Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close shop

[Gadawg73]

^^^ Have you ever stopped to wonder why?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. If God had intended for us to go with our own kind, reproduction would not take place between a man and woman only. Woman would not exist at all period if God had intended for us to go with our own kind.

God is not mentioned in the laws that protect the rights of the individual. We are a nation of THE LAW, not men and their various and changing like the wind religious beliefs.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

^^^ Oh well. You go by your way of doing things and I will go by the Lord's way of doing things.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Simply put you place this case under the Equal Protection clause. I sincerely believe both the 1st and 14th Amendments go hand in hand with one another.

But at any rate, this case I believe debunks the NM court's reasoning on the matter:

“religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection”

Quoted by Justice Kennedy from the opinion by Justice Burger in Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division 450 U.S. 707 (1981),
in the case of Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993)

What I see here is similar to the Obamacare mandating the Catholic Church to pay for abortion. Both of these instances are burdening the religious convictions of faith based groups.

In the case of Jose Merced, President Templo Yoruba Omo Orisha Texas, Inc., v. City of Euless (5th Circuit). The court ruled that the free exercise of religion was "meritorious and prevailing" and that Merced was entitled under the Texas Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (TRFRA) to an injunction preventing the city of Euless, Texas from enforcing its ordinances that burdened his religious practices relating to the use of animals.

So if that is the precedent, the Oregon Public Accommodation Law would be unfairly burdening the Christian couple as they would be obligated to do something that was against the teachings of their faith, they would be forced not to adhere to the doctrine their faith teaches about homosexuality.

 

[Gadawg73]

^^^ Oh well. You go by your way of doing things and I will go by the Lord's way of doing things.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

I follow what Jesus taught, to be Christlike.
Great thing about being a Christian I never have to go around telling anyone that I am a Christian or what the Lord's way of doing things are.
They know it by my ACTIONS.
No one cares to know how much you know.
They want to know how much you CARE.
Jesus accepted everyone and did not judge. I follow that path with my actions.

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

Simply put you place this case under the Equal Protection clause. I sincerely believe both the 1st and 14th Amendments go hand in hand with one another.

But at any rate, this case I believe debunks the NM court's reasoning on the matter:

“religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection”

Quoted by Justice Kennedy from the opinion by Justice Burger in Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division 450 U.S. 707 (1981),
in the case of Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993)

What I see here is similar to the Obamacare mandating the Catholic Church to pay for abortion. Both of these instances are burdening the religious convictions of faith based groups.

In the case of Jose Merced, President Templo Yoruba Omo Orisha Texas, Inc., v. City of Euless (5th Circuit). The court ruled that the free exercise of religion was "meritorious and prevailing" and that Merced was entitled under the Texas Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (TRFRA) to an injunction preventing the city of Euless, Texas from enforcing its ordinances that burdened his religious practices relating to the use of animals.

So if that is the precedent, the Oregon Public Accommodation Law would be unfairly burdening the Christian couple as they would be obligated to do something that was against the teachings of their faith, they would be forced not to adhere to the doctrine their faith teaches about homosexuality.

No one is forcing them to enter into the private free enterprise market.

We open up a large can of worms if we allow everyone that falls back on their faith as their reason to judge one group of folks different than others based on what their religion is.

 

[freedombecki]

To me it wasn't just their rights that were violated. The rights of everyone else in the area were violated too. People who had nothing to do with the problem may have liked going to that bakery too and now they have to find another one to go to. What about the rights of them people? Did the homosexual group who got the place shut down ever once stop to think of them people? Obviously never because all that they cared about were their own selves. To me, the homosexual group could have just washed their hands of the place and found somewhere else to go, but no, they had to make sure that everyone paid for what they thought that just a select few were guilty of and that is having the freedom to exercise what they believe.

God bless you and those who have paid always!!!

Holly

P.S. I hate when people who have nothing to do with the situation end up losing something too!

Seriously?

Amazingly, yes. I do believe she is serious.

Thing is, some believe that "equal" just does not apply to certain people.

She should be. She has likely read the Letter of Jude, which is all of one chapter and precedes the Book of Revelations in the New Testament.

I've read the KJV, the Catholic version, the NIV, and the American Standard, plus 3 study bibles at home. They all say the same thing about this issue. The message is unequivocal.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I have given a link to the photography case which sliced and diced the First Amendment.

Simply put you place this case under the Equal Protection clause. I sincerely believe both the 1st and 14th Amendments go hand in hand with one another.

But at any rate, this case I believe debunks the NM court's reasoning on the matter:

“religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection”

Quoted by Justice Kennedy from the opinion by Justice Burger in Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division 450 U.S. 707 (1981),
in the case of Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993)

What I see here is similar to the Obamacare mandating the Catholic Church to pay for abortion. Both of these instances are burdening the religious convictions of faith based groups.

In the case of Jose Merced, President Templo Yoruba Omo Orisha Texas, Inc., v. City of Euless (5th Circuit). The court ruled that the free exercise of religion was "meritorious and prevailing" and that Merced was entitled under the Texas Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (TRFRA) to an injunction preventing the city of Euless, Texas from enforcing its ordinances that burdened his religious practices relating to the use of animals.

So if that is the precedent, the Oregon Public Accommodation Law would be unfairly burdening the Christian couple as they would be obligated to do something that was against the teachings of their faith, they would be forced not to adhere to the doctrine their faith teaches about homosexuality.

No one is forcing them to enter into the private free enterprise market.

We open up a large can of worms if we allow everyone that falls back on their faith as their reason to judge one group of folks different than others based on what their religion is.

It isn't matter of judgement. This refusal was only specific to their beliefs! There was no evil intent, no malice, no hatred. What this is is a non allowance for them to practice their beliefs and convictions as they pertain to their personal lives! What ever happened to individual liberty in this country?

 

[JOSweetHeart]

^^^ Oh well. You go by your way of doing things and I will go by the Lord's way of doing things.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

I follow what Jesus taught, to be Christlike.
Great thing about being a Christian I never have to go around telling anyone that I am a Christian or what the Lord's way of doing things are.
They know it by my ACTIONS.
No one cares to know how much you know.
They want to know how much you CARE.
Jesus accepted everyone and did not judge. I follow that path with my actions.

Going the homosexual route is not Christ like.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[TemplarKormac]

^^^ Oh well. You go by your way of doing things and I will go by the Lord's way of doing things.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

I follow what Jesus taught, to be Christlike.
Great thing about being a Christian I never have to go around telling anyone that I am a Christian or what the Lord's way of doing things are.
They know it by my ACTIONS.
No one cares to know how much you know.
They want to know how much you CARE.
Jesus accepted everyone and did not judge. I follow that path with my actions.

1 Corinthians 15:58
Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.

 

[Immanuel]

^^^ Oh well. You go by your way of doing things and I will go by the Lord's way of doing things.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

I follow what Jesus taught, to be Christlike.
Great thing about being a Christian I never have to go around telling anyone that I am a Christian or what the Lord's way of doing things are.
They know it by my ACTIONS.
No one cares to know how much you know.
They want to know how much you CARE.
Jesus accepted everyone and did not judge. I follow that path with my actions.

Going the homosexual route is not Christ like.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

No, it is not, but put two gay men in the place of the adulteress brought to Christ to be stoned. If they were brought to him do you really think Jesus would have cast the first stone rather than tell those around him, "Ye without sin cast the first stone", knowing full well none of them would?

I know you have the right answer to that. Jesus would have done the same thing he did with the adulteress. Once the crowd broke up he would have said, "go and sin no more".

Immie

 

[paperview]

Believe in me or you'll sizzle like bacon. - 2 Capitulations 17:22

 

[JOSweetHeart]

I follow what Jesus taught, to be Christlike.
Great thing about being a Christian I never have to go around telling anyone that I am a Christian or what the Lord's way of doing things are.
They know it by my ACTIONS.
No one cares to know how much you know.
They want to know how much you CARE.
Jesus accepted everyone and did not judge. I follow that path with my actions.

Going the homosexual route is not Christ like.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

No, it is not, but put two gay men in the place of the adulteress brought to Christ to be stoned. If they were brought to him do you really think Jesus would have cast the first stone rather than tell those around him, "Ye without sin cast the first stone", knowing full well none of them would?

I know you have the right answer to that. Jesus would have done the same thing he did with the adulteress. Once the crowd broke up he would have said, "go and sin no more".

Immie

I don't believe that the Lord would let them slide, especially if they are not sorry for being the way that they choose to be.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[Immanuel]

^^^ I don't believe that the Lord would let them slide, especially if they are not sorry for being the way that they choose to be.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

Did he let the adulteress slide? Was she repentant?

What makes you think the two gay men would be any different?

How about you and I? Has he let us slide? Do we deserve any different treatment than the adulteress?

Will he let this gay couple we have been discussing slide? Does this couple deserve worse than you or I? Personally, I do not expect any different treatment than they and I am hopeful he is as merciful as I have been led to believe to them as well as me.

Immie

 

[TemplarKormac]

Believe in me or you'll sizzle like bacon. - 2 Capitulations 17:22

You really are a troll aren't you?

The tongue of the wise adorns knowledge, but the mouth of the fool gushes folly.

Proverbs 15:2

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.

Proverbs 18:2

 

[JOSweetHeart]

^^^ I don't believe that the Lord would let them slide, especially if they are not sorry for being the way that they choose to be.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

Did he let the adulteress slide? Was she repentant?

What makes you think the two gay men would be any different?

How about you and I? Has he let us slide? Do we deserve any different treatment than the adulteress?

Will he let this gay couple we have been discussing slide? Does this couple deserve worse than you or I? Personally, I do not expect any different treatment than they and I am hopeful he is as merciful as I have been led to believe to them as well as me.

Immie

People who don't believe that they are doing anything wrong in the first place are not going to believe that they have a reason to repent either, so the smart money would not be on them if you are a person who bets.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[WorldWatcher]

What do you think would happen if a heterosexual person was refused service at a homosexual bar?

The heterosexual could file a complaint under the States Public Accommodation's law since the owner would be refusing service based on sexual orientation. If of course the State has such a law (not all of them do). If the state has no law, then the barkeep can do it.

Which brings me to another question. If homosexual bars are allowed to exist, why can't heterosexual bakeries exist?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

Never been to a bar that caters to homosexual have you?

"Homosexual bars" are called that because a lot of homosexuals may hang out there, it does not mean that the barkeep does not serve drinks to heterosexuals.


>>>>

 

[Cecilie1200]

They can claim anything they want, the problem would be they would have to prove that the business turned them down based on race and not as a political organization (which is not a protected class).

All the shop owner would have to do is start calling white clients to the stand and after the first dozen or so witness with the next 100-200 waiting in the wings to testify, the judge would probably make a summary judgement in the defendants favor.


>>>>

True, but all this bakery needs to do is prove that they have served gays and lesbians in the past and I would suspect that if they kept any kind of decent records, they could do so. According to the story, they did not refuse service to gays and lesbians, but they drew the line at same sex weddings, in fact, I believe I read in the Portland Times story I posted that they had served this same couple in the past. They simply drew the line at the wedding.

If that is true and they had served gays and lesbians in the past, they should not have anything to worry about.

Immie

Since SSM is not recognized in Oregon the lesbian couple was not asking for a cake for a wedding, but for a domestic partnership. Since it wasn't a wedding, what was the objection to making the cake?

Just because YOU think your marital relationship only exists if the state says so doesn't mean other people feel that way. Certainly, that lesbian couple didn't, since they asked for a WEDDING cake.

And the bakers' objection doesn't change just because you want to play dumbass, juvenile word-parsing games. They didn't want to participate in a ceremony they had a religious disagreement with, and if you don't know that that objection doesn't change just because you slap a different label on the ceremony, then you're a bigger dumbass than I think you are.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If everyone had your attitude Immie there would be need for these kinds of laws. But they are needed.

Why? Because you NEED to be able to force people to associate with you even though they don't want to?

 

[Immanuel]

^^^ I don't believe that the Lord would let them slide, especially if they are not sorry for being the way that they choose to be.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

Did he let the adulteress slide? Was she repentant?

What makes you think the two gay men would be any different?

How about you and I? Has he let us slide? Do we deserve any different treatment than the adulteress?

Will he let this gay couple we have been discussing slide? Does this couple deserve worse than you or I? Personally, I do not expect any different treatment than they and I am hopeful he is as merciful as I have been led to believe to them as well as me.

Immie

People who don't believe that they are doing anything wrong in the first place are not going to believe that they have a reason to repent either, so the smart money would not be on them if you are a person who bets.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

Agreed but do you convince someone they are in jeopardy of eternal damnation by beating them over the head and screaming at them, "YOU ARE GOING TO BURN IN HELL". Is that what Jesus did? Is that the way Christ came to you?

Immie

 

[Cecilie1200]

And the bottom line remains the same. We are not free if we are forced to go where we do not want to go, to serve those we do not wish to serve, and if we can be destroyed for holding convictions and beliefs that others do not share.

To destroy somebody purely because he or she holds a belief or conviction that others do not share is evil. And it should be a HUGE civil rights violation when it happens.

I think the irony is going to be when these spoiled little whiners, stomping their feet in a pretense of "oppression", actually end up a change in the law to allow people MORE freedom from them and their self-absorbed demands, rather than less.