Klein and her husband hung themselves with their own words. The administrative law judge only considered the credible evidence available in determining the issue of damages for emotional suffering.
Point four: the plaintiff was angry.
Victims of discrimination often are angry and feel enormous pain. That's why they are entitled to damages for emotional suffering under Oregon law.
I stopped reading after that. Hotheads didn't like the baker quoting scripture. Boo-hoo.
It is sad that you quit reading and show so little empathy for victims of discrimination. "Within Oregon's public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society. The ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry ... The denial of these basic freedoms to which all are entitled devalues the human condition of the individual, and in doing so, devalues the humanity of us all."
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.
The public accommodations law does not require businesses to provide free goods and services to indigent people. That's a red-herring you threw in because you didn't want to take the time to read the actual administrative law decision and find out what it was about.
Melissa Klein and her husband can appeal the decision.
A quick search of "bakeries" in Gresham, OR on YellowPages.com yields 329 results, a search of "wedding cakes" yields the same number: Wedding Cakes in Gresham Oregon with Reviews Ratings - YP.com. Cool, so many choices out there.
They could have calmly told that store what they think of it and found another one, one that would be thrilled to work with them, pretty quickly. But sadly, these poor helpless dears were so overcome with abject shock and emotion that such a concept somehow got past them.
So, instead of doing that, they chose to file the complaint. They were not forced to, they chose to. They were not forced to, they chose to.
The notion that "this is about the law" is a lie.
If I determined that a business (especially one with this amount of competition) were bigots, I'd leave, find a business that I like better, and let the bigots stew in their own hatred. And that's it. But then, I don't go through life looking for excuses to intimidate, punish and control people. Crazy me.
.
I understand your comment and say it is reasonable. But you can't change the fact that the bakery broke three laws in their treatment of Rachel and Laura. Read the decision for an accurate assessment of the deal.A quick search of "bakeries" in Gresham, OR on YellowPages.com yields 329 results, a search of "wedding cakes" yields the same number: Wedding Cakes in Gresham Oregon with Reviews Ratings - YP.com. Cool, so many choices out there.
They could have calmly told that store what they think of it and found another one, one that would be thrilled to work with them, pretty quickly. But sadly, these poor helpless dears were so overcome with abject shock and emotion that such a concept somehow got past them.
So, instead of doing that, they chose to file the complaint. They were not forced to, they chose to. They were not forced to, they chose to.
The notion that "this is about the law" is a lie.
If I determined that a business (especially one with this amount of competition) were bigots, I'd leave, find a business that I like better, and let the bigots stew in their own hatred. And that's it. But then, I don't go through life looking for excuses to intimidate, punish and control people. Crazy me.
.
So I wasn't wrong.They could have gone somewhere else, but the bakery still broke the law. When they decided to break the law, they put their business at risk. No one forced them to break the law. They made a conscious decision to break the law.A quick search of "bakeries" in Gresham, OR on YellowPages.com yields 329 results, a search of "wedding cakes" yields the same number: Wedding Cakes in Gresham Oregon with Reviews Ratings - YP.com. Cool, so many choices out there.
They could have calmly told that store what they think of it and found another one, one that would be thrilled to work with them, pretty quickly. But sadly, these poor helpless dears were so overcome with abject shock and emotion that such a concept somehow got past them.
So, instead of doing that, they chose to file the complaint. They were not forced to, they chose to. They were not forced to, they chose to.
The notion that "this is about the law" is a lie.
If I determined that a business (especially one with this amount of competition) were bigots, I'd leave, find a business that I like better, and let the bigots stew in their own hatred. And that's it. But then, I don't go through life looking for excuses to intimidate, punish and control people. Crazy me.
.
So I wasn't wrong.They could have gone somewhere else, but the bakery still broke the law. When they decided to break the law, they put their business at risk. No one forced them to break the law. They made a conscious decision to break the law.A quick search of "bakeries" in Gresham, OR on YellowPages.com yields 329 results, a search of "wedding cakes" yields the same number: Wedding Cakes in Gresham Oregon with Reviews Ratings - YP.com. Cool, so many choices out there.
They could have calmly told that store what they think of it and found another one, one that would be thrilled to work with them, pretty quickly. But sadly, these poor helpless dears were so overcome with abject shock and emotion that such a concept somehow got past them.
So, instead of doing that, they chose to file the complaint. They were not forced to, they chose to. They were not forced to, they chose to.
The notion that "this is about the law" is a lie.
If I determined that a business (especially one with this amount of competition) were bigots, I'd leave, find a business that I like better, and let the bigots stew in their own hatred. And that's it. But then, I don't go through life looking for excuses to intimidate, punish and control people. Crazy me.
.
.
I know, and I'm not arguing that at all. My point is that the law only comes into effect if a complaint is made, and the couple chose to do so. If I saw the same couple lodge a complaint because they knew someone is an illegal alien or that someone was smoking pot illegally, I'd then believe that they're all about the law, and that this isn't just about politics.I understand your comment and say it is reasonable. But you can't change the fact that the bakery broke three laws in their treatment of Rachel and Laura. Read the decision for an accurate assessment of the deal.
In reading the complaint, apparently the bake shop went on with their religious comments denigrating their lifestyle telling them they were an abomination and what God thought of them. One of the women was not strong emotionally and had a breakdown.I know, and I'm not arguing that at all. My point is that the law only comes into effect if a complaint is made, and the couple chose to do so. If I saw the same couple lodge a complaint because they knew someone is an illegal alien or that someone was smoking pot illegally, I'd then believe that they're all about the law, and that this isn't just about politics.I understand your comment and say it is reasonable. But you can't change the fact that the bakery broke three laws in their treatment of Rachel and Laura. Read the decision for an accurate assessment of the deal.
Sometimes we just choose to live and let live. That, to me, includes letting someone be a bigot. This fine only made them more of what they are.
By the way, I appreciate your words about my comment being reasonable. We don't have to agree to be decent to each other.
.
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.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.
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.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.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.
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.
Sure it does. Under Oregon law, businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation.
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.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.
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.
Uh....if you own a business you're paying taxes for those services.
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.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.
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.
Uh....if you own a business you're paying taxes for those services.
So is everyone else, who's driving on the roads that lead to your business. If you want to practice your religion instead of serving the public, you should open a church.
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.
Uh....if you own a business you're paying taxes for those services.
So is everyone else, who's driving on the roads that lead to your business. If you want to practice your religion instead of serving the public, you should open a church.
So you're anti religion? Freedom of religion,not freedom from it.
