First amendment hating Governor tells Christians to deal with homosexual hatred

[Seawytch]

You didn't answer the entire question, just segregation. Who is harmed when an interracial or Jewish couple is denied "contracted services for specific events"? Why are Jewish and interracial couples deserving of protections gays are not?

if they can find alternatives easy enough, no one.

Ah...but they have qualifiers that gays don't get? What if gays can't "find alternatives easy enough"?

I already stated that if the discrimination is systemic, i.e. a majority of bakers in an area won't cater to gay weddings, then government has compelling interest, because there is actual harm.

So we need a new government agency under your "plan" to monitor and ensure there are enough bakers, florists and photographers in a given area so that a gay will have someplace to purchase these items?

And then we're still back to some people get to be bigots and some don't...based solely on the type of business they go in to?

Yeah, that's so much simpler than nobody gets to discriminate.

Not at all, the Courts or agencies just have to take into account actual harm done to the complainants, not just the act of denying service. You keep ignoring that people do have rights to free exercise of religion, and nowhere in the constitution does it say commerce trumps that right by default. Without showing actual harm, 1st amendment protections have to hold sway.

If your argument is that it would be "too hard", one can argue that we should repeal the 4th amendment because it makes government's job "too hard".

My argument is not that it's too hard, my argument is that is it immeasurably more unfair if only some businesses get to discriminate.

And for your "plan" to work, the Civil Rights Act DOES need to have Title II repealed first.

 

[JoeB131]

Can you link the part where MK actually agreed to providing a cake for a "commitment ceremony?"

This is why I don't do links. I've linked to this SEVERAL times before. You guys keep pretending you didn't see it.

Bittersweet Cake

Rachel and Laurel say Melissa Klein knew they were a lesbian couple, but nonetheless invited them back to her bakery.

Laurel:Actually [Melissa Klein] said, "Have you thought about getting married?" and Rachel said, "Oh no, I'm never getting married." And we just made the joke about it, and she said, "Well, if you decide to, come back." And that was the last thing we really said about it.

Now this sounds credible. The wife was cool with it, knew they were lesbians and tried to drum up more business. The husband was one of these Christian ASSHOLES who acted like a jerk. Probably gave the old lady a couple of black eyes for thinking for herself.

 

[JoeB131]

I was picked on as the smartest kid in my grade school for 8 years. I know what it feels like. I got over it. The difference there is I suffered actual harm, and the gay couple in this case suffered nothing more than hurt feelings and a phone call to another baker.

So what special education class were you the smartest kid in, Corky?

 

[JoeB131]

Not at all, the Courts or agencies just have to take into account actual harm done to the complainants, not just the act of denying service. You keep ignoring that people do have rights to free exercise of religion, and nowhere in the constitution does it say commerce trumps that right by default. Without showing actual harm, 1st amendment protections have to hold sway.

People have the right to free excercise of religion (at least until we start an active campaign to stamp out bronze age superstitions, which can't start soon enough). Businesses do not. If your business interests conflict with your backward ass superstitions, then you should get out of that business.

 

[JoeB131]

I agree, I'm just being irrational to piss JoeBlow off.

Guy, your grasping to find completely irrelevent examples doesn't piss me off.

Makes me tired because you keep saying the same retarded things like you've made a point, maybe.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You didn't answer the entire question, just segregation. Who is harmed when an interracial or Jewish couple is denied "contracted services for specific events"? Why are Jewish and interracial couples deserving of protections gays are not?

if they can find alternatives easy enough, no one.

Ah...but they have qualifiers that gays don't get? What if gays can't "find alternatives easy enough"?

I already stated that if the discrimination is systemic, i.e. a majority of bakers in an area won't cater to gay weddings, then government has compelling interest, because there is actual harm.

So we need a new government agency under your "plan" to monitor and ensure there are enough bakers, florists and photographers in a given area so that a gay will have someplace to purchase these items?

And then we're still back to some people get to be bigots and some don't...based solely on the type of business they go in to?

Yeah, that's so much simpler than nobody gets to discriminate.

Not at all, the Courts or agencies just have to take into account actual harm done to the complainants, not just the act of denying service. You keep ignoring that people do have rights to free exercise of religion, and nowhere in the constitution does it say commerce trumps that right by default. Without showing actual harm, 1st amendment protections have to hold sway.

If your argument is that it would be "too hard", one can argue that we should repeal the 4th amendment because it makes government's job "too hard".

Wrong.

You keep ignoring the fact that religious belief is not ‘justification’ to violate just and proper laws, such as public accommodations laws, where being subject to punitive measures for indeed violating just and proper laws does not interfere with the free exercise of religion.

And nowhere in Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence will you find case law allowing citizens to violate just and proper laws because they believe doing so conflicts with their religious beliefs.

 

[Katzndogz]

Perverts will never accept that no gay was ever not served. The pervs were prior customers. So this whole nonsense over public accommodation laws is no more than their darting out of their mouths.

 

[JoeB131]

Perverts will never accept that no gay was ever not served. The pervs were prior customers. So this whole nonsense over public accommodation laws is no more than their darting out of their mouths.

The point is, they did not get a specific service AFTER the specific service was offered to them.

That's why it was in violation of the Public Accommodation Laws.

 

[hazlnut]

Gov. Deal to speak about Religious Freedom decision, source says

Good thing that piece of shit is term limited. Time to vote out the piece of anti first amendment shit out of office. So glad I am leaving Ga soon. I hated that SOB from the time he was elected nothing but a spineless wimp.

I got a better idea.

We flush anti-American pieces of bigot shit down the toilet.

Buh-bye YOU.

 

[hazlnut]

Misread. He caved to the LGBT pressures. Just like Nazi Germany when otherwise good and decent folks capitulated to fears and economic threats that "they would be next" for the firing squads.

Better vote GOP this time folks. Unless you like rainbow political death camps..

Admit it, you'd love getting bent over at camp.

Your favorite days were in the showers reaching for the soap when the big boys came up behind you...

 

[WorldWatcher]

Perverts will never accept that no gay was ever not served. The pervs were prior customers. So this whole nonsense over public accommodation laws is no more than their darting out of their mouths.

I sorry you don't understand, selling something in the past is not the standard under the Oregon law (which is the case I assume you are referring to since you mention prior purchase of goods).

The business was denying full and equal access to goods and services normally offered. The fact that two years prior Sweetcakes had sold a wedding cake for the mother's wedding is irrelevant to their refusal to sell a similar product to the lesbian couple.

§ 659A.403¹

Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.

ORS 659A.403 - Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

>>>>

 

[rdean]

Republicans really do want gays dead. Maybe not all of the Republicans want gays dead. Probably the Log Cabin doesn't.

 

[martybegan]

if they can find alternatives easy enough, no one.

Ah...but they have qualifiers that gays don't get? What if gays can't "find alternatives easy enough"?

I already stated that if the discrimination is systemic, i.e. a majority of bakers in an area won't cater to gay weddings, then government has compelling interest, because there is actual harm.

So we need a new government agency under your "plan" to monitor and ensure there are enough bakers, florists and photographers in a given area so that a gay will have someplace to purchase these items?

And then we're still back to some people get to be bigots and some don't...based solely on the type of business they go in to?

Yeah, that's so much simpler than nobody gets to discriminate.

Not at all, the Courts or agencies just have to take into account actual harm done to the complainants, not just the act of denying service. You keep ignoring that people do have rights to free exercise of religion, and nowhere in the constitution does it say commerce trumps that right by default. Without showing actual harm, 1st amendment protections have to hold sway.

If your argument is that it would be "too hard", one can argue that we should repeal the 4th amendment because it makes government's job "too hard".

My argument is not that it's too hard, my argument is that is it immeasurably more unfair if only some businesses get to discriminate.

And for your "plan" to work, the Civil Rights Act DOES need to have Title II repealed first.

Ruining people over "unfair" without any actual harm is crazy.

Why would it have to be repealed?

 

[martybegan]

Can you link the part where MK actually agreed to providing a cake for a "commitment ceremony?"

This is why I don't do links. I've linked to this SEVERAL times before. You guys keep pretending you didn't see it.

Bittersweet Cake

Rachel and Laurel say Melissa Klein knew they were a lesbian couple, but nonetheless invited them back to her bakery.

Laurel:Actually [Melissa Klein] said, "Have you thought about getting married?" and Rachel said, "Oh no, I'm never getting married." And we just made the joke about it, and she said, "Well, if you decide to, come back." And that was the last thing we really said about it.

Now this sounds credible. The wife was cool with it, knew they were lesbians and tried to drum up more business. The husband was one of these Christian ASSHOLES who acted like a jerk. Probably gave the old lady a couple of black eyes for thinking for herself.

I notice you had to make shit up at the end, asshole.

 

[martybegan]

I was picked on as the smartest kid in my grade school for 8 years. I know what it feels like. I got over it. The difference there is I suffered actual harm, and the gay couple in this case suffered nothing more than hurt feelings and a phone call to another baker.

So what special education class were you the smartest kid in, Corky?

Nice attempt at an insult there oxygen thief, but I've probably taken shits that have more intellect that what is found in your vapid fascist head hole.

 

[martybegan]

Not at all, the Courts or agencies just have to take into account actual harm done to the complainants, not just the act of denying service. You keep ignoring that people do have rights to free exercise of religion, and nowhere in the constitution does it say commerce trumps that right by default. Without showing actual harm, 1st amendment protections have to hold sway.

People have the right to free excercise of religion (at least until we start an active campaign to stamp out bronze age superstitions, which can't start soon enough). Businesses do not. If your business interests conflict with your backward ass superstitions, then you should get out of that business.

Who gets to decide that rule? The 1st amendment protects people, and people own businesses.

Also, go to hell you fascist bigoted twat.

 

[martybegan]

I agree, I'm just being irrational to piss JoeBlow off.

Guy, your grasping to find completely irrelevent examples doesn't piss me off.

Makes me tired because you keep saying the same retarded things like you've made a point, maybe.

This coming from the king of repetitive fascist statements....

Don't you have a Mormon puppy to kick somewhere?

 

[martybegan]

if they can find alternatives easy enough, no one.

Ah...but they have qualifiers that gays don't get? What if gays can't "find alternatives easy enough"?

I already stated that if the discrimination is systemic, i.e. a majority of bakers in an area won't cater to gay weddings, then government has compelling interest, because there is actual harm.

So we need a new government agency under your "plan" to monitor and ensure there are enough bakers, florists and photographers in a given area so that a gay will have someplace to purchase these items?

And then we're still back to some people get to be bigots and some don't...based solely on the type of business they go in to?

Yeah, that's so much simpler than nobody gets to discriminate.

Not at all, the Courts or agencies just have to take into account actual harm done to the complainants, not just the act of denying service. You keep ignoring that people do have rights to free exercise of religion, and nowhere in the constitution does it say commerce trumps that right by default. Without showing actual harm, 1st amendment protections have to hold sway.

If your argument is that it would be "too hard", one can argue that we should repeal the 4th amendment because it makes government's job "too hard".

Wrong.

You keep ignoring the fact that religious belief is not ‘justification’ to violate just and proper laws, such as public accommodations laws, where being subject to punitive measures for indeed violating just and proper laws does not interfere with the free exercise of religion.

And nowhere in Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence will you find case law allowing citizens to violate just and proper laws because they believe doing so conflicts with their religious beliefs.

Again, another person just quoting the mechanics of the law and not talking about the reasoning behind it.

Government should not be able to punish others over hurt feelings.

 

[JoeB131]

I notice you had to make shit up at the end, asshole.

I call it making a reasonable inference. YOu look at this case, it's the husband who went on the homophobic tirade that caused the complaint. It was the husband who published their address on social media. It's the husband running around on all the hate radio shows making a stink.

Poor Mrs. Klein probably just wanted a nice little bakery, and her husband managed to fuck that up on her.

 

[JoeB131]

This coming from the king of repetitive fascist statements....

Don't you have a Mormon puppy to kick somewhere?

Naw, kicking Mormon PUppies was yesterday. Today is making fun of Libertarians who want to live in a civilized society without playing by the rules.