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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Politically correct Bullshit and you fall right in line...this people could simply go to other bakeryIt depends on whether or not they offer their signs for that purpose.So you couldn't refuse, as a gay printer, printing a billboard that quotes a bible passage condemning homosexuality, as long as you already print billboards with other messages?
I think they have a much better argument in court than the baker does.
Why would purpose come into play? Aren't you the one saying "a cake is a cake is a cake?
The point has been explained multiple times.
A cake is a cake. A cake can't be gay, political or religious. It is a cake.
Advertising is speech. It is a message. As the owner of the billboard, I decide what gets displayed. If I don't offer my billboards for political or religious statements then I don't offer that service. That is not discrimination based on race, gender, religion or sexual preference. If A church wants to advertise their church, fine I offer that. But I will not post religious political statements. Is that hard to understand?
Apparently it is very very difficult for some people to understand that this is not the 1950s and no, they are not allowed to discriminate in their business practices. I think these people got left behind in the 1950s or something. It's really strange that they would think their religious preoccupations would have any role in the laws related to fair business practice, civil rights, and anti discrimination. Apparently, they also miss the fact that the anti discrimination laws were created just BECAUSE of people who made the exact same claims that they are making. The states realized that this unfriendly and hostile environment creates for bad business, and that is what compels the state.
I think one could still get around it by only offering cakes decorated specifically for Christian ceremonies. Crosses, bible verses, etc.Links?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.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?
Not under the Oregon law.
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.
They wouldn't have to drive very far. Lets try to keep it real ok?And now gay people have to drive around finding a place to bake them a cake. What next, not allowed at hotels because the owner is a fundie?I don't believe pornography is a protected class, so that is a non-issue. Let us not move away from what the actual scenario is. A customer wants you to put up a billboard, which is the service you provide, stating that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God. That is an expression of religious belief and religion is a protected class. The Oregon law prohibits your refusing taking on that job because you don't like the message.
I don't know if you are dumb, willfully ignorant or just dishonest. The law this couple broke has nothing to do with the product they provide. They are entitled to control their product. What they CANNOT do is refuse to sell to a segment of the community. This couple violated antidiscrimination laws by stating that they will NOT sell their product to gay people because it goes against their religious beliefs. The state does not recognize their religious beliefs as a valid argument to discriminate against a certain segment of the population. Do you get it yet?
The State is wrong, and the law is wrong. do you get it?
It's not wrong. The state realizes that it is bad business practice to allow businesses to discriminate. It would cost the state money in the long run. It would be an unfriendly environment for many consumers. I'm sorry that you know nothing of business or law. It's really sad and pathetic, this position that you are defending. Shame on you. States have rights when it comes to business practices, especially fair business practice, it effects the state's bottom line too.
Also, you can damn well refuse to perform a service for a customer that is out of the ordinary, especially if you can show the court that it would hurt your business earnings potential, hurt or offend a portion of your customer base, but this is all on a secular and monetary basis. You cannot claim "religious freedom" to discriminate when it comes to your business practices because it is illegal, and I believe you will find that is the case in ALL states. They are not as dumb as you.
Finally a response, but of course followed by appeal to authority (in bold).
And none of the reasons you gave were the reason for PA laws in the first place. Again, they were tools to fight systemic government mandated discrimination, and the remnants of such after the laws enforcing them were voided.
Here is an editorial basically re-hashing my view on this.
Be Kind To Bigots Repeal the Anti-Discrimination Laws
If you say this, as I just did, you can expect to be accused of being a bigot and basically a defender of segregation and Jim Crow. This is because the gay rights movement long ago declared itself to be the successor to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s—complete with the idea that its opponents are just as evil and deserve to be treated with exactly as little tolerance.
This was always an overblown comparison. The original context for anti-discrimination laws was the need to tear down a comprehensive system of legally enforced exclusion and inferiority. It was not just about white people refusing to bake a cake for a black couple’s wedding. They were required to refuse blacks a whole range of services as a matter of law. Shelby Steele has written about taking family road trips as a kid, and how they couldn’t just pull into a new town and go straight to the nearest restaurant or hotel. Instead, they would drive around until they saw another black person, then ask for directions to the places that would serve people of their color. That’s how all-pervasive the system was.
It depends on whether or not they offer their signs for that purpose.No, it isn't. It is exactly the same thing. If you sell a product or a service then you cannot refuse to sell that product or service to someone when it falls within a protected class. What that product or service might be is irrelevant.
I can certainly say as a printer that I do not offer porn as a product. That is not discrimination based on race, gender, religion or sexual preference. It's my company policy. You cannot demand that I sell a product I don't offer. A bakery that sells wedding cakes, sells wedding cakes. They have every right to tell me that they won't make a penis shaped cake if they don't offer that. They cannot however refuse to sell me cake #23 from their catalog on the grounds that it's for a gay wedding. That is discrimination. It is in no way the same.
So you couldn't refuse, as a gay printer, printing a billboard that quotes a bible passage condemning homosexuality, as long as you already print billboards with other messages?
I think they have a much better argument in court than the baker does.
Why would purpose come into play? Aren't you the one saying "a cake is a cake is a cake?
The point has been explained multiple times.
A cake is a cake. A cake can't be gay, political or religious. It is a cake.
Advertising is speech. It is a message. As the owner of the billboard, I decide what gets displayed. If I don't offer my billboards for political or religious statements then I don't offer that service. That is not discrimination based on race, gender, religion or sexual preference. If A church wants to advertise their church, fine I offer that. But I will not post religious political statements. Is that hard to understand?
It depends on whether or not they offer their signs for that purpose.I can certainly say as a printer that I do not offer porn as a product. That is not discrimination based on race, gender, religion or sexual preference. It's my company policy. You cannot demand that I sell a product I don't offer. A bakery that sells wedding cakes, sells wedding cakes. They have every right to tell me that they won't make a penis shaped cake if they don't offer that. They cannot however refuse to sell me cake #23 from their catalog on the grounds that it's for a gay wedding. That is discrimination. It is in no way the same.
So you couldn't refuse, as a gay printer, printing a billboard that quotes a bible passage condemning homosexuality, as long as you already print billboards with other messages?
I think they have a much better argument in court than the baker does.
Why would purpose come into play? Aren't you the one saying "a cake is a cake is a cake?
The point has been explained multiple times.
A cake is a cake. A cake can't be gay, political or religious. It is a cake.
Advertising is speech. It is a message. As the owner of the billboard, I decide what gets displayed. If I don't offer my billboards for political or religious statements then I don't offer that service. That is not discrimination based on race, gender, religion or sexual preference. If A church wants to advertise their church, fine I offer that. But I will not post religious political statements. Is that hard to understand?
I'd say that text on a cake would be speech. But the cake itself? Its just cake.
Neither would black people in a city back in the day. As long as they kept to their own neighborhoods.They wouldn't have to drive very far. Lets try to keep it real ok?And now gay people have to drive around finding a place to bake them a cake. What next, not allowed at hotels because the owner is a fundie?I don't know if you are dumb, willfully ignorant or just dishonest. The law this couple broke has nothing to do with the product they provide. They are entitled to control their product. What they CANNOT do is refuse to sell to a segment of the community. This couple violated antidiscrimination laws by stating that they will NOT sell their product to gay people because it goes against their religious beliefs. The state does not recognize their religious beliefs as a valid argument to discriminate against a certain segment of the population. Do you get it yet?
The State is wrong, and the law is wrong. do you get it?
It's not wrong. The state realizes that it is bad business practice to allow businesses to discriminate. It would cost the state money in the long run. It would be an unfriendly environment for many consumers. I'm sorry that you know nothing of business or law. It's really sad and pathetic, this position that you are defending. Shame on you. States have rights when it comes to business practices, especially fair business practice, it effects the state's bottom line too.
Also, you can damn well refuse to perform a service for a customer that is out of the ordinary, especially if you can show the court that it would hurt your business earnings potential, hurt or offend a portion of your customer base, but this is all on a secular and monetary basis. You cannot claim "religious freedom" to discriminate when it comes to your business practices because it is illegal, and I believe you will find that is the case in ALL states. They are not as dumb as you.
Finally a response, but of course followed by appeal to authority (in bold).
And none of the reasons you gave were the reason for PA laws in the first place. Again, they were tools to fight systemic government mandated discrimination, and the remnants of such after the laws enforcing them were voided.
Here is an editorial basically re-hashing my view on this.
Be Kind To Bigots Repeal the Anti-Discrimination Laws
If you say this, as I just did, you can expect to be accused of being a bigot and basically a defender of segregation and Jim Crow. This is because the gay rights movement long ago declared itself to be the successor to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s—complete with the idea that its opponents are just as evil and deserve to be treated with exactly as little tolerance.
This was always an overblown comparison. The original context for anti-discrimination laws was the need to tear down a comprehensive system of legally enforced exclusion and inferiority. It was not just about white people refusing to bake a cake for a black couple’s wedding. They were required to refuse blacks a whole range of services as a matter of law. Shelby Steele has written about taking family road trips as a kid, and how they couldn’t just pull into a new town and go straight to the nearest restaurant or hotel. Instead, they would drive around until they saw another black person, then ask for directions to the places that would serve people of their color. That’s how all-pervasive the system was.
They wouldn't have to drive very far. Lets try to keep it real ok?And now gay people have to drive around finding a place to bake them a cake. What next, not allowed at hotels because the owner is a fundie?I don't know if you are dumb, willfully ignorant or just dishonest. The law this couple broke has nothing to do with the product they provide. They are entitled to control their product. What they CANNOT do is refuse to sell to a segment of the community. This couple violated antidiscrimination laws by stating that they will NOT sell their product to gay people because it goes against their religious beliefs. The state does not recognize their religious beliefs as a valid argument to discriminate against a certain segment of the population. Do you get it yet?
The State is wrong, and the law is wrong. do you get it?
It's not wrong. The state realizes that it is bad business practice to allow businesses to discriminate. It would cost the state money in the long run. It would be an unfriendly environment for many consumers. I'm sorry that you know nothing of business or law. It's really sad and pathetic, this position that you are defending. Shame on you. States have rights when it comes to business practices, especially fair business practice, it effects the state's bottom line too.
Also, you can damn well refuse to perform a service for a customer that is out of the ordinary, especially if you can show the court that it would hurt your business earnings potential, hurt or offend a portion of your customer base, but this is all on a secular and monetary basis. You cannot claim "religious freedom" to discriminate when it comes to your business practices because it is illegal, and I believe you will find that is the case in ALL states. They are not as dumb as you.
Finally a response, but of course followed by appeal to authority (in bold).
And none of the reasons you gave were the reason for PA laws in the first place. Again, they were tools to fight systemic government mandated discrimination, and the remnants of such after the laws enforcing them were voided.
Here is an editorial basically re-hashing my view on this.
Be Kind To Bigots Repeal the Anti-Discrimination Laws
If you say this, as I just did, you can expect to be accused of being a bigot and basically a defender of segregation and Jim Crow. This is because the gay rights movement long ago declared itself to be the successor to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s—complete with the idea that its opponents are just as evil and deserve to be treated with exactly as little tolerance.
This was always an overblown comparison. The original context for anti-discrimination laws was the need to tear down a comprehensive system of legally enforced exclusion and inferiority. It was not just about white people refusing to bake a cake for a black couple’s wedding. They were required to refuse blacks a whole range of services as a matter of law. Shelby Steele has written about taking family road trips as a kid, and how they couldn’t just pull into a new town and go straight to the nearest restaurant or hotel. Instead, they would drive around until they saw another black person, then ask for directions to the places that would serve people of their color. That’s how all-pervasive the system was.
Exactly.if you are served by the taxpayer-funded, infrastructure then you serve the public PERIOD
Otherwise run your little club in a church basement
End of story
It must be rough for you to think logically, instead of emotionally, leftist have that problemSorry that you can't express your hatred for certain groups of human beings in your business dealings. Must be rough for you.
It must be rough for you to think logically, instead of emotionally, leftist have that problemSorry that you can't express your hatred for certain groups of human beings in your business dealings. Must be rough for you.
This is your mind on drugs.How would a baker, florist or photographer know if someone was divorced, a virgin, if they lived with someone? Another epic fail because you didn't THINK before you spewed.
How would they know? Well, in order to register, they have to get the address of the people they are working with, and if the bride and groom have the same address, they'd know they lived together, wouldn't they.
I didn't even hit on divorce, mostly because the bible is all over the map on that subject. But if the baker said, "Hey, weren't you in here two years ago with some other dude?" they'd know.
As far as knowing if someone is a virgin, Well, the bible has that totally covered.
22:13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
22:14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
22:15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
22:16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
22:17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity.And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
22:18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
22:19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
22:20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die:because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
Right? I mean, that's totally in the bible, and Jesus didn't change the rules, did he?
Nope. WE changed the rules. Just like we changed the rules on homosexuality.
You stumbled out of the gate. Fell flat on your face. Thanks for playing
I think one could still get around it by only offering cakes decorated specifically for Christian ceremonies. Crosses, bible verses, etc.Links?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.What if you advertise you only work Opposite Sex weddings? or only Muslim Weddings?
Not under the Oregon law.
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.
They wouldn't have to drive very far. Lets try to keep it real ok?And now gay people have to drive around finding a place to bake them a cake. What next, not allowed at hotels because the owner is a fundie?The State is wrong, and the law is wrong. do you get it?
It's not wrong. The state realizes that it is bad business practice to allow businesses to discriminate. It would cost the state money in the long run. It would be an unfriendly environment for many consumers. I'm sorry that you know nothing of business or law. It's really sad and pathetic, this position that you are defending. Shame on you. States have rights when it comes to business practices, especially fair business practice, it effects the state's bottom line too.
Also, you can damn well refuse to perform a service for a customer that is out of the ordinary, especially if you can show the court that it would hurt your business earnings potential, hurt or offend a portion of your customer base, but this is all on a secular and monetary basis. You cannot claim "religious freedom" to discriminate when it comes to your business practices because it is illegal, and I believe you will find that is the case in ALL states. They are not as dumb as you.
Finally a response, but of course followed by appeal to authority (in bold).
And none of the reasons you gave were the reason for PA laws in the first place. Again, they were tools to fight systemic government mandated discrimination, and the remnants of such after the laws enforcing them were voided.
Here is an editorial basically re-hashing my view on this.
Be Kind To Bigots Repeal the Anti-Discrimination Laws
If you say this, as I just did, you can expect to be accused of being a bigot and basically a defender of segregation and Jim Crow. This is because the gay rights movement long ago declared itself to be the successor to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s—complete with the idea that its opponents are just as evil and deserve to be treated with exactly as little tolerance.
This was always an overblown comparison. The original context for anti-discrimination laws was the need to tear down a comprehensive system of legally enforced exclusion and inferiority. It was not just about white people refusing to bake a cake for a black couple’s wedding. They were required to refuse blacks a whole range of services as a matter of law. Shelby Steele has written about taking family road trips as a kid, and how they couldn’t just pull into a new town and go straight to the nearest restaurant or hotel. Instead, they would drive around until they saw another black person, then ask for directions to the places that would serve people of their color. That’s how all-pervasive the system was.
That is stupid as all hell. The point is that your personal religious superstitions are not recognized by the law to be a good enough reason to deny other's their civil rights, nor is it reason enough for you to disregard anti-discrimination laws. Now cry.
It depends on whether or not they offer their signs for that purpose.So you couldn't refuse, as a gay printer, printing a billboard that quotes a bible passage condemning homosexuality, as long as you already print billboards with other messages?
I think they have a much better argument in court than the baker does.
Why would purpose come into play? Aren't you the one saying "a cake is a cake is a cake?
The point has been explained multiple times.
A cake is a cake. A cake can't be gay, political or religious. It is a cake.
Advertising is speech. It is a message. As the owner of the billboard, I decide what gets displayed. If I don't offer my billboards for political or religious statements then I don't offer that service. That is not discrimination based on race, gender, religion or sexual preference. If A church wants to advertise their church, fine I offer that. But I will not post religious political statements. Is that hard to understand?
I'd say that text on a cake would be speech. But the cake itself? Its just cake.
I don't think there is usually text on wedding cakes but if there is I think the owner could have some say as to what they will or won't make. WalMart just pulled rebel flag cakes. If they don't offer it as a product they don't offer it.
They wouldn't have to drive very far. Lets try to keep it real ok?And now gay people have to drive around finding a place to bake them a cake. What next, not allowed at hotels because the owner is a fundie?It's not wrong. The state realizes that it is bad business practice to allow businesses to discriminate. It would cost the state money in the long run. It would be an unfriendly environment for many consumers. I'm sorry that you know nothing of business or law. It's really sad and pathetic, this position that you are defending. Shame on you. States have rights when it comes to business practices, especially fair business practice, it effects the state's bottom line too.
Also, you can damn well refuse to perform a service for a customer that is out of the ordinary, especially if you can show the court that it would hurt your business earnings potential, hurt or offend a portion of your customer base, but this is all on a secular and monetary basis. You cannot claim "religious freedom" to discriminate when it comes to your business practices because it is illegal, and I believe you will find that is the case in ALL states. They are not as dumb as you.
Finally a response, but of course followed by appeal to authority (in bold).
And none of the reasons you gave were the reason for PA laws in the first place. Again, they were tools to fight systemic government mandated discrimination, and the remnants of such after the laws enforcing them were voided.
Here is an editorial basically re-hashing my view on this.
Be Kind To Bigots Repeal the Anti-Discrimination Laws
If you say this, as I just did, you can expect to be accused of being a bigot and basically a defender of segregation and Jim Crow. This is because the gay rights movement long ago declared itself to be the successor to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s—complete with the idea that its opponents are just as evil and deserve to be treated with exactly as little tolerance.
This was always an overblown comparison. The original context for anti-discrimination laws was the need to tear down a comprehensive system of legally enforced exclusion and inferiority. It was not just about white people refusing to bake a cake for a black couple’s wedding. They were required to refuse blacks a whole range of services as a matter of law. Shelby Steele has written about taking family road trips as a kid, and how they couldn’t just pull into a new town and go straight to the nearest restaurant or hotel. Instead, they would drive around until they saw another black person, then ask for directions to the places that would serve people of their color. That’s how all-pervasive the system was.
That is stupid as all hell. The point is that your personal religious superstitions are not recognized by the law to be a good enough reason to deny other's their civil rights, nor is it reason enough for you to disregard anti-discrimination laws. Now cry.
there is no "civil right" that compels those people to perform any service for anyone, Which is why the case was thrown out of court.. Again try keep you emotional rambling out of it
They wouldn't have to drive very far. Lets try to keep it real ok?And now gay people have to drive around finding a place to bake them a cake. What next, not allowed at hotels because the owner is a fundie?It's not wrong. The state realizes that it is bad business practice to allow businesses to discriminate. It would cost the state money in the long run. It would be an unfriendly environment for many consumers. I'm sorry that you know nothing of business or law. It's really sad and pathetic, this position that you are defending. Shame on you. States have rights when it comes to business practices, especially fair business practice, it effects the state's bottom line too.
Also, you can damn well refuse to perform a service for a customer that is out of the ordinary, especially if you can show the court that it would hurt your business earnings potential, hurt or offend a portion of your customer base, but this is all on a secular and monetary basis. You cannot claim "religious freedom" to discriminate when it comes to your business practices because it is illegal, and I believe you will find that is the case in ALL states. They are not as dumb as you.
Finally a response, but of course followed by appeal to authority (in bold).
And none of the reasons you gave were the reason for PA laws in the first place. Again, they were tools to fight systemic government mandated discrimination, and the remnants of such after the laws enforcing them were voided.
Here is an editorial basically re-hashing my view on this.
Be Kind To Bigots Repeal the Anti-Discrimination Laws
If you say this, as I just did, you can expect to be accused of being a bigot and basically a defender of segregation and Jim Crow. This is because the gay rights movement long ago declared itself to be the successor to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s—complete with the idea that its opponents are just as evil and deserve to be treated with exactly as little tolerance.
This was always an overblown comparison. The original context for anti-discrimination laws was the need to tear down a comprehensive system of legally enforced exclusion and inferiority. It was not just about white people refusing to bake a cake for a black couple’s wedding. They were required to refuse blacks a whole range of services as a matter of law. Shelby Steele has written about taking family road trips as a kid, and how they couldn’t just pull into a new town and go straight to the nearest restaurant or hotel. Instead, they would drive around until they saw another black person, then ask for directions to the places that would serve people of their color. That’s how all-pervasive the system was.
That is stupid as all hell. The point is that your personal religious superstitions are not recognized by the law to be a good enough reason to deny other's their civil rights, nor is it reason enough for you to disregard anti-discrimination laws. Now cry.
there is no "civil right" that compels those people to perform any service for anyone, Which is why the case was thrown out of court.. Again try keep you emotional rambling out of it
It depends on whether or not they offer their signs for that purpose.So you couldn't refuse, as a gay printer, printing a billboard that quotes a bible passage condemning homosexuality, as long as you already print billboards with other messages?
I think they have a much better argument in court than the baker does.
Why would purpose come into play? Aren't you the one saying "a cake is a cake is a cake?
The point has been explained multiple times.
A cake is a cake. A cake can't be gay, political or religious. It is a cake.
Advertising is speech. It is a message. As the owner of the billboard, I decide what gets displayed. If I don't offer my billboards for political or religious statements then I don't offer that service. That is not discrimination based on race, gender, religion or sexual preference. If A church wants to advertise their church, fine I offer that. But I will not post religious political statements. Is that hard to understand?
I'd say that text on a cake would be speech. But the cake itself? Its just cake.
I don't think there is usually text on wedding cakes but if there is I think the owner could have some say as to what they will or won't make. WalMart just pulled rebel flag cakes. If they don't offer it as a product they don't offer it.
