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.
Gee, refusing to pay didn't work? What a shock. Thought for sure the State was just gonna give up and forget about it.
If 300 armed supporters show up to protect the rights of the bakers, will the state engage in a fire fight?
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?
When you type a post, there are laws that you must follow, they are known as "grammar," sploogy.
By the way, when these bakers obtained their license, were homosexuals already a preferred class, or did the state alter the foundational structure after the fact?
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?
Just because you have the power, it doesn't give you the right to abuse it.
And that is really what you're doing.
If we really were discussing the difference between what is right and wrong.....it appears you folks have been able to carve out your own definition of what is right.....and are now trying to make everyone obey and adhere to your ideology.
Laws are created in the legislature, not in the courts.
End of discussion.
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?
Just because you have the power, it doesn't give you the right to abuse it.
And that is really what you're doing.
If we really were discussing the difference between what is right and wrong.....it appears you folks have been able to carve out your own definition of what is right.....and are now trying to make everyone obey and adhere to your ideology.
Laws are created in the legislature, not in the courts.
End of discussion.
I believe most (and probably all) state legislatures have used their powers to regulate economic activity and enact laws prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations.
Public accommodation laws are rationally related to legitimate government interests. All persons, regardless of who they are, should be allowed to enter a business open to the public and be treated with equal dignity.
It is wrong to discriminate.
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?
Just because you have the power, it doesn't give you the right to abuse it.
And that is really what you're doing.
If we really were discussing the difference between what is right and wrong.....it appears you folks have been able to carve out your own definition of what is right.....and are now trying to make everyone obey and adhere to your ideology.
Laws are created in the legislature, not in the courts.
End of discussion.
I believe most (and probably all) state legislatures have used their powers to regulate economic activity and enact laws prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations.
Public accommodation laws are rationally related to legitimate government interests. All persons, regardless of who they are, should be allowed to enter a business open to the public and be treated with equal dignity.
It is wrong to discriminate.
Nope. They'll just put a lien on their property. Confiscate bank accounts electronically. Or other methods of procuring payment that don't require any physical involvement.
The State gets their money.
Actually, I know that if I don't obey the business laws when I have a business license, I'm gonna "get my pee pee whacked", so to speak."State Takes Legal Action to Seize $135K From Bakers Who Refused to Make Cake for Lesbian Couple"
And appropriately so.
Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional – as authorized by the Commerce Clause.
The bakers were afforded their comprehensive due process:
“Our agency has docketed the judgment and is exploring collection options,” Charlie Burr, communications director for the agency, told The Daily Signal. “They are entitled to a full and fair review of the case, but do not have the right to disregard a legally binding order.”
Correct.
No one has the right to defy, ignore, or disregard a lawful court order, regardless how much they might disagree with it.
Moreover, as a fact of law, the judgment is not 'extortion,' the bakers are not 'victims,' nor is their religious liberty in any manner being 'violated' – it is a lie to maintain otherwise.
Yeah, like you Obamabot dimwits care about the Rule of Law. Funny shite.
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.
Ah, you think so eh?Nope. They'll just put a lien on their property. Confiscate bank accounts electronically. Or other methods of procuring payment that don't require any physical involvement.
The State gets their money.
I'll bet the state never gets a dime, and backs down.
The gathering of armed resisters is to make a point, as they did at the Bundy ranch.
Katzndogz. You going to your happy place there? If the law said to throw gays off rooftops, we'd be in YOUR dream country, not the United States.If the law was throwing gays off rooftops, would you still say that?The law is the law, Hollie.
Nope. They'll just put a lien on their property. Confiscate bank accounts electronically. Or other methods of procuring payment that don't require any physical involvement.
The State gets their money.
I'll bet the state never gets a dime, and backs down.
The gathering of armed resisters is to make a point, as they did at the Bundy ranch.
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.
Those were earlier than the ones I quoted, most went from "you can" to "you shall".
Your statement is of course, wrong, but you won't have the balls to admit it.
What relevance does that have to the their obligation to follow the law?
Of course it is. But I think a $1000 fine would be punishment enough. You want to destroy people's lives.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?
Just because you have the power, it doesn't give you the right to abuse it.
And that is really what you're doing.
If we really were discussing the difference between what is right and wrong.....it appears you folks have been able to carve out your own definition of what is right.....and are now trying to make everyone obey and adhere to your ideology.
Laws are created in the legislature, not in the courts.
End of discussion.
I believe most (and probably all) state legislatures have used their powers to regulate economic activity and enact laws prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations.
Public accommodation laws are rationally related to legitimate government interests. All persons, regardless of who they are, should be allowed to enter a business open to the public and be treated with equal dignity.
It is wrong to discriminate.
The issue is a baker baking a cake for a specific event isn't even close to a"public accommodation". The term was never meant to cover "all businesses", Your side has extended the meaning to punish people you disagree with, using government to ruin them for their beliefs.
Its also impractical. By and large, commerce is the method used to distribute goods and services in our society. From a strictly economic perspective discrimination hampers the economy. As it limits economic activity, access to resources, and entrepreneurial opportunities.
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.
Those were earlier than the ones I quoted, most went from "you can" to "you shall".
Your statement is of course, wrong, but you won't have the balls to admit it.
It's irrelevant.
You want businesses to regain the freedom to practice Jim Crow. We get it. Good luck.
Its also impractical. By and large, commerce is the method used to distribute goods and services in our society. From a strictly economic perspective discrimination hampers the economy. As it limits economic activity, access to resources, and entrepreneurial opportunities.
Then let the market sort it out. If what you say is true, which it is, then your use of Jack Booted thugs to impose your beliefs by force is not needed.
nobody but the bakers ruined the business.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!!!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?
Just because you have the power, it doesn't give you the right to abuse it.
And that is really what you're doing.
If we really were discussing the difference between what is right and wrong.....it appears you folks have been able to carve out your own definition of what is right.....and are now trying to make everyone obey and adhere to your ideology.
Laws are created in the legislature, not in the courts.
End of discussion.
I believe most (and probably all) state legislatures have used their powers to regulate economic activity and enact laws prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations.
Public accommodation laws are rationally related to legitimate government interests. All persons, regardless of who they are, should be allowed to enter a business open to the public and be treated with equal dignity.
It is wrong to discriminate.
It's more wrong to ruin a person over not wanting to bake a cake, and even more wrong to use government to enact said ruination.
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.
Those were earlier than the ones I quoted, most went from "you can" to "you shall".
Your statement is of course, wrong, but you won't have the balls to admit it.
It's irrelevant.
You want businesses to regain the freedom to practice Jim Crow. We get it. Good luck.
No, I don't. If the discrimination became systemic, or involved a necessary service, then government can step in and fix it. Without it being systemic, it isn't worth the government's time or money.
