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

[Debra K]

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.

When Democrats start following the law.....then you can start lecturing us on following the law!!!

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?

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.

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.

Bakers, butchers, and candle-stick makers are not "ruined".

They have freedom of speech. They can post big signs in their places of business or post messages in huge font on their business websites stating something like this: "We don't agree with equal rights under the law for some people, but we will comply with state law." They may even use language dripping with anti-black, anti-gay, or anti-whatever animus.

People who are offended will probably boycott the business; but perhaps bigoted people will patronize the store. You win some, you lose some. Whatever. But, if you choose to violate the law, then there are consequences.

 

[martybegan]

When Democrats start following the law.....then you can start lecturing us on following the law!!!

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?

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.

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.

nobody but the bakers ruined the business.

Bullshit. The government did it, and you trying to hide that, or sweep it under the rug is telling.

 

[martybegan]

Taken from wikipedia, from a Georgia law:

From Kentucky:

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.

Again, that's your opinion. But you were offering us your definitions as points of law. And you were wrong.

I was offering up the laws, and using them as examples to back up my opinion, which is YOU are the jackbooted thug this time around.

Congrats.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

And I bet you have no idea what you're talking about. Time will tell.

The gathering of armed resisters is to make a point, as they did at the Bundy ranch.

And yet Bundy still faces liens. And when he goes to sell cattle, the proceeds can still be seized. If he ever tries to sell his property, the proceeds can be seized.

Bundy sells cattle weekly. What are you blabbering about? He is a meat producer. The BLM retreated with tail between legs.

Here is what really happened;

{
Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah, concerned about the armed agents that surrounded Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s property, is mulling a measure to cut funding for any “paramilitary units” that work for the Bureau of Land Management, the Internal Revenue Service and other federal regulatory agencies.


“There are lots of people who are really concerned when the BLM shows up with its own SWAT team,” he said, the Salt Lake Tribune reported. “They’re regulatory agencies. They’re not paramilitary units, and I think that concerns a lot of us.”

}

Bundy Aftermath: Utah lawmaker moves to disarm BLM, IRS, says ‘They’re not paramilitary units’ | Conservative Byte

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

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.

So a whites only Burger King wouldn't be necessary or systemic...

 

[martybegan]

When Democrats start following the law.....then you can start lecturing us on following the law!!!

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?

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.

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.

Bakers, butchers, and candle-stick makers are not "ruined".

They have freedom of speech. They can post big signs in their places of business or post messages in huge font on their business websites stating something like this: "We don't agree with equal rights under the law for some people, but we will comply with state law." They may even use language dripping with anti-black, anti-gay, or anti-whatever animus.

People who are offended will probably boycott the business; but perhaps bigoted people will patronize the store. You win some, you lose some. Whatever. But, if you choose to violate the law, then there are consequences.

Yes, they are ruined. It's comical that you separate the mechanism from the desired out come. It's like saying the bullet didn't kill him, the hole in his body did. and he shouldn't have been standing there anyway.

 

[ogibillm]

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?

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.

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.

nobody but the bakers ruined the business.

Bullshit. The government did it, and you trying to hide that, or sweep it under the rug is telling.

the government forced them to break the law?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Again, that's your opinion. But you were offering us your definitions as points of law. And you were wrong.

I was offering up the laws, and using them as examples to back up my opinion, which is YOU are the jackbooted thug this time around.

Congrats.

You offered up state laws which exemplify your passion for states rights.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course it is. But I think a $1000 fine would be punishment enough. You want to destroy people's lives.

I can see some major league push back coming down the road, and you folks are going to end up causing a huge backlash in one shape or form. Possibly in elections, most likely in lawsuits. Meanwhile......half black loners, living in their mother's basements are shooting Christians in the fucking head at community colleges because of the hatred all of this silliness is causing.

Completely white loners worshipping the Confederate flag are shooting Christians in the fucking head at church bible study because of nut cases like you. The electorte will not elect the folks you want, the courts will throw your cases out. The old days are gone.

 

[martybegan]

Taken from wikipedia, from a Georgia law:

From Kentucky:

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.

So a whites only Burger King wouldn't be necessary or systemic...

It would also go rapidly out of business without any help from government. It wouldn't be systemic unless 1) mandated by government and 2) joined in by the rest of the fast food establishments, thus creating an inability for the class to get equal treatment in general.

 

[Skylar]

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.

And I bet you have no idea what you're talking about. Time will tell.

The gathering of armed resisters is to make a point, as they did at the Bundy ranch.

And yet Bundy still faces liens. And when he goes to sell cattle, the proceeds can still be seized. If he ever tries to sell his property, the proceeds can be seized.

Bundy sells cattle weekly. What are you blabbering about? He is a meat producer. The BLM retreated with tail between legs.

Who says that Bundy sells cattle weekly?

Here is what really happened;

{
Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah, concerned about the armed agents that surrounded Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s property, is mulling a measure to cut funding for any “paramilitary units” that work for the Bureau of Land Management, the Internal Revenue Service and other federal regulatory agencies.


“There are lots of people who are really concerned when the BLM shows up with its own SWAT team,” he said, the Salt Lake Tribune reported. “They’re regulatory agencies. They’re not paramilitary units, and I think that concerns a lot of us.”

}

Bundy Aftermath: Utah lawmaker moves to disarm BLM, IRS, says ‘They’re not paramilitary units’ | Conservative Byte

The BLM doesn't have swat teams.

Spokeswoman Jessica Kershaw added that there are about 300 law enforcement officers under the BLM's direction to provide support on 245 million acres of public land, prompting a need already to work with local officials....

...She noted the BLM does not have SWAT or tactical teams.

Utah Local News - Salt Lake City News, Sports, Archive - The Salt Lake Tribune

Which takes the wind out of your sails.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Again, that's your opinion. But you were offering us your definitions as points of law. And you were wrong.

I was offering up the laws, and using them as examples to back up my opinion, which is YOU are the jackbooted thug this time around.

Congrats.

You offered up state laws which exemplify your passion for states rights.

I only support state's rights up to the point they impinge on my rights as a US citizen.

 

[martybegan]

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.

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.

nobody but the bakers ruined the business.

Bullshit. The government did it, and you trying to hide that, or sweep it under the rug is telling.

the government forced them to break the law?

The government enforced the unjust law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some white or black baker is going to deny service to the other race, then will get shot in the face or shoot the customer in the face.

I can just see these nuts on either side going loony toons.

Bake the fucking cake, fruit loops.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Again, that's your opinion. But you were offering us your definitions as points of law. And you were wrong.

I was offering up the laws, and using them as examples to back up my opinion, which is YOU are the jackbooted thug this time around.

Congrats.

The definition of 'public accomidation' that you offered us didn't match the laws in question. You're more than welcome to your opinion. You're not welcome to your own legal definitions.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's irrelevant.

You want businesses to regain the freedom to practice Jim Crow. We get it. Good luck.

You're an idiot Carbine (I mean that in the nicest way!)

Jim Crow laws were INFLICTED on business by government. Get your nose OUT of the business of others, the market will take care of itself. Plenty of business wants the dollars that homosexuals spend.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

And I bet you have no idea what you're talking about. Time will tell.

The gathering of armed resisters is to make a point, as they did at the Bundy ranch.

And yet Bundy still faces liens. And when he goes to sell cattle, the proceeds can still be seized. If he ever tries to sell his property, the proceeds can be seized.

Bundy sells cattle weekly. What are you blabbering about? He is a meat producer. The BLM retreated with tail between legs.

Who says that Bundy sells cattle weekly?

Here is what really happened;

{
Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah, concerned about the armed agents that surrounded Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s property, is mulling a measure to cut funding for any “paramilitary units” that work for the Bureau of Land Management, the Internal Revenue Service and other federal regulatory agencies.


“There are lots of people who are really concerned when the BLM shows up with its own SWAT team,” he said, the Salt Lake Tribune reported. “They’re regulatory agencies. They’re not paramilitary units, and I think that concerns a lot of us.”

}

Bundy Aftermath: Utah lawmaker moves to disarm BLM, IRS, says ‘They’re not paramilitary units’ | Conservative Byte

The BLM doesn't have swat teams. Which takes the wind out of your sales.

The bill won't pass. If it did, the BLM would rearm differently and call their swat units the Good Neighbor Patrol.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Of course it is. But I think a $1000 fine would be punishment enough. You want to destroy people's lives.

I can see some major league push back coming down the road, and you folks are going to end up causing a huge backlash in one shape or form. Possibly in elections, most likely in lawsuits. Meanwhile......half black loners, living in their mother's basements are shooting Christians in the fucking head at community colleges because of the hatred all of this silliness is causing.

The outrageous fine is to send a message, you WILL bow to your homosexual betters, or the full force of the state will be brought against you.

 

[ogibillm]

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.

nobody but the bakers ruined the business.

Bullshit. The government did it, and you trying to hide that, or sweep it under the rug is telling.

the government forced them to break the law?

The government enforced the unjust law.

the law is not unjust. pa laws are constitutional and the bakers chose to break the law.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Who says that Bundy sells cattle weekly?

What is it you thought Clive Bundy did, raised cattle as his personal pets?

Bundy sells these cattle for MEAT

The BLM doesn't have swat teams. Which takes the wind out of your sales.

That is the BLM on the Bundy ranch.