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

[Pop23]

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

A Christian would say it is their obligation to combat sin.

What’s you’re point petunia?

 

[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?
.

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.

Sometimes people are "made an example" of.

It's a ridiculous fine, but now people are intimidated, and that's evidently the point.
.

 

[JoeB131]

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?

Do you also wish Rosa Parks had just gone to the back of the bus like she was told to?

Hey, let's be honest, most of us "just live and let live" when we encounter an injustice. I know I could have sued a previous employer for age discrimination. (It helps when the boss pretty much says you are too old in front of others.) But most of us do go along and get along and get on with our lives when dealing with jerks.

But sometimes, you need to make a stand. The Cryer-Bowmans felt they needed to take stand. For that matter, so do the Kleins, but their stand is kind of fucked up.

 

[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.

Sometimes people are "made an example" of.

It's a ridiculous fine, but now people are intimidated, and that's evidently the point.
.

And if the government can do that, what keeps the government from treating other freedoms the same way?

And that’s the real danger here.

 

[Pop23]

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?

Do you also wish Rosa Parks had just gone to the back of the bus like she was told to?

Hey, let's be honest, most of us "just live and let live" when we encounter an injustice. I know I could have sued a previous employer for age discrimination. (It helps when the boss pretty much says you are too old in front of others.) But most of us do go along and get along and get on with our lives when dealing with jerks.

But sometimes, you need to make a stand. The Cryer-Bowmans felt they needed to take stand. For that matter, so do the Kleins, but their stand is kind of fucked up.

Public transportation is paid through taxation. Cakes are not.

What’s your point?

 

[JoeB131]

Sometimes people are "made an example" of.

It's a ridiculous fine, but now people are intimidated, and that's evidently the point.

The fine was commensurate to the Klein's behavior.

It wasn't just that they refused to bake the cake. It was that they published the names and addresses of the people complaining about them on social media and subjected them to death threats from people who think Jesus would threaten disabled children.

Of course, the "example" made of them was when consumers drove them out of business long before any fines were imposed. But Mr. Klein got to be the toast of the Christian Talking Circuit.

Mrs.Klein lost a business she loved and spent her life building.

 

[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?
.

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.

Sometimes people are "made an example" of.

It's a ridiculous fine, but now people are intimidated, and that's evidently the point.
.

And if the government can do that, what keeps the government from treating other freedoms the same way?

And that’s the real danger here.

Well, there are two parts here: The law, and whether it's leveraged. THAT'S a CHOICE.

The law in this case is valid. If enough feel it isn't, they can vote people in who will change it. Easy peasy.

This is a cultural issue, not a legal issue.
.

 

[JoeB131]

Public transportation is paid through taxation. Cakes are not.

What’s your point?

My point - which is lost on you - is that it would have been a lot less trouble if Ms.Parks moved to the back of the bus.

She didn't. She took a stand. We are all better off for it.

We are all better off because the Cryer-Bowman's took a stand.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

The situation is entirely comparable. A gay couple getting married has no impact whatsoever on the Christian bakers. It doesn’t cause them harm, disease or injury. To refuse service makes no religious sense whatsoever.

As for the idea that the bakers are “enslaved” by the government, this is total bullshit.

The bakers made a choice in opening a public business and agreed to abide by the law when they applied for a business lisence. The Lesbian couple were prepared to pay for the services requested. There is no “enslavement” here.

Performing a service to members of the public is what they promised they would do when given a business license. Receiving payment for services removed any talk of enslavement.

Unless the bakers are refusing to serve other “sinners”, like second marriages, adulterers, liars or murderers, they’re not refusing to serve the Lesbians on religious grounds. They’re simply being bigoted assholes.

Oh and they encouraged the harassment and threats against the Lesbians and refused to remove their personal information from the bakery’s Facebook page. They deserve to be put out of business.

 

[JoeB131]

And if the government can do that, what keeps the government from treating other freedoms the same way?

And that’s the real danger here.

There's no "Freedom" issue involved here.

If we were talking about these people refusing to bake a cake because the couple was black or interracial or Jewish, no one would be talking about "Freedom" here. They would say, "There's a public accommodation law, you are in violation of it."

The Kleins have a redress. They can find something else to do for a living if their religious convictions will not let them serve gays. (Which, by the way, they pretty much have.)

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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!

Why do you not call for government to comply with the Constitution? Your empty lip service to the rule of law is silly and foolish when applied, as you continue to do, to excusing the blatant violation of the nation's highest law.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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

Jesus said of those who would offend against children, that it would be better for them to have millstones put around their necks, and for them to be drowned in the sea. Certainly, this applies to those who would put children in the hands of sick, dangerous perverts, such as homosexuals.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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.

No. To fine the bakers even as much as a cent is illegal.

There is no reason why the baker should have to pay any fine, penalty, or restitution, for exercising rights which the First Amendment explicitly affirms and protects. The First Amendment is the law, and everyone who has willingly had a hand in violating these bakers' rights thereunder is guilty of breaking the law. It is they who ought to be punished.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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

·
·
·​

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

What you wish is that the bakers had gone ahead and given active support to that with they know to be morally wrong.

It is not about “‘take[ing] a stand’ so that we can ‘feel’ good about ourselves”. It's about doing what one knows is right, and not doing what one knows is wrong. But then perhaps you have no idea what it is like to have a working sense of right and wrong, and a working conscience.

 

[Mac1958]

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

·
·
·​

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

What you wish is that the bakers had gone ahead and given active support to that with they know to be morally wrong.

It is not about “‘take[ing] a stand’ so that we can ‘feel’ good about ourselves”. It's about doing what one knows is right, and not doing what one knows is wrong. But then perhaps you have no idea what it is like to have a working sense of right and wrong, and a working conscience.

I'm not so full of myself that I can't just give in now and then.

I'm not on a crusade.
.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

A Christian would say it is their obligation to combat sin.

What’s you’re point petunia?

If not to combat sin, at least to avoid contributing to it.

Homosexuality is immoral—no matter how devoutly the pervert-rights bunch wants to deny it—and it is immoral to give any support to it.

Marriage is sacred, and it is immoral to give any support to a disgusting homosexual mockery of it.

And it is certainly wrong for the power of government to be abused in order to compel anyone to give support to these evils or to punish anyone for declining to do so.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

What you wish is that the bakers had gone ahead and given active support to that with they know to be morally wrong.

It is not about “‘take[ing] a stand’ so that we can ‘feel’ good about ourselves”. It's about doing what one knows is right, and not doing what one knows is wrong. But then perhaps you have no idea what it is like to have a working sense of right and wrong, and a working conscience.

I'm not so full of myself that I can't just give in now and then.

I'm not on a crusade.
.

In other words, you have no moral or ethical values which you are not willing to sell out for the sake of convenience or for filthy lucre.

 

[Mac1958]

What you wish is that the bakers had gone ahead and given active support to that with they know to be morally wrong.

It is not about “‘take[ing] a stand’ so that we can ‘feel’ good about ourselves”. It's about doing what one knows is right, and not doing what one knows is wrong. But then perhaps you have no idea what it is like to have a working sense of right and wrong, and a working conscience.

I'm not so full of myself that I can't just give in now and then.

I'm not on a crusade.
.

In other words, you have no moral or ethical values which you are not willing to sell out for the sake of convenience or for filthy lucre.

I know, it can only be one or the other, black or white, all or nothing, zero sum.

Well, perhaps we'll all get lucky and you'll save us.
.

 

[dblack]

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.

Maybe. Others see it differently. The point is, once you're arguing over the particulars of who gets the special privileges and who doesn't, equal protection is already forfeit. The problem here isn't differing conceptions of what constitutes discrimination. The problem is the idea that government should be dictating these matters in the first place.

 

[bodecea]

A Christian would say it is their obligation to combat sin.

What’s you’re point petunia?

If not to combat sin, at least to avoid contributing to it.

Homosexuality is immoral—no matter how devoutly the pervert-rights bunch wants to deny it—and it is immoral to give any support to it.

Marriage is sacred, and it is immoral to give any support to a disgusting homosexual mockery of it.

And it is certainly wrong for the power of government to be abused in order to compel anyone to give support to these evils or to punish anyone for declining to do so.

How is homosexuality immoral?