For all the Bigoted Bakers, Fanatical Florists and Pharisee Photographers

[martybegan]

No, I am not and nothing I have posted leads any rational person to that conclusion. That I refuse to throw out basic rights to solve an issue does not make me a hater.

And the victims here are the bakers, not me.

Basic rights? I would think that is the right to be treated as an equal human being, not to be discriminated against and to be able to shop t the store of your choosing.

The government has to treat everyone equally. When the South went Jim Crow, they used government to discriminate, and were rightly punished for it after 80 or so years too long. But using the tools that were needed to end this for something as minor as this is mis-use of them, and a threat to freedom of thought, and action, and religion.

Discrimination is never acceptable. The bottom line is, you are not forced to do anything. If you cannot accommodate the public because of your superstitions, then don't go into the business. Simple.

Yes, they are. Either comply or go out of business. that isn't a choice when backed by government ultimatum.

exactly. The states retain the right to regulate business practice.

Tempered by the individual rights granted by the Bill of Rights, and incorporated by the 14th amendment onto the States.

 

[JoeB131]

The government has to treat everyone equally. When the South went Jim Crow, they used government to discriminate, and were rightly punished for it after 80 or so years too long. But using the tools that were needed to end this for something as minor as this is mis-use of them, and a threat to freedom of thought, and action, and religion.

The way to end this was for the Kleins to apologize. Instead they teamed up with a hate group and tried to make the lives of this couple miserable. And now they are whining because it backfired on them.

 

[JoeB131]

These laws were to protect from systemic discrimination, not people of morals wanting not to participate in a wedding. You have stretched the term PA to cover everything, when it was never meant to cover everything.

It doesn't cover "everything". it did clearly cover this situation.

Oregon includes sexual orientation in its PA laws. Legally, the Kleins don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[PratchettFan]

Then stores that run "by appointment only" have to let people in no matter what?

You could do that maybe. Get all of your appointments on referral. If you advertise though you can't then deny people appointments.

What if you advertise you only work Opposite Sex weddings? or only Muslim Weddings?

I'm pretty sure you could advertise that you bake for traditional Christian weddings and you won't have a problem as long as you do only bake for traditional Christian weddings.

Not under the Oregon law.

Links?

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

If you only serve Christian weddings then you are denying service to non-Christians.

 

[PratchettFan]

I am just wondering how far you are willing to take your strict adherence to the Bible in doing your business.

Okay. So you don't want to provide wedding services to gay folks because Leviticus 18:22 says so.

Well, why stop there?

The Bible also says that adultery and sex before marriage are wrong. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 is very clear a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night shall be stoned. Admittedly, it might be a bit harsh to determine who is a virgin, but you could at least eliminate the 50% of women who live with their boyfriends before marriage.

Okay, next up, we need to talk about what you are wearing, Girlfriend. Deuteronomy 22:5 says that a woman shall not wear clothing meant for a man. That means all you ladies who wear slacks and jeans and pantsuits! Clearly, a truly biblical business can't work for such sinners!

and if that's too "Old Testament" for you, 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3 both state women should wear neither braids nor jewelry. so if they plan to wear any of that at their wedding, clearly it would offend your magic fairy in the sky to no end.

Hey, and Heaven forbid that they be one of those "liberated" women who write their own vows at a wedding.

Ephesians 5:22-24 says that they should totally submit to their husbands, and 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 says they should keep their mouths shut in church.

So really, now that you've eliminated about 99% of your potential customers, you can no doubt say that your objections to serving gays was really about the Bible... because you are also following all the other rules the bible sets down.

The thing is, people don't have to believe what you think they should believe. That does not change the validity of their belief.

You miss the point - the so-called "christians" pick and choose their beliefs based on their own fears.

I don't miss the point. Everyone is free to believe what they believe. They are under no obligation to meet whatever standards you think they should meet. They don't have to justify it to you or to anyone else.

 

[martybegan]

The government has to treat everyone equally. When the South went Jim Crow, they used government to discriminate, and were rightly punished for it after 80 or so years too long. But using the tools that were needed to end this for something as minor as this is mis-use of them, and a threat to freedom of thought, and action, and religion.

The way to end this was for the Kleins to apologize. Instead they teamed up with a hate group and tried to make the lives of this couple miserable. And now they are whining because it backfired on them.

They have nothing to apologize for. They did not try to make said couple's lives miserable. You have to demonize anyone that disagrees with you, and that's sad.

 

[martybegan]

These laws were to protect from systemic discrimination, not people of morals wanting not to participate in a wedding. You have stretched the term PA to cover everything, when it was never meant to cover everything.

It doesn't cover "everything". it did clearly cover this situation.

Oregon includes sexual orientation in its PA laws. Legally, the Kleins don't have a leg to stand on.

Neither did MLK when he broke all those segregation laws.

Appeal to authority when the authority is wrong is a weak debating tactic.

 

[ChrisL]

These laws were to protect from systemic discrimination, not people of morals wanting not to participate in a wedding. You have stretched the term PA to cover everything, when it was never meant to cover everything.

It doesn't cover "everything". it did clearly cover this situation.

Oregon includes sexual orientation in its PA laws. Legally, the Kleins don't have a leg to stand on.

Neither did MLK when he broke all those segregation laws.

Appeal to authority when the authority is wrong is a weak debating tactic.

What is weak is you thinking you have any right to control where people shop or who they marry. Like I've said several times already today to try to get it through your thick skull. Gay people work, they pay taxes and contribute to the economy. Why on earth should they be denied any of the rights or privileges any other American enjoys? In what world do your religious convictions apply to other people?

 

[bodecea]

How about you stop being stupid and ignorant? Oh wait a minute, I forgot where I was for a minute. Lol.

It's sad when someone runs out of actual responses. Keep thrashing.

It's sad when you have to have a group of people to hate. Women had to fight against people like you for rights, black people had to fight against people like you for rights, and now gay people have to fight against people like you for rights. Which group are you going to hate on next? I mean, you are running out of groups to focus your hatred and insecurities upon! Uh-oh!

I don't hate anyone. What I despise is people looking for the easy way to solve perceived problems. And here the easy way is to use government to crush people you don't like. You have far more in common with those idiots who passed Jim Crow laws than I do, and the sad thing is you can't see that.

I despise you not for what you are, but who you are, and who you are is a controlling bigoted progressive asshat.

You are a hater. If you don't have a group of people to treat like crap, you aren't happy. I think that much is quite clear. You even go so far as to try to convince others that YOU are the victim. Lol.

No, I am not and nothing I have posted leads any rational person to that conclusion. That I refuse to throw out basic rights to solve an issue does not make me a hater.

And the victims here are the bakers, not me.

So...people who break the law are victims? Interesting take.

 

[martybegan]

These laws were to protect from systemic discrimination, not people of morals wanting not to participate in a wedding. You have stretched the term PA to cover everything, when it was never meant to cover everything.

It doesn't cover "everything". it did clearly cover this situation.

Oregon includes sexual orientation in its PA laws. Legally, the Kleins don't have a leg to stand on.

Neither did MLK when he broke all those segregation laws.

Appeal to authority when the authority is wrong is a weak debating tactic.

What is weak is you thinking you have any right to control where people shop or who they marry. Like I've said several times already today to try to get it through your thick skull. Gay people work, they pay taxes and contribute to the economy. Why on earth should they be denied any of the rights or privileges any other American enjoys? In what world do your religious convictions apply to other people?

You think you have the right to control how people work and make a living, and that overrides any right they have to decide how they want to do it.

Everyone works, pays taxes, etc. That doesn't mean government can ignore its own limits on what it can do to people, not matter how much you want to make people conform to your moral code

 

[martybegan]

It's sad when someone runs out of actual responses. Keep thrashing.

It's sad when you have to have a group of people to hate. Women had to fight against people like you for rights, black people had to fight against people like you for rights, and now gay people have to fight against people like you for rights. Which group are you going to hate on next? I mean, you are running out of groups to focus your hatred and insecurities upon! Uh-oh!

I don't hate anyone. What I despise is people looking for the easy way to solve perceived problems. And here the easy way is to use government to crush people you don't like. You have far more in common with those idiots who passed Jim Crow laws than I do, and the sad thing is you can't see that.

I despise you not for what you are, but who you are, and who you are is a controlling bigoted progressive asshat.

You are a hater. If you don't have a group of people to treat like crap, you aren't happy. I think that much is quite clear. You even go so far as to try to convince others that YOU are the victim. Lol.

No, I am not and nothing I have posted leads any rational person to that conclusion. That I refuse to throw out basic rights to solve an issue does not make me a hater.

And the victims here are the bakers, not me.

So...people who break the law are victims? Interesting take.

So MLK wasn't a victim of an unjust law?

 

[ChrisL]

These laws were to protect from systemic discrimination, not people of morals wanting not to participate in a wedding. You have stretched the term PA to cover everything, when it was never meant to cover everything.

It doesn't cover "everything". it did clearly cover this situation.

Oregon includes sexual orientation in its PA laws. Legally, the Kleins don't have a leg to stand on.

Neither did MLK when he broke all those segregation laws.

Appeal to authority when the authority is wrong is a weak debating tactic.

What is weak is you thinking you have any right to control where people shop or who they marry. Like I've said several times already today to try to get it through your thick skull. Gay people work, they pay taxes and contribute to the economy. Why on earth should they be denied any of the rights or privileges any other American enjoys? In what world do your religious convictions apply to other people?

You think you have the right to control how people work and make a living, and that overrides any right they have to decide how they want to do it.

Everyone works, pays taxes, etc. That doesn't mean government can ignore its own limits on what it can do to people, not matter how much you want to make people conform to your moral code

No I don't, but the state does have a right to say how you conduct business and when you are violating another person's rights. My moral code? Live and let live.

 

[ChrisL]

It's sad when you have to have a group of people to hate. Women had to fight against people like you for rights, black people had to fight against people like you for rights, and now gay people have to fight against people like you for rights. Which group are you going to hate on next? I mean, you are running out of groups to focus your hatred and insecurities upon! Uh-oh!

I don't hate anyone. What I despise is people looking for the easy way to solve perceived problems. And here the easy way is to use government to crush people you don't like. You have far more in common with those idiots who passed Jim Crow laws than I do, and the sad thing is you can't see that.

I despise you not for what you are, but who you are, and who you are is a controlling bigoted progressive asshat.

You are a hater. If you don't have a group of people to treat like crap, you aren't happy. I think that much is quite clear. You even go so far as to try to convince others that YOU are the victim. Lol.

No, I am not and nothing I have posted leads any rational person to that conclusion. That I refuse to throw out basic rights to solve an issue does not make me a hater.

And the victims here are the bakers, not me.

So...people who break the law are victims? Interesting take.

So MLK wasn't a victim of an unjust law?

Interesting! What was the "unjust" law?

 

[ChrisL]

It's sad when you have to have a group of people to hate. Women had to fight against people like you for rights, black people had to fight against people like you for rights, and now gay people have to fight against people like you for rights. Which group are you going to hate on next? I mean, you are running out of groups to focus your hatred and insecurities upon! Uh-oh!

I don't hate anyone. What I despise is people looking for the easy way to solve perceived problems. And here the easy way is to use government to crush people you don't like. You have far more in common with those idiots who passed Jim Crow laws than I do, and the sad thing is you can't see that.

I despise you not for what you are, but who you are, and who you are is a controlling bigoted progressive asshat.

You are a hater. If you don't have a group of people to treat like crap, you aren't happy. I think that much is quite clear. You even go so far as to try to convince others that YOU are the victim. Lol.

No, I am not and nothing I have posted leads any rational person to that conclusion. That I refuse to throw out basic rights to solve an issue does not make me a hater.

And the victims here are the bakers, not me.

So...people who break the law are victims? Interesting take.

So MLK wasn't a victim of an unjust law?

I wonder if you think that the bigots haven't already thought of and tried your approach? Lol. Sorry, but your religious freedom ends when you violate another person's civil rights or when you discriminate against a group of people. That is just the way it is here in our secular society, and that is the way it should be. Your religious beliefs don't give you a right to skirt the law. It is NOT your religious right to treat other people like shit.

 

[Ringel05]

Soooo, Jo(ke)Butt created a thread that has this many responses.......? You're kidding me, right? What a bunch of dupes!!!

 

[martybegan]

These laws were to protect from systemic discrimination, not people of morals wanting not to participate in a wedding. You have stretched the term PA to cover everything, when it was never meant to cover everything.

It doesn't cover "everything". it did clearly cover this situation.

Oregon includes sexual orientation in its PA laws. Legally, the Kleins don't have a leg to stand on.

Neither did MLK when he broke all those segregation laws.

Appeal to authority when the authority is wrong is a weak debating tactic.

What is weak is you thinking you have any right to control where people shop or who they marry. Like I've said several times already today to try to get it through your thick skull. Gay people work, they pay taxes and contribute to the economy. Why on earth should they be denied any of the rights or privileges any other American enjoys? In what world do your religious convictions apply to other people?

You think you have the right to control how people work and make a living, and that overrides any right they have to decide how they want to do it.

Everyone works, pays taxes, etc. That doesn't mean government can ignore its own limits on what it can do to people, not matter how much you want to make people conform to your moral code

No I don't, but the state does have a right to say how you conduct business and when you are violating another person's rights. My moral code? Live and let live.

Only if there is actual harm, and it has to take into account the rights of the people running the business.

And you are not going anywhere near live and let live. You are telling people to either submit to your moral code, or have government ruin them. You are not asking, or debating, or trying to convince, you cheer on as the government uses its power like a gun down their throat, and a finger on the trigger.

 

[ChrisL]

It doesn't cover "everything". it did clearly cover this situation.

Oregon includes sexual orientation in its PA laws. Legally, the Kleins don't have a leg to stand on.

Neither did MLK when he broke all those segregation laws.

Appeal to authority when the authority is wrong is a weak debating tactic.

What is weak is you thinking you have any right to control where people shop or who they marry. Like I've said several times already today to try to get it through your thick skull. Gay people work, they pay taxes and contribute to the economy. Why on earth should they be denied any of the rights or privileges any other American enjoys? In what world do your religious convictions apply to other people?

You think you have the right to control how people work and make a living, and that overrides any right they have to decide how they want to do it.

Everyone works, pays taxes, etc. That doesn't mean government can ignore its own limits on what it can do to people, not matter how much you want to make people conform to your moral code

No I don't, but the state does have a right to say how you conduct business and when you are violating another person's rights. My moral code? Live and let live.

Only if there is actual harm, and it has to take into account the rights of the people running the business.

And you are not going anywhere near live and let live. You are telling people to either submit to your moral code, or have government ruin them. You are not asking, or debating, or trying to convince, you cheer on as the government uses its power like a gun down their throat, and a finger on the trigger.

The state sees discrimination as harmful to business practice. This also effects their bottom line, so they have a vested interest in preventing ignorant people from discriminating against others.

Not to mention, it violates other people's civil rights. No, you don't get to dictate where people shop. You do not have that right. What makes you think you do? I don't know. It's a mystery to me as to why you think you should be able to discriminate against certain sectors of the population while doing business. You do not have that right, and this has been a clearly established law (that has been challenged, and they failed) for a long time now.

 

[martybegan]

I don't hate anyone. What I despise is people looking for the easy way to solve perceived problems. And here the easy way is to use government to crush people you don't like. You have far more in common with those idiots who passed Jim Crow laws than I do, and the sad thing is you can't see that.

I despise you not for what you are, but who you are, and who you are is a controlling bigoted progressive asshat.

You are a hater. If you don't have a group of people to treat like crap, you aren't happy. I think that much is quite clear. You even go so far as to try to convince others that YOU are the victim. Lol.

No, I am not and nothing I have posted leads any rational person to that conclusion. That I refuse to throw out basic rights to solve an issue does not make me a hater.

And the victims here are the bakers, not me.

So...people who break the law are victims? Interesting take.

So MLK wasn't a victim of an unjust law?

I wonder if you think that the bigots haven't already thought of and tried your approach? Lol. Sorry, but your religious freedom ends when you violate another person's civil rights or when you discriminate against a group of people. That is just the way it is here in our secular society, and that is the way it should be. Your religious beliefs don't give you a right to skirt the law. It is NOT your religious right to treat other people like shit.

Civil rights involve interacting with government, not with some baker.

And it is not government's right to treat others like shit for THEIR religious beliefs.

 

[martybegan]

Neither did MLK when he broke all those segregation laws.

Appeal to authority when the authority is wrong is a weak debating tactic.

What is weak is you thinking you have any right to control where people shop or who they marry. Like I've said several times already today to try to get it through your thick skull. Gay people work, they pay taxes and contribute to the economy. Why on earth should they be denied any of the rights or privileges any other American enjoys? In what world do your religious convictions apply to other people?

You think you have the right to control how people work and make a living, and that overrides any right they have to decide how they want to do it.

Everyone works, pays taxes, etc. That doesn't mean government can ignore its own limits on what it can do to people, not matter how much you want to make people conform to your moral code

No I don't, but the state does have a right to say how you conduct business and when you are violating another person's rights. My moral code? Live and let live.

Only if there is actual harm, and it has to take into account the rights of the people running the business.

And you are not going anywhere near live and let live. You are telling people to either submit to your moral code, or have government ruin them. You are not asking, or debating, or trying to convince, you cheer on as the government uses its power like a gun down their throat, and a finger on the trigger.

The state sees discrimination as harmful to business practice. This also effects their bottom line, so they have a vested interest in preventing ignorant people from discriminating against others.

The state can see anything it want's as harmful to business practices. That is a non-answer, and does not eliminate a person's own rights just because they want to sell something. There has to be a compelling government interest, not the interest of some people to force their moral code on others.

 

[ChrisL]

It doesn't cover "everything". it did clearly cover this situation.

Oregon includes sexual orientation in its PA laws. Legally, the Kleins don't have a leg to stand on.

Neither did MLK when he broke all those segregation laws.

Appeal to authority when the authority is wrong is a weak debating tactic.

What is weak is you thinking you have any right to control where people shop or who they marry. Like I've said several times already today to try to get it through your thick skull. Gay people work, they pay taxes and contribute to the economy. Why on earth should they be denied any of the rights or privileges any other American enjoys? In what world do your religious convictions apply to other people?

You think you have the right to control how people work and make a living, and that overrides any right they have to decide how they want to do it.

Everyone works, pays taxes, etc. That doesn't mean government can ignore its own limits on what it can do to people, not matter how much you want to make people conform to your moral code

No I don't, but the state does have a right to say how you conduct business and when you are violating another person's rights. My moral code? Live and let live.

Only if there is actual harm, and it has to take into account the rights of the people running the business.

And you are not going anywhere near live and let live. You are telling people to either submit to your moral code, or have government ruin them. You are not asking, or debating, or trying to convince, you cheer on as the government uses its power like a gun down their throat, and a finger on the trigger.

Look, the more you speak, the more you show your ignorance of the law.