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

[Aba Incieni]

Make up your mind. Do you think religious nuts should be able to ignore the law or not?

Obama ignored the law did you rant about that?

Did Obama have a Bakery? This thread is about the homophobic bakery.

Yes but it was extended to following the law! Croorect? So did you rant when obummer broke our Federal immigration laws?

Oblama was an illegal alien?

No, he was a pos.

Baby poop, at that.

 

[BULLDOG]

Nowhere in the constitution does it say anyone has to open a business supplying goods and/or services. However, if they do, there are certain rules they must follow.

Nowhere in the Constitution is there anything that even hints at the idea that government ought to have the power to compel anyone to waive any of his essential Constitutional rights as a condition of being allowed to make an honest living.

You're absolutely right. However, laws governing how businesses treat their customers are constitutional. The business was sued, and the owners are responsible for the actions of their business.

Actually - no. Good customer service is not a constitutional right. The bakers could have said nothing about not baking the cake. They could have baked the cake and treated these customers like garbage. Insulted them every time they came in. They could have had a "Memorandum" attached to the ticket advising that all profit from the cake would be given to some anti gay group. There is no right to nice.

I was referring to fair treatment instead of friendly treatment. However, it's odd that they decided to break the law instead of doing what you suggest. It might have saved them a lot of money.

That's what The POTUS has been telling sanctuary cities and states.

That orange fool has been saying a lot of stupid stuff.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

"Radical religious morons". Was the crazy angry left referring to ISIS monsters who beheaded people or jihad maniacs who drove a 747 into the World Trade Center? Nope, the radical left was referring to a small business that refused to build a wedding cake for sodomites. Go figure.

No one drove a 747 into the World Trade Center. There were two 767s.

 

[WillowTree]

"Radical religious morons". Was the crazy angry left referring to ISIS monsters who beheaded people or jihad maniacs who drove a 747 into the World Trade Center? Nope, the radical left was referring to a small business that refused to build a wedding cake for sodomites. Go figure.

No one drove a 747 into the World Trade Center. There were two 767s.

That changes everything!

 

[Aba Incieni]

Nowhere in the Constitution is there anything that even hints at the idea that government ought to have the power to compel anyone to waive any of his essential Constitutional rights as a condition of being allowed to make an honest living.

You're absolutely right. However, laws governing how businesses treat their customers are constitutional. The business was sued, and the owners are responsible for the actions of their business.

Actually - no. Good customer service is not a constitutional right. The bakers could have said nothing about not baking the cake. They could have baked the cake and treated these customers like garbage. Insulted them every time they came in. They could have had a "Memorandum" attached to the ticket advising that all profit from the cake would be given to some anti gay group. There is no right to nice.

I was referring to fair treatment instead of friendly treatment. However, it's odd that they decided to break the law instead of doing what you suggest. It might have saved them a lot of money.

That's what The POTUS has been telling sanctuary cities and states.

That orange fool has been saying a lot of stupid stuff.

He's not fool enough to say it's been adjudicated.

 

[BULLDOG]

That's interesting, but it doesn't answer the question. Do you think religious nuts should be able to ignore the law or not?

Do cities get to ignore the law?

That wasn't the question. Why are you trying to change the subject?

As the convo progressed you learned many cities and states break the law. Why not Christians? This sounds like illegally targeting a certain religion. Lawsuit time.

No. Attempts to change the subject by mentioning cities or states were made, but there were no facts presented. They wouldn't matter anyway. Off subject.

Cities and States can break Federal Law but Christians can't.

Lawsuit City.

I can see you aren't able to stay on subject. That's because your assertions are wrong. Have a good day.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

"Radical religious morons". Was the crazy angry left referring to ISIS monsters who beheaded people or jihad maniacs who drove a 747 into the World Trade Center? Nope, the radical left was referring to a small business that refused to build a wedding cake for sodomites. Go figure.

No one drove a 747 into the World Trade Center. There were two 767s.

That changes everything!

No. Just trying to get the facts straight. Someone else might repeat the error. I'm a little OCD in that regard.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Do cities get to ignore the law?

That wasn't the question. Why are you trying to change the subject?

As the convo progressed you learned many cities and states break the law. Why not Christians? This sounds like illegally targeting a certain religion. Lawsuit time.

No. Attempts to change the subject by mentioning cities or states were made, but there were no facts presented. They wouldn't matter anyway. Off subject.

Cities and States can break Federal Law but Christians can't.

Lawsuit City.

I can see you aren't able to stay on subject. That's because your assertions are wrong. Have a good day.

The subject you brought up was federal lawbreaking.

Explain the difference between a state that refuses to obey federal law on moral grounds and a couple refusing to bake a cake on moral grounds.

 

[BULLDOG]

That wasn't the question. Why are you trying to change the subject?

As the convo progressed you learned many cities and states break the law. Why not Christians? This sounds like illegally targeting a certain religion. Lawsuit time.

No. Attempts to change the subject by mentioning cities or states were made, but there were no facts presented. They wouldn't matter anyway. Off subject.

Cities and States can break Federal Law but Christians can't.

Lawsuit City.

I can see you aren't able to stay on subject. That's because your assertions are wrong. Have a good day.

The subject you brought up was federal lawbreaking.

Explain the difference between a state that refuses to obey federal law on moral grounds and a couple refusing to bake a cake on moral grounds.

No the subject is the homophobic bakery. They broke the federal law, so their action was certainly part of the subject. Every infraction of federal law that you think might have happened isn't part of the discussion.

 

[Aba Incieni]

As the convo progressed you learned many cities and states break the law. Why not Christians? This sounds like illegally targeting a certain religion. Lawsuit time.

No. Attempts to change the subject by mentioning cities or states were made, but there were no facts presented. They wouldn't matter anyway. Off subject.

Cities and States can break Federal Law but Christians can't.

Lawsuit City.

I can see you aren't able to stay on subject. That's because your assertions are wrong. Have a good day.

The subject you brought up was federal lawbreaking.

Explain the difference between a state that refuses to obey federal law on moral grounds and a couple refusing to bake a cake on moral grounds.

No the subject is the homophobic bakery. They broke the federal law, so their action was certainly part of the subject. Every infraction of federal law that you think might have happened isn't part of the discussion.

Ah, OK.

That case has yet to be adjudicated.

 

[BULLDOG]

No. Attempts to change the subject by mentioning cities or states were made, but there were no facts presented. They wouldn't matter anyway. Off subject.

Cities and States can break Federal Law but Christians can't.

Lawsuit City.

I can see you aren't able to stay on subject. That's because your assertions are wrong. Have a good day.

The subject you brought up was federal lawbreaking.

Explain the difference between a state that refuses to obey federal law on moral grounds and a couple refusing to bake a cake on moral grounds.

No the subject is the homophobic bakery. They broke the federal law, so their action was certainly part of the subject. Every infraction of federal law that you think might have happened isn't part of the discussion.

Ah, OK.

That case has yet to be adjudicated.

Odd that you would try to discuss it then. Perhaps you should read the OP of a thread to determine the subject before you try to join the discussion. Obviously you were not prepared to join this one.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Cities and States can break Federal Law but Christians can't.

Lawsuit City.

I can see you aren't able to stay on subject. That's because your assertions are wrong. Have a good day.

The subject you brought up was federal lawbreaking.

Explain the difference between a state that refuses to obey federal law on moral grounds and a couple refusing to bake a cake on moral grounds.

No the subject is the homophobic bakery. They broke the federal law, so their action was certainly part of the subject. Every infraction of federal law that you think might have happened isn't part of the discussion.

Ah, OK.

That case has yet to be adjudicated.

Odd that you would try to discuss it then. Perhaps you should read the OP of a thread to determine the subject before you try to join the discussion. Obviously you were not prepared to join this one.

I am discussing it. The case has yet to be adjudicated.

 

[BULLDOG]

I can see you aren't able to stay on subject. That's because your assertions are wrong. Have a good day.

The subject you brought up was federal lawbreaking.

Explain the difference between a state that refuses to obey federal law on moral grounds and a couple refusing to bake a cake on moral grounds.

No the subject is the homophobic bakery. They broke the federal law, so their action was certainly part of the subject. Every infraction of federal law that you think might have happened isn't part of the discussion.

Ah, OK.

That case has yet to be adjudicated.

Odd that you would try to discuss it then. Perhaps you should read the OP of a thread to determine the subject before you try to join the discussion. Obviously you were not prepared to join this one.

I am discussing it. The case has yet to be adjudicated.

OK. Do you have anything to add to that?

 

[Aba Incieni]

The subject you brought up was federal lawbreaking.

Explain the difference between a state that refuses to obey federal law on moral grounds and a couple refusing to bake a cake on moral grounds.

No the subject is the homophobic bakery. They broke the federal law, so their action was certainly part of the subject. Every infraction of federal law that you think might have happened isn't part of the discussion.

Ah, OK.

That case has yet to be adjudicated.

Odd that you would try to discuss it then. Perhaps you should read the OP of a thread to determine the subject before you try to join the discussion. Obviously you were not prepared to join this one.

I am discussing it. The case has yet to be adjudicated.

OK. Do you have anything to add to that?

Regarding the unresolved court case? It's unresolved.

I see another head banging collision between those who believe in moral objections to federal immigration and marijuana laws.

You?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

And instead of a fine, prison time.

 

[dblack]

Clearly, we need to nationalize bakeries.

 

[BULLDOG]

No the subject is the homophobic bakery. They broke the federal law, so their action was certainly part of the subject. Every infraction of federal law that you think might have happened isn't part of the discussion.

Ah, OK.

That case has yet to be adjudicated.

Odd that you would try to discuss it then. Perhaps you should read the OP of a thread to determine the subject before you try to join the discussion. Obviously you were not prepared to join this one.

I am discussing it. The case has yet to be adjudicated.

OK. Do you have anything to add to that?

Regarding the unresolved court case? It's unresolved.

I see another head banging collision between those who believe in moral objections to federal immigration and marijuana laws.

You?

I'm sure there are threads on those subjects. Use the search function to find them

 

[Aba Incieni]

Ah, OK.

That case has yet to be adjudicated.

Odd that you would try to discuss it then. Perhaps you should read the OP of a thread to determine the subject before you try to join the discussion. Obviously you were not prepared to join this one.

I am discussing it. The case has yet to be adjudicated.

OK. Do you have anything to add to that?

Regarding the unresolved court case? It's unresolved.

I see another head banging collision between those who believe in moral objections to federal immigration and marijuana laws.

You?

I'm sure there are threads on those subjects. Use the search function to find them

This is one. It's regarding the moral refusal to follow federal law.

 

[martybegan]

not sure why people cheer when the Constitution is ignored.

leftist, hating America since fdr

The constitution wasn’t ignored. Thus the ruling.

So judges always get it right? Plessey V Fergueson disagrees with that position.

 

[Old Rocks]

Fags will ultimately lose.

Then where will you go?