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

[Aba Incieni]

The dykes had full and equal access to all the goods and services he provided to everyone.

they

>>>>

Beyond serving gays with equal access to everything he offers, what is his business required to do. You tell us.

 

[bodecea]

Untrue...he offered wedding cakes, they wanted a wedding cake.

They wanted a cake for a sick, immoral mockery of a wedding. The Kleins were right for not wanting to have any part in that.

The same can be said for lots of those so-called religious mockeries of weddings, but PA laws require businesses to provide services regardless.

 

[bodecea]

Why should they force businesses to follow health laws now, eh?

Health laws do not conflict with their religion.

Health laws, in this context, also fulfill a genuine, legitimate purpose, of sufficient importance to override any “right” that anyone might claim to sell food that is unsanitary and unsafe. Forcing an artist to produce a work celebrating a sick homosexual mockery of a wedding serves no such purpose, and violates that artist's own moral and religious right not to be drawn into something that he knows is morally wrong.

The alternative is to force people to produce that which they have no desire to produce, plus they find it morally appalling. Well done.

They offered wedding cakes, so obviously they had a desire to produce wedding cakes. You have a business, You do business...you have a problem with gays getting married, don't offer a service that involves weddings. Quite simple.

Yes you've answered the pertinent question a few times now. You believe products have rights, and certain groups have extra rights to force others to do their bidding.

You lose in America.

Products are things....you know....like "gay gravel"......

 

[Aba Incieni]

Health laws do not conflict with their religion.

Health laws, in this context, also fulfill a genuine, legitimate purpose, of sufficient importance to override any “right” that anyone might claim to sell food that is unsanitary and unsafe. Forcing an artist to produce a work celebrating a sick homosexual mockery of a wedding serves no such purpose, and violates that artist's own moral and religious right not to be drawn into something that he knows is morally wrong.

The alternative is to force people to produce that which they have no desire to produce, plus they find it morally appalling. Well done.

They offered wedding cakes, so obviously they had a desire to produce wedding cakes. You have a business, You do business...you have a problem with gays getting married, don't offer a service that involves weddings. Quite simple.

Yes you've answered the pertinent question a few times now. You believe products have rights, and certain groups have extra rights to force others to do their bidding.

You lose in America.

Products are things....you know....like "gay gravel"......

Finally you understand the product is unimportant. You have learned well, grasshopper.

 

[bodecea]

Yep, you're nuts. You've been trying really hard to hide it, but that post gave you away.

Don't answer the very pertinent and direct question. This is why you lose.

Sorry. I don't know how to respond to a question about gay gravel. I don't think any sane person would.

Try responding to the question about being forced to produce something that you don't.

"gay gravel".....

Did you really believe this was about cakes? lol

It's about businesses following the business laws of their state that they swore they would when getting their business license.

 

[WorldWatcher]

They serve gays. That's what he said. Beyond serving gays with equal access to everything he offers,...

I never said he didn't say he would serve homosexuals some products.

You claimed he said he would sell them Wedding Cakes (which is the subject of the case). He never agreed to sell them a Wedding Cake.

He didn't sell to homosexuals will equal access to everything he offers. He offers Wedding Cakes and denied them access to the good and service he provided.

...what is his business required to do. You tell us.

Follow the law and not base sales on race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, or age as the law stipulates.

If he doesn't want to provide Wedding Cakes without discrimination based on the criteria cited in the law, simply don't offer Wedding Cakes - perfectly acceptable under the law and the route that Mr. Phillips currently follows.


>>>>>

 

[Aba Incieni]

Don't answer the very pertinent and direct question. This is why you lose.

Sorry. I don't know how to respond to a question about gay gravel. I don't think any sane person would.

Try responding to the question about being forced to produce something that you don't.

"gay gravel".....

Did you really believe this was about cakes? lol

It's about businesses following the business laws of their state that they swore they would when getting their business license.

Beyond serving gays with equal access to everything he offers, what is his business required to do. You tell us.

 

[Aba Incieni]

They serve gays. That's what he said. Beyond serving gays with equal access to everything he offers,...

I never said he didn't say he would serve homosexuals some products.

You claimed he said he would sell them Wedding Cakes (which is the subject of the case). He never agreed to sell them a Wedding Cake.

He didn't sell to homosexuals will equal access to everything he offers. He offers Wedding Cakes and denied them access to the good and service he provided.

...what is his business required to do. You tell us.

Follow the law and not base sales on race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, or age as the law stipulates.

If he doesn't want to provide Wedding Cakes without discrimination based on the criteria cited in the law, simply don't offer Wedding Cakes - perfectly acceptable under the law and the route that Mr. Phillips currently follows.


>>>>>

Yes you did, but you were wrong. Maybe because you edited the baker's quote out of my post.

You aren't answering my question. What did he deny the dykes that he offers non-dykes.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes you did, but you were wrong.

No, I never said the bakers wouldn't sell other products.

If you believe I did please give me the post number in this thread were you claim I said this.

Maybe because you edited the baker's quote out of my post.

You never quoted the baker. In the post you refer to you provided a link that indicated the baker would sell OTHER products.

You never provided a quote of the baker saying they would sell them Wedding Cakes.

You aren't answering my question. What did he deny the dykes that he offers non-dykes.

Aaron Klien of Sweetcakes by Melissa refused them a Wedding Cake, a product and service they normally provided. Sweetcakes by Melissa routinely provided Wedding Cakes as a product and service, they denied this to the customers in question who then filed a complaint about unlawful business practices.

The Court of Appeals for the State of Oregon upheld the ruling that the Kleins violated Oregon Statutes 659A.403 and 659A.409.


>>>>

 

[Aba Incieni]

Yes you did, but you were wrong.

No, I never said the bakers wouldn't sell other products.

If you believe I did please give me the post number in this thread were you claim I said this.

Maybe because you edited the baker's quote out of my post.

You never quoted the baker. In the post you refer to you provided a link that indicated the baker would sell OTHER products.

You never provided a quote of the baker saying they would sell them Wedding Cakes.

You aren't answering my question. What did he deny the dykes that he offers non-dykes.

Aaron Klien of Sweetcakes by Melissa refused them a Wedding Cake, a product and service they normally provided. Sweetcakes by Melissa routinely provided Wedding Cakes as a product and service, they denied this to the customers in question who then filed a complaint about unlawful business practices.

The Court of Appeals for the State of Oregon upheld the ruling that the Kleins violated Oregon Statutes 659A.403 and 659A.409.


>>>>

He said he sold to gays. Quote it once and you will see.

The bakery doesn't sell gay-themed wedding cakes to anyone. Not even those who demand extralegal rights.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Gay atheist judge.

 

[WorldWatcher]

He said he sold to gays. Quote it once and you will see.

The bakery doesn't sell gay-themed wedding cakes to anyone. Not even those who demand extralegal rights.

#1 Selling only some products to one group violates the law. The fact that the Klein's may have been willing to sell other products does not relieve them of responsibility in not discriminating in the sale of Wedding Cakes.

#2 There was no discussion of design, this is attested to in the Statement of Facts in the court documents. Upon introductions and learning the couple to be married were both Brides - service was refused. Again their were no discussion of design.


>>>>

 

[bodecea]

You shouldn't have edited my quote from the baker.

You never supplied a quote from the baker that said he and the customers agreed for him to make a Wedding Cake.

You provided a link that said he would provide OTHER products, but that is not the issued. The Oregon Public Accommodation law requires full and equal access to goods and services. One some goods and services for one group and different goods and services for a different group does not comport with the "full and equal" standard.

>>>>

He said he serves gay customers. That is the extent of his requirement by law.

He does not have to serve them anything not on the menu.

Wedding cakes were part of his product menu.

 

[bodecea]

So...you want to compare our laws...passed by legislatures, subject to judicial review, capable of being repealed....to NAZI edicts? You're a trumpanzee, aren't you?

You were discussing the Nazis and their laws. And the need to follow laws.

I was replying to YOUR discussion of NAZIS and their laws. Please remember your own posts. TIA.

And I replied to yours. Try to keep up K.

Ironic coming from someone who doesn't even know the particulars of the case.

You realize you are living, breathing irony. right?

How so?

 

[bodecea]

So...you want to compare our laws...passed by legislatures, subject to judicial review, capable of being repealed....to NAZI edicts? You're a trumpanzee, aren't you?

You were discussing the Nazis and their laws. And the need to follow laws.

I was replying to YOUR discussion of NAZIS and their laws. Please remember your own posts. TIA.

And I replied to yours. Try to keep up K.

Ironic coming from someone who doesn't even know the particulars of the case.

You sure don't. Good stuff.

I do know the particulars and have been following the case since it started. You?

 

[bodecea]

Open question to those on the thread who arguing against the judge's ruling: Are you opposed to protected classes and PA laws in general? Or are you just opposed to adding sexual orientation to the list of protected classes?

I am against the fact that the petty assholes sued them over a cake. Targeted them then sued them.

But they got their itty bitty sensibilities hurted

Thus sayeth the christian snowflakes.

 

[Pop23]

He said he sold to gays. Quote it once and you will see.

The bakery doesn't sell gay-themed wedding cakes to anyone. Not even those who demand extralegal rights.

#1 Selling only some products to one group violates the law. The fact that the Klein's may have been willing to sell other products does not relieve them of responsibility in not discriminating in the sale of Wedding Cakes.

#2 There was no discussion of design, this is attested to in the Statement of Facts in the court documents. Upon introductions and learning the couple to be married were both Brides - service was refused. Again their were no discussion of design.


>>>>

The cakes offered couldn’t be used at a wedding?

How very strange.

 

[Aba Incieni]

He said he sold to gays. Quote it once and you will see.

The bakery doesn't sell gay-themed wedding cakes to anyone. Not even those who demand extralegal rights.

#1 Selling only some products to one group violates the law. The fact that the Klein's may have been willing to sell other products does not relieve them of responsibility in not discriminating in the sale of Wedding Cakes.

#2 There was no discussion of design, this is attested to in the Statement of Facts in the court documents. Upon introductions and learning the couple to be married were both Brides - service was refused. Again their were no discussion of design.


>>>>

He doesn't sell gay-themed wedding cakes to anyone. He offered the dykes what he offers everyone else.

He said he sells to gays. If you didn't edit my post you would know that already.

 

[Pop23]

Open question to those on the thread who arguing against the judge's ruling: Are you opposed to protected classes and PA laws in general? Or are you just opposed to adding sexual orientation to the list of protected classes?

I am against the fact that the petty assholes sued them over a cake. Targeted them then sued them.

But they got their itty bitty sensibilities hurted

Thus sayeth the christian snowflakes.

Triggered petunia?

 

[Aba Incieni]

You were discussing the Nazis and their laws. And the need to follow laws.

I was replying to YOUR discussion of NAZIS and their laws. Please remember your own posts. TIA.

And I replied to yours. Try to keep up K.

Ironic coming from someone who doesn't even know the particulars of the case.

You sure don't. Good stuff.

I do know the particulars and have been following the case since it started. You?

Refusing to serve people because they are gay is against established law. There would be no controversy.