Muslim flight attendant suspended...

[mudwhistle]

However, your story is not complete neither.

Read bold letters. you said it yourself, it's her office. Sh'e elected to clerk position by the people.

Licenses can be issued by duly elected clerk only. Since it's her office that she was elected to run, ultimately as long she's elected clerk, every license that is issued without her permission, can be null and void and reissued by newly elected clerk.

Now, I am not defending her for not issuing licenses. By refusing to follow judges orders, she IS breaking the law. However, it's completely different issue for not allowing her employees to issue licenses in her name.

Actually, the First Amendment right supersedes the law. She's not booked for breaking the marriage laws, she's locked up for contempt of court.

the office of county clerk does not have first amendment rights - and her first amendment rights do not allow her to ignore her oath of office or deny rights to others.

So not baking a friggen cake makes destroying their business fine and dandy?

Seems to me there is a massive lack of tolerance coming from the left.....and isolated cases on the right. The only problem is the establishment is pushing a gay agenda with the help of the courts, the media, and in some cases, the government. Anyone who gets in their way gets destroyed.......for a good cause of course.

i understand having a problem with the public accommodation laws. that's a legitimate argument.
but i don't think it's right to claim that enforcement of the law is somehow a lack of tolerance.

Enforcing laws doesn't involve death-threats and intentionally destroying their reputation.....eventually their ability to earn a living.

A fine should do the job.

You people feel you have the right to cause them pain and suffering as well.

Next you'll be stringing them up in the public square or burning their business to the ground.

The more you asswipes complain about rightwingers, the more you seem to act precisely like they did in the past.......and the funny thing is.....most of those rightwingers were God Damned Democrats.

They only received a fine. Anyone making death threats should be prosecuted, and any harm to the reputation of the business os of their own doing

A fine that was so extreme that the business had to close it's doors. Over a hundred thousand dollars.

I think the DA was gay and had a conflict of interest as well.

 

[theHawk]

Shouldn't all Muslims be on a no flight list?

 

[mudwhistle]

Shouldn't all Muslims be on a no flight list?

Only the one's training in Yemen or with ISIS.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Stewardess is not an elective office. They can just fire her.

Or, just give her to ISIS. They'll probably soon have their own airline.

"Fly SKEET."

 

[ogibillm]

the office of county clerk does not have first amendment rights - and her first amendment rights do not allow her to ignore her oath of office or deny rights to others.

So not baking a friggen cake makes destroying their business fine and dandy?

Seems to me there is a massive lack of tolerance coming from the left.....and isolated cases on the right. The only problem is the establishment is pushing a gay agenda with the help of the courts, the media, and in some cases, the government. Anyone who gets in their way gets destroyed.......for a good cause of course.

i understand having a problem with the public accommodation laws. that's a legitimate argument.
but i don't think it's right to claim that enforcement of the law is somehow a lack of tolerance.

Enforcing laws doesn't involve death-threats and intentionally destroying their reputation.....eventually their ability to earn a living.

A fine should do the job.

You people feel you have the right to cause them pain and suffering as well.

Next you'll be stringing them up in the public square or burning their business to the ground.

The more you asswipes complain about rightwingers, the more you seem to act precisely like they did in the past.......and the funny thing is.....most of those rightwingers were God Damned Democrats.

They only received a fine. Anyone making death threats should be prosecuted, and any harm to the reputation of the business os of their own doing

A fine that was so extreme that the business had to close it's doors. Over a hundred thousand dollars.

I think the DA was gay and had a conflict of interest as well.

you can think what you want. that's what the law allowed.
guess the bakers should have just followed the law, huh?

 

[Ame®icano]

Kiddo he admits to refusing to sell them a wedding cake, something he offers, because they were gay. Indisputable fact.

Kiddo? What that makes you, old prick? You wanna go again that way? Fine...

Again, retard, it's not because they were gays. If is indisputable fact, why are you refusing to post what he said in the interview? I asked you earlier, WORD FOR WORD.

Just because he says he sells other gay people other products does not mean he did not discriminate when it came to selling wedding cakes.

You're saying here, he does sell other products to gays. So he is not discriminating because they're gays.
Just because? No, my retarded friend, that's exactly what it means, he sells other products to gays, so there is no discrimination against gays. He doesn't make cakes for homosexual weddings, because it's against his religious beliefs.

As for the actual law, that's trivia. It is not important for our discussion to have the statute number, but if you want it I'm sure it's available in the lawsuit. Feel free to look it up. But nobody is disputing that in their areas discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal

And it's ORS 659A.403 (3)
Feel better?

Great. Since you already said right above that he does sell products to gays, meaning he is not denying service based on sexual orientation, how is he breaking this law? Before you say he denied the service "because they're gay", if not too hard for you, here is a hint... he does serve gays. Think, think, think...

 

[Ame®icano]

They probably just asked for a wedding cake.

There's a world of difference between asking for something for a legal purpose and something for an illegal purpose.

"Probably" doesn't count. There was link with the interview earlier in thread. Baker said he does not make cakes for homosexual weddings, he explained his beliefs by citing the Bible etc.

Let me ask you, if you go to Burger King and order Big Mac, would they serve it to you?

 

[Coyote]

They probably just asked for a wedding cake.

There's a world of difference between asking for something for a legal purpose and something for an illegal purpose.

"Probably" doesn't count. There was link with the interview earlier in thread. Baker said he does not make cakes for homosexual weddings, he explained his beliefs by citing the Bible etc.

Let me ask you, if you go to Burger King and order Big Mac, would they serve it to you?

Yes.

 

[Ame®icano]

They probably just asked for a wedding cake.

There's a world of difference between asking for something for a legal purpose and something for an illegal purpose.

"Probably" doesn't count. There was link with the interview earlier in thread. Baker said he does not make cakes for homosexual weddings, he explained his beliefs by citing the Bible etc.

Let me ask you, if you go to Burger King and order Big Mac, would they serve it to you?

Yes.

No shit, who are you, Chuck Norris?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes.

Let me ask you, if you go to Burger King and order Big Mac, would they serve it to you?

It was a trick question. Burger King doesn't sell Big Mac's which is a McDonald's product.

The true question is, if you go to Burger King and buy a Whopper and Fries, then later can they refuse you a Big Fish Sandwich because you are gay. Just because Burger King sold you a Whopper and Fries, does that absolve them from not selling a Big Fish Sandwich because you are gay.


>>>>

 

[Coyote]

Yes.

Let me ask you, if you go to Burger King and order Big Mac, would they serve it to you?

It was a trick question. Burger King doesn't sell Big Mac's which is a McDonald's product.

The true question is, if you go to Burger King and buy a Whopper and Fries, then later can they refuse you a Big Fish Sandwich because you are gay. Just because Burger King sold you a Whopper and Fries, does that absolve them from not selling a Big Fish Sandwich because you are gay.


>>>>

Well...I don't eat fast food much.

 

[Coyote]

They probably just asked for a wedding cake.

There's a world of difference between asking for something for a legal purpose and something for an illegal purpose.

"Probably" doesn't count. There was link with the interview earlier in thread. Baker said he does not make cakes for homosexual weddings, he explained his beliefs by citing the Bible etc.

Let me ask you, if you go to Burger King and order Big Mac, would they serve it to you?

Yes.

No shit, who are you, Chuck Norris?

 

[Ame®icano]

Yes.

Let me ask you, if you go to Burger King and order Big Mac, would they serve it to you?

It was a trick question. Burger King doesn't sell Big Mac's which is a McDonald's product.

The true question is, if you go to Burger King and buy a Whopper and Fries, then later can they refuse you a Big Fish Sandwich because you are gay. Just because Burger King sold you a Whopper and Fries, does that absolve them from not selling a Big Fish Sandwich because you are gay.
>>>>

Correct. Burger King wont serve you a Big Mac.

But the true question is - why? It's not on their menu. Period.
You wan't Big Mac, go to McDonald's.

Baker doesn't bake cakes for homosexual weddings. It's not on his menu. Period.
You want cake for gay wedding, go to baker whose beliefs are not against it.

 

[Ame®icano]

They probably just asked for a wedding cake.

There's a world of difference between asking for something for a legal purpose and something for an illegal purpose.

"Probably" doesn't count. There was link with the interview earlier in thread. Baker said he does not make cakes for homosexual weddings, he explained his beliefs by citing the Bible etc.

Let me ask you, if you go to Burger King and order Big Mac, would they serve it to you?

Yes.

No shit, who are you, Chuck Norris?

There is this webpage ChuckNorrisFacts.com. People write jokes/facts about his toughness. Check it out, it's a good laugh. One of the "facts" is that he can order Big Mac in BK, and he'll get it.

 

[Montrovant]

Yes.

Let me ask you, if you go to Burger King and order Big Mac, would they serve it to you?

It was a trick question. Burger King doesn't sell Big Mac's which is a McDonald's product.

The true question is, if you go to Burger King and buy a Whopper and Fries, then later can they refuse you a Big Fish Sandwich because you are gay. Just because Burger King sold you a Whopper and Fries, does that absolve them from not selling a Big Fish Sandwich because you are gay.
>>>>

Correct. Burger King wont serve you a Big Mac.

But the true question is - why? It's not on their menu. Period.
You wan't Big Mac, go to McDonald's.

Baker doesn't bake cakes for homosexual weddings. It's not on his menu. Period.
You want cake for gay wedding, go to baker whose beliefs are not against it.

You're making a very poor analogy.

It would be more accurate to have a Burger King not sell someone a Whopper because they planned to eat it at the same time as a Big Mac, and BK doesn't condone eating their products in conjunction with McDonald's products. The reality, of course, is that Burger King doesn't give a damn where you're going to eat their food, what you're going to eat it with, or really what you plan to do with it once you've bought it. They just want you to buy it.

The baker, on the other hand, has wedding cakes on the menu. He won't bake a cake for someone because of what they plan to use it for. Most Burger King owners would probably be perfectly happy to sell their food to any wedding that wanted to buy it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes.

Let me ask you, if you go to Burger King and order Big Mac, would they serve it to you?

It was a trick question. Burger King doesn't sell Big Mac's which is a McDonald's product.

The true question is, if you go to Burger King and buy a Whopper and Fries, then later can they refuse you a Big Fish Sandwich because you are gay. Just because Burger King sold you a Whopper and Fries, does that absolve them from not selling a Big Fish Sandwich because you are gay.
>>>>

Correct. Burger King wont serve you a Big Mac.

But the true question is - why? It's not on their menu. Period.
You wan't Big Mac, go to McDonald's.

Baker doesn't bake cakes for homosexual weddings. It's not on his menu. Period.
You want cake for gay wedding, go to baker whose beliefs are not against it.

Wedding cakes are on the "menu".

The restriction was based on who was buying them.

Here is the link to Masterpiece Cakes (Colorado case) -->> MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP | great cakes since 1993 | 303.763.5754

You can review their menu by clicking the "Wedding" link.


>>>>

 

[RetiredGySgt]

As to the OP.... The issue was resolved a couple years ago as to whether or not Islam forbids the carrying or selling of alcohol. The Islamic authorities in the States stated for legal purposes that there IS NO prohibition on the carrying and sale of Alcohol in the religion.

 

[Ame®icano]

You're making a very poor analogy.

It would be more accurate to have a Burger King not sell someone a Whopper because they planned to eat it at the same time as a Big Mac, and BK doesn't condone eating their products in conjunction with McDonald's products. The reality, of course, is that Burger King doesn't give a damn where you're going to eat their food, what you're going to eat it with, or really what you plan to do with it once you've bought it. They just want you to buy it.

The baker, on the other hand, has wedding cakes on the menu. He won't bake a cake for someone because of what they plan to use it for. Most Burger King owners would probably be perfectly happy to sell their food to any wedding that wanted to buy it.

Both, Whopper and Big Mac are burgers. Why BK cant make Big Mac? That kind of burger is not on the menu. Therefore I think there is nothing wrong with "not on the menu" analogy.

Now, I like that you said "because what they plan to use it for", instead of "because they are gays", like the other guy insists. It does matter how you use someone's product and maker of the product can demand how their product is used. I know, some will say, you sold the product, you got money, why do you care, but hold the horses.

Fanuc is well knows robot manufacturer. There was company that bought one of their robots second hand, and decided to have some fun. It was something like this, but not sure are they the guys from the case.



Well, Fanuc did not like how their product was used and forced them thru legal system to sell back their robot. I know it's not the same as bakers case, but I mentioned it because it does matter how product is used.

 

[Kondor3]

Yet, refuse to issue same sex marriage licenses and you go to jail.

Absolutely.

Christians get treated one way.

Muslims get treated another way.

Why?

Because we can.

 

[Montrovant]

You're making a very poor analogy.

It would be more accurate to have a Burger King not sell someone a Whopper because they planned to eat it at the same time as a Big Mac, and BK doesn't condone eating their products in conjunction with McDonald's products. The reality, of course, is that Burger King doesn't give a damn where you're going to eat their food, what you're going to eat it with, or really what you plan to do with it once you've bought it. They just want you to buy it.

The baker, on the other hand, has wedding cakes on the menu. He won't bake a cake for someone because of what they plan to use it for. Most Burger King owners would probably be perfectly happy to sell their food to any wedding that wanted to buy it.

Both, Whopper and Big Mac are burgers. Why BK cant make Big Mac? That kind of burger is not on the menu. Therefore I think there is nothing wrong with "not on the menu" analogy.

Now, I like that you said "because what they plan to use it for", instead of "because they are gays", like the other guy insists. It does matter how you use someone's product and maker of the product can demand how their product is used. I know, some will say, you sold the product, you got money, why do you care, but hold the horses.

Fanuc is well knows robot manufacturer. There was company that bough one of their robots second hand, and decided to have some fun. It was something like this, but not sure are they the guys from the case.



Well, Fanuc did not like how their product was used and forced them thru legal system to sell back their robot. I know it's not the same as bakers case, but I mentioned it because it does matter how product is used.

I would be interested to see the details of the Fanuc case. Other than things like trademark infringement or use in the commission of a crime, I don't know that a company has much say in how their products are used. If I buy a Fanuc robot and use it as a lamp, I don't think they have any legal recourse to stop me. I would guess that the people who bought the Fanuc robot in some way violated trademark laws if they were forced to stop whatever they were doing with it.

The maker of a product cannot demand how that product is used for the most part. Certainly not with the force of law. They can warn, recommend, etc.. I'd like to see any relevant laws which allow product manufacturer to demand their product be used a certain way, outside the realm of safety and trademark rights.