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

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

The death threats nearly caused the couple to lose custody of the two children they were in the process of adopting.

Too bad that didn't happen. Perhaps the children would then have had a chance at being placed in a real family, that didn't consist of a pair of mentally- and morally-depraved sexual perverts.

Well said.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Unfortunately, the law says they can't do that.

Just like it says they can't deny an interracial couple a wedding cake because they hate the thought of a black man fucking a white woman.

 

[JoeB131]

Too bad that didn't happen. Perhaps the children would then have had a chance at being placed in a real family, that didn't consist of a pair of mentally- and morally-depraved sexual perverts.

Um. NO. these kids had severe disabilities, which is why no one else wanted to adopt them.

so let's threaten the parents of disabled children, just like Jesus would do.

 

[JoeB131]

This is a frontal assault on the 1st Amendment. The lesbian activists targeted Sweet Cakes because the proprietors were Christian for the purpose of creating a case to be used to end the 1st Amendment.

Okay, let's look at that.

They didn't target Sweet Cakes. They were specifically invited to use the shop by Mrs. Klein after she met Ms. Cryer at a social event. Mrs. Klein was perfectly aware they were gay and had no problem offering them a wedding cake. It was Mr. Klein who decided that he need to go apeshit on them and scream bible verses at the poor woman's mother.

If Hillary had been elected and a radical left SCOTUS appointee were on the bench, this would end freedom of religion once and for all, as was planned.

Okay, buddy, the thing is, businesses don't have "religions".

However, you have 5 to 4 who support the United States Constitution, so when this get to the court, you will lose and the 1st Amendment will be upheld.

Again, given that Justice Kennedy has consistently come down in favor of gay rights, that's pretty unlikely.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Court rules against Oregon bakers who refused to make gay wedding cake
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.

The case began back in January 2013, when Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of the since-closed Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery just outside Portland, Oregon, cited their religious beliefs when declining to make a wedding cake for Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer.

Following the incident, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries found the Kleins in violation of a 2007 state law that protects the rights of LGBTQ people in employment, housing and public accommodations. In 2015, the couple was ordered to pay the Bowman-Cryers emotional distress damages.
Court rules against Oregon bakers who refused to make gay wedding cake

Happy New Years too, THESE LOSER MENTAL ANAL RELIGIOUS BOY RAPE SUPPORTER BAKER MORONS. As you will always bake cakes for raper priest klans roaming our streets. Following fake gods, does suck folks, as shown here by these losers. And costly as well. For what in the end? Just to show others
who are the sickest mental thinkers, walking the planet are.

Melissa and Aaron Klein have been ordered to pay $135,000 to a lesbian couple the bakers declined to make a cake for. (Courtesy Sweet Cakes by Melissa)
“Support Sweet Cakes by Melissa”, which raised over $100,000 before it was shut down by GoFundMe, who stated that the campaign was not compatible with their terms of service.

WOW? The cake would have made them a few bucks. But they wanted to give them a 135K Cash wedding gift..LOL!

BTW: Really, these folks still follow gods after the church paid out 600-1.3 billion in damages for raping kids. WTF is with that? Preist ASSAULT on children (rape) okay
and still follows fake lords. but if, two adults, legal ones, and their personal sexual relationship is not to be allowed, and protested by mentally sick bakers. WTF is with THAT?

SCOTUS will be overturning it to preserve religious liberty.
And you're going to burn in hell.

If it's a 5-4 vote for the sick MORON god losers cake makers what does that say?
In the future, it will swing the other way. If it was a 9-0 for the sick Morons cake
makers, it would mean there is a magic man for that too happen. So clearly they are losing.
And there are NO gods or a place so-called hell. How stupidly the weak mined were trained to be ignorant to realities.

You sound like a bitch in heat...

Are you hitting on him? Because that post sure isn't about the topic of this thread which is about the cake bakers who didn't.

Na, progressives always seem to be control freaks...

 

[Pop23]

This is a frontal assault on the 1st Amendment. The lesbian activists targeted Sweet Cakes because the proprietors were Christian for the purpose of creating a case to be used to end the 1st Amendment. If Hillary had been elected and a radical left SCOTUS appointee were on the bench, this would end freedom of religion once and for all, as was planned. However, you have 5 to 4 who support the United States Constitution, so when this get to the court, you will lose and the 1st Amendment will be upheld.

The court already address it in 1968 in the case of Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises and the court ruled that a business could not claim it was against their religion to serve certain classes of customers under Public Accommodation laws.

Then in 1983 the SCOTUS ruled against discrimination based on religious justifications in the case of Bob Jones University v. United States.


>>>>

You will find differently. Race is an inherent, behavior is not. Homosexuality is a matter of behavior. While the left is foaming at the mouth at the prospect of ending the first amendment, you chance of success is less than 10%. You will lose 5 to 4.

Over a cake!

Now watch them equate this to segregated water fountains or riding in the back of a public bus!

You can’t make this shit up on your best day!

They're equating it to the way PA laws have been applied to racism and bigotry against religion. If you're gonna say that businesses can't discriminate against blacks or Christians, why not gays? Why not any minority? Why do racial minorities or religious people deserve special protection?

Sorry, equating gays (an act) to blacks or females (immutable) is simply dumb.

It’s face value compared to thought.

As far as Christians, I don’t give a crap if a business wants to discriminate against them, and likely they don’t care either. There are simply some things that are for society to handle, not government.

The Christian would likely just go elsewhere and allow the business to fail on its own.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Neil Gorsuch, Comrade.

You lose.

Gorsuch replace Scalia, no change there.

It will be 4-4 with Kennedy making the decision.

Truthfully, I don't know how he'll rule in this case. Just remember Kennedy was the deciding vote in Lawrence, Evans, Windsor, and Obergefel.


>>>>

Correct.

The plan was for another Kagan level Marxist to replace Scalia, pushing the court hard left and ending civil rights once and for all. This entire setup was staged around the idea that Hilary would have replaced Scalia with another anti-Constitution Marxist.

The distinction between this and Obergefel is that this is a specific violation of civil rights, for Kennedy to be consistent, he must strike down the Oregon law.

"The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach," the Court declared, "a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm,"

To deny 1st Amendment rights on the basis that homosexuals are a prioritized and privileged class would be a contradiction to this earlier ruling.

 

[Uncensored2008]

This is a frontal assault on the 1st Amendment. The lesbian activists targeted Sweet Cakes because the proprietors were Christian for the purpose of creating a case to be used to end the 1st Amendment. If Hillary had been elected and a radical left SCOTUS appointee were on the bench, this would end freedom of religion once and for all, as was planned. However, you have 5 to 4 who support the United States Constitution, so when this get to the court, you will lose and the 1st Amendment will be upheld.

The court already address it in 1968 in the case of Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises and the court ruled that a business could not claim it was against their religion to serve certain classes of customers under Public Accommodation laws.

Then in 1983 the SCOTUS ruled against discrimination based on religious justifications in the case of Bob Jones University v. United States.


>>>>

You will find differently. Race is an inherent, behavior is not. Homosexuality is a matter of behavior. While the left is foaming at the mouth at the prospect of ending the first amendment, you chance of success is less than 10%. You will lose 5 to 4.

Over a cake!

Now watch them equate this to segregated water fountains or riding in the back of a public bus!

You can’t make this shit up on your best day!

The Sweet Cakes case is planned and executed as a means to end the 1st Amendment. The establishment was targeted precisely because it was a Christian bakery. Halal bakeries across the nation should be flooded with demands to bake cakes celebrating the US recognition of Jerusalem as the Jewish capital. Jewish bakeries in New York should be flooded with orders to make Swastika cakes.

The left seeks to end civil rights, but still seeks to favor certain religions. Press the issue. democrats hate Christians and are seeking to strip Christians of civil rights, make it clear to the nation that should the democrats succeed in ending the 1st Amendment, it affects all religions, even those the left likes.

 

[Uncensored2008]

This is a frontal assault on the 1st Amendment. The lesbian activists targeted Sweet Cakes because the proprietors were Christian for the purpose of creating a case to be used to end the 1st Amendment. If Hillary had been elected and a radical left SCOTUS appointee were on the bench, this would end freedom of religion once and for all, as was planned. However, you have 5 to 4 who support the United States Constitution, so when this get to the court, you will lose and the 1st Amendment will be upheld.

The court already address it in 1968 in the case of Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises and the court ruled that a business could not claim it was against their religion to serve certain classes of customers under Public Accommodation laws.

Then in 1983 the SCOTUS ruled against discrimination based on religious justifications in the case of Bob Jones University v. United States.


>>>>

You will find differently. Race is an inherent, behavior is not. Homosexuality is a matter of behavior. While the left is foaming at the mouth at the prospect of ending the first amendment, you chance of success is less than 10%. You will lose 5 to 4.

Over a cake!

Now watch them equate this to segregated water fountains or riding in the back of a public bus!

You can’t make this shit up on your best day!

They're equating it to the way PA laws have been applied to racism and bigotry against religion. If you're gonna say that businesses can't discriminate against blacks or Christians, why not gays? Why not any minority? Why do racial minorities or religious people deserve special protection?

Businesses discriminate against Christians all the time. Does Hollywood refrain from profanity and nudity because it offends Christians? Hardly.

No PA law is applied because religion is an act. While free exercise is protected (and violated in this case) it is not a fundamental characteristic.

Civil society does not discriminate based on what people are, what people DO is a VERY different issue. Will you next demand that we cannot discriminate against bank robbers?

A free society is one where people trade freely based upon their own judgement. Who I buy goods from is none of your concern. Who I sell my used car to is none of your concern.

A master tells his slave who he must buy and sell to, free men make their own decisions.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Okay, let's look at that.

They didn't target Sweet Cakes. They were specifically invited to use the shop by Mrs. Klein after she met Ms. Cryer at a social event. Mrs. Klein was perfectly aware they were gay and had no problem offering them a wedding cake. It was Mr. Klein who decided that he need to go apeshit on them and scream bible verses at the poor woman's mother.

Bullshit.

The Lesbian activists approach Mrs. Klein as part of the setup, never revealing that it was a lesbian wedding.

Okay, buddy, the thing is, businesses don't have "religions".

Well then Comrade Stalin, enslave the business to make your cakes while allowing the bakers within to refuse.

Ah, but you are lying, you seek to enslave the PEOPLE as the business does not exist without them.

Again, given that Justice Kennedy has consistently come down in favor of gay rights, that's pretty unlikely.

Kennedy is consistent on civil rights. Your belief that he will end the 1st Amendment is misplaced.

 

[JoeB131]

Bullshit.

The Lesbian activists approach Mrs. Klein as part of the setup, never revealing that it was a lesbian wedding.

Um, no, Mrs. Klein knew they were Lesbians.

Well then Comrade Stalin, enslave the business to make your cakes while allowing the bakers within to refuse.

Ah, but you are lying, you seek to enslave the PEOPLE as the business does not exist without them.

ANyone who runs a business has to deal with customers they don't like. that's part of having a business. I have to do business with religious nuts and Trump supporters. That's the line between ME PERSONALLY and my business. I understand the distinction.

And because I take pride in my work, I will do the absolute best job I can for you, even if I would be just as happy if you got hit by a truck right after our meeting.

Kennedy is consistent on civil rights. Your belief that he will end the 1st Amendment is misplaced.

Except this isn't really a first amendment issue. It's a commerce issue.

And commerce issues are usually resolved in favor of the consumer.

 

[Pop23]

Bullshit.

The Lesbian activists approach Mrs. Klein as part of the setup, never revealing that it was a lesbian wedding.

Um, no, Mrs. Klein knew they were Lesbians.

Well then Comrade Stalin, enslave the business to make your cakes while allowing the bakers within to refuse.

Ah, but you are lying, you seek to enslave the PEOPLE as the business does not exist without them.

ANyone who runs a business has to deal with customers they don't like. that's part of having a business. I have to do business with religious nuts and Trump supporters. That's the line between ME PERSONALLY and my business. I understand the distinction.

And because I take pride in my work, I will do the absolute best job I can for you, even if I would be just as happy if you got hit by a truck right after our meeting.

Kennedy is consistent on civil rights. Your belief that he will end the 1st Amendment is misplaced.

Except this isn't really a first amendment issue. It's a commerce issue.

And commerce issues are usually resolved in favor of the consumer.

All artists claim first amendment protection. They are in fact business people (commerce). You can’t claim this for one and not the other.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

We all know this was a politically driven ruling. You leftists can stop playing dumb now.

 

[bodecea]

SCOTUS will be overturning it to preserve religious liberty.
And you're going to burn in hell.

If it's a 5-4 vote for the sick MORON god losers cake makers what does that say?
In the future, it will swing the other way. If it was a 9-0 for the sick Morons cake
makers, it would mean there is a magic man for that too happen. So clearly they are losing.
And there are NO gods or a place so-called hell. How stupidly the weak mined were trained to be ignorant to realities.

You sound like a bitch in heat...

Are you hitting on him? Because that post sure isn't about the topic of this thread which is about the cake bakers who didn't.

Na, progressives always seem to be control freaks...

View attachment 168815

Comply with business law if you have a business license. Obviously this is the ONLY couple that has ever had to do that......they are SO persecuted!

 

[bodecea]

[
Okay, let's look at that.

They didn't target Sweet Cakes. They were specifically invited to use the shop by Mrs. Klein after she met Ms. Cryer at a social event. Mrs. Klein was perfectly aware they were gay and had no problem offering them a wedding cake. It was Mr. Klein who decided that he need to go apeshit on them and scream bible verses at the poor woman's mother.

Bullshit.

The Lesbian activists approach Mrs. Klein as part of the setup, never revealing that it was a lesbian wedding.

Okay, buddy, the thing is, businesses don't have "religions".

Well then Comrade Stalin, enslave the business to make your cakes while allowing the bakers within to refuse.

Ah, but you are lying, you seek to enslave the PEOPLE as the business does not exist without them.

Again, given that Justice Kennedy has consistently come down in favor of gay rights, that's pretty unlikely.

Kennedy is consistent on civil rights. Your belief that he will end the 1st Amendment is misplaced.

I see you have no idea what went on in this case except what you've been spoon fed by your trumpist masters.

 

[Mac1958]

I wish the bakery owners had just baked the damn cake.

I wish the gay couple had just decided to live and let live and just go somewhere else.

We all just need to "take a stand" so we can "feel" good about ourselves, don't we?
.

 

[JoeB131]

All artists claim first amendment protection. They are in fact business people (commerce). You can’t claim this for one and not the other.

Not really. No artist is going to create a work that no one wants to pay for. And no artist is going to take a contract and then produce something other than what the person commissioning the artwork wanted.

 

[bodecea]

Too bad that didn't happen. Perhaps the children would then have had a chance at being placed in a real family, that didn't consist of a pair of mentally- and morally-depraved sexual perverts.

Um. NO. these kids had severe disabilities, which is why no one else wanted to adopt them.

so let's threaten the parents of disabled children, just like Jesus would do.

It's interesting to watch all the so-called christians displaying their faith in this thread.dd

 

[Pop23]

I wish the bakery owners had just baked the damn cake.

I wish the gay couple had just decided to live and let live and just go somewhere else.

We all just need to "take a stand" so we can "feel" good about ourselves, don't we?
.

I’ve posted nearly the same comment. My real problem is the size and vindictive nature of the fine.

If a fine was issued to make the offended parties “whole”, then I wouldn’t give this the time of Day.

Say, make the baker pay the costs of another baker providing the service and the additional cost of time to the couple.

But over $100k? That, in itself should be illegal.

 

[bodecea]

I wish the bakery owners had just baked the damn cake.

I wish the gay couple had just decided to live and let live and just go somewhere else.

We all just need to "take a stand" so we can "feel" good about ourselves, don't we?
.

99% of the time, that's what happens and we don't hear about it.