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

[Bob Blaylock]

^ Flaming, disgusting, immoral BIGOT. ^

I'm not the one openly siding with immoral homosexual perverts, and defending their “right” to force decent people to participate in and support their sick perversions. That would be you.

 

[paperview]

The thought of fucking over a gay person really gives you a hard on, doesn't it?

 

[Lysistrata]

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?

Last I checked this case involves a violation of state law and regs.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

well, you can say that, you'd just be wrong.

The fine was as high as it was because of the conduct of the Kleins... particularly Mr. Klein publishing the home addresses of the Cryer-Bowmans.

Also, as previously established, MRS. Klein invited the Cryer-Bowman's to use their shop when they tied the knot. It was Mr. Klein who went nuts.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Except it wasn't a gay-themed cake, it was a wedding cake...

which once again- MRS KLEIN OFFERED TO BAKE FOR THEM.

 

[JoeB131]

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

So what's your solution. Letting those with power and money abuse us when they feel like it?

 

[JoeB131]

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

50 years of Public Accommodation laws...

sorry, you lose again.

Bake the fucking cake!

 

[Aba Incieni]

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.)


>>>>

You just said mom bought one a couple of years earlier.

 

[JoeB131]

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

Not really. I can't dump toxic wastes on my my own property because "I own it". I can't refuse to follow sanitation laws because it's my business and I feel like it. We can't allow unsafe work conditions to exist on our businesses because we "Feel like it'.

The government can - and should- regulate business. People can feel whatever they want to feel, but they still have to follow the law.

 

[Aba Incieni]

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.

Except it wasn't a gay-themed cake, it was a wedding cake...

which once again- MRS KLEIN OFFERED TO BAKE FOR THEM.

They served gays. They do not make gay themed wedding cakes for anyone regardless of sexual perversions.

 

[JoeB131]

They served gays. They do not make gay themed wedding cakes for anyone regardless of sexual perversions.

Well, except Mrs. Klein offered to make them a wedding cake.

So she was good with it.

 

[Aba Incieni]

They served gays. They do not make gay themed wedding cakes for anyone regardless of sexual perversions.

Well, except Mrs. Klein offered to make them a wedding cake.

So she was good with it.

The dykes were free to buy any cake they offered.

 

[paperview]

They served gays. They do not make gay themed wedding cakes for anyone regardless of sexual perversions.

Well, except Mrs. Klein offered to make them a wedding cake.

So she was good with it.

Just so you know: Aba is a bot.

 

[Aba Incieni]

They served gays. They do not make gay themed wedding cakes for anyone regardless of sexual perversions.

Well, except Mrs. Klein offered to make them a wedding cake.

So she was good with it.

Just so you know: Aba is a bot.

A bot with more sense than you. How humiliating for you, eh.

 

[mdk]

01000111 01100001 01111001 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 01101101 01100101 01100100 00100000 01110111 01100101 01100100 01100100 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01100011 01100001 01101011 01100101

 

[Aba Incieni]

The Don is a bot, too. Since he pummels you worse than I do.

 

[bodecea]

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.

The bakery offered Wedding Cakes which is what was requested. The customers were turned away after requesting a product that the bakery offered.

No "gay themed cake" was requested because the customers were refused service before any discussion of design.

This is included in the Statement of Facts that the bakers agreed to as part of the legal proceedings. It helps the discussion to discuss the actual facts of a cake instead of making up strawman arguments and then arguing against them.


>>>>

They wanted a custom made gay-themed cake. The bakery did not offer them. I have posted in this thread that the baker himself said they serve gay people.

They did not even get to that point.....but it is fun watching you argue from a position of total ignorance of the facts.

So you say. They still haven't made a gay-themed cake. They never did. Because of their religious beliefs.

Some think they should be forced to. You?

And they were never asked for a gay-themed cake....your ignorance of the case is showing.

 

[bodecea]

They wanted a custom made gay-themed cake. The bakery did not offer them. I have posted in this thread that the baker himself said they serve gay people.

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.)

>>>>>

BuT iT's a GaY CayyyyKKe!!



Happy New Years, WW!

Actually, as we've been informed by Aba, there's gay gravel now.

 

[Aba Incieni]

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.

The bakery offered Wedding Cakes which is what was requested. The customers were turned away after requesting a product that the bakery offered.

No "gay themed cake" was requested because the customers were refused service before any discussion of design.

This is included in the Statement of Facts that the bakers agreed to as part of the legal proceedings. It helps the discussion to discuss the actual facts of a cake instead of making up strawman arguments and then arguing against them.


>>>>

They wanted a custom made gay-themed cake. The bakery did not offer them. I have posted in this thread that the baker himself said they serve gay people.

They did not even get to that point.....but it is fun watching you argue from a position of total ignorance of the facts.

So you say. They still haven't made a gay-themed cake. They never did. Because of their religious beliefs.

Some think they should be forced to. You?

And they were never asked for a gay-themed cake....your ignorance of the case is showing.

The bakers served gays.

Your position is that all businesses must now offer products they have never offered before. The laws of the protected classes now apply to products and not just people.

 

[Aba Incieni]

They wanted a custom made gay-themed cake. The bakery did not offer them. I have posted in this thread that the baker himself said they serve gay people.

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.)

>>>>>

BuT iT's a GaY CayyyyKKe!!



Happy New Years, WW!

Actually, as we've been informed by Aba, there's gay gravel now.

The product doesn't matter. Must sporting goods stores now carry pink mitts or be fined and driven out of business?