Oregon Bakers: You get to pay 135,000 for being radical religious morons, Judge so orders!

[Pop23]

Shut up and bake the damn cake!

He never refused to bake a cake. So there’s that.

 

[williepete]

You understand our laws don't apply in other countries, don't you?

I understand you've made a fool of yourself in this thread and wonder daily why I took you off ignore.

 

[sakinago]

The two bully lesbos both look like they've had quite a few of those sweet cakes.

Of course...this is a christian message, folks.

Did you read the OP? I’d say that’s a little worse than that...didn’t hear a peep out of you though.

I'm not sure the OP has a history of claiming moral superiority, and degrading others because they don't believe the same things. I'm positive that so called Christians do though.

That’s just as bigoted a message as saying all Muslims are terrorist, or all Mexicans are rapist or drug dealers, or all blacks are felons, etc. It is NEVER ok to lump an entire group together with the negative actions of a minority of that group. Doing that is called prejudice, bigotry, racism, etc....its doesn’t make it ok because you don’t like a particular group...or else it would be ok for racist, homophobe, bigots to do it for their reasons....why do I have to explain this?

No, I didn't say Christians did that. I said so called Christians like the jerks that refused to bake the cake, and the idiots that support them.. You know, the ones who claim Christianity as an excuse for their racist, homophobic, bigoted ways. Real Christians are loving and caring. Totally opposite from the so called Christians I was referring to.

Just because a Christian doesn’t believe in gay marriage doesn’t mean they hate gays...that’s just a stupid notion. To say these guys are just bigots probably isn’t true. Some christians don’t believe in sex before marriage, some don’t believe in drinking or smoking, some don’t believe in seeing rates R movies, or Harry Potter movies, or war, or whatever...that doesn’t mean they hate all the people who don’t believe that. They just don’t believe they shouldn’t.

Are there Christian dicks out there, absolutely, there are also dicks in every worldview...why is it you only want to single out Christians, or assume that these Christians are only motivated by their hate for gays? Believing that marriage is between a single man and single women is a sincerely held belief by many in Christianity, it’s part of the philosophy of natural law...if polygamy gets legalized (which I think it should be), these same bakers or bakers like them would probably deny polygamist a cake, because they believe marriage is a sacred religious bond, and to support a marriage that they believe goes against what God wants goes against their beliefs. Government should not be forcing them to violate these beliefs.

 

[WorldWatcher]

How could, or can the baker tell the couple was / are gay?

If a heterosexual same sex couple wanted a gay wedding cake, would this end in the same result?

If a baker refused, he wouldn’t be violating based on sexuality.

Even if the owner assumed that the couple was heterosexual and getting married (why he would assume that only an idiot would try to surmise in an attempt to justify a silly strawman).


If a bakery sells Wedding Cakes to Man/Woman couples but refuses to sell them to Woman/Woman or Man/Man (even if no sexual orientation is assumed) the baker is still in violation of the law by basing the discrimination on the sex or the customers (Man/Man or Woman/Woman vice Man/Woman).



>>>>

 

[Aba Incieni]

The bakers did not refuse to serve gays, or bake them a cake. They refused to bake a specific cake because it conflicted with their morals.

Just FYI, the Oregon law that the baker broke requires full and equal goods and services provided by a business that meets the description of a public accommodation business. Not one set of goods and services sold to everyone and a subset of goods and services sold to others.

The fact that they would have (or may have) sold other products isn't relevant.

All Goods Set = A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H
Subset = A, B, C, D, F, G, H

ORS 659A.403 - Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited - 2015 Oregon Revised Statutes


>>>>

They offered to bake them a wedding cake, as they advertised they do. The case is not yet adjudicated.

link?

After you read this...

Oregon silences bakers who refused to make cake for gay wedding

...there's this:

Klein says he’s okay with gay customers buying his products, but he cannot approve of a same-sex wedding:

Oregon Bakers Refuse Cake For Same-Sex Wedding

 

[sakinago]

The constitution trumps state law. The constitution is not confusing in this.

Congress shall make NO law ........

Congress didn't make the law.

States have the power to regulate intrastate commerce under the 10th Amendment. Which side prevails in this case, well, we'll need to wait until June. (Masterpiece Cakeshop has already had oral arguments before the SCOTUS and a ruling is not expected until the end of term - June.)


>>>>

BOR is the supreme law of the land. A state can’t violate the BOR, and still claim constitutionalality....if that was the case then would would be the point of the BOR or the rest of the amendments if a state could just make their own laws??

 

[Pop23]

How could, or can the baker tell the couple was / are gay?

If a heterosexual same sex couple wanted a gay wedding cake, would this end in the same result?

If a baker refused, he wouldn’t be violating based on sexuality.

Even if the owner assumed that the couple was heterosexual and getting married (why he would assume that only an idiot would try to surmise in an attempt to justify a silly strawman).


If a bakery sells Wedding Cakes to Man/Woman couples but refuses to sell them to Woman/Woman or Man/Man (even if no sexual orientation is assumed) the baker is still in violation of the law by basing the discrimination on the sex or the customers (Man/Man or Woman/Woman vice Man/Woman).



>>>>

How would he know what is standing before him?

Should the baker be required to have dna tests performed? Oh wait, that won’t even work.

 

[WorldWatcher]

They offered to bake them a wedding cake, as they advertised they do. The case is not yet adjudicated.

In both the Sweetcakes by Melissa and Masterpiece Cakeshop cases - yes they did refuse to bake the couple Wedding Cakes.

That was the violation of the law to begin with.

If they had agreed to bake them Wedding Cakes in the first place there would have been no violation of the law and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

>>>>>

 

[DrLove]

He never refused to bake a cake. So there’s that.

Yes they did. So there's that.

The Oregon Court of Appeals on Thursday upheld a $135,000 fine against two Christian bakers who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

 

[bodecea]

All men are created equal you dumb f•••.

Shut up, you disgusting faggot!

Of course...the so-called religious right wants to shut anyone up who says "all men are created equal".

 

[WorldWatcher]

When the SCOTUS decides in the baker's favor, the couple will pretty much own Oregon.

No they won't. They will get the $135,000 (of their own money) in escrow back and that will be the end of it.

The ones that will make bank are the lawyers as the court will likely award the lawyers reasonable attorney's fees, but the couple won't get any of that.


>>>>

 

[Pop23]

He never refused to bake a cake. So there’s that.

Yes they did. So there's that.

The Oregon Court of Appeals on Thursday upheld a $135,000 fine against two Christian bakers who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

An artist can buy a canvas to make art on. The canvas maker does not have to supply the artwork.

 

[JoeB131]

And forcing business owners to violate their religious beliefs violates the first amendment, just like DOMA violated the first amendment.

Horseshit. If you can't reconcile your back-ward ass superstitions with your obligations as a business owner, you should find something else to do for a living.

A gay baker should not be forced to bake a cake for the west boro Baptist church, or a Jewish baker be forced to bake a cake for bro nazis, or a pro-choice supporter be forced to bake a cake for a pro life group.... if you don’t believe these things than you are an authoritarian and wish to use government to shove your views down everyone else’s throat, just like we did with DOMA.

Here's the thing. When I go into a store that says "widgets for sale", I expect to walk out of there with a widget. If you can't sell me a widget because of your backward-ass superstitions, then you shouldn't be in the fucking widget business.

The law SHOULD be on the side of the consumer here, not the seller.

 

[Aba Incieni]

They offered to bake them a wedding cake, as they advertised they do. The case is not yet adjudicated.

In both the Sweetcakes by Melissa and Masterpiece Cakeshop cases - yes they did refuse to bake the couple Wedding Cakes.

That was the violation of the law to begin with.

If they had agreed to bake them Wedding Cakes in the first place there would have been no violation of the law and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

>>>>>

Oregon Bakers: You get to pay 135,000 for being radical religious morons, Judge so orders!

 

[Pop23]

And forcing business owners to violate their religious beliefs violates the first amendment, just like DOMA violated the first amendment.

Horseshit. If you can't reconcile your back-ward ass superstitions with your obligations as a business owner, you should find something else to do for a living.

A gay baker should not be forced to bake a cake for the west boro Baptist church, or a Jewish baker be forced to bake a cake for bro nazis, or a pro-choice supporter be forced to bake a cake for a pro life group.... if you don’t believe these things than you are an authoritarian and wish to use government to shove your views down everyone else’s throat, just like we did with DOMA.

Here's the thing. When I go into a store that says "widgets for sale", I expect to walk out of there with a widget. If you can't sell me a widget because of your backward-ass superstitions, then you shouldn't be in the fucking widget business.

The law SHOULD be on the side of the consumer here, not the seller.

The baker did not refuse to bake the cake.

 

[Aba Incieni]

When the SCOTUS decides in the baker's favor, the couple will pretty much own Oregon.

No they won't. They will get the $135,000 (of their own money) in escrow back and that will be the end of it.

The ones that will make bank are the lawyers as the court will likely award the lawyers reasonable attorney's fees, but the couple won't get any of that.


>>>>

Damages, baby.

Damages.

 

[bodecea]

I'm trying to prevent a free country from becoming a tyrannical shit hole.

I suggest that you follow the principle of "all men are created equal."

they are

and in our Constitution, we have Property RIGHTS

your leftist hate for freedom is well noted, the pride you take in supporting government tyranny sickens me.

We also have freedom of RELIGION.

Which means we can't be fined and imprisoned for refusing to violate our consciences...unless that refusal PREVENTS a person from enjoying THEIR rights.

Refusing to enter into a contract to bake a special cake for a fake wedding is not a crime. It is not discrimination. It's nothing. They offered the yahoos a case cake, they did not deny them service. They didn't tell them to leave. They just failed to contract with them for the purpose of creating a decorative celebratory centerpiece for an event they believe they will lose favor with God for endorsing.

The homos weren't denied cake. They were denied endorsement. Endorsement is not a right.

The courts dont agree with you hun.

Oregon courts are a national disgrace. Even the hard leftists don't pretend law, and the edicts of the court, are in any way related.

Where was your complaint when Oregon fined that dentist for discriminating in business against his christian employee? Where were the cries of "freedom!" for the dentist back then?

 

[Aba Incieni]

And forcing business owners to violate their religious beliefs violates the first amendment, just like DOMA violated the first amendment.

Horseshit. If you can't reconcile your back-ward ass superstitions with your obligations as a business owner, you should find something else to do for a living.

A gay baker should not be forced to bake a cake for the west boro Baptist church, or a Jewish baker be forced to bake a cake for bro nazis, or a pro-choice supporter be forced to bake a cake for a pro life group.... if you don’t believe these things than you are an authoritarian and wish to use government to shove your views down everyone else’s throat, just like we did with DOMA.

Here's the thing. When I go into a store that says "widgets for sale", I expect to walk out of there with a widget. If you can't sell me a widget because of your backward-ass superstitions, then you shouldn't be in the fucking widget business.

The law SHOULD be on the side of the consumer here, not the seller.

I don't sell the widgets like that, but you can help yourself to those I do sell.

No, you must sell the kind I want you to sell.

 

[Pop23]

I suggest that you follow the principle of "all men are created equal."

they are

and in our Constitution, we have Property RIGHTS

your leftist hate for freedom is well noted, the pride you take in supporting government tyranny sickens me.

We also have freedom of RELIGION.

Which means we can't be fined and imprisoned for refusing to violate our consciences...unless that refusal PREVENTS a person from enjoying THEIR rights.

Refusing to enter into a contract to bake a special cake for a fake wedding is not a crime. It is not discrimination. It's nothing. They offered the yahoos a case cake, they did not deny them service. They didn't tell them to leave. They just failed to contract with them for the purpose of creating a decorative celebratory centerpiece for an event they believe they will lose favor with God for endorsing.

The homos weren't denied cake. They were denied endorsement. Endorsement is not a right.

The courts dont agree with you hun.

Oregon courts are a national disgrace. Even the hard leftists don't pretend law, and the edicts of the court, are in any way related.

Where was your complaint when Oregon fined that dentist for discriminating in business against his christian employee? Where were the cries of "freedom!" for the dentist back then?

Start a thread on that. I was not aware of it.

Maybe I’ll comment. Be sure to include links.

 

[JoeB131]

All this could have been avoided if...the lesbian couple went to a different baker, the government had not violated the first amendment forcing them to violate religious beliefs, had government not violated the first amendment in DOMA...yea you don’t really have your priorities straight.

All of this could have been avoided if MRS. Klein hadn't invited the Cryer-Bowman's to use their shop to buy a cake for their commitment ceremony to start with.

Failing that, she should have made the appointment at a time when she dealt with them, instead of her loser husband who obviously has no idea how to handle customers.