Christian bakers who refused to make cake for homosexual "wedding" break gag order

[Uncensored2008]

Your twisted opinion on the law is irrelevant. What is the punishment in Oregon if you don't pay fines levied against you?

You really think these morons are willing to die over this?

Again, they are refusing to knuckle under to the jackbooted gay Nazis. I have no idea what they are willing to do, I'm asking what the party is prepared to do?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Filing a Public Accommodation Law violation complaint with the State of Oregon is the same thing as Nazi's 'jackboot dance on any defectors or critics of their party.'

Wow. Just....wow.

Putting a $300,000 fine on an infraction is just a wee bit excessive, among normal folk. The overkill employed by the party is clearly intended to create fear among those who might defy party edicts.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

No one is seeking to 'harass a religion,' the notion is unfounded nonsense.

Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional, where religion cannot be used to 'justify' ignoring or violating a just and proper law, such as public accommodations laws.

That is exactly what your filthy party is doing, attacking a religion.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Putting a $300,000 fine on an infraction is just a wee bit excessive, among normal folk. The overkill employed by the party is clearly intended to create fear among those who might defy party edicts.

Just curious, where are you getting "$300,000" fine? In the Sweetcakes case two individuals received, IIRC, $60,000 and $75,000 (total of $135,000).

The Klein's have paid the fine out of the $500,000 they collected for their actions. Meaning they collected $365,000 in profit over what was fined.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Just curious, where are you getting "$300,000" fine? In the Sweetcakes case two individuals received, IIRC, $60,000 and $75,000 (total of $135,000).

The Klein's have paid the fine out of the $500,000 they collected for their actions. Meaning they collected $365,000 in profit over what was fined.


>>>>

I thought I'd just go ahead and point out the obvious to you here while you're dissecting minutia to create a strawman... CHRISTIANS ARE BEING FINED AND RUN OUT OF BUSINESS FOR REFUSING TO NOT NOT ABIDE BY THE MORTAL WARNINGS IN JUDE 1 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT OF JESUS CHRIST BECAUSE THEY WOULD NOT ACCOMMODATE A HOMOSEXUAL CULT THAT HOODWINKED THE US SUPREME COURT INTO A RULING WITH A FALSE PREMISE. GAY BEHAVIORS ARE NOT A RACE OF PEOPLE. LOVING V VIRGINIA WAS MIS-APPLIED. GAY BEHAVIORS ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY PROTECTED UNDER THE US CONSTITUTION. HOWEVER, RELIGIOUS BEHAVIORS ARE, IN TWO OF THE AMENDMENTS.

If the coming appeal to the SCOTUS was a horse race, I know who I'd be betting on to win. Unless of course the Judicial Branch plans on amending the Constitution without permission form the Legislative Branch...

 

[Skylar]

Just curious, where are you getting "$300,000" fine? In the Sweetcakes case two individuals received, IIRC, $60,000 and $75,000 (total of $135,000).

The Klein's have paid the fine out of the $500,000 they collected for their actions. Meaning they collected $365,000 in profit over what was fined.


>>>>

I thought I'd just go ahead and point out the obvious to you here while you're dissecting minutia to create a strawman... CHRISTIANS ARE BEING FINED AND RUN OUT OF BUSINESS FOR REFUSING TO NOT NOT ABIDE BY THE MORTAL WARNINGS IN JUDE 1 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT OF JESUS CHRIST BECAUSE THEY WOULD NOT ACCOMMODATE A HOMOSEXUAL CULT THAT HOODWINKED THE US SUPREME COURT INTO A RULING WITH A FALSE PREMISE.

Jude 1 never mentions same sex weddings nor wedding cakes.

Nor are Christians exempt from any law they disagree with.

Get used to the idea.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I thought I'd just go ahead and point out the obvious to you here while you're dissecting minutia to create a strawman... CHRISTIANS ARE BEING FINED AND RUN OUT OF BUSINESS FOR REFUSING TO NOT NOT ABIDE BY THE MORTAL WARNINGS IN JUDE 1 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT OF JESUS CHRIST BECAUSE THEY WOULD NOT ACCOMMODATE A HOMOSEXUAL CULT THAT HOODWINKED THE US SUPREME COURT INTO A RULING WITH A FALSE PREMISE. GAY BEHAVIORS ARE NOT A RACE OF PEOPLE. LOVING V VIRGINIA WAS MIS-APPLIED. GAY BEHAVIORS ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY PROTECTED UNDER THE US CONSTITUTION. HOWEVER, RELIGIOUS BEHAVIORS ARE, IN TWO OF THE AMENDMENTS.

If the coming appeal to the SCOTUS was a horse race, I know who I'd be betting on to win. Unless of course the Judicial Branch plans on amending the Constitution without permission form the Legislative Branch...

1. I think it's funny that you have devolved into shouting at your computer now indicated by typing all in caps.

2. You lie again, Sweetcakes by Melissa was not diven out of business by an fine for a couple of reasons:

A. Sweetcakes by Melissa is still an ongoing business. They now operate as a home business.

B. They were not "driven out of business" by any fine. They closed their storefront because customers went away because they didn't want to do business with them - i.e. the market at work. Refusal of services in this case occurred on January 17, 2013, they moved to a home business later that year. The fine was just paid a few months ago. They closed the storefront even before a fine had been decided.

C. They didn't close the storefront because of the fine. They made $365,000 in profit from the event collecting over $500,000 and paying only $135,000 in fines.
​

>>>>

 

[Bob Blaylock]

That is exactly what your filthy party is doing, attacking a religion.

It goes much deeper, and more insidious than merely attacking religion.

It is an attack on marriage and family, and on society itself, as founded on family.

It is also an attack on the Constitution, and on the rule of law thereunder.

It's an attack on morality and decency and reason.

Religion can almost be seen as mere collateral damage.

 

[Skylar]

That is exactly what your filthy party is doing, attacking a religion.

It goes much deeper, and more insidious than merely attacking religion.

It is an attack on marriage and family, and on society itself, as founded on family.

It is also an attack on the Constitution,and on the rule of law thereunder.

It's an attack on morality and decency and reason.

Religion can almost be seen as mere collateral damage.

A cake is 'an attack on marriage and family, and on society itself'?

You may want to take a breath. Cake is amazing stuff. But not that amazing.

 

[Seawytch]

That is exactly what your filthy party is doing, attacking a religion.

It goes much deeper, and more insidious than merely attacking religion.

It is an attack on marriage and family, and on society itself, as founded on family.

It is also an attack on the Constitution,and on the rule of law thereunder.

It's an attack on morality and decency and reason.

Religion can almost be seen as mere collateral damage.

A cake is 'an attack on marriage and family, and on society itself'?

You may want to take a breath. Cake is amazing stuff. But not that amazing.

I don't know...I've had some really good cake.

 

[Seawytch]

That is exactly what your filthy party is doing, attacking a religion.

It goes much deeper, and more insidious than merely attacking religion.

It is an attack on marriage and family, and on society itself, as founded on family.

It is also an attack on the Constitution,and on the rule of law thereunder.

It's an attack on morality and decency and reason.

Religion can almost be seen as mere collateral damage.

Wow...so wanting to be a part of something means you want to destroy it?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Jude 1 never mentions same sex weddings nor wedding cakes.

That's absurd argument.

On the whole, the Bible is very clear about what marriage is,and it is very clear about certain standards of sexual morality, and it is very clear about homosexual conduct being evil and unacceptable.

There is no valid argument to be made by cherry-picking some small part of the Bible, and arguing that because some particular combination of evils is not mentioned that they must be acceptable.

Exodus 20:15 says, “Thou shalt not steal.” Your argument is akin to finding some passage where someone was condemned for stealing silver, and saying that because gold is not mentioned, that it must be OK to steal gold. No, it's not OK to steal anything.

And sexual intimacy is not OK, except between a husband and wife—a man and a woman who are married to each other.

Nor are Christians exempt from any law they disagree with.

Get used to the idea.

Courts and legislatures are not exempt from any law that they disagree with, including the highest law, which is the Constitution.

I always find it amusing when wrong-wingers speak of the rule of law, in defending policies and positions which blatantly violate the Constitution. But then such hypocrisy and doublethink is a rather standard feature of wrong-wing ideology.

 

[Silhouette]

Jude 1 never mentions same sex weddings nor wedding cakes.

That's absurd argument.

Agreed. Skylar assumes that Justices of the US Supreme Court are incapable of inferring logical connections. "If marriage = the hub of society" AND "If Jude 1 forbids a Christian to aide or abet the spread of a homosexual cultural movement into the hub of society" THEN "therefore, gay marriage is forbidden by Jude 1".

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Jude 1 never mentions same sex weddings nor wedding cakes.

That's absurd argument.

Agreed. Skylar assumes that Justices of the US Supreme Court are incapable of inferring logical connections. "If marriage = the hub of society" AND "If Jude 1 forbids a Christian to aide or abet the spread of a homosexual cultural movement into the hub of society" THEN "therefore, gay marriage is forbidden by Jude 1".

Religion is protected here, but not above American laws, which are made by men. AKA, you're fucked.

If the Bible says kill the homos, and it does, it's still not allowed...

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Religion is protected here, but not above American laws, which are made by men.

The First Amendment begins…

“Congress* shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

* And by incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment, all government legislative bodies, courts, and other policymaking agencies.​

You are arguing that government has the right to make laws that violate the free practice of religion, and that those laws take precedence over freedom of religion. The First Amendment very clearly says otherwise. Freedom of religion takes precedence over any laws which government might make that are in conflict with it. The same holds for freedom of expression, and the right to peaceably assemble, which are also explicitly affirmed in the First Amendment, as well as freedoms of conscience and association which are strongly implied therein.

 

[Skylar]

Jude 1 never mentions same sex weddings nor wedding cakes.

That's absurd argument.

On the whole, the Bible is very clear about what marriage is,and it is very clear about certain standards of sexual morality, and it is very clear about homosexual conduct being evil and unacceptable.

Its clear that there is no divorce. And that adultery comes with the death penalty. Thus, per your argument, no Christian should ever make a wedding cake for anyone who isn't a virgin. Or for any second wedding.

And if you believe Jude 1 mentions same sex marriage or wedding cakes, by all means quote it.

Oh, and Christians still aren't exempt from any law they disagree. Anymore than Muslims are.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

And if you believe Jude 1 mentions same sex marriage or wedding cakes, by all means quote it.

Exodus 20:15 doesn't say anything about television sets, but I'd still be violating it if I stole your TV.

Oh, and Christians still aren't exempt from any law they disagree. Anymore than Muslims are.

Government is not exempt from the law, including the Constitution.

 

[Skylar]

And if you believe Jude 1 mentions same sex marriage or wedding cakes, by all means quote it.

Exodus 20:15 doesn't say anything about television sets, but I'd still be violating it if I stole your TV.

Yeah, that's not Jude 1. Nor anything about same sex marriage or wedding cakes.

And I noticed you carefully omitted any mention of divorce or adultery from your reply. Apparently Christians are exempt from any of 'god's' laws they don't like as well.

At least they're consistent!

Oh, and Christians still aren't exempt from any law they disagree. Anymore than Muslims are.

Government is not exempt from the law, including the Constitution.

And who, pray tell, has found that PA laws in general or these laws forbidding discrimination against sexual orientation in particular.....are violations of the Constitution?

There's you, citing yourself. You may have convinced yourself that you're the sole arbiter of law, language, and the meaning of marriage.

But back in reality, you're still nobody.

 

[Seawytch]

Your twisted opinion on the law is irrelevant. What is the punishment in Oregon if you don't pay fines levied against you?

You really think these morons are willing to die over this?

Again, they are refusing to knuckle under to the jackbooted gay Nazis. I have no idea what they are willing to do, I'm asking what the party is prepared to do?

No they didn't...they paid the fine.

 

[Seawytch]

Religion is protected here, but not above American laws, which are made by men.

The First Amendment begins…

“Congress* shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

* And by incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment, all government legislative bodies, courts, and other policymaking agencies.​

You are arguing that government has the right to make laws that violate the free practice of religion, and that those laws take precedence over freedom of religion. The First Amendment very clearly says otherwise. Freedom of religion takes precedence over any laws which government might make that are in conflict with it. The same holds for freedom of expression, and the right to peaceably assemble, which are also explicitly affirmed in the First Amendment, as well as freedoms of conscience and association which are strongly implied therein.

My religion requires human sacrifice. Guess that takes precedence over US law, right?