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

[Aba Incieni]

Straight couples were not sold gay-themed cakes, either.

They never got to design discussion, this is agreed to by the bakers in the Statement of Facts that they agreed to as part of the court proceedings.

You statement that they requested a "gay themed cake" is not born out by the facts.

I presented a sample cake from one of the bakers catalog in a previous post. The bakers would have made it and sold it to a different-sex couple but refused it for a same-sex couple. Since it's the exact same cake, what specifically in it's manufacture or design suddenly makes it "gay themed" when it's the same cake?

(The answer of course is that there is no difference in the Wedding Cake, the difference is who is ordering it.)


>>>>

The baker sold to gay people. It must be a mistake.

 

[paperview]

WW: I do believe you are interacting with a bot.

 

[Aba Incieni]

WW: I do believe you are interacting with a bot.

Then again, you believed The Don would never be President.

 

[WorldWatcher]

They were looking for a specially made, custom baked cake. The bakery did not offer what they were looking for. To anyone.

Of course they did.

The mother brought one there 2-years prior which is the reason the couple went back.


>>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

The baker sold to gay people. It must be a mistake.

The fact that they may have sold them other products is irrelevant.

Providing all products and services to one group while limiting the same products and services to another another group is a clear violation of the law. I've posted the Oregon statutes for you, the law requires full and equal access to goods and services, not a subset of goods and services.


>>>>

 

[Aba Incieni]

They were looking for a specially made, custom baked cake. The bakery did not offer what they were looking for. To anyone.

Of course they did.

The mother brought one there 2-years prior which is the reason the couple went back.


>>>>>

Then there is your proof they sold gay themed cakes and did not discriminate.

 

[Aba Incieni]

The baker sold to gay people. It must be a mistake.

The fact that they may have sold them other products is irrelevant.

Providing all products and services to one group while limiting the same products and services to another another group is a clear violation of the law. I've posted the Oregon statutes for you, the law requires full and equal access to goods and services, not a subset of goods and services.


>>>>

They couldn't offer them products they didn't sell, could they.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Then there is your proof they sold gay themed cakes and did not discriminate.

They never got to design discussion, this is agreed to by the bakers in the Statement of Facts that they agreed to as part of the court proceedings.

You statement that they requested a "gay themed cake" is not born out by the facts.

I presented a sample cake from one of the bakers catalog in a previous post. The bakers would have made it and sold it to a different-sex couple but refused it for a same-sex couple. Since it's the exact same cake, what specifically in it's manufacture or design suddenly makes it "gay themed" when it's the same cake?

(The answer of course is that there is no difference in the Wedding Cake, the difference is who is ordering it.)


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

They couldn't offer them products they didn't sell, could they.

The couple was looking for a wedding cake, Sweetcakes supplied wedding cakes.

They supplied a wedding cake to the mothers wedding two yeas before.

The had a booth at a bridal convention to sell wedding cakes and Ms. Klein invited them to the shop.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

WW: I do believe you are interacting with a bot.

He's not really trying to learn anything or have a discussion of the facts. So now he's reduced to repeating falsehoods over and over. Now I just have to scroll up, copy a previous reply to the same falsehood and paste it.

I realized he lost it when he was reduced to calling the couple the "d" word.

>>>>

 

[paperview]

WW: I do believe you are interacting with a bot.

He's not really trying to learn anything of have a discussion of the facts. So now he's reduced to repeating falsehoods over and over. Now I just have to scroll up, copy a previous reply to the same falsehood and paste it.


>>>>

I know. It's watching what a skipping record would look like if it were in visual form.

Having read its posts, I am sincere when I say it's just a programed bot.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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

The Commerce Clause. Thanks for playing.

What does the power to regulate interstate commerce have to do with illegally meddling in a transaction that does not cross state lines?

 

[paperview]

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

The Commerce Clause. Thanks for playing.

What does the power to regulate interstate commerce have to do with illegally meddling in a transaction that does not cross state lines?

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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.

Businesses are the property of people, and the rights that people have extend to how their property is to be used.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The couple was looking for a wedding cake, Sweetcakes supplied wedding cakes.

The couple wasn't seeking a cake for a wedding. They were seeking a cake for a disgusting, immoral homosexual mockery of a wedding. Not the same thing at all.

Offering goods and services that support something that is sacred ought not ever be taken as implying any obligation to similarly offer goods and services in support of unholy mockeries of that which is sacred.

 

[paperview]

^ Flaming, disgusting, immoral BIGOT. ^

 

[mdk]

Our wedding and reception were tasteful affairs filled with numerous family and friends. If my wedding as the power to mock or damage your marriage then perhaps your marriage isn't very strong. That, or you're just a drama queen.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Providing all products and services to one group while limiting the same products and services to another another group is a clear violation of the law. I've posted the Oregon statutes for you, the law requires full and equal access to goods and services, not a subset of goods and services.

Requiring an artist to produce a work in support of that which he finds immoral is a clear violation of the First Amendment, which is a higher law, that takes precedence over the lesser laws that you are citing.

It's funny when you on the left wrong pay empty lip service to the rule of law, while arguing against the true rule of law.

 

[Peach]

emotional distress? LMAO what a couple of fucking bedwetters
It amazes me how people cheer on loss of individuality and private property.
Fucking sickos

It is a PUBLIC business, no one requires an American to operate PUBLIC BUSINESSES. That noted: YES!

 

[Bob Blaylock]

What does the power to regulate interstate commerce have to do with illegally meddling in a transaction that does not cross state lines?

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States

Having observed that 75% of the Heart of Atlanta Motel's clientele came from out-of-state, and that it was strategically located near Interstates 75 and 85 as well as two major Georgia highways, the Court found that the business clearly affected interstate commerce.​

I think you'd have to admit that that was quite a stretch, to support an argument that the federal government had any authority here by way of the commerce clause. It's certainly well beyond what the authors of the Constitution were thinking when they wrote that clause in the first place.

Does any similar principle apply here? Was Sweet Cakes Bakery located in a different state than that in which the pervert couple lives, that were seeking a homosexual mockery of a wedding cake? Is there any evidence that Sweet Cakes Bakery received most of its business from out-of-state customers?

If the Commerce Clause was intended to act as such a catch-all for the federal government to stick its nose into all sorts of things not covered under the powers explicitly delegated to it, then what was even the point to the Tenth Amendment?