For all the Bigoted Bakers, Fanatical Florists and Pharisee Photographers

[ChrisL]

Methinks the lady doth protest too much..

Nobody cares any more about your opinion on this than they do about your other opinions.

 

[Silhouette]

^^Methinks the lady doth protest too much ^^

It's well under way, thanks. I don't live in Oregon, but we're waking people up to this shit on a daily basis. Which comes back to marty's point. Every new 'protected class' that gets tacked on shines a brighter light on the rotten foundation of PA laws. It really isn't much of a fight. Just a matter of time.

Yep.

 

[dblack]

The law states that you cannot open a public accommodation business and refuse to serve a portion of the public for ANY reason.

Is that really what it says? Gotta link? That's pretty fucking insane, if it's true.

 

[ChrisL]

Better start trying to convince the government that they are wrong and that it is your right to treat people unequally, and to hell with civil rights. Lol. Hilariously stupid.

The backlash is already starting.

Wedding Businesses Should Be Allowed To Deny Service To Gay Couples Associated Press-GfK Poll Finds

This is from before the SSM ruling, and before the flood of prosecutions sure to start. Again, American's don't like bullies, and in this case your side is the bully.

When it was about marriage, the other side was the bully.

Lol. Like I told you, you go try to change the law to allow you to discriminate. Go ahead. I think it's hilarious.

Even my gay friends have figured this out. It's not as "inconceivable" as you seem to think.

Well? What are you waiting for? Go ahead and start your campaign to change the law to allow you to discriminate against gay people in Oregon. Go on! Hop to it!

It's well under way, thanks. I don't live in Oregon, but we're waking people up to this shit on a daily basis. Which comes back to marty's point. Every new 'protected class' that gets tacked on shines a brighter light on the rotten foundation of PA laws. It really isn't much of a fight. Just a matter of time.

If you had bothered to read the link and educate yourself, EVERYONE is a protected class. Lol.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, it's been real (or not - lol), but some of us have jobs. That's why we aren't so concerned and scared of the "gays" getting us. Have a nice whiny day, babies!

 

[Silhouette]

If you had bothered to read the link and educate yourself, EVERYONE is a protected class. Lol.

Really? Including Christians?


Hey Chris. I want you to print me a billboard that says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God". I want that ready by next week. And if not, I'll have my lawyers contact you.

 

[dblack]

The backlash is already starting.

Wedding Businesses Should Be Allowed To Deny Service To Gay Couples Associated Press-GfK Poll Finds

This is from before the SSM ruling, and before the flood of prosecutions sure to start. Again, American's don't like bullies, and in this case your side is the bully.

When it was about marriage, the other side was the bully.

Lol. Like I told you, you go try to change the law to allow you to discriminate. Go ahead. I think it's hilarious.

Even my gay friends have figured this out. It's not as "inconceivable" as you seem to think.

Well? What are you waiting for? Go ahead and start your campaign to change the law to allow you to discriminate against gay people in Oregon. Go on! Hop to it!

It's well under way, thanks. I don't live in Oregon, but we're waking people up to this shit on a daily basis. Which comes back to marty's point. Every new 'protected class' that gets tacked on shines a brighter light on the rotten foundation of PA laws. It really isn't much of a fight. Just a matter of time.

If you had bothered to read the link and educate yourself, EVERYONE is a protected class. Lol.

Awesome. So people with bad credit scores can't be turned down for loans?!?

 

[dblack]

If you had bothered to read the link and educate yourself, EVERYONE is a protected class. Lol.

That's really great news. I've been arguing for this for years. It's fundamentally wrong to grant special privileges to some groups, but not to others. Let's put PA laws to the test and see if they can be applied equally.

 

[dblack]

What does the nature of rationalizations have to do with whether the acts in question should be illegal?

Because the nature of the rationalization is that your business should have a religious right to discriminate even though discrimination itself is illegal.

But I thought it was the act that was illegal, and not the opinion used to rationalize it?

 

[Skylar]

No campaign needed at all Chris. Just one set of litigants on appeal + the 1st & 9th Amendments to the Constitution = the eventual outcome.

Save for a few problems.

First, the USSC has already denied cert for similar cases. They're not interested in hearing the case.

Second, no court has ruled that State PA laws violate the 1st amendment.

Third, you have no idea what you're talking about regarding 'eventual outcomes'. As the Obergefell decision demonstrated so elegantly. You have the way you want a decision to go.

Which has virtually nothing to do with how it actually does go.

Which is dominant; the "law in their state" (which prohibits violation of ANY civil right, including the 1st Amendment) or the US Constitution?

Who says that State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. Not any court, State or federal. Not the USSC.

That would be you citing yourself. See above about how you don't know what you're talking about.

You should be familiar with that song and dance. Or are people who practice homosexuality as a lifestyle the only ones allowed to appeal civil rights to SCOTUS?

You can request a writ of cert. But the SCOTUS doesn't have to accept it. As they demonstrated when they denied cert to a photographer who ran afoul of state PA laws when he refused to photograph a wedding.\

And there's zero indication that the SCOTUS would treat the baker's case any differently.

 

[LittleNipper]

So you can force a Catholic priest to marry a gay couple?

A Catholic priest is a part of a "religious institution." A bakery is not. You see? This is why you are dumb.

Where in the constitution does free exercise of religion be limited to clergy? What of religions with no organized clergy?

You see? This is why I call you dumb-dumb. You do not understand the law at all. Sad. If you open a business, you are under the rules and regulations regarding that particular business. Only religious organizations are allowed to "refuse" service because of religious beliefs. If you open a bakery, a car wash, a grocery store, you do not have that right. You are then considered a "public accommodation" business and you have to obey the laws put forth by your state with regards to discrimination. NO, the states are not going to disregard these laws. That would be stupid. The government is concerned with making an equal and level playing field for all employees, customers and citizens of America. Your religious views do not effect our secular business laws. Sorry, but they don't.

Like I told you earlier, these same arguments were brought up when it was deemed by the states that you could no longer discriminate against black people. They failed then, and they will fail now.

The States were forced originally to do so because they were government, and state governments cannot discriminate based on equal protection (although ironically the 14th amendment only applies to the States, so there really is no constitutional equal protection for federal law).

PA laws of an overreaching nature came later. And they were not challenged because the people being charged were actual racists, and thus not the most pleasing people. Now you have people of faith being persecuted.

A backlash will be inevitable, Americans don't like bullies. Up to this point that concept has helped the gay rights movement, but now that the pendulum has swung, it's probably going to hurt it.

Better start trying to convince the government that they are wrong and that it is your right to treat people unequally, and to hell with civil rights. Lol. Hilariously stupid.

The government works for its citizen and not the other way around. Do you invite everyone to your parties? Is that discrimination? Do you associate with everybody? If not, isn't that discrimination? When you go shopping will you buy whatever any store sells, or do you pick and choose? Do you think everyone who wants to sing gets playing time on the radio? Do all "athletes" get accepted to the NBA? There is always picking and choosing going on. That is what makes America interesting ---- if not great. Someone inevitably gets their feelings hurt. Government was never meant to accommodate everyone --- just protect us from each other. And right now, it seems that the government is making choices to suit it's own select agenda and to heck with the average American family.

Not ALL businesses are open on Sunday. That is their prerogative and I PRAY that what individuals decide as to how they manage their lives does not become the focal point of BIG BROTHER!

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

I think one could still get around it by only offering cakes decorated specifically for Christian ceremonies. Crosses, bible verses, etc.

Sure. The bakers need to be smarter.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Sorry 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 problem

Yes, because the slight felt by the baker was in no way emotional. Faith is in no way emotional. Right?

 

[Silhouette]

No campaign needed at all Chris. Just one set of litigants on appeal + the 1st & 9th Amendments to the Constitution = the eventual outcome.

Save for a few problems.

First, the USSC has already denied cert for similar cases. They're not interested in hearing the case.

Second, no court has ruled that State PA laws violate the 1st amendment..

First: you're in for a rude awakening from the rule of four. You think Christians are going to be forced to heel without a peep from Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito? Think again. You know better than that. That's just pure intellectual dishonesty coming from you.

Second: no court yet...

Skylar, I want you to print me a billboard that says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God" and I want that ASAP. If you turn me down on principle, you're going to be hearing from my lawyers.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Finally? I wrote that response yesterday, dolt.

Look, your ideas are just . . . stupid and retarded. No, the law is not going to "allow" you to discriminate. Stop being stupid.

By finally, I mean you went past your appeal to authority regurgitation, for a second at least.

How about you stop being fascist?

Why don't you stop with the name calling? LOL, you are all over her for one logical fallacy while committing numerous ones yourself.

She's calling me a hater, I call her a fascist. it balances out.

And please point out my logical fallacies.

I also called you stupid. Don't forget about that one. Lol!

And I called you a twat. and I'll put my IQ up against yours any day of the week.

You have and you clearly lost.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I also called you stupid. Don't forget about that one. Lol!

And I called you a twat. and I'll put my IQ up against yours any day of the week.

Look, you are dumb. You don't understand very much about the law. I suggest that you not open a business.

Typical progressive equating disagreement with "dumb".

You can't argue from any strength besides 'the law says so" so you have to resort to calling me stupid.

Sorry, discrimination is not recognized as a "religious right." That's a fact.

So you can force a Catholic priest to marry a gay couple?

No.
Churches are exempt.
Like Chris said, learn the law.

 

[Silhouette]

No.
Churches are exempt.
Like Chris said, learn the law.

So where in the Constitution does it say in the 1st Amendment "Freedom of CHURCH"?

...Speaking of "learning the law"...

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No.
Churches are exempt.
Like Chris said, learn the law.

So where in the Constitution does it say in the 1st Amendment "Freedom of CHURCH"?

...Speaking of "learning the law"...

It exempts religious organizations so they have freedom to practice their faith. It protects their rights.
Argue with the lawmakers. I just told you how it is.

 

[chikenwing]

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.

Your fundamental flaw,yes Jesus most certainly changed the rules.that being the very heart of his ministry
Not understanding that is why you are so confused in your posting content.

 

[ChrisL]

A Catholic priest is a part of a "religious institution." A bakery is not. You see? This is why you are dumb.

Where in the constitution does free exercise of religion be limited to clergy? What of religions with no organized clergy?

You see? This is why I call you dumb-dumb. You do not understand the law at all. Sad. If you open a business, you are under the rules and regulations regarding that particular business. Only religious organizations are allowed to "refuse" service because of religious beliefs. If you open a bakery, a car wash, a grocery store, you do not have that right. You are then considered a "public accommodation" business and you have to obey the laws put forth by your state with regards to discrimination. NO, the states are not going to disregard these laws. That would be stupid. The government is concerned with making an equal and level playing field for all employees, customers and citizens of America. Your religious views do not effect our secular business laws. Sorry, but they don't.

Like I told you earlier, these same arguments were brought up when it was deemed by the states that you could no longer discriminate against black people. They failed then, and they will fail now.

The States were forced originally to do so because they were government, and state governments cannot discriminate based on equal protection (although ironically the 14th amendment only applies to the States, so there really is no constitutional equal protection for federal law).

PA laws of an overreaching nature came later. And they were not challenged because the people being charged were actual racists, and thus not the most pleasing people. Now you have people of faith being persecuted.

A backlash will be inevitable, Americans don't like bullies. Up to this point that concept has helped the gay rights movement, but now that the pendulum has swung, it's probably going to hurt it.

Better start trying to convince the government that they are wrong and that it is your right to treat people unequally, and to hell with civil rights. Lol. Hilariously stupid.

The government works for its citizen and not the other way around. Do you invite everyone to your parties? Is that discrimination? Do you associate with everybody? If not, isn't that discrimination? When you go shopping will you buy whatever any store sells, or do you pick and choose? Do you think everyone who wants to sing gets playing time on the radio? Do all "athletes" get accepted to the NBA? There is always picking and choosing going on. That is what makes America interesting ---- if not great. Someone inevitably gets their feelings hurt. Government was never meant to accommodate everyone --- just protect us from each other. And right now, it seems that the government is making choices to suit it's own select agenda and to heck with the average American family.

Not ALL businesses are open on Sunday. That is their prerogative and I PRAY that what individuals decide as to how they manage their lives does not become the focal point of BIG BROTHER!

Um, no. You are wrong. Soooo wrong. Now, I suggest you read this article so that you can understand exactly WHY you are wrong.


Can Religious Freedom Be Used to Discriminate Stephen Seufert

American history has shown "religious freedom" was used to legitimize slavery and later constituted the bedrock of discriminatory Jim Crow laws in southern states. In 1964, the owner of a BBQ restaurant in South Carolina based his refusal to serve African Americans on the first amendment and his freedom to practice his religious beliefs. In lower court deliberations, a judge cited a previously rejected "religious freedom" defense which claimed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was invalid because it "contravenes the will of God," and constitutes an interference with the "free exercise of the Defendant's religion." The Supreme Court agreed with previous court rulings and unanimously ruled 8-0 to uphold the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Similar kinds of laws and tactics under the guise of "religious freedom" are now being used by business and lawmakers to discriminate against LGBT people.

Freedom of religion -- at least in the American tradition -- meant being tolerant of different beliefs, while also peacefully coexisting. On the individual level, freedom to worship without persecution was one of the primary concerns for Americans. For generations, America was seen as a beacon of freedom and liberty for those who sought to escape the oppressive, and often times deadly, religious persecution and fanaticism of the old world.

Individuals and groups discriminating based off perceived threats to their religious freedoms due to the lifestyle and beliefs of others signal a return to a period in human history where prejudice, hatred and violence reigned supreme. A time period in which people were divided by not just by religion, but also by race and gender. Returning to such a period would constitute a defeat for all of humanity.

Pope Francis warns against "individualism which divides human beings, setting them against one another as they pursue their own well-being." Whether it be based on gender, sexuality or race, discrimination typically focuses on one single aspect of a human being's life. So what if someone is gay? Is that the sole extent to which an individual is defined and judged by others?