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

[dblack]

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.)

Public accommodations laws violate the fundamental freedom of association. This is the moral equivalent of forcing children to be "friends" with the nerd. It might be the right thing to do, as a parent. But government isn't a parent, Joe.

 

[Pop23]

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.)

As long as the couple is “made whole”. Because the government was vindictive, the problem is obvious.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

I know gay folks who are great parents. Probably better than a lot of straights.

They adopted disabled children who would have been institutionalized. So what do "Christians" do? That's right. Send the parents threats.

 

[JoeB131]

As long as the couple is “made whole”. Because the government was vindictive, the problem is obvious.

I don't think the government was any more vindictive than it had to be.

 

[JoeB131]

Public accommodations laws violate the fundamental freedom of association. This is the moral equivalent of forcing children to be "friends" with the nerd. It might be the right thing to do, as a parent. But government isn't a parent, Joe.

No, it's a government, whose job it is to assure that when dealing with a provider of goods- a PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION- that we all have equal access. This is not even a new idea, it actually predates the US.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

No, it's a government, whose job it is to assure that when dealing with a provider of goods- a PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION- that we all have equal access. This is not even a new idea, it actually predates the US.

One does not have any right to “equal access” to the goods or labor that rightfully belong to another. Your position is irreconcilable with the principles of a free society.

 

[JoeB131]

One does not have any right to “equal access” to the goods or labor that rightfully belong to another. Your position is irreconcilable with the principles of a free society.

Public accommodations - Wikipedia

It's why every business has to have a handicapped parking space.

Federal legislation dealing with public accommodations include these:

• Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

 

[Pop23]

As long as the couple is “made whole”. Because the government was vindictive, the problem is obvious.

I don't think the government was any more vindictive than it had to be.

Nice OPINION.

If the cake would have cost $500. The fine was 270 times the cost of the product. Outrageous

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Federal legislation dealing with public accommodations include these:

• Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

Where, in the Constitution, is the federal government assigned the authority for any of that?

(Hint: It's not, so therefore, per the Tenth Amendment, the federal government has no such authority, and is acting illegally by trying to claim and exercise it.)

 

[WorldWatcher]

Where, in the Constitution, is the federal government assigned the authority for any of that?

(Hint: It's not, so therefore, per the Tenth Amendment, the federal government has no such authority, and is acting illegally by trying to claim and exercise it.)

The Sweetcakes case arose under Oregon's State Public Accommodation law under the states authority under the 10th Amendment to write general laws pertaining to intrastate commerce.

(The Masterpiece Cakeshop case is under Colorado's PA law.)


>>>>

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Where, in the Constitution, is the federal government assigned the authority for any of that?

(Hint: It's not, so therefore, per the Tenth Amendment, the federal government has no such authority, and is acting illegally by trying to claim and exercise it.)

The Sweetcakes case arose under Oregon's State Public Accommodation law under the states authority under the 10th Amendment to write general laws pertaining to intrastate commerce.

(The Masterpiece Cakeshop case is under Colorado's PA law.)


>>>>

Under the Fourteenth Amendment, even states are not allowed to violate those rights which the First Amendment affirms. Oregon was acting illegally here, as well.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

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.

Forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs is unconstitutional. You Marxists are engaged on a direct assault on the 1st Amendment.

 

[JoeB131]

Nice OPINION.

If the cake would have cost $500. The fine was 270 times the cost of the product. Outrageous

You left out the part where the Kleins instigated an on-line lynch mob against this couple.

THAT'S why they paid the huge fine.

Where, in the Constitution, is the federal government assigned the authority for any of that?

The Commerce Clause. Thanks for playing.

 

[JoeB131]

Under the Fourteenth Amendment, even states are not allowed to violate those rights which the First Amendment affirms. Oregon was acting illegally here, as well.

It isn't a first amendment right. Businesses don't have religions.

They are compelled to comply with the laws related to businesses.

 

[Silhouette]

You left out the part where the Kleins instigated an on-line lynch mob against this couple.

THAT'S why they paid the huge fine.

I would say the opposite is true. But that evidence probably wasn't allowed at trial because "that would foster hate towards the LGBT community". I'm sure it was a totally fair trial where the Kleins' evidence was given completely equal weight. Because we all know that if two lesbians targeted...um I mean selected a Christian bakery to make their "wedding" cake and were turned down, their pleas online to their cult to lash out at the Christians would be "just normal voicings from an oppressed minority". And likely not allowed at trial.

 

[dblack]

The main thing is that we need government to tell us how to live at every juncture. Otherwise - chaos!!!!!

 

[Silhouette]

The main thing is that we need government to tell us how to live at every juncture. Otherwise - chaos!!!!!

No, the main thing is that this case belongs on appeal to the USSC to be measured against the 1st Amendment protections for people of faith. Hopefully it will arrive there just after Ginsburg or Kennedy are retired and replaced by a more conservative moderate justice.

 

[bodecea]

The main thing is that we need government to tell us how to live at every juncture. Otherwise - chaos!!!!!

No, the main thing is that this case belongs on appeal to the USSC to be measured against the 1st Amendment protections for people of faith. Hopefully it will arrive there just after Ginsburg or Kennedy are retired and replaced by a more conservative moderate justice.

"more con-servative moderate" Justice.....

 

[Aba Incieni]

Public accommodations laws violate the fundamental freedom of association. This is the moral equivalent of forcing children to be "friends" with the nerd. It might be the right thing to do, as a parent. But government isn't a parent, Joe.

No, it's a government, whose job it is to assure that when dealing with a provider of goods- a PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION- that we all have equal access. This is not even a new idea, it actually predates the US.

The bakery did not offer gay-themed cakes to anyone. There was no public accomodation for gay-themed cakes, no matter who wanted one.

Another failed attempt by the constantly overturned left coast judges to set arbitrary law.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, the main thing is that this case belongs on appeal to the USSC to be measured against the 1st Amendment protections for people of faith. Hopefully it will arrive there just after Ginsburg or Kennedy are retired and replaced by a more conservative moderate justice.

No, this case won't go to the SCOTUS, no need.

The Masterpiece Cakeshop case, which is the same case was already accepted by the SCOTUS and Oral Arguments were heard in December. They probably won't issue a ruling until the end of the Term in June.

Hate to disappoint you but Ginsburg and Kennedy are participating in the case.


Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - SCOTUSblog


>>>>