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

[dblack]

The bakery did not offer what they were looking for. Not because the clients were dykes.

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.


>>>>

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

Now you are simply lying. Gave you the benefit of the doubt earlier but you choose to ignore the facts and are flat out lying. This is a christian thing, right?

You're lying. But that's the atheist way, conformist.

Atheist are conformists now? How does that work?

 

[Silhouette]

^^ They religiously & blindly adhere like crazy glue (pun intended) to the dogma that God doesn't exist. Their dogma requires them narcissistically to BELIEVE that they themselves are the alpha & the omega.

And that's not enough. Now their religion wants legal dominion over all others. Except for some reason, Islam. They're too scared yet to sue Muslim bakers.

 

[dblack]

^^ They religiously & blindly adhere like crazy glue (pun intended) to the dogma that God doesn't exist. Their dogma requires them narcissistically to BELIEVE that they themselves are the alpha & the omega.

And that's not enough. Now their religion wants legal dominion over all others. Except for some reason, Islam. They're too scared yet to sue Muslim bakers.

Wow... I don't know any atheists like that. Are you sure you're not just talking about the trolls who post in the religion forum?

 

[sakinago]

yes or no

Is the US Constitution dystopian?


I ask, b/c that's what it sounds like you are saying, but I'm going to give you the chance to backpeddle.

No. Your amateur interpretation is.

So, you should support the Constitution over a 'law' that forces people to provide goods or services.


key word; FORCE

Why should they force businesses to follow health laws now, eh?

Because of the first amendment... “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”... that’s pretty clear. Just because the SCOTUS found slavery, or Jim Crow, or internment camps “constitutional” doesn’t mean they were constitutional.

Freedom of religion used to justify discrimination is a despicable thang to spend your life Praying FOR as you Worship false/fake non-existing lords to be done.

EVERYBODY DISCRIMINATES, in one form or the other, even self proclaimed nihilists. An overwhelming majority of society DISCRIMINATES against theft. Nobody wants to be stolen from. However there are certain types of theft that some justify. Take for example of someone stealing a can of soup at the store to feed their starving family. Let’s apply that to a larger scale, how about using government to disproportionately tax the rich to give to the poor? Many people justify that as fair. There are certain sects of the population who think that if you were to leave your door unlocked or you car unlocked with valuables out in the open for everyone to see, you deserve to get stolen from.

What the first amendment does is it gives the individual the power over the government, to choose, follow, and practice/excercise what they believe, as long as that doesn’t involve hurting or stealing from others. A Jew cannot be forced to eat pork, a Muslim cannot be limited to prayer whithin their home, an atheist cannot be required to vow on a bible, or “swear to god.” Just because YOU do not like or agree with these practices, doesn’t mean YOU can use government to force people to violate these practices.

The BOR is the SUPREME law of the land. I will post the first amendment again. I’m sorry you don’t like it, and want to force your beliefs onto those you accuse of forcing their beliefs on others...but be consistent. If you’re not consistent, YOURE GIVING GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO DISCRIMINATE. Making these bakers bake a cake for a ceremony they are religiously opposed to IS DISCRIMINATION. What you are saying is that their beliefs matter less than those of the lesbian couple, that they offered other baking products not dealing with a gay marriage, and the couple who could’ve went to any other baker. In fact their beliefs matter so much more less, that government is not only going to force the cake to baked, but force the bakers to pay 135,000$ because of how much we discriminate against their beliefs...people have a right to their beliefs, and should be able to exercise those beliefs as long as they are not hurting or stealing from others.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

This is a clear violation of the first amendment. You cannot cherry pick the parts of the first amendment you like and ignore the ones you don’t like...THAT IS OPPOSITE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH, what that is, is “I only want to hear/believe/practice what I like, and government should only allow that.” That’s fascism folks. Fascism is censorship and the coherision and forcing of beliefs, anti fascism is freedom of speech and the tolerance of views that you disagree with.

A Muslim caterer/Baker/photographer/DJ/waiter or whatever should not be forced to provide services to a “draw Muhammad” competition. A pro-choicest should not be forced to provide services to a pro-life event. The “little sisters of the poor,” should not be forced to pay for what they believe is abortion inducing pills (or to put things into their perspective, murder inducing pills) whether or not YOU believe it’s murder or not. YOU are allowed to have and excercise YOUR beliefs, as long as they do not hurt or steal from others.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ They religiously & blindly adhere like crazy glue (pun intended) to the dogma that God doesn't exist. Their dogma requires them narcissistically to BELIEVE that they themselves are the alpha & the omega.

And that's not enough. Now their religion wants legal dominion over all others. Except for some reason, Islam. They're too scared yet to sue Muslim bakers.

Wow... I don't know any atheists like that. Are you sure you're not just talking about the trolls who post in the religion forum?

Well yes and no. The anti-religious trolls here post in all the forums.

But in real life I've met atheists. Many of them. And their universal assumption is that the beginning and end of all is within themselves. That's true of free will, but not of the Universe inclusive. They got that part wrong.

 

[dblack]

No. Your amateur interpretation is.

So, you should support the Constitution over a 'law' that forces people to provide goods or services.


key word; FORCE

Why should they force businesses to follow health laws now, eh?

Because of the first amendment... “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”... that’s pretty clear. Just because the SCOTUS found slavery, or Jim Crow, or internment camps “constitutional” doesn’t mean they were constitutional.

Freedom of religion used to justify discrimination is a despicable thang to spend your life Praying FOR as you Worship false/fake non-existing lords to be done.

EVERYBODY DISCRIMINATES, in one form or the other, even self proclaimed nihilists. An overwhelming majority of society DISCRIMINATES against theft. Nobody wants to be stolen from. However there are certain types of theft that some justify. Take for example of someone stealing a can of soup at the store to feed their starving family. Let’s apply that to a larger scale, how about using government to disproportionately tax the rich to give to the poor? Many people justify that as fair. There are certain sects of the population who think that if you were to leave your door unlocked or you car unlocked with valuables out in the open for everyone to see, you deserve to get stolen from.

What the first amendment does is it gives the individual the power over the government, to choose, follow, and practice/excercise what they believe, as long as that doesn’t involve hurting or stealing from others. A Jew cannot be forced to eat pork, a Muslim cannot be limited to prayer whithin their home, an atheist cannot be required to vow on a bible, or “swear to god.” Just because YOU do not like or agree with these practices, doesn’t mean YOU can use government to force people to violate these practices.

The BOR is the SUPREME law of the land. I will post the first amendment again. I’m sorry you don’t like it, and want to force your beliefs onto those you accuse of forcing their beliefs on others...but be consistent. If you’re not consistent, YOURE GIVING GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO DISCRIMINATE. Making these bakers bake a cake for a ceremony they are religiously opposed to IS DISCRIMINATION. What you are saying is that their beliefs matter less than those of the lesbian couple, that they offered other baking products not dealing with a gay marriage, and the couple who could’ve went to any other baker. In fact their beliefs matter so much more less, that government is not only going to force the cake to baked, but force the bakers to pay 135,000$ because of how much we discriminate against their beliefs...people have a right to their beliefs, and should be able to exercise those beliefs as long as they are not hurting or stealing from others.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

This is a clear violation of the first amendment. You cannot cherry pick the parts of the first amendment you like and ignore the ones you don’t like...THAT IS OPPOSITE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH, what that is, is “I only want to hear/believe/practice what I like, and government should only allow that.” That’s fascism folks. Fascism is censorship and the coherision and forcing of beliefs, anti fascism is freedom of speech and the tolerance of views that you disagree with.

If the law justly applies to the public at large, even if it impedes some specific religious practice, the First Amendment doesn't mean that anyone with a conflicting religious belief can just ignore it. The First was never meant to give religious people special privileges. It's not a "get out of jail free" card. If your religion condones human sacrifice, it doesn't mean you can ignore laws against murder.

The question is whether the law justly applies to the public at large. Should anyone be required to serve someone else against their will, regardless of their reason for refusing? I would answer with an emphatic "No!".

 

[Silhouette]

The BOR is the SUPREME law of the land. I will post the first amendment again. I’m sorry you don’t like it, and want to force your beliefs onto those you accuse of forcing their beliefs on others...but be consistent. If you’re not consistent, YOURE GIVING GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO DISCRIMINATE. Making these bakers bake a cake for a ceremony they are religiously opposed to IS DISCRIMINATION. What you are saying is that their beliefs matter less than those of the lesbian couple, that they offered other baking products not dealing with a gay marriage, and the couple who could’ve went to any other baker. In fact their beliefs matter so much more less, that government is not only going to force the cake to baked, but force the bakers to pay 135,000$ because of how much we discriminate against their beliefs...people have a right to their beliefs, and should be able to exercise those beliefs as long as they are not hurting or stealing from others.

One of the best reductions I've seen in this debate! And also, fodder for a lawsuit against Oregon and the predatory lesbians who sought to force Christians to believe that the church of LGBT is superior to Christianity.

Would you agree that their legal advancements have ridden along for years now on the false premise that their behaviors are somehow inborn? Because it's all going to boil down to whether or not these people are practicing stuff they learned inappropriately as kids, and became imprinted habit, or if there is a "gay gene". We'll ask Anne Heche and other dildo-using lesbians how lesbianism for example, is static, firmly the attraction to female only and inborn/immutable... lol..

 

[dblack]

^^ They religiously & blindly adhere like crazy glue (pun intended) to the dogma that God doesn't exist. Their dogma requires them narcissistically to BELIEVE that they themselves are the alpha & the omega.

And that's not enough. Now their religion wants legal dominion over all others. Except for some reason, Islam. They're too scared yet to sue Muslim bakers.

Wow... I don't know any atheists like that. Are you sure you're not just talking about the trolls who post in the religion forum?

Well yes and no. The anti-religious trolls here post in all the forums.

But in real life I've met atheists. Many of them. And their universal assumption is that the beginning and end of all is within themselves. That's true of free will, but not of the Universe inclusive. They got that part wrong.

Uh... ok. But how does that amount to them being conformists, or them wanting legal domination over others? My experience has been quite the opposite. I think maybe you're confusing socialism's antipathy for religion with something inherent in atheism. Socialists don't like religion because it conflicts with their view of government as the be-all-end-all of human existence (ie, they're just jealous). But there's nothing about atheism itself that promotes legal dominion over others. In fact, recognizing that there is no one "god" - no one right way to live - is a large part of why I reject statist government.

 

[Silhouette]

Uh... ok. But how does that amount to them being conformists, or them wanting legal domination over others? My experience has been quite the opposite. I think maybe you're confusing socialism's antipathy for religion with something inherent in atheism. Socialists don't like religion because it conflicts with their view of government as the be-all-end-all of human existence (ie, they're just jealous). But there's nothing about atheism itself that promotes legal dominion over others. In fact, recognizing that there is no one "god" - no one right way to live - is a large part of why I reject statist government.

Well in the purest sense we're getting off topic. Sort of. But maybe this is the gist of the debate? Who knows? Anyway, the secular atheists are grappling right in this topic to legally dominate Christians. So, there's your example.

 

[sakinago]

So, you should support the Constitution over a 'law' that forces people to provide goods or services.


key word; FORCE

Why should they force businesses to follow health laws now, eh?

Because of the first amendment... “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”... that’s pretty clear. Just because the SCOTUS found slavery, or Jim Crow, or internment camps “constitutional” doesn’t mean they were constitutional.

Freedom of religion used to justify discrimination is a despicable thang to spend your life Praying FOR as you Worship false/fake non-existing lords to be done.

EVERYBODY DISCRIMINATES, in one form or the other, even self proclaimed nihilists. An overwhelming majority of society DISCRIMINATES against theft. Nobody wants to be stolen from. However there are certain types of theft that some justify. Take for example of someone stealing a can of soup at the store to feed their starving family. Let’s apply that to a larger scale, how about using government to disproportionately tax the rich to give to the poor? Many people justify that as fair. There are certain sects of the population who think that if you were to leave your door unlocked or you car unlocked with valuables out in the open for everyone to see, you deserve to get stolen from.

What the first amendment does is it gives the individual the power over the government, to choose, follow, and practice/excercise what they believe, as long as that doesn’t involve hurting or stealing from others. A Jew cannot be forced to eat pork, a Muslim cannot be limited to prayer whithin their home, an atheist cannot be required to vow on a bible, or “swear to god.” Just because YOU do not like or agree with these practices, doesn’t mean YOU can use government to force people to violate these practices.

The BOR is the SUPREME law of the land. I will post the first amendment again. I’m sorry you don’t like it, and want to force your beliefs onto those you accuse of forcing their beliefs on others...but be consistent. If you’re not consistent, YOURE GIVING GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO DISCRIMINATE. Making these bakers bake a cake for a ceremony they are religiously opposed to IS DISCRIMINATION. What you are saying is that their beliefs matter less than those of the lesbian couple, that they offered other baking products not dealing with a gay marriage, and the couple who could’ve went to any other baker. In fact their beliefs matter so much more less, that government is not only going to force the cake to baked, but force the bakers to pay 135,000$ because of how much we discriminate against their beliefs...people have a right to their beliefs, and should be able to exercise those beliefs as long as they are not hurting or stealing from others.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

This is a clear violation of the first amendment. You cannot cherry pick the parts of the first amendment you like and ignore the ones you don’t like...THAT IS OPPOSITE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH, what that is, is “I only want to hear/believe/practice what I like, and government should only allow that.” That’s fascism folks. Fascism is censorship and the coherision and forcing of beliefs, anti fascism is freedom of speech and the tolerance of views that you disagree with.

If the law justly applies to the public at large, even if it impedes some specific religious practice, the First Amendment doesn't mean that anyone with a conflicting religious belief can just ignore it. The First was never meant to give religious people special privileges. It's not a "get out of jail free" card. If your religion condones human sacrifice, it doesn't mean you can ignore laws against murder.

The question is whether the law justly applies to the public at large. Should anyone be required to serve someone else against their will, regardless of their reason for refusing? I would answer with an emphatic "No!".

I’ve never said that. What a crock of shit straw man argument. I even said, as long as your beliefs do not harm or kill people, government cannot force you to violate those beliefs. You have a right to a gay marriage, I or whoever else also have a right not to be forced to participate or serve in that ceremony.

AND NO YOU CANNOT IMPEDE A SPECIFIC RELIGOUS PRACTICE AS STATED BY THE FIRST in the very clear way that “CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW, respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Again this is the first amendment in the BOR, highest law of the land, specifically and very clearly telling the government what it CANNOT do. Because if it wasn’t that way, they’d have absolute power to discriminate against whatever popularly held societal belief was out there...just like they did with DOMA which was WRONG.

A Jew cannot be forced to work on the sabbath. But I don’t have to hire a Jew who can’t work on the sabbath if that’s a crucial day of work for my business. And if that Jew also believes gay marriage goes against gods “natural order” then he should NOT be forced to participate or serve in that wedding. That doesn’t mean you or I have to like or agree with his or her decision/beliefs, what it does mean THAT WE CANNOT FORCE HIM TO VIOLATE HIS SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. Despite what you think is “the best interest of the public.” Just like we cannot force a Jehovah’s Witness to take a life saving blood transfusion. And if a Jehovah’s Witness wants his/her respective business to follow in what they believe god wants for them, then they should not be forced to participate in Holliday ceremonies/celebrations such as Christmas, Easter, birthday parties or whatever. That’s probably a bad business model, but it’s not the governments place to tell them otherwise.

By forcing Christians to violate their beliefs...YOU ARE DISCRIMINATING AGAINST CHRISTIANS. There was nothing stopping this couple from going to a different baker. The bakers were NOT stopping them from having their wedding, they simply wished to not do what they believed violated their beliefs.

 

[dblack]

Uh... ok. But how does that amount to them being conformists, or them wanting legal domination over others? My experience has been quite the opposite. I think maybe you're confusing socialism's antipathy for religion with something inherent in atheism. Socialists don't like religion because it conflicts with their view of government as the be-all-end-all of human existence (ie, they're just jealous). But there's nothing about atheism itself that promotes legal dominion over others. In fact, recognizing that there is no one "god" - no one right way to live - is a large part of why I reject statist government.

Well in the purest sense we're getting off topic. Sort of. But maybe this is the gist of the debate? Who knows? Anyway, the secular atheists are grappling right in this topic to legally dominate Christians. So, there's your example.

OK, well, I'm atheist doing the opposite.

 

[dblack]

Why should they force businesses to follow health laws now, eh?

Because of the first amendment... “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”... that’s pretty clear. Just because the SCOTUS found slavery, or Jim Crow, or internment camps “constitutional” doesn’t mean they were constitutional.

Freedom of religion used to justify discrimination is a despicable thang to spend your life Praying FOR as you Worship false/fake non-existing lords to be done.

EVERYBODY DISCRIMINATES, in one form or the other, even self proclaimed nihilists. An overwhelming majority of society DISCRIMINATES against theft. Nobody wants to be stolen from. However there are certain types of theft that some justify. Take for example of someone stealing a can of soup at the store to feed their starving family. Let’s apply that to a larger scale, how about using government to disproportionately tax the rich to give to the poor? Many people justify that as fair. There are certain sects of the population who think that if you were to leave your door unlocked or you car unlocked with valuables out in the open for everyone to see, you deserve to get stolen from.

What the first amendment does is it gives the individual the power over the government, to choose, follow, and practice/excercise what they believe, as long as that doesn’t involve hurting or stealing from others. A Jew cannot be forced to eat pork, a Muslim cannot be limited to prayer whithin their home, an atheist cannot be required to vow on a bible, or “swear to god.” Just because YOU do not like or agree with these practices, doesn’t mean YOU can use government to force people to violate these practices.

The BOR is the SUPREME law of the land. I will post the first amendment again. I’m sorry you don’t like it, and want to force your beliefs onto those you accuse of forcing their beliefs on others...but be consistent. If you’re not consistent, YOURE GIVING GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO DISCRIMINATE. Making these bakers bake a cake for a ceremony they are religiously opposed to IS DISCRIMINATION. What you are saying is that their beliefs matter less than those of the lesbian couple, that they offered other baking products not dealing with a gay marriage, and the couple who could’ve went to any other baker. In fact their beliefs matter so much more less, that government is not only going to force the cake to baked, but force the bakers to pay 135,000$ because of how much we discriminate against their beliefs...people have a right to their beliefs, and should be able to exercise those beliefs as long as they are not hurting or stealing from others.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

This is a clear violation of the first amendment. You cannot cherry pick the parts of the first amendment you like and ignore the ones you don’t like...THAT IS OPPOSITE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH, what that is, is “I only want to hear/believe/practice what I like, and government should only allow that.” That’s fascism folks. Fascism is censorship and the coherision and forcing of beliefs, anti fascism is freedom of speech and the tolerance of views that you disagree with.

If the law justly applies to the public at large, even if it impedes some specific religious practice, the First Amendment doesn't mean that anyone with a conflicting religious belief can just ignore it. The First was never meant to give religious people special privileges. It's not a "get out of jail free" card. If your religion condones human sacrifice, it doesn't mean you can ignore laws against murder.

The question is whether the law justly applies to the public at large. Should anyone be required to serve someone else against their will, regardless of their reason for refusing? I would answer with an emphatic "No!".

I’ve never said that. What a crock of shit straw man argument. I even said, as long as your beliefs do not harm or kill people, government cannot force you to violate those beliefs. You have a right to a gay marriage, I or whoever else also have a right not to be forced to participate or serve in that ceremony.

AND NO YOU CANNOT IMPEDE A SPECIFIC RELIGOUS PRACTICE AS STATED BY THE FIRST in the very clear way that “CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW, respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Again this is the first amendment in the BOR, highest law of the land, specifically and very clearly telling the government what it CANNOT do. Because if it wasn’t that way, they’d have absolute power to discriminate against whatever popularly held societal belief was out there...just like they did with DOMA which was WRONG.

A Jew cannot be forced to work on the sabbath. But I don’t have to hire a Jew who can’t work on the sabbath if that’s a crucial day of work for my business. And if that Jew also believes gay marriage goes against gods “natural order” then he should NOT be forced to participate or serve in that wedding. That doesn’t mean you or I have to like or agree with his or her decision/beliefs, what it does mean THAT WE CANNOT FORCE HIM TO VIOLATE HIS SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. Despite what you think is “the best interest of the public.” Just like we cannot force a Jehovah’s Witness to take a life saving blood transfusion. And if a Jehovah’s Witness wants his/her respective business to follow in what they believe god wants for them, then they should not be forced to participate in Holliday ceremonies/celebrations such as Christmas, Easter, birthday parties or whatever. That’s probably a bad business model, but it’s not the governments place to tell them otherwise.

By forcing Christians to violate their beliefs...YOU ARE DISCRIMINATING AGAINST CHRISTIANS. There was nothing stopping this couple from going to a different baker. The bakers were NOT stopping them from having their wedding, they simply wished to not do what they believed violated their beliefs.

That's a lotta caps. My point is that the law violates a far more fundamental freedom of association and conscience. We all have these rights, not just religious people.

 

[Silhouette]

Uh... ok. But how does that amount to them being conformists, or them wanting legal domination over others? My experience has been quite the opposite. I think maybe you're confusing socialism's antipathy for religion with something inherent in atheism. Socialists don't like religion because it conflicts with their view of government as the be-all-end-all of human existence (ie, they're just jealous). But there's nothing about atheism itself that promotes legal dominion over others. In fact, recognizing that there is no one "god" - no one right way to live - is a large part of why I reject statist government.

Well in the purest sense we're getting off topic. Sort of. But maybe this is the gist of the debate? Who knows? Anyway, the secular atheists are grappling right in this topic to legally dominate Christians. So, there's your example.

OK, well, I'm atheist doing the opposite.

Kewl. How does it feel being a minority? No offense. I guess I'm just used to the oppression engaged by the LGBT secular atheists. But properly they are another religion altogether. They are the religion of men using more effeminate men's anuses as an artificial vagina and lesbians inexplicably using dildos in their "all female" sex play; both genders while denying closeted heterosexual tendencies. Or we could just call their church "the church of repressed heterosexuality".

These people are out to persecute any religion that has dogmatic laws that disallow this bizarre state of sexual dysfunction/denial. And they accuse that heteros have a beef with them? Maybe it's time they came out of the closet for real, and address why their dogma reveals hidden aspects of their sexuality that smack of a deep desire to be normal. Then they can stop targeting Christians for persecution, like this case in Oregon and discuss why they have such strong residual sexual attraction to the opposite gender?

 

[emilynghiem]

Those bakers should have baked that stupid cake and put ground up glass in it. Or strychnine.

No Hossfly that's illegal
the bakers should have either
1. contracted the work out to other subcontractors whose beliefs wouldn't be violated
2. required all customers and clients to sign waivers in advance agreeing to
consensus and mediation to resolve any disputes, or else agreeing not to do business together if such conflicts cannot be resolved by consensus between both parties (similar to an arbitration waiver, but citing mediation and conflict resolution to avoid legal costs)

Reply
Wouldn’t “1” have ended with the same result?

If the couple didn’t know about the subcontract?

Pop23 by same result, do you mean the customers still suing
or do you mean they would still get the cake they want without the conflict obstructing it?

Either way is possible
a. the customers still could have sued if the business said those
remarks they considered harassment or discrimination
b. but as long as the business tried to accommodate the customers
I doubt any lawsuit would go through. For example if I only sew
wedding dresses, and some customer asks me can I also sew
the Tux for the groom or best man. I could say sorry I don't do Tuxes,
but I can hire out that work to someone who can and add it in if you'd like.

So that isn't refusing the business, but hiring subcontractors to do specialized work
that the regular business doesn't do.

What went wrong here, in addition to failing at public accommodation,
is the business owner made those remarks.

I know someone who said something sexist about not hiring women
at the job site because it distracts the men on the job. That's discriminatory to say that.

You have to find a legal way to select the workers you want or don't want on the job,
but can't state something that violates laws or policies.

So that's why I recommend option 2:
From the very start, require customers to sign arbitration or mediation waivers
in case of disputes (regardless of reason) to avoid legal action or costs,
and watch your language. Any dispute that you claim warrants as unresolved
and grounds for terminating business relation could be claimed, but I would
avoid stating any reasons like the ones above relating to sexist or other beliefs.

All businesses should be advised how to handle disputes to avoid lawsuits.
And have the waivers and documents drawn up by lawyers to make sure this is sound.

Online services have arbitration clauses that users sign onto when registering.
So if that can be done legally, there should be a way to put this in writing for
businesses to sign in advance with any customers before conducting business together as well!

 

[Aba Incieni]

The bakery did not offer what they were looking for. Not because the clients were dykes.

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.


>>>>

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

Now you are simply lying. Gave you the benefit of the doubt earlier but you choose to ignore the facts and are flat out lying. This is a christian thing, right?

You're lying. But that's the atheist way, conformist.

Atheist are conformists now? How does that work?

Gee those who conform to atheism sure are.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Uh... ok. But how does that amount to them being conformists, or them wanting legal domination over others? My experience has been quite the opposite. I think maybe you're confusing socialism's antipathy for religion with something inherent in atheism. Socialists don't like religion because it conflicts with their view of government as the be-all-end-all of human existence (ie, they're just jealous). But there's nothing about atheism itself that promotes legal dominion over others. In fact, recognizing that there is no one "god" - no one right way to live - is a large part of why I reject statist government.

Well in the purest sense we're getting off topic. Sort of. But maybe this is the gist of the debate? Who knows? Anyway, the secular atheists are grappling right in this topic to legally dominate Christians. So, there's your example.

OK, well, I'm atheist doing the opposite.

Conforming to Deism? That's not conforming to atheism.

 

[sakinago]

Because of the first amendment... “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”... that’s pretty clear. Just because the SCOTUS found slavery, or Jim Crow, or internment camps “constitutional” doesn’t mean they were constitutional.

Freedom of religion used to justify discrimination is a despicable thang to spend your life Praying FOR as you Worship false/fake non-existing lords to be done.

EVERYBODY DISCRIMINATES, in one form or the other, even self proclaimed nihilists. An overwhelming majority of society DISCRIMINATES against theft. Nobody wants to be stolen from. However there are certain types of theft that some justify. Take for example of someone stealing a can of soup at the store to feed their starving family. Let’s apply that to a larger scale, how about using government to disproportionately tax the rich to give to the poor? Many people justify that as fair. There are certain sects of the population who think that if you were to leave your door unlocked or you car unlocked with valuables out in the open for everyone to see, you deserve to get stolen from.

What the first amendment does is it gives the individual the power over the government, to choose, follow, and practice/excercise what they believe, as long as that doesn’t involve hurting or stealing from others. A Jew cannot be forced to eat pork, a Muslim cannot be limited to prayer whithin their home, an atheist cannot be required to vow on a bible, or “swear to god.” Just because YOU do not like or agree with these practices, doesn’t mean YOU can use government to force people to violate these practices.

The BOR is the SUPREME law of the land. I will post the first amendment again. I’m sorry you don’t like it, and want to force your beliefs onto those you accuse of forcing their beliefs on others...but be consistent. If you’re not consistent, YOURE GIVING GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO DISCRIMINATE. Making these bakers bake a cake for a ceremony they are religiously opposed to IS DISCRIMINATION. What you are saying is that their beliefs matter less than those of the lesbian couple, that they offered other baking products not dealing with a gay marriage, and the couple who could’ve went to any other baker. In fact their beliefs matter so much more less, that government is not only going to force the cake to baked, but force the bakers to pay 135,000$ because of how much we discriminate against their beliefs...people have a right to their beliefs, and should be able to exercise those beliefs as long as they are not hurting or stealing from others.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

This is a clear violation of the first amendment. You cannot cherry pick the parts of the first amendment you like and ignore the ones you don’t like...THAT IS OPPOSITE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH, what that is, is “I only want to hear/believe/practice what I like, and government should only allow that.” That’s fascism folks. Fascism is censorship and the coherision and forcing of beliefs, anti fascism is freedom of speech and the tolerance of views that you disagree with.

If the law justly applies to the public at large, even if it impedes some specific religious practice, the First Amendment doesn't mean that anyone with a conflicting religious belief can just ignore it. The First was never meant to give religious people special privileges. It's not a "get out of jail free" card. If your religion condones human sacrifice, it doesn't mean you can ignore laws against murder.

The question is whether the law justly applies to the public at large. Should anyone be required to serve someone else against their will, regardless of their reason for refusing? I would answer with an emphatic "No!".

I’ve never said that. What a crock of shit straw man argument. I even said, as long as your beliefs do not harm or kill people, government cannot force you to violate those beliefs. You have a right to a gay marriage, I or whoever else also have a right not to be forced to participate or serve in that ceremony.

AND NO YOU CANNOT IMPEDE A SPECIFIC RELIGOUS PRACTICE AS STATED BY THE FIRST in the very clear way that “CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW, respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Again this is the first amendment in the BOR, highest law of the land, specifically and very clearly telling the government what it CANNOT do. Because if it wasn’t that way, they’d have absolute power to discriminate against whatever popularly held societal belief was out there...just like they did with DOMA which was WRONG.

A Jew cannot be forced to work on the sabbath. But I don’t have to hire a Jew who can’t work on the sabbath if that’s a crucial day of work for my business. And if that Jew also believes gay marriage goes against gods “natural order” then he should NOT be forced to participate or serve in that wedding. That doesn’t mean you or I have to like or agree with his or her decision/beliefs, what it does mean THAT WE CANNOT FORCE HIM TO VIOLATE HIS SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. Despite what you think is “the best interest of the public.” Just like we cannot force a Jehovah’s Witness to take a life saving blood transfusion. And if a Jehovah’s Witness wants his/her respective business to follow in what they believe god wants for them, then they should not be forced to participate in Holliday ceremonies/celebrations such as Christmas, Easter, birthday parties or whatever. That’s probably a bad business model, but it’s not the governments place to tell them otherwise.

By forcing Christians to violate their beliefs...YOU ARE DISCRIMINATING AGAINST CHRISTIANS. There was nothing stopping this couple from going to a different baker. The bakers were NOT stopping them from having their wedding, they simply wished to not do what they believed violated their beliefs.

That's a lotta caps. My point is that the law violates a far more fundamental freedom of association and conscience. We all have these rights, not just religious people.

I never said it didn’t...you seem to be in an argument with yourself. I even used the example of atheist should not be forced to swear on a bible. But usually religious people are the ones with these types of sincerely held beliefs that the rest of society may not hold. That doesn’t exclude non religious beliefs or motivations.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Freedom of religion used to justify discrimination is a despicable thang to spend your life Praying FOR as you Worship false/fake non-existing lords to be done.

EVERYBODY DISCRIMINATES, in one form or the other, even self proclaimed nihilists. An overwhelming majority of society DISCRIMINATES against theft. Nobody wants to be stolen from. However there are certain types of theft that some justify. Take for example of someone stealing a can of soup at the store to feed their starving family. Let’s apply that to a larger scale, how about using government to disproportionately tax the rich to give to the poor? Many people justify that as fair. There are certain sects of the population who think that if you were to leave your door unlocked or you car unlocked with valuables out in the open for everyone to see, you deserve to get stolen from.

What the first amendment does is it gives the individual the power over the government, to choose, follow, and practice/excercise what they believe, as long as that doesn’t involve hurting or stealing from others. A Jew cannot be forced to eat pork, a Muslim cannot be limited to prayer whithin their home, an atheist cannot be required to vow on a bible, or “swear to god.” Just because YOU do not like or agree with these practices, doesn’t mean YOU can use government to force people to violate these practices.

The BOR is the SUPREME law of the land. I will post the first amendment again. I’m sorry you don’t like it, and want to force your beliefs onto those you accuse of forcing their beliefs on others...but be consistent. If you’re not consistent, YOURE GIVING GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO DISCRIMINATE. Making these bakers bake a cake for a ceremony they are religiously opposed to IS DISCRIMINATION. What you are saying is that their beliefs matter less than those of the lesbian couple, that they offered other baking products not dealing with a gay marriage, and the couple who could’ve went to any other baker. In fact their beliefs matter so much more less, that government is not only going to force the cake to baked, but force the bakers to pay 135,000$ because of how much we discriminate against their beliefs...people have a right to their beliefs, and should be able to exercise those beliefs as long as they are not hurting or stealing from others.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

This is a clear violation of the first amendment. You cannot cherry pick the parts of the first amendment you like and ignore the ones you don’t like...THAT IS OPPOSITE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH, what that is, is “I only want to hear/believe/practice what I like, and government should only allow that.” That’s fascism folks. Fascism is censorship and the coherision and forcing of beliefs, anti fascism is freedom of speech and the tolerance of views that you disagree with.

If the law justly applies to the public at large, even if it impedes some specific religious practice, the First Amendment doesn't mean that anyone with a conflicting religious belief can just ignore it. The First was never meant to give religious people special privileges. It's not a "get out of jail free" card. If your religion condones human sacrifice, it doesn't mean you can ignore laws against murder.

The question is whether the law justly applies to the public at large. Should anyone be required to serve someone else against their will, regardless of their reason for refusing? I would answer with an emphatic "No!".

I’ve never said that. What a crock of shit straw man argument. I even said, as long as your beliefs do not harm or kill people, government cannot force you to violate those beliefs. You have a right to a gay marriage, I or whoever else also have a right not to be forced to participate or serve in that ceremony.

AND NO YOU CANNOT IMPEDE A SPECIFIC RELIGOUS PRACTICE AS STATED BY THE FIRST in the very clear way that “CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW, respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Again this is the first amendment in the BOR, highest law of the land, specifically and very clearly telling the government what it CANNOT do. Because if it wasn’t that way, they’d have absolute power to discriminate against whatever popularly held societal belief was out there...just like they did with DOMA which was WRONG.

A Jew cannot be forced to work on the sabbath. But I don’t have to hire a Jew who can’t work on the sabbath if that’s a crucial day of work for my business. And if that Jew also believes gay marriage goes against gods “natural order” then he should NOT be forced to participate or serve in that wedding. That doesn’t mean you or I have to like or agree with his or her decision/beliefs, what it does mean THAT WE CANNOT FORCE HIM TO VIOLATE HIS SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. Despite what you think is “the best interest of the public.” Just like we cannot force a Jehovah’s Witness to take a life saving blood transfusion. And if a Jehovah’s Witness wants his/her respective business to follow in what they believe god wants for them, then they should not be forced to participate in Holliday ceremonies/celebrations such as Christmas, Easter, birthday parties or whatever. That’s probably a bad business model, but it’s not the governments place to tell them otherwise.

By forcing Christians to violate their beliefs...YOU ARE DISCRIMINATING AGAINST CHRISTIANS. There was nothing stopping this couple from going to a different baker. The bakers were NOT stopping them from having their wedding, they simply wished to not do what they believed violated their beliefs.

That's a lotta caps. My point is that the law violates a far more fundamental freedom of association and conscience. We all have these rights, not just religious people.

I never said it didn’t...you seem to be in an argument with yourself. I even used the example of atheist should not be forced to swear on a bible. But usually religious people are the ones with these types of sincerely held beliefs that the rest of society may not hold. That doesn’t exclude non religious beliefs or motivations.

Blame the founders, who wrote specific exclusions for religion.

 

[sakinago]

Because of the first amendment... “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”... that’s pretty clear. Just because the SCOTUS found slavery, or Jim Crow, or internment camps “constitutional” doesn’t mean they were constitutional.

Freedom of religion used to justify discrimination is a despicable thang to spend your life Praying FOR as you Worship false/fake non-existing lords to be done.

EVERYBODY DISCRIMINATES, in one form or the other, even self proclaimed nihilists. An overwhelming majority of society DISCRIMINATES against theft. Nobody wants to be stolen from. However there are certain types of theft that some justify. Take for example of someone stealing a can of soup at the store to feed their starving family. Let’s apply that to a larger scale, how about using government to disproportionately tax the rich to give to the poor? Many people justify that as fair. There are certain sects of the population who think that if you were to leave your door unlocked or you car unlocked with valuables out in the open for everyone to see, you deserve to get stolen from.

What the first amendment does is it gives the individual the power over the government, to choose, follow, and practice/excercise what they believe, as long as that doesn’t involve hurting or stealing from others. A Jew cannot be forced to eat pork, a Muslim cannot be limited to prayer whithin their home, an atheist cannot be required to vow on a bible, or “swear to god.” Just because YOU do not like or agree with these practices, doesn’t mean YOU can use government to force people to violate these practices.

The BOR is the SUPREME law of the land. I will post the first amendment again. I’m sorry you don’t like it, and want to force your beliefs onto those you accuse of forcing their beliefs on others...but be consistent. If you’re not consistent, YOURE GIVING GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO DISCRIMINATE. Making these bakers bake a cake for a ceremony they are religiously opposed to IS DISCRIMINATION. What you are saying is that their beliefs matter less than those of the lesbian couple, that they offered other baking products not dealing with a gay marriage, and the couple who could’ve went to any other baker. In fact their beliefs matter so much more less, that government is not only going to force the cake to baked, but force the bakers to pay 135,000$ because of how much we discriminate against their beliefs...people have a right to their beliefs, and should be able to exercise those beliefs as long as they are not hurting or stealing from others.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

This is a clear violation of the first amendment. You cannot cherry pick the parts of the first amendment you like and ignore the ones you don’t like...THAT IS OPPOSITE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH, what that is, is “I only want to hear/believe/practice what I like, and government should only allow that.” That’s fascism folks. Fascism is censorship and the coherision and forcing of beliefs, anti fascism is freedom of speech and the tolerance of views that you disagree with.

If the law justly applies to the public at large, even if it impedes some specific religious practice, the First Amendment doesn't mean that anyone with a conflicting religious belief can just ignore it. The First was never meant to give religious people special privileges. It's not a "get out of jail free" card. If your religion condones human sacrifice, it doesn't mean you can ignore laws against murder.

The question is whether the law justly applies to the public at large. Should anyone be required to serve someone else against their will, regardless of their reason for refusing? I would answer with an emphatic "No!".

I’ve never said that. What a crock of shit straw man argument. I even said, as long as your beliefs do not harm or kill people, government cannot force you to violate those beliefs. You have a right to a gay marriage, I or whoever else also have a right not to be forced to participate or serve in that ceremony.

AND NO YOU CANNOT IMPEDE A SPECIFIC RELIGOUS PRACTICE AS STATED BY THE FIRST in the very clear way that “CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW, respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Again this is the first amendment in the BOR, highest law of the land, specifically and very clearly telling the government what it CANNOT do. Because if it wasn’t that way, they’d have absolute power to discriminate against whatever popularly held societal belief was out there...just like they did with DOMA which was WRONG.

A Jew cannot be forced to work on the sabbath. But I don’t have to hire a Jew who can’t work on the sabbath if that’s a crucial day of work for my business. And if that Jew also believes gay marriage goes against gods “natural order” then he should NOT be forced to participate or serve in that wedding. That doesn’t mean you or I have to like or agree with his or her decision/beliefs, what it does mean THAT WE CANNOT FORCE HIM TO VIOLATE HIS SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. Despite what you think is “the best interest of the public.” Just like we cannot force a Jehovah’s Witness to take a life saving blood transfusion. And if a Jehovah’s Witness wants his/her respective business to follow in what they believe god wants for them, then they should not be forced to participate in Holliday ceremonies/celebrations such as Christmas, Easter, birthday parties or whatever. That’s probably a bad business model, but it’s not the governments place to tell them otherwise.

By forcing Christians to violate their beliefs...YOU ARE DISCRIMINATING AGAINST CHRISTIANS. There was nothing stopping this couple from going to a different baker. The bakers were NOT stopping them from having their wedding, they simply wished to not do what they believed violated their beliefs.

That's a lotta caps. My point is that the law violates a far more fundamental freedom of association and conscience. We all have these rights, not just religious people.

I never said it didn’t...you seem to be in an argument with yourself. I even used the example of atheist should not be forced to swear on a bible. But usually religious people are the ones with these types of sincerely held beliefs that the rest of society may not hold. That doesn’t exclude non religious beliefs or motivations.

 

[dblack]

Freedom of religion used to justify discrimination is a despicable thang to spend your life Praying FOR as you Worship false/fake non-existing lords to be done.

EVERYBODY DISCRIMINATES, in one form or the other, even self proclaimed nihilists. An overwhelming majority of society DISCRIMINATES against theft. Nobody wants to be stolen from. However there are certain types of theft that some justify. Take for example of someone stealing a can of soup at the store to feed their starving family. Let’s apply that to a larger scale, how about using government to disproportionately tax the rich to give to the poor? Many people justify that as fair. There are certain sects of the population who think that if you were to leave your door unlocked or you car unlocked with valuables out in the open for everyone to see, you deserve to get stolen from.

What the first amendment does is it gives the individual the power over the government, to choose, follow, and practice/excercise what they believe, as long as that doesn’t involve hurting or stealing from others. A Jew cannot be forced to eat pork, a Muslim cannot be limited to prayer whithin their home, an atheist cannot be required to vow on a bible, or “swear to god.” Just because YOU do not like or agree with these practices, doesn’t mean YOU can use government to force people to violate these practices.

The BOR is the SUPREME law of the land. I will post the first amendment again. I’m sorry you don’t like it, and want to force your beliefs onto those you accuse of forcing their beliefs on others...but be consistent. If you’re not consistent, YOURE GIVING GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO DISCRIMINATE. Making these bakers bake a cake for a ceremony they are religiously opposed to IS DISCRIMINATION. What you are saying is that their beliefs matter less than those of the lesbian couple, that they offered other baking products not dealing with a gay marriage, and the couple who could’ve went to any other baker. In fact their beliefs matter so much more less, that government is not only going to force the cake to baked, but force the bakers to pay 135,000$ because of how much we discriminate against their beliefs...people have a right to their beliefs, and should be able to exercise those beliefs as long as they are not hurting or stealing from others.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

This is a clear violation of the first amendment. You cannot cherry pick the parts of the first amendment you like and ignore the ones you don’t like...THAT IS OPPOSITE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH, what that is, is “I only want to hear/believe/practice what I like, and government should only allow that.” That’s fascism folks. Fascism is censorship and the coherision and forcing of beliefs, anti fascism is freedom of speech and the tolerance of views that you disagree with.

If the law justly applies to the public at large, even if it impedes some specific religious practice, the First Amendment doesn't mean that anyone with a conflicting religious belief can just ignore it. The First was never meant to give religious people special privileges. It's not a "get out of jail free" card. If your religion condones human sacrifice, it doesn't mean you can ignore laws against murder.

The question is whether the law justly applies to the public at large. Should anyone be required to serve someone else against their will, regardless of their reason for refusing? I would answer with an emphatic "No!".

I’ve never said that. What a crock of shit straw man argument. I even said, as long as your beliefs do not harm or kill people, government cannot force you to violate those beliefs. You have a right to a gay marriage, I or whoever else also have a right not to be forced to participate or serve in that ceremony.

AND NO YOU CANNOT IMPEDE A SPECIFIC RELIGOUS PRACTICE AS STATED BY THE FIRST in the very clear way that “CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW, respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Again this is the first amendment in the BOR, highest law of the land, specifically and very clearly telling the government what it CANNOT do. Because if it wasn’t that way, they’d have absolute power to discriminate against whatever popularly held societal belief was out there...just like they did with DOMA which was WRONG.

A Jew cannot be forced to work on the sabbath. But I don’t have to hire a Jew who can’t work on the sabbath if that’s a crucial day of work for my business. And if that Jew also believes gay marriage goes against gods “natural order” then he should NOT be forced to participate or serve in that wedding. That doesn’t mean you or I have to like or agree with his or her decision/beliefs, what it does mean THAT WE CANNOT FORCE HIM TO VIOLATE HIS SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. Despite what you think is “the best interest of the public.” Just like we cannot force a Jehovah’s Witness to take a life saving blood transfusion. And if a Jehovah’s Witness wants his/her respective business to follow in what they believe god wants for them, then they should not be forced to participate in Holliday ceremonies/celebrations such as Christmas, Easter, birthday parties or whatever. That’s probably a bad business model, but it’s not the governments place to tell them otherwise.

By forcing Christians to violate their beliefs...YOU ARE DISCRIMINATING AGAINST CHRISTIANS. There was nothing stopping this couple from going to a different baker. The bakers were NOT stopping them from having their wedding, they simply wished to not do what they believed violated their beliefs.

That's a lotta caps. My point is that the law violates a far more fundamental freedom of association and conscience. We all have these rights, not just religious people.

I never said it didn’t...you seem to be in an argument with yourself. I even used the example of atheist should not be forced to swear on a bible. But usually religious people are the ones with these types of sincerely held beliefs that the rest of society may not hold. That doesn’t exclude non religious beliefs or motivations.

Right. But framing it as a freedom of religion issue implies that only religious beliefs should be protected. The baker shouldn't be forced to bake for anyone, in any circumstance, regardless of the reasons.