Oregon imposes gag order on Christian bakers in gay wedding case

[Carla_Danger]

Yes, Hillary will say, "WHAT DOES IT MATTER?"

What does Hillary have to do with this thread? I see you're anxious to post some useless blabber.

 

[Vandalshandle]

All things considered, I suspect that they would have been better off baking and selling the cake.....

That's liberals for you, OBEY or be destroyed.

I would call it common sense. On one side, pay $135,000, break the law, and lose my business. On the other side, bake and sell a cake.

Decisions, decisions.....

How about I decide to stay true to my faith. Who are you to take away that right? As long as there is a gay baker and a gay florist willing to provide cakes and flowers and rainbows, why insist that a person of faith, set their faith aside or be punished?

Because there is nothing in the Christian Bible that says, "Thou shalt not bake a wedding cake for a woman who lies with a woman or a man who lies with a man", which means that it is not a tenant of your faith, but, instead, your choice to discriminate.

 

[BluesLegend]

I know, this one is destined for the SCOTUS.

The SC has already rejected such things. Obey the law, shut up and bake the cake.

Are you my EX wife? I ask because you sound like a real harpy.

If your ex-wife is even close to how smart I am it explains why you are divorced...

Frankly I'm surprised you can operate a computer or tie your shoe laces.

im surprised you dont go into a panic because you forget how to breathe.

Yeah well you are a liberal, top that insult.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

All things considered, I suspect that they would have been better off baking and selling the cake.....

That's liberals for you, OBEY or be destroyed.

I would call it common sense. On one side, pay $135,000, break the law, and lose my business. On the other side, bake and sell a cake.

Decisions, decisions.....

How about I decide to stay true to my faith. Who are you to take away that right? As long as there is a gay baker and a gay florist willing to provide cakes and flowers and rainbows, why insist that a person of faith, set their faith aside or be punished?

Because there is nothing in the Christian Bible that says, "Thou shalt not bake a wedding cake for a woman who lies with a woman or a man who lies with a man", which means that it is not a tenant of your faith, but, instead, your choice to discriminate.

There's also nothing in the Bible that prescribes civil rights for Americans in the 21st century. Why don't you revisit the OP and find out what the topic of this thread is. It isn't the Bible.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I find it rather amusing that Christians claim that God only recognizes marriage between one woman and one man, while the Bible tells us that King David had hundreds of wives.

Davids

I find it rather amusing that Christians claim that God only recognizes marriage between one woman and one man, while the Bible tells us that King David had hundreds of wives.

actually I think you mean Solomon and God did take him to task for that.......its why Israel was split into two kingdoms.....

Actually, historians agree that Israel was split into two kingdoms for two reasons. First, Solomon divided northern Israel into 12 separate tax districts, which were not even divided along tribal territories, each one of which was required to provide for the needs of the entire Israeli government for one month per year, while he exempted Southern israel from the same taxes. Second, he spent most of the money fortifying Southern Israel against Egypt, while ignoring the threat of Syria against northern Israel. The north was pissed, and succeeded.

your historians should have read the official record.....it would have saved them some time....

1 Kings 11:9 The Lord became angry with Solomon because his heart had turned away from the Lord, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice. 10 Although he had forbidden Solomon to follow other gods, Solomon did not keep the Lord’s command. 11 So the Lord said to Solomon, “Since this is your attitude and you have not kept my covenant and my decrees, which I commanded you, I will most certainly tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one of your subordinates. 12 Nevertheless, for the sake of David your father, I will not do it during your lifetime. I will tear it out of the hand of your son. 13 Yet I will not tear the whole kingdom from him, but will give him one tribe for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen

I don't consider ancient fairy tales as History.

sure you do.....you quote made up shit all the time.......we can always tell when you're going to start a fairy tale.......instead of "once upon a time" you say "most historians agree".........

All things considered, I suspect that they would have been better off baking and selling the cake.....

That's liberals for you, OBEY or be destroyed.

I would call it common sense. On one side, pay $135,000, break the law, and lose my business. On the other side, bake and sell a cake.

Decisions, decisions.....

How about I decide to stay true to my faith. Who are you to take away that right? As long as there is a gay baker and a gay florist willing to provide cakes and flowers and rainbows, why insist that a person of faith, set their faith aside or be punished?

Because there is nothing in the Christian Bible that says, "Thou shalt not bake a wedding cake for a woman who lies with a woman or a man who lies with a man", which means that it is not a tenant of your faith, but, instead, your choice to discriminate.

There's also nothing in the Bible that prescribes civil rights for Americans in the 21st century. Why don't you revisit the OP and find out what the topic of this thread is. It isn't the Bible.

ignored again...

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Davids
actually I think you mean Solomon and God did take him to task for that.......its why Israel was split into two kingdoms.....

Actually, historians agree that Israel was split into two kingdoms for two reasons. First, Solomon divided northern Israel into 12 separate tax districts, which were not even divided along tribal territories, each one of which was required to provide for the needs of the entire Israeli government for one month per year, while he exempted Southern israel from the same taxes. Second, he spent most of the money fortifying Southern Israel against Egypt, while ignoring the threat of Syria against northern Israel. The north was pissed, and succeeded.

your historians should have read the official record.....it would have saved them some time....

1 Kings 11:9 The Lord became angry with Solomon because his heart had turned away from the Lord, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice. 10 Although he had forbidden Solomon to follow other gods, Solomon did not keep the Lord’s command. 11 So the Lord said to Solomon, “Since this is your attitude and you have not kept my covenant and my decrees, which I commanded you, I will most certainly tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one of your subordinates. 12 Nevertheless, for the sake of David your father, I will not do it during your lifetime. I will tear it out of the hand of your son. 13 Yet I will not tear the whole kingdom from him, but will give him one tribe for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen

I don't consider ancient fairy tales as History.

sure you do.....you quote made up shit all the time.......we can always tell when you're going to start a fairy tale.......instead of "once upon a time" you say "most historians agree".........

That's liberals for you, OBEY or be destroyed.

I would call it common sense. On one side, pay $135,000, break the law, and lose my business. On the other side, bake and sell a cake.

Decisions, decisions.....

How about I decide to stay true to my faith. Who are you to take away that right? As long as there is a gay baker and a gay florist willing to provide cakes and flowers and rainbows, why insist that a person of faith, set their faith aside or be punished?

Because there is nothing in the Christian Bible that says, "Thou shalt not bake a wedding cake for a woman who lies with a woman or a man who lies with a man", which means that it is not a tenant of your faith, but, instead, your choice to discriminate.

There's also nothing in the Bible that prescribes civil rights for Americans in the 21st century. Why don't you revisit the OP and find out what the topic of this thread is. It isn't the Bible.

ignored again...

Pussy.

 

[MeBelle]

Stop breaking the law:
659A.409
fined in ORS 659A.400 (Place of public accommodation defined) to publish, circulate, issue or display, or cause to [Formerly 659.037; 2003 c.521 §3; 2005 c.131 §2; 2007 c.100 §7]"

They're not!

[

Well, I went to find a legit source - a only then could I read the actual Final Order, which is here: http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet Cakes FO.pdf

...it is an unlawful practice for any person acting on behalf of any place of public accommodation as defined in ORS( 659A.400 Place of public accommodation defined) to publish, circulate, issue or

ORS 659A.409 - Notice that discrimination will be made in place of public accommodation prohibited - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

Notice that discrimination will be made in place of public accommodation prohibited - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

But that's really not a problem for the Klein's now, is it? They don't have a place of public accommodation anymore do they?
Boo Hoo.

I am so darn happy you two are still playing....because you didn't look far enough, even though you quoted properly in your bs responses... ready?

659A.400¹
Place of public accommodation defined
(1)A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusions in subsection (2) of this section, means:

(a)Any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements, transportation or otherwise.

(b)Any place that is open to the public and owned or maintained by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (Public body defined), regardless of whether the place is commercial in nature.

(c)Any service to the public that is provided by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (Public body defined), regardless of whether the service is commercial in nature.


§ 174.109¹
Public body defined
Subject to ORS 174.108 (Effect of definitions), as used in the statutes of this state public body means state government bodies, local government bodies and special government bodies. [2001 c.74 §2]


oopsie

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Stop breaking the law:
659A.409
fined in ORS 659A.400 (Place of public accommodation defined) to publish, circulate, issue or display, or cause to [Formerly 659.037; 2003 c.521 §3; 2005 c.131 §2; 2007 c.100 §7]"

They're not!

[

Well, I went to find a legit source - a only then could I read the actual Final Order, which is here: http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet Cakes FO.pdf

...it is an unlawful practice for any person acting on behalf of any place of public accommodation as defined in ORS( 659A.400 Place of public accommodation defined) to publish, circulate, issue or

ORS 659A.409 - Notice that discrimination will be made in place of public accommodation prohibited - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

Notice that discrimination will be made in place of public accommodation prohibited - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

But that's really not a problem for the Klein's now, is it? They don't have a place of public accommodation anymore do they?
Boo Hoo.

I am so darn happy you two are still playing....because you didn't look far enough, even though you quoted properly in your bs responses... ready?

659A.400¹
Place of public accommodation defined
(1)A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusions in subsection (2) of this section, means:

(a)Any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements, transportation or otherwise.

(b)Any place that is open to the public and owned or maintained by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (Public body defined), regardless of whether the place is commercial in nature.

(c)Any service to the public that is provided by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (Public body defined), regardless of whether the service is commercial in nature.


§ 174.109¹
Public body defined
Subject to ORS 174.108 (Effect of definitions), as used in the statutes of this state public body means state government bodies, local government bodies and special government bodies. [2001 c.74 §2]


oopsie

(a)Any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements, transportation or otherwise.

 

[MeBelle]

(a)Any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements, transportation or otherwise.

Quote me the ordinance....don't take it out of context.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

(a)Any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements, transportation or otherwise.

Quote me the ordinance....don't take it out of context.

See above, and it's in context, dumbass. ORS 659A.400 - Place of public accommodation defined - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

And

ORS 659A.403 - Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

 

[MeBelle]

(a)Any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements, transportation or otherwise.

Quote me the ordinance....don't take it out of context.

All states with a public accommodation law prohibit discrimination on the grounds of race, gender, ancestry and religion.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/state-public-accommodation-laws.aspx

So, guess who the State of Oregon discriminated against?

 

[MeBelle]

(a)Any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements, transportation or otherwise.

Quote me the ordinance....don't take it out of context.

See above, and it's in context, dumbass. ORS 659A.400 - Place of public accommodation defined - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

And

ORS 659A.403 - Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

Did I call you names???
No, but I could...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

(a)Any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements, transportation or otherwise.

Quote me the ordinance....don't take it out of context.

All states with a public accommodation law prohibit discrimination on the grounds of race, gender, ancestry and religion.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/state-public-accommodation-laws.aspx

So, guess who the State of Oregon discriminated against?

It didn't, but it fined the crap out of those who did. Welcome to the real world where it's serve one, serve all, in nearly all cases. Follow that and you'll do very well...

 

[MeBelle]

(a)Any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements, transportation or otherwise.

Quote me the ordinance....don't take it out of context.

See above, and it's in context, dumbass. ORS 659A.400 - Place of public accommodation defined - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes
And

Did I call you names???
No, but I could...

oopsie


Thank you!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

(a)Any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements, transportation or otherwise.

Quote me the ordinance....don't take it out of context.

See above, and it's in context, dumbass. ORS 659A.400 - Place of public accommodation defined - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

And

ORS 659A.403 - Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

Did I call you names???
No, but I could...

That is also your call, but next time study up, dumbass...

 

[paperview]

Stop breaking the law:
659A.409
fined in ORS 659A.400 (Place of public accommodation defined) to publish, circulate, issue or display, or cause to [Formerly 659.037; 2003 c.521 §3; 2005 c.131 §2; 2007 c.100 §7]"

They're not!

[

Well, I went to find a legit source - a only then could I read the actual Final Order, which is here: http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet Cakes FO.pdf

...it is an unlawful practice for any person acting on behalf of any place of public accommodation as defined in ORS( 659A.400 Place of public accommodation defined) to publish, circulate, issue or

ORS 659A.409 - Notice that discrimination will be made in place of public accommodation prohibited - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

Notice that discrimination will be made in place of public accommodation prohibited - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

But that's really not a problem for the Klein's now, is it? They don't have a place of public accommodation anymore do they?
Boo Hoo.

I am so darn happy you two are still playing....because you didn't look far enough, even though you quoted properly in your bs responses... ready?

659A.400¹
Place of public accommodation defined
(1)A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusions in subsection (2) of this section, means:

(a)Any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements, transportation or otherwise.

(b)Any place that is open to the public and owned or maintained by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (Public body defined), regardless of whether the place is commercial in nature.

(c)Any service to the public that is provided by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (Public body defined), regardless of whether the service is commercial in nature.


§ 174.109¹
Public body defined
Subject to ORS 174.108 (Effect of definitions), as used in the statutes of this state public body means state government bodies, local government bodies and special government bodies. [2001 c.74 §2]


oopsie

Wow. Was that ever a major fail on your part.

Yeesh.

 

[Ravi]

So the Christian bakers lied. Shocker.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I don't understand how anyone can tolerate what Oregon is doing to this couple. This is raw, naked fascism. First the state fines them for declining to support a ceremony that they find offensive, and now the state orders them not to talk about what is being done to them. Unbelievable.

This is thoroughly un-American. It is Nazism, Stalinism, whatever form of totalitarianism you want to call it.

 

[paperview]

I don't understand ....

That has a lot to do with you believing the bullshit in the OP.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Wait, they defied a gag order that ordered them not to endorse the discriminatory policies of their business?

OK--this is starting to sound like a Christian stunt. Kind of like the ones where Christians go to a non-christian outing and start yelling they are going to hell. Then film getting attacked and complain about their rights being violated.

Felt sorry for them getting fined 135k
Don't feel sorry for them now

What in the world is wrong with you? Were you raised in this country? Have you heard of things like freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association?

It is NOT "discrimination" to decline to assist with a CEREMONY that you find offensive. Stop using the phony comparison to refusing to let blacks eat in a restaurant or rent a room. Those actions do not involve a ceremony, especially a ceremony like marriage, which means very different things to different people and which has deeply religious implications for many people.

It's just incredible to see people who are "Americans" cheering as this couple is ordered not to even to try to defend themselves in public. Who ARE you people who could tolerate such fascist, un-American edicts?

It was people like you who enabled the Nazis to shut down Jewish businesses and then to haul them off to camps.