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.
Its not a threat. Its a heads up. The more that this kind of thing happens, the less likely that the homosexual people will get what it is that they want. Why should they get what they want when all that they care about is themselves anyways? Selfishness will get a person absolutely no where.Sounds like a threat to me!
God bless you always!!!
Holly
You're not seeing the obvious here.
First, its not a matter of choosing to give them rights that they already have. They are US citizens and these phony christians don't get to decide which Americans get "equal" rights.
Second, demanding the rights you were born to is not "selfish". It is their right.
Third, you are obviously another phony christian. If you were the real thing and if you were a real American, you would be fighting for the rights that gays already have.
You keep typing that really phony "god bless you" when, in fact, that's not what you're doing. See, you can't simultaneously be a hate-filled bigot AND a child of god.
Karma has a way of coming around and some of the Jesusy folk on this thread and those saying such nasty things about gays and lesbians will one day find themselves blessed...with a gay child.
Life has a way of shaking up bigots.
That he called them "abominations" is in the original complaint filed with the state. That is an official legal form signed under penalty of perjury.
I'm sure calling the lesbians liars is pretty tame, considering some of the things they have been called, so you go right ahead and say they perjured themselves.
People you've never heard, seen, met or know a smidgeon about, other than one went with her mother to arrange to create a cake for her Civil ceremony -- and did not get past "it's for two women" and were told NO -- and knowing the law, decided to file a complaint -- that is ALL you know.
And you said you don't doubt what they said in the claim is true. You have no idea whether the statement was true or not. Yet, you choose to believe them based on your prejudice and bias.
The conflict is in that one allows for sexual orientation while the other does not. I see a direct conflict. Right there. Since most state laws are crafted based off of federal precedent, I do think the Supremacy Clause is in effect here. That couple can go over the State of Oregon and say they were well within their rights as it pertained to Federal Law.
In Federal court you would be right.
But the case isn't in Federal court, it's in State court where the Oregon law applies.
>>>>
But the Bakery is not only subject to State Law, but Federal Law as well. That presents a conflict in this regard. In my studies of the justice system, I learned that Federal Law will trump State Law in any matter of law or crime brought before the courts.
blah blah blah...if you refuse service to someone due their sexual preference, then expect to be boycotted, called out and exposed as a bigot. Stop your fucking crying and deal with the fact that there are consequences to being a bigot.
Its the american way. Its business.
On a personal note, if I owned a business, I would stay in the MIDDLE on pretty much every issue. Pretty much. I would not scr3eam I am a democrat because I know I would alienate half the potential customers. Thats just good business sense unless my business was political in some way.
Richtbackatacha.That he called them "abominations" is in the original complaint filed with the state. That is an official legal form signed under penalty of perjury.
I'm sure calling the lesbians liars is pretty tame, considering some of the things they have been called, so you go right ahead and say they perjured themselves.
People you've never heard, seen, met or know a smidgeon about, other than one went with her mother to arrange to create a cake for her Civil ceremony -- and did not get past "it's for two women" and were told NO -- and knowing the law, decided to file a complaint -- that is ALL you know.
And you said you don't doubt what they said in the claim is true. You have no idea whether the statement was true or not. Yet, you choose to believe them based on your prejudice and bias.
Thank you for sharing your experiences and it's wonderful you grew above it to treat all equally.Paper,
I grew up in the deep South in the 1950's and 1960's. The majority of preachers and ministers taugh that segregation was "God's Plan". They told us that was why the black man was in Africa, and we were not (apparantly god did not anticipate ships being invented). Anyway, everything Holly has said about gays is just a word for word rehash of what the Christains taught us about blacks in Georgia. Only the miniority has been changed. i lived in a world of deep bigottry for 26 years, and failed to embrace it. Too bad that Holly does not take a good long look at herself in the miirror.
What do you think would happen if a heterosexual person was refused service at a homosexual bar? Which brings me to another question. If homosexual bars are allowed to exist, why can't heterosexual bakeries exist?Paper,
I grew up in the deep South in the 1950's and 1960's. The majority of preachers and ministers taugh that segregation was "God's Plan". They told us that was why the black man was in Africa, and we were not (apparantly god did not anticipate ships being invented). Anyway, everything Holly has said about gays is just a word for word rehash of what the Christains taught us about blacks in Georgia. Only the miniority has been changed. i lived in a world of deep bigottry for 26 years, and failed to embrace it. Too bad that Holly does not take a good long look at herself in the miirror.
In Federal court you would be right.
But the case isn't in Federal court, it's in State court where the Oregon law applies.
>>>>
But the Bakery is not only subject to State Law, but Federal Law as well. That presents a conflict in this regard. In my studies of the justice system, I learned that Federal Law will trump State Law in any matter of law or crime brought before the courts.
And as part of your studies you would have learned that the Supremacy Clause applies when laws conflict no conflict in the realm of Public Accommodation laws exists in this case. There is no Federal law that prohibits states from having Public Accommodation laws. State Public Accommodation laws can be more restrictive then Federal law, a situation that can exist in many many areas.
>>>>
Oh dear dear.What do you think would happen if a heterosexual person was refused service at a homosexual bar? Which brings me to another question. If homosexual bars are allowed to exist, why can't heterosexual bakeries exist?Paper,
I grew up in the deep South in the 1950's and 1960's. The majority of preachers and ministers taugh that segregation was "God's Plan". They told us that was why the black man was in Africa, and we were not (apparantly god did not anticipate ships being invented). Anyway, everything Holly has said about gays is just a word for word rehash of what the Christains taught us about blacks in Georgia. Only the miniority has been changed. i lived in a world of deep bigottry for 26 years, and failed to embrace it. Too bad that Holly does not take a good long look at herself in the miirror.
God bless you always!!!
Holly
In Federal court you would be right.
But the case isn't in Federal court, it's in State court where the Oregon law applies.
>>>>
But the Bakery is not only subject to State Law, but Federal Law as well. That presents a conflict in this regard. In my studies of the justice system, I learned that Federal Law will trump State Law in any matter of law or crime brought before the courts.
And as part of your studies you would have learned that the Supremacy Clause applies when laws conflict no conflict in the realm of Public Accommodation laws exists in this case. There is no Federal law that prohibits states from having Public Accommodation laws. State Public Accommodation laws can be more restrictive then Federal law, a situation that can exist in many many areas.
>>>>
To me, if one side is allowed to play the game, so can another side.Oh dear dear.What do you think would happen if a heterosexual person was refused service at a homosexual bar? Which brings me to another question. If homosexual bars are allowed to exist, why can't heterosexual bakeries exist?
God bless you always!!!
Holly
<just shaking head>
That he called them "abominations" is in the original complaint filed with the state. That is an official legal form signed under penalty of perjury.
I'm sure calling the lesbians liars is pretty tame, considering some of the things they have been called, so you go right ahead and say they perjured themselves.
People you've never heard, seen, met or know a smidgeon about, other than one went with her mother to arrange to create a cake for her Civil ceremony -- and did not get past "it's for two women" and were told NO -- and knowing the law, decided to file a complaint -- that is ALL you know.
Thank you for sharing your experiences and it's wonderful you grew above it to treat all equally.Paper,
I grew up in the deep South in the 1950's and 1960's. The majority of preachers and ministers taugh that segregation was "God's Plan". They told us that was why the black man was in Africa, and we were not (apparantly god did not anticipate ships being invented). Anyway, everything Holly has said about gays is just a word for word rehash of what the Christains taught us about blacks in Georgia. Only the miniority has been changed. i lived in a world of deep bigottry for 26 years, and failed to embrace it. Too bad that Holly does not take a good long look at herself in the miirror.
But the Bakery is not only subject to State Law, but Federal Law as well. That presents a conflict in this regard. In my studies of the justice system, I learned that Federal Law will trump State Law in any matter of law or crime brought before the courts.
And as part of your studies you would have learned that the Supremacy Clause applies when laws conflict no conflict in the realm of Public Accommodation laws exists in this case. There is no Federal law that prohibits states from having Public Accommodation laws. State Public Accommodation laws can be more restrictive then Federal law, a situation that can exist in many many areas.
>>>>
I gather there needs not be any prohibition. The State law itself would still contradict the First Amendment, which is itself Federal in nature. Thus the conflict still stands. I would as a judge rule in favor of the Bakery, because as the public accommodation law in Oregon stands, it prevents freedom of religious expression, which is expressly implied and protected by the First Amendment.
The nature of the expression is the fact the couple refused service based on religious conviction, not on the sole intent to discriminate against anyone. Given what services they offer, somehow they felt that if they had accepted, they would be participating in something morally reprehensible to their faith.
And as part of your studies you would have learned that the Supremacy Clause applies when laws conflict no conflict in the realm of Public Accommodation laws exists in this case. There is no Federal law that prohibits states from having Public Accommodation laws. State Public Accommodation laws can be more restrictive then Federal law, a situation that can exist in many many areas.
>>>>
I gather there needs not be any prohibition. The State law itself would still contradict the First Amendment, which is itself Federal in nature. Thus the conflict still stands. I would as a judge rule in favor of the Bakery, because as the public accommodation law in Oregon stands, it prevents freedom of religious expression, which is expressly implied and protected by the First Amendment.
The nature of the expression is the fact the couple refused service based on religious conviction, not on the sole intent to discriminate against anyone. Given what services they offer, somehow they felt that if they had accepted, they would be participating in something morally reprehensible to their faith.
I have given a link to the photography case which sliced and diced the First Amendment.
What do you think would happen if a heterosexual person was refused service at a homosexual bar? Which brings me to another question. If homosexual bars are allowed to exist, why can't heterosexual bakeries exist?Paper,
I grew up in the deep South in the 1950's and 1960's. The majority of preachers and ministers taugh that segregation was "God's Plan". They told us that was why the black man was in Africa, and we were not (apparantly god did not anticipate ships being invented). Anyway, everything Holly has said about gays is just a word for word rehash of what the Christains taught us about blacks in Georgia. Only the miniority has been changed. i lived in a world of deep bigottry for 26 years, and failed to embrace it. Too bad that Holly does not take a good long look at herself in the miirror.
God bless you always!!!
Holly
