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

[JakeStarkey]

Skylar: "Who says that Bundy sells cattle weekly?"

He is not in his own or corporate name. He may be shipping cattle by his sons' trucks on the back roads around Beaver Dam Wash then up the Littlefield Road and on to Washington County, Utah, for sale, but that will happen for only a short time, then his sons' trucks will be seized. That would give the feds a RICO case and they simply would show up with 500 marshals and agents, seize the place, and ship the Bundys within the hour to Las Vegas.

 

[ogibillm]

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.

they should have shot all his cows and burned his shack down.

 

[Skylar]

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

And who says that Bundy sells cattle weekly? Its a simple question. So far, you have no answer.

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

That is the BLM on the Bundy ranch.[/QUOTE]

With two of the 4 holding tear gas launchers?

Again, the BLM doesn't have SWAT teams.

 

[JakeStarkey]

they should have shot all his cows and burned his shack down.

No, that would be acting like the far right thinks.

 

[martybegan]

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.

The law is unjust as it assumes automatic trumping of religious freedom, regardless of the fact that the service requested can easily be gotten from someone else, and the end "harm" is only hurt feelings.

hurt feelings are not worth $135,000 and government oppression.

 

[Uncensored2008]

they should have shot all his cows and burned his shack down.

This isn't North Korea, despite how badly you seek to make it so...

BLM thugs were out gunned by Americans. Picking a fight with Americans is a VERY bad idea. Oregon will soon learn this lesson as the BLM did.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Prove it.

 

[Skylar]

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.

they should have shot all his cows and burned his shack down.

The BLM did the right thing. The folks that showed up to 'defend' Bundy were dangerous people looking to shoot law enforcement officers. 2 of them started killing cops in Nevada only weeks later.

The BLM rightly diffused the situation by removing their officers and are pursuing the issue through legal channels.

 

[bodecea]

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.

they should have shot all his cows and burned his shack down.

The BLM did the right thing. The folks that showed up to 'defend' Bundy were dangerous people looking to shoot law enforcement officers. 2 of them started killing cops in Nevada only weeks later.

The BLM rightly diffused the situation by removing their officers and are pursuing the issue through legal channels.

Yep. Not worth it to take the cattle that very day with Bundy-ites hiding behind their women and children.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And who says that Bundy sells cattle weekly? Its a simple question. So far, you have no answer.

Are you simple?

With two of the 4 holding tear gas launchers?

Again, the BLM doesn't have SWAT teams.

Jack booted thugs.

 

[Skylar]

they should have shot all his cows and burned his shack down.

This isn't North Korea, despite how badly you seek to make it so...

BLM thugs were out gunned by Americans. Picking a fight with Americans is a VERY bad idea. Oregon will soon learn this lesson as the BLM did.

The BLM is still pursuing their lien. And the State of Oregon isn't sending in law enforcement officers to collect any property from the bakers.

Your Sovereign Citizen fantasy rarely work out well for your ilk.

 

[bodecea]

they should have shot all his cows and burned his shack down.

This isn't North Korea, despite how badly you seek to make it so...

BLM thugs were out gunned by Americans. Picking a fight with Americans is a VERY bad idea. Oregon will soon learn this lesson as the BLM did.

The BLM is still pursuing their lien. And the State of Oregon isn't sending in law enforcement officers to collect any property from the bakers.

Your Sovereign Citizen fantasy rarely work out well for your ilk.

It's so easy for a keyboard kommando to hope for bloodshed....and they get so disappointed when cooler heads in the government don't give them that bloodbath.

 

[Debra K]

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.

If the lawbreakers are "ruined", then the "mechanism" responsible for that alleged ruination is their own unlawful conduct. If you didn't know this before, you know it now: If you violate the law, that's your choice and there are probably consequences. The alleged "bullets" are the consequences, but you're being overly dramatic.

 

[Skylar]

And who says that Bundy sells cattle weekly? Its a simple question. So far, you have no answer.

Are you simple?

With two of the 4 holding tear gas launchers?

Again, the BLM doesn't have SWAT teams.

Jack booted thugs.

These are law enforcement officers enacting a lawful court order. And you're siding with the thugs threatening to kill them. With 2 of your 'defenders' going on a cop killing spree in Nevada only weeks later.

Remember, the law enforcement officers in questions are Americans too. As were the 2 Las Vegas police officers gunned down by your ilk after the Bundy standoff.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The BLM did the right thing.

But they didn't open fire?

You mean they did the right thing by retreating?

The folks that showed up to 'defend' Bundy were dangerous people looking to shoot law enforcement officers. 2 of them started killing cops in Nevada only weeks later.

The BLM rightly diffused the situation by removing their officers and are pursuing the issue through legal channels.

BLM is an administrative department, not law enforcement. Morons playing dress up with real guns. They were right to piss themselves and run when confronted with Americans.

Oregon will learn the same lesson, very soon.

 

[Skylar]

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.

If the lawbreakers are "ruined", then the "mechanism" responsible for that alleged ruination is their own unlawful conduct. If you didn't know this before, you know it now: If you violate the law, that's your choice and there are probably consequences. The alleged "bullets" are the consequences, but you're being overly dramatic.

What Marty is doing is trying to absolve those bakers of any responsibility in the outcome by ignoring and misrepresenting the law itself. Comparing PA laws directly with Jim Crow laws.....despite Jim Crow laws and PA laws being near mirror opposites. The former mandating racial discrimination. The latter forbidding it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

These are law enforcement officers enacting a lawful court order.

No, they are not. They are an administrative office.

And you're siding with the thugs threatening to kill them. With 2 of your 'defenders' going on a cop killing spree in Nevada only weeks later.

Remember, the law enforcement officers in questions are Americans too. As were the 2 Las Vegas police officers gunned down by your ilk after the Bundy standoff.

I'm siding with the Americans. You seek to end this nation, I side with those who tell you "no."

 

[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.

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.

If the lawbreakers are "ruined", then the "mechanism" responsible for that alleged ruination is their own unlawful conduct. If you didn't know this before, you know it now: If you violate the law, that's your choice and there are probably consequences. The alleged "bullets" are the consequences, but you're being overly dramatic.

So i guess MLK deserved to be thrown into that jail cell in Birmingham, right?

 

[Skylar]

The BLM did the right thing.

But they didn't open fire?

You mean they did the right thing by retreating?

By purusing other means and insuring that no one was hurt. They'll get their money, sooner or later. They chose later with no lives lost rather than sooner with potentially many lives lost.

They made the right call.

The folks that showed up to 'defend' Bundy were dangerous people looking to shoot law enforcement officers. 2 of them started killing cops in Nevada only weeks later.

The BLM rightly diffused the situation by removing their officers and are pursuing the issue through legal channels.

BLM is an administrative department, not law enforcement.
[/quote]

The BLM is both. They have 340 or so law enforcement officers. Which rather elegantly disabuses your idea that the BLM doesn't enforce laws.

Morons playing dress up with real guns. They were right to piss themselves and run when confronted with Americans.

Oregon will learn the same lesson, very soon.

The BLS is still pursuing their liens. The only thing that's changed is the method of collection. As for the Oregon bakers, there are no armed men collecting property from them. Oregon is pursuing the liens in court.

Robbing of you of even a hypothetical opportunity to see your cop murder fantasies played out.

 

[martybegan]

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.

If the lawbreakers are "ruined", then the "mechanism" responsible for that alleged ruination is their own unlawful conduct. If you didn't know this before, you know it now: If you violate the law, that's your choice and there are probably consequences. The alleged "bullets" are the consequences, but you're being overly dramatic.

What Marty is doing is trying to absolve those bakers of any responsibility in the outcome by ignoring and misrepresenting the law itself. Comparing PA laws directly with Jim Crow laws.....despite Jim Crow laws and PA laws being near mirror opposites. The former mandating racial discrimination. The latter forbidding it.

Both are government fiat. One was reprehensible because government mandated discrimination, and one is reprehensible because government is mandating ruination of people over their religious beliefs.

Again, enjoy the snug fit of your jackboots.