State Takes Legal Action to Seize $135K From Bakers Who Refused to Make Cake for Lesbian Couple

[martybegan]

It's not only about Gay Rights. Others' rights have to be respected too. This one went too far. It's not justice.

Jim Crow is not coming back. Get over it.

You are the ones that want a form of it back, not us, you want government to fight your fights for you, to dictate how a business can be run over hurt feelings.

Despite your comic characterization of it,

yes, I do want the government to prevent businesses from discriminating.

you forgot to add "but only when it screws over people I don't like".

Fixed it for you.

Grow up. For chrissakes.

Truth hurts, doesn't it?

 

[Iceweasel]

Two women or two men on the cake wouldn't be a clue?

It's irrelevant. Oregon has non-discrimination laws that protect gays.

In other words, you can't answer the challenge. Odd though that you've never disagreed with any laws, how does that work in bizarro land?

What challenge?

Call a tow company to pull your head out of your ass so you can see.

What challenge?

They haven't arrived yet?
"Call a tow company to pull your head out of your ass so you can see.
"

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ah. So apparently your support of religion trumping the law is when it involves discriminating against gays.

Why is it wrong if they're discriminating against gays....but not if they are discriminating against black people? Or Christians?

It's not only about Gay Rights. Others' rights have to be respected too. This one went too far. It's not justice.

Jim Crow is not coming back. Get over it.

You are the ones that want a form of it back, not us, you want government to fight your fights for you, to dictate how a business can be run over hurt feelings.

And by a 'form of it', you mean laws that have nothing to do with it....and in fact do the exact opposite?

Jim crow was government mandated discrimination, you want to apply PA laws to be government mandated punishment of perceived discrimination.

YOU are on the side of force this time, enjoy it.

No, Jim Crow wasn't. In many cases Jim Crow PERMITTED discrimination, but did not mandate. Learn an ounce of history.

 

[Iceweasel]

It's not only about Gay Rights. Others' rights have to be respected too. This one went too far. It's not justice.

Jim Crow is not coming back. Get over it.

You are the ones that want a form of it back, not us, you want government to fight your fights for you, to dictate how a business can be run over hurt feelings.

Despite your comic characterization of it,

yes, I do want the government to prevent businesses from discriminating.

you forgot to add "but only when it screws over people I don't like".

Fixed it for you.

Grow up. For chrissakes.

...says the forum three year old.

 

[bodecea]

So this money is to pay for the homos pain and suffering for not getting a cake baked?

This is how you teach the law to the ineducable.

You mean this is how you break the spirit of religious people,stomp on religious liberty and force them to choose between principles and doing what a state ORDERS it to do illegally. Just remember. A man who has lost everything has nothing left to lose. AKA keep pissing people off and taking what they have and leave them with nothing you are going to end up with a very pissed off,armed populous that has nothing left to lose.

What have YOU actively done to repeal PA laws in your state......PA laws that also protect religion from business discrimination?

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's irrelevant. Oregon has non-discrimination laws that protect gays.

In other words, you can't answer the challenge. Odd though that you've never disagreed with any laws, how does that work in bizarro land?

What challenge?

Call a tow company to pull your head out of your ass so you can see.

What challenge?

They haven't arrived yet?
"Call a tow company to pull your head out of your ass so you can see.
"

Why be an asshole?

They made wedding cakes. They refused to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple. They violated Oregon law.

 

[Skylar]

Ah. So apparently your support of religion trumping the law is when it involves discriminating against gays.

Why is it wrong if they're discriminating against gays....but not if they are discriminating against black people? Or Christians?

It's not only about Gay Rights. Others' rights have to be respected too. This one went too far. It's not justice.

Jim Crow is not coming back. Get over it.

You are the ones that want a form of it back, not us, you want government to fight your fights for you, to dictate how a business can be run over hurt feelings.

And by a 'form of it', you mean laws that have nothing to do with it....and in fact do the exact opposite?

Jim crow was government mandated discrimination, you want to apply PA laws to be government mandated punishment of perceived discrimination.

Jim Crow enforced racial segregation. PA laws forbid racial segregation. The exact opposite of Jim Crow laws.

That you can't tell the difference demonstrates just how far down the rabbit hole you have to go in order to hold your beliefs.

 

[Skylar]

In other words, you can't answer the challenge. Odd though that you've never disagreed with any laws, how does that work in bizarro land?

What challenge?

Call a tow company to pull your head out of your ass so you can see.

What challenge?

They haven't arrived yet?
"Call a tow company to pull your head out of your ass so you can see.
"

Why be an asshole?

They made wedding cakes. They refused to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple. They violated Oregon law.

Seriously. Ordering a cake from a cake maker is a completely reasonable act.

 

[martybegan]

It's not only about Gay Rights. Others' rights have to be respected too. This one went too far. It's not justice.

Jim Crow is not coming back. Get over it.

You are the ones that want a form of it back, not us, you want government to fight your fights for you, to dictate how a business can be run over hurt feelings.

And by a 'form of it', you mean laws that have nothing to do with it....and in fact do the exact opposite?

Jim crow was government mandated discrimination, you want to apply PA laws to be government mandated punishment of perceived discrimination.

YOU are on the side of force this time, enjoy it.

No, Jim Crow wasn't. In many cases Jim Crow PERMITTED discrimination, but did not mandate. Learn an ounce of history.

Taken from wikipedia, from a Georgia law:

• "All persons licensed to conduct a restaurant, shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room or serve the two races anywhere under the same license."[citation needed]

From Kentucky:

1908: Public Accommodation
It was unlawful for whites and blacks to purchase and consume alcohol on the same location. Penalty for this act was a misdemeanor punishable by a fine from $50 to $500 or an imprisonment in the parish prison or jail up to two years.

Don't see much of an option there.

 

[martybegan]

It's not only about Gay Rights. Others' rights have to be respected too. This one went too far. It's not justice.

Jim Crow is not coming back. Get over it.

You are the ones that want a form of it back, not us, you want government to fight your fights for you, to dictate how a business can be run over hurt feelings.

And by a 'form of it', you mean laws that have nothing to do with it....and in fact do the exact opposite?

Jim crow was government mandated discrimination, you want to apply PA laws to be government mandated punishment of perceived discrimination.

Jim Crow enforced racial segregation. PA laws forbid racial segregation. The exact opposite of Jim Crow laws.

That you can't tell the difference demonstrates just how far down the rabbit hole you have to go in order to hold your beliefs.

PA laws were designed to prohibit systemic discrimination, not a single baker not wanting to bake a cake. That you want to apply PA laws to any little transaction because you don't like the people you are persecuting has more to do with those good ol boys down south during Jim crow than any desire for fairness.

 

[BluesLegend]

In other words, you can't answer the challenge. Odd though that you've never disagreed with any laws, how does that work in bizarro land?

What challenge?

Call a tow company to pull your head out of your ass so you can see.

What challenge?

They haven't arrived yet?
"Call a tow company to pull your head out of your ass so you can see.
"

Why be an asshole?

They made wedding cakes. They refused to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple. They violated Oregon law.

Lets see the court transcript...oh wait it wasn't a judge who issued the fine it was some homo loving state administrator. That fine is WAY out of line $135k for not baking a freaking cake is absurd and I love that because this will bite the greedy homo's and liberals I the ass. Its big enough and absurd enough to piss off normal people so keep pushing idiots.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Jim Crow is not coming back. Get over it.

You are the ones that want a form of it back, not us, you want government to fight your fights for you, to dictate how a business can be run over hurt feelings.

And by a 'form of it', you mean laws that have nothing to do with it....and in fact do the exact opposite?

Jim crow was government mandated discrimination, you want to apply PA laws to be government mandated punishment of perceived discrimination.

YOU are on the side of force this time, enjoy it.

No, Jim Crow wasn't. In many cases Jim Crow PERMITTED discrimination, but did not mandate. Learn an ounce of history.

Taken from wikipedia, from a Georgia law:

• "All persons licensed to conduct a restaurant, shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room or serve the two races anywhere under the same license."[citation needed]

From Kentucky:

1908: Public Accommodation
It was unlawful for whites and blacks to purchase and consume alcohol on the same location. Penalty for this act was a misdemeanor punishable by a fine from $50 to $500 or an imprisonment in the parish prison or jail up to two years.

Don't see much of an option there.

Tennessee:

1875: Public accommodations [Statute] Hotel keepers, carriers of passengers and keepers of places of amusement have the right to control access and exclude persons as "that of any private person over his private house."

1885: Public accommodations [Statute] All well-behaved persons to be admitted to theaters, parks, shows, or other public amusements, but also declared that proprietors had the right to create separate accommodations for whites and Negroes.

 

[Skylar]

Jim Crow is not coming back. Get over it.

You are the ones that want a form of it back, not us, you want government to fight your fights for you, to dictate how a business can be run over hurt feelings.

And by a 'form of it', you mean laws that have nothing to do with it....and in fact do the exact opposite?

Jim crow was government mandated discrimination, you want to apply PA laws to be government mandated punishment of perceived discrimination.

YOU are on the side of force this time, enjoy it.

No, Jim Crow wasn't. In many cases Jim Crow PERMITTED discrimination, but did not mandate. Learn an ounce of history.

Taken from wikipedia, from a Georgia law:

• "All persons licensed to conduct a restaurant, shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room or serve the two races anywhere under the same license."[citation needed]

From Kentucky:

1908: Public Accommodation
It was unlawful for whites and blacks to purchase and consume alcohol on the same location. Penalty for this act was a misdemeanor punishable by a fine from $50 to $500 or an imprisonment in the parish prison or jail up to two years.

Don't see much of an option there.

That's because they're both jim crow laws. As you know, as you pulled from a page on Wikipedia called 'List of Jim Crow Laws examples by State.

List of Jim Crow law examples by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which of course you know. But really didn't want us to.

And a 1908 racial segregation law from Kentucky isn't what you're comparing jim crow laws to. You're comparing Jim Crow laws to Oregon Public Accommodation Laws forbidding discrimination against race from 2013.

Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.

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

You're so far down the rabbit hole that you read 'all persons are entitled to full and equal accomidation' as identical with this:

It was unlawful for whites and blacks to purchase and consume alcohol on the same location. Penalty for this act was a misdemeanor punishable by a fine from $50 to $500 or an imprisonment in the parish prison or jail up to two years.

To your eyes, they identical. To any rational person, they're exact opposites. You're incapable of discerning the difference. And that's a demonstration of how much of your capacity for reason you've abdicated on this issue.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What challenge?

Call a tow company to pull your head out of your ass so you can see.

What challenge?

They haven't arrived yet?
"Call a tow company to pull your head out of your ass so you can see.
"

Why be an asshole?

They made wedding cakes. They refused to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple. They violated Oregon law.

Lets see the court transcript...oh wait it wasn't a judge who issued the fine it was some homo loving state administrator. That fine is WAY out of line $135k for not baking a freaking cake is absurd and I love that because this will bite the greedy homo's and liberals I the ass. Its big enough and absurd enough to piss off normal people so keep pushing idiots.

The fine was based on a prior even larger fine imposed on a dentist who was found guilty of violating the rights of a CHRISTIAN employee.

I suggest you look it up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Jim Crow is not coming back. Get over it.

You are the ones that want a form of it back, not us, you want government to fight your fights for you, to dictate how a business can be run over hurt feelings.

And by a 'form of it', you mean laws that have nothing to do with it....and in fact do the exact opposite?

Jim crow was government mandated discrimination, you want to apply PA laws to be government mandated punishment of perceived discrimination.

Jim Crow enforced racial segregation. PA laws forbid racial segregation. The exact opposite of Jim Crow laws.

That you can't tell the difference demonstrates just how far down the rabbit hole you have to go in order to hold your beliefs.

PA laws were designed to prohibit systemic discrimination, not a single baker not wanting to bake a cake. That you want to apply PA laws to any little transaction because you don't like the people you are persecuting has more to do with those good ol boys down south during Jim crow than any desire for fairness.

So you don't believe a baker can be held liable for refusing to serve blacks, because they're black?

 

[mudwhistle]

Excellent. And the state can make the bakers pay the states' costs (just about the amount the go-fund me gave the bakers).

Plus interest, late penalties. Never give the finger to the state over what you owe. Good way to get screwed with your pants on.

Sorry, but this was a civil matter. Not a matter of the state.

In this case, the state is being abusive and goes against the 8th amendment.

The punishment should fit the crime.

It doesn't in this case.

 

[Skylar]

Excellent. And the state can make the bakers pay the states' costs (just about the amount the go-fund me gave the bakers).

Plus interest, late penalties. Never give the finger to the state over what you owe. Good way to get screwed with your pants on.

Sorry, but this was a civil matter. Not a matter of the state.

Says you, citing you. The State of Oregon on the other hand had a very different take. Why would I ignore Oregon on its own laws and instead believe you, citing yourself?

In this case, the state is being abusive and goes against the 8th amendment.

Excessive fines....according to who?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Excellent. And the state can make the bakers pay the states' costs (just about the amount the go-fund me gave the bakers).

Plus interest, late penalties. Never give the finger to the state over what you owe. Good way to get screwed with your pants on.

Sorry, but this was a civil matter. Not a matter of the state. In this case, the state is being abusive and goes against the 8th amendment. The punishment should fit the crime. It doesn't in this case.

In these sorts of actions, indeed that matter is a state matter, and, yes, the losers are going to pay in full, and then some if they resist.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If they weren't specific how could there be an issue? If a gal goes in and orders a cake with unspecific genders no would would know, and I imagine care. All of these people have homosexuals customers, as with me. That isn't the issue. I wouldn't want to be forced into making a gay themed this or that. I should have that right, I did have that right. It's out of control.

To answer your question, the bakers asked.>>>>

So you think bakers are in the habit of asking their customers what their sexual orientation is? Why do I think you're making shit up?

It has nothing to do with what I think. The uncontested facts in the case are part of the court proceeding.

The baker asked for the names of the couple getting married. When he found out it was two women then her refused service. There was never any discussion of design for the cake.


>>>>

 

[Iceweasel]

If they weren't specific how could there be an issue? If a gal goes in and orders a cake with unspecific genders no would would know, and I imagine care. All of these people have homosexuals customers, as with me. That isn't the issue. I wouldn't want to be forced into making a gay themed this or that. I should have that right, I did have that right. It's out of control.

To answer your question, the bakers asked.>>>>

So you think bakers are in the habit of asking their customers what their sexual orientation is? Why do I think you're making shit up?

It has nothing to do with what I think. The uncontested facts in the case are part of the court proceeding.

The baker asked for the names of the couple getting married. When he found out it was two women then her refused service. There was never any discussion of design for the cake.>>>>

The names were to be put on the cake then. That's was the point. The fact that liberals would drag people to court over stupid shit like that tells us who the tyrants are.