Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This one was clearly an over-zealous witch hunt. It went too far. We have to respect religious beliefs and practices as well. Gay Rights aren't the only rights that matter. This was not justice.
Then you don't like state PA laws, period?Actually its none of your business who a business chooses to do business with. None. Zero. It wasn't my business either until the state decided to persecute this couple.If you want to pretend that your God hates fags, that's your business.
If you want to act out on that belief, that's our business.
There is no religious defense. Wedding vendors do not participate in the wedding. They merely supply services. Those who claim some religious exception are committing religious fraud. They have no religious 'right' to discriminate.Only the foaming at the mouth libtards claim the icky defense. Those Christians don't want to participate in sin according to their faith. You want to stop on that right like the little Nazi thug that you are. We get it.Those claiming a religious reason are committing religious fraud. Those using the 'we find Gays icky' defense have no standing.You have no ability to think at all. I'm not religious and said we shouldn't even need a religious reason. And your idiotic definition of equality can be applied to anybody that wants to claim it. Tyrants like you need to be beat back down into the hellhole your escaped from.You have no religious reason. None at all.It's a sign the government has slipped into tyranny when they force people to be accepting of politically aggressive deviant lifestyles. We shouldn't need a religious reason to turn down business we find repulsive.
"Politically aggressive"? American citizens seeking equal justice under law is seen as "politically aggressive" by those who seek to deny equal justice.
Alas, you are politically impotent to stave off equal; justice. You are cu7lturally impotent in labeling homosexuals as 'repulsive'. And now we find you are rhetorically impotent by making such a ham handed argument.
And you can't even respond to my "equality" bullshit you try to beat people around with. The ham is between your ears.
So easy for YOU to be a tough guy on an anonymous message board with other people's businesses and money, isn't it?I would go farther than these people have gone. I would release a short statement directly to the state. Simple as this. GO FUCK YOURSELF. YOU ARE NOT GETTING ANY MONEY. I WILL NOT APOLOGIZE FOR BEING RIGHT.Not baking a cake now is persecution....good god....you fucking liberals have gone off the fucking deep end....now what IS persecution is fining,threatening to jail,confiscate their business,home,car etc for not making a cake. THAT is persecution.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.This is how you teach the law to the ineducable.
If your religion teaches the illegal persecution of others, then you're either in the wrong religion, or in the wrong country.
You're exactly the kind of person who makes these laws necessary.
No. The state awarded over 300K to a woman who was discriminated against because she was Christian.Actually its none of your business who a business chooses to do business with. None. Zero. It wasn't my business either until the state decided to persecute this couple.If you want to pretend that your God hates fags, that's your business.
If you want to act out on that belief, that's our business.
The state awarded a similar amount to a woman who was discriminated against BECAUSE she was a Christian.
So much for your ignorance -based theories.
When Democrats start following the law.....then you can start lecturing us on following the law!!!This one was clearly an over-zealous witch hunt. It went too far. We have to respect religious beliefs and practices as well. Gay Rights aren't the only rights that matter. This was not justice.
Witch hunt? Everyone is required to know and comply with the law. There is no exemption for people who use "religion" to excuse or justify their unlawful conduct. Their motive for violating the law is not relevant. Opening a bakery business and baking cakes for a living is not a "religious practice". It's commerce, which is subject to government regulation.
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:
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.
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:
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.
When Democrats start following the law.....then you can start lecturing us on following the law!!!This one was clearly an over-zealous witch hunt. It went too far. We have to respect religious beliefs and practices as well. Gay Rights aren't the only rights that matter. This was not justice.
Witch hunt? Everyone is required to know and comply with the law. There is no exemption for people who use "religion" to excuse or justify their unlawful conduct. Their motive for violating the law is not relevant. Opening a bakery business and baking cakes for a living is not a "religious practice". It's commerce, which is subject to government regulation.
I find religious fanatics of all kinds to be the sexual deviants and perverts.....many on the down low.No, just don't force 'em to provide products and services to sexual deviants and perverts (homosexuals).When u start a business there are laws that business must follow .
Maybe I'd be ok if they just ignored food safety rules too?
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?
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:
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.
I actually said "from wikipedia", you must have missed that.
The issue is a baker baking a cake for a specific event isn't even close to a"public accommodation".
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
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.
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:
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.
I actually said "from wikipedia", you must have missed that.
Yeah, but without any link. And certainly not telling us that the page your Kentucky law from was 'List of examples of Jim Crow Laws by State".
You knew the 1908 Kentucky law you were offering was a Jim Crow law. You didn't want us to know it though. And that speaks volumes.
The issue is a baker baking a cake for a specific event isn't even close to a"public accommodation".
Says you. Citing you. Which has no relevance to the law.
That you can't tell the difference between this:
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
and 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.
....Demonstrates your lack of capacity for reason on this topic. As you perceive the two as identical. While any rational person can see they are plainly opposites.
Well, considering the fact that this whole issue isn't based on logic in the first place......you don't really have a moral leg to stand on.When Democrats start following the law.....then you can start lecturing us on following the law!!!This one was clearly an over-zealous witch hunt. It went too far. We have to respect religious beliefs and practices as well. Gay Rights aren't the only rights that matter. This was not justice.
Witch hunt? Everyone is required to know and comply with the law. There is no exemption for people who use "religion" to excuse or justify their unlawful conduct. Their motive for violating the law is not relevant. Opening a bakery business and baking cakes for a living is not a "religious practice". It's commerce, which is subject to government regulation.
That's not a defense to violating the law. If your neighbor violates the law, that doesn't mean you can do whatever you want without consequences. When are you going to make a logical argument?
[QUOTE="ogibillm, post: 12472825, member: 27956]also wildly illegal. criminal even. so you'd rather go to jail than pay a lawful debt?
Its very easy to stop that.You mean people donated money to fight the religious persecution of this couple. I know. I helped. As far as I know they haven't taken the money yet and they don't want to.Bakery didn't break any law. Bakery WON'T pay anythingBakery knew the law
Bakery broke the law
Bakery must pay the price
Bakery took $500k from the we hate fags crow
They can pay
And they will be deniedThe fun part is now more homosexual customers will come in and ask for a cake
At $135k a pop
Where?Actually its none of your business who a business chooses to do business with. None. Zero. It wasn't my business either until the state decided to persecute this couple.If you want to pretend that your God hates fags, that's your business.
If you want to act out on that belief, that's our business.
The state awarded a similar amount to a woman who was discriminated against BECAUSE she was a Christian.
So much for your ignorance -based theories.
If I were in the homosexual community, I would send a steady stream of gay couples requesting wedding cakes
$135,000 a pop should break them pretty soon
It breaks the same Oregon business law. Did you bother to actually READ the link to the business law?He tried forcing his employee to attend HIS religious training etc....how in the hell is that even CLOSE to being the same with the Bakery not wanting to bake a cake for faggots? Hint. ITS NOT!Link?You mean people donated money to fight the religious persecution of this couple. I know. I helped. As far as I know they haven't taken the money yet and they don't want to.Bakery took $500k from the we hate fags crow
They can pay
And they will be deniedThe fun part is now more homosexual customers will come in and ask for a cake
At $135k a pop
Where?The state awarded a similar amount to a woman who was discriminated against BECAUSE she was a Christian.
So much for your ignorance -based theories.
In Oregon, dumbass. What part of 'the state' don't you understand?
In the Matter ofANDREW W. ENGEL, DMD, PC dba AWE DENTAL SPA andDR. ANDREW W. ENGEL individually as an Aider and AbettorCase No. 38-11Final Order of Commissioner Brad AvakianIssued September 13, 2012SYNOPSIS
Respondent Awe Dental Spa employed Complainant as a dental assistant andsubjected her to harassment based on her religion, failed to reasonably accommodateher religious beliefs, and constructively discharged her based on her religion.Respondent Dr. Andrew W. Engel aided and abetted Respondent Awe Dental Spa inthe commission of the unlawful employment practices. The forum awardedComplainant $12,000 in back pay, $10,654 in out-of-pocket expenses attributable to theunlawful employment practices, and $325,000 in damages for mental, emotional, andphysical suffering, and found Respondents jointly and severally liable for thesedamages. The forum also required Respondent Dr. Engel and his staff to attendtraining on recognizing and preventing religious discrimination. ORS 659A.030(1)(a),ORS 659A.030(1)(b), ORS 659A.030(1)(g), ORS 659A.033, ORS 659A.850.
Dr Andrew Engel #38-11
Now let's hear you defend Dr. Engel
Gee, refusing to pay didn't work? What a shock. Thought for sure the State was just gonna give up and forget about it.
When u start a business there are laws that business must follow .
Maybe I'd be ok if they just ignored food safety rules too?
