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

[Skylar]

You're directly comparing these bakers......to Martin Luther King?

Really?

I'm using another situation where the law was on the wrong side of the argument as an example, nothing more.

Says the man that insists that laws forbidding racial discrimination are the same as those laws mandating racial discrimination.

Your capacity for reason on this topic is inadequate to carry your argument. As 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

Is not the same as 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.

You can't tell the difference. A rational person could.

The reasoning behind both this the same. I want XXXX to either follow my rules, or go away.

The reasoning behind mandating racial discrimination and forbidding racial discrimination is the same?

I don't think 'same' means what you think it means. The word you're looking for is 'opposite'. Again, you lack the capacity to discern a 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.

A rational person could.

For blacks it was to remove them from economic and political power. For religious people, its because you want them to either 1) think like you think or 2) be ruined.

Religious people can think however they'd like. There's no regulation or thinking. There is however regulation of action. And Christians must act in accordance with the law or face the consequences of violating that law.

Sorry, my little Sovereign Citizen. But laws don't disappear just because you disagree with them.

Regulation on acting in this case is just a cop out to regulate their thinking. Again, the issue is a substantial government interest, and except for moralistic busybodies such as yourself, there is none when it comes to a single baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Hurt feelings are not harm.

The state has a vested interest in preventing sexual and racial discrimination. You disagree. So what? The validity of the State's position isn't predicated on your agreement.

Yet once again you pull the same Sovereign Citizen argument, insisting that only those laws that you personally agree with are valid and can be enforced, only using the reasoning that you agree with.

That's not our system of laws. Not from the era of the founders to today.

and you continued use of the "sovereign Citizen" boogeyman shows your immaturity.

When you stop using Sovereign Citizen logic, I'll stop calling on its application. And you're still insisting that the applicability of law is based on your agreement with a law and its reasoning.

Neither is true. Neither validity nor applicability is defined by you or requires your agreement. You can certainly have an opinion. But you're not entitled to your own legal definitions.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Both are due process of law. As both are in accordance with the law and thoroughly adjudicated.

You're offering us a Sovereign Citizen argument, where the only laws that apply are those that you agree with. Alas, that's not our system of law. Nor ever has been.

Ask Daniel Shays how that worked out.

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

Religious beliefs don't exempt you from commerce laws. Ask all those folks who demand that their religion forbids them from paying taxes.

Your Sovereign Citizen argument is not a legal one. But an excuse for such.

Again, enjoy the snug fit of your jackboots.

Do we need to get you your fainting couch, my little drama queen? Because your mascara is running.

Not even getting close to "sovereign citizen".

'
Its exactly sovereign citizen. You are literally arguing that if you consider a law invalid, it can't be applied to you.

That's Sovereign Citizen reasoning. Where your consent and agreement defines a law's applicability.

PA laws have a place to prevent systemic discrimination, and to assure life needed or timely services are available to all people. Wedding cakes from a single vendor to not fall under this category, and thus religious freedom takes precedent over other considerations.
[/quote]

That's your opinion. Not the laws of Oregon. They aren't limited to the scope you've described. And they most definitely apply to cake bakers.

You don't believe they should. Thus, you insist the law is invalid and can't be enforced.

My little Sovereign Citizen......you're simply wrong. That's not how our system of laws operates nor has ever operated.[/QUOTE]

No, I am arguing that said laws should be interpreted by the courts to exclude non compelling interest situation, like the baker and the wedding cake. I also applaud people who make the system go through all the motions instead of capitulating. A sovereign citizen denies courts have any authority and that laws don't apply, I am saying the courts and the laws are wrong. big difference.

And your appeal to authority is not a debating position. try again.

 

[Skylar]

why do you think the state would have difficulty collection on a judgment?

They can simply file Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and the judgement will be dismissed.

can they? i wouldn't be so certain. chapter 7 doesn't wipe out fines owed to the government.

If the government pays the queers that may be the case. Fact is the gay nazi's and the atheist having been taking people out of business for some time now. They are just more flagrantly open about it now. Gay's, atheists and their supporters can ignore the laws and help deny actual justice to anyone. Cheap pansy politicians will even go along with that agenda as long as it serves them.

Got some examples of businesses being picked on by the big bad gay nazis?

I serve as a prime example of what can happen to any Christian if you follow your heart and believe in visions that are given to you.

Top labor positions have been given to queers, that is a fact. I can personally attest to the illegalities some will go to insure a Christian will remain in poverty. Hell they would have literally allow me to die here when I was covered in chemicals at work in 2008. The queer labor commissioner here is a chicken shit openly gay male. You know what was done with my appeal; instead of following the actual law and informing me timely he mailed that final decision to me to another state. I had no clue that is what they did until the time limits had already ran out. Laws mean nothing to queers and truthfully when it all turns back on what has been done, I will just look the other way; because it is not like the warning was not given in advance. Jehovah does create all justice upon and in this world. Now that you can bank on.

Then you've got nothing to worry about. Jehovah's got this covered.

 

[RodISHI]

They can simply file Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and the judgement will be dismissed.

can they? i wouldn't be so certain. chapter 7 doesn't wipe out fines owed to the government.

If the government pays the queers that may be the case. Fact is the gay nazi's and the atheist having been taking people out of business for some time now. They are just more flagrantly open about it now. Gay's, atheists and their supporters can ignore the laws and help deny actual justice to anyone. Cheap pansy politicians will even go along with that agenda as long as it serves them.

Got some examples of businesses being picked on by the big bad gay nazis?

I serve as a prime example of what can happen to any Christian if you follow your heart and believe in visions that are given to you.

Top labor positions have been given to queers, that is a fact. I can personally attest to the illegalities some will go to insure a Christian will remain in poverty. Hell they would have literally allow me to die here when I was covered in chemicals at work in 2008. The queer labor commissioner here is a chicken shit openly gay male. You know what was done with my appeal; instead of following the actual law and informing me timely he mailed that final decision to me to another state. I had no clue that is what they did until the time limits had already ran out. Laws mean nothing to queers and truthfully when it all turns back on what has been done, I will just look the other way; because it is not like the warning was not given in advance. Jehovah does create all justice upon and in this world. Now that you can bank on.

Then you've got nothing to worry about. Jehovah's got this covered.

I'm not worried. I will give warning to those who have an ear to hear though.

 

[martybegan]

I'm using another situation where the law was on the wrong side of the argument as an example, nothing more.

Says the man that insists that laws forbidding racial discrimination are the same as those laws mandating racial discrimination.

Your capacity for reason on this topic is inadequate to carry your argument. As 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

Is not the same as 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.

You can't tell the difference. A rational person could.

The reasoning behind both this the same. I want XXXX to either follow my rules, or go away.

The reasoning behind mandating racial discrimination and forbidding racial discrimination is the same?

I don't think 'same' means what you think it means. The word you're looking for is 'opposite'. Again, you lack the capacity to discern a 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.

A rational person could.

For blacks it was to remove them from economic and political power. For religious people, its because you want them to either 1) think like you think or 2) be ruined.

Religious people can think however they'd like. There's no regulation or thinking. There is however regulation of action. And Christians must act in accordance with the law or face the consequences of violating that law.

Sorry, my little Sovereign Citizen. But laws don't disappear just because you disagree with them.

Regulation on acting in this case is just a cop out to regulate their thinking. Again, the issue is a substantial government interest, and except for moralistic busybodies such as yourself, there is none when it comes to a single baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Hurt feelings are not harm.

The state has a vested interest in preventing sexual and racial discrimination. You disagree. So what? The validity of the State's position isn't predicated on your agreement.

Yet once again you pull the same Sovereign Citizen argument, insisting that only those laws that you personally agree with are valid and can be enforced, only using the reasoning that you agree with.

That's not our system of laws. Not from the era of the founders to today.

and you continued use of the "sovereign Citizen" boogeyman shows your immaturity.

When you stop using Sovereign Citizen logic, I'll stop calling on its application. And you're still insisting that the applicability of law is based on your agreement with a law and its reasoning.

Neither is true. Neither validity nor applicability is defined by you or requires your agreement. You can certainly have an opinion. But you're not entitled to your own legal definitions.

it only has a vested interest when an actual harm is being produced. Having to go to another baker is not a harm. Hurt feelings are not a harm. The laws need to be re-defined to exclude things like this, which the government has no compelling interest in getting involved with.

But keep using the SC line if it somehow helps you justify your jackboots.

 

[Skylar]

No, I am arguing that said laws should be interpreted by the courts to exclude non compelling interest situation, like the baker and the wedding cake.

The courts don't agree with you. Thus, we're dealing with a lawful order obtained through due process.....which you still insist is invalid because the courts don't abide your will.

Your will doesn't define legal validity. That's Sovereign Citizen reasoning. And isn't a legal argument.

 

[RodISHI]

No, I am arguing that said laws should be interpreted by the courts to exclude non compelling interest situation, like the baker and the wedding cake.

The courts don't agree with you. Thus, we're dealing with a lawful order obtained through due process.....which you still insist is invalid because the courts don't abide your will.

Your will doesn't define legal validity. That's Sovereign Citizen reasoning. And isn't a legal argument.

Bought and paid for courts don't count.

 

[martybegan]

No, I am arguing that said laws should be interpreted by the courts to exclude non compelling interest situation, like the baker and the wedding cake.

The courts don't agree with you. Thus, we're dealing with a lawful order obtained through due process.....which you still insist is invalid because the courts don't abide your will.

Your will doesn't define legal validity. That's Sovereign Citizen reasoning. And isn't a legal argument.

Again, I have shown you where my argument comes from, and SC has nothing to do with it. Keep bleating about it if you wish, but it only compounds your own ignorance.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

So you confirm what I said. You're another one who want businesses to be 'free' to discriminate against whomever they choose.

 

[Skylar]

Says the man that insists that laws forbidding racial discrimination are the same as those laws mandating racial discrimination.

Your capacity for reason on this topic is inadequate to carry your argument. As this:

Is not the same as this:

You can't tell the difference. A rational person could.

The reasoning behind both this the same. I want XXXX to either follow my rules, or go away.

The reasoning behind mandating racial discrimination and forbidding racial discrimination is the same?

I don't think 'same' means what you think it means. The word you're looking for is 'opposite'. Again, you lack the capacity to discern a 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.

A rational person could.

For blacks it was to remove them from economic and political power. For religious people, its because you want them to either 1) think like you think or 2) be ruined.

Religious people can think however they'd like. There's no regulation or thinking. There is however regulation of action. And Christians must act in accordance with the law or face the consequences of violating that law.

Sorry, my little Sovereign Citizen. But laws don't disappear just because you disagree with them.

Regulation on acting in this case is just a cop out to regulate their thinking. Again, the issue is a substantial government interest, and except for moralistic busybodies such as yourself, there is none when it comes to a single baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Hurt feelings are not harm.

The state has a vested interest in preventing sexual and racial discrimination. You disagree. So what? The validity of the State's position isn't predicated on your agreement.

Yet once again you pull the same Sovereign Citizen argument, insisting that only those laws that you personally agree with are valid and can be enforced, only using the reasoning that you agree with.

That's not our system of laws. Not from the era of the founders to today.

and you continued use of the "sovereign Citizen" boogeyman shows your immaturity.

When you stop using Sovereign Citizen logic, I'll stop calling on its application. And you're still insisting that the applicability of law is based on your agreement with a law and its reasoning.

Neither is true. Neither validity nor applicability is defined by you or requires your agreement. You can certainly have an opinion. But you're not entitled to your own legal definitions.

it only has a vested interest when an actual harm is being produced.

And the states have found that discrimination in business is harmful. The courts have backed them up. You're dealing with a disagreement with the State on what constitutes harm. And subject to constitutional guarantees, the States have the authority to define this standard.

There are no violations of constitutional principles in the application of PA laws, with the courts having affirmed them repeatedly.

As for your assessment of 'ruin', that's horseshit. The Kleins have earned $500,000 on gofund me. More than 3 times the fines. Making any claim of 'financial hardship' a nonsense argument. They have the funds to pay the fine. They simply don't want to.

That's not a valid legal basis for denying a lawful order

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, I am arguing that said laws should be interpreted by the courts to exclude non compelling interest situation, like the baker and the wedding cake.

So you support activist judges who rule in cases different than what the law actually says.


>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

Oh, grow the fuck up.

You are not MLK.

The bakers are denying the civil rights of others to engage in public business without discrimination.

King would not support your immature silliness, your silly libertarianism.

 

[Skylar]

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.

What means?

Which means that instead of physically seizing cattle they'll pursue liens in court. Exactly as Oregon is doing.

Alas, your cop murder fantasy won't be played out in either instance.

False

The BLM defines itself as an administrative agency in the department of the interior.

BLM - The Bureau of Land Management

And as part of that administrative duty, they enforce laws. Again, from the BLM's website:

The BLM has been given specific resource protection and law enforcement responsibilities that relate to its resource management mission. There are many federal laws and regulations that relate to public lands and resources. These laws and regulations are often quite unique in that they apply only to federal lands and have no counterparts in state law.

Law Enforcement

Which of course you know. And they have hundreds of law enforcement officers as part of those enforcement duties:

The BLM fields a force of approximately 200 Law Enforcement Rangers (uniformed officers) and 70 Special Agents (criminal investigators) who enforce a wide range of laws and regulations in the prevention, detection, and investigation of crimes affecting public lands resources. These crimes include mineral resource theft; wilderness area violations; hazardous materials dumping; archaeological and paleontological resource theft and vandalism; cultivation, manufacture, smuggling, and use of illegal drugs; timber, forest product, and native plant theft; off-highway vehicle use; alcohol related crimes; and wildland arson.

Law Enforcement

Which you also know.

Making your claims intentionally false. Or more simply, lies.

Again, Bundy has an ongoing beef concern, show evidence that they have collected even a dime? Further, Bundy CONTINUES to graze cattle on government land - the actual dispute.

Show us that Bundy has sold so much as a head of cattle since the standoff.

You stated that he sells cattle 'weekly'. So it should be remarkably easy for you to do so.

Again, neither the BLM nor any other agency has in any way hampered the operation of the beef supply by Bundy.

Then show us Bundy having sold so much as a single head of cattle since the stand off. You claims he sells them 'weekly'. Yet when I challenge you to show me these 'weekly sales', you merely restate your claims again.

You citing you isn't actually evidence. You get that, right.

Show us. Don't tell us.

 

[martybegan]

The reasoning behind both this the same. I want XXXX to either follow my rules, or go away.

The reasoning behind mandating racial discrimination and forbidding racial discrimination is the same?

I don't think 'same' means what you think it means. The word you're looking for is 'opposite'. Again, you lack the capacity to discern a 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.

A rational person could.

For blacks it was to remove them from economic and political power. For religious people, its because you want them to either 1) think like you think or 2) be ruined.

Religious people can think however they'd like. There's no regulation or thinking. There is however regulation of action. And Christians must act in accordance with the law or face the consequences of violating that law.

Sorry, my little Sovereign Citizen. But laws don't disappear just because you disagree with them.

Regulation on acting in this case is just a cop out to regulate their thinking. Again, the issue is a substantial government interest, and except for moralistic busybodies such as yourself, there is none when it comes to a single baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Hurt feelings are not harm.

The state has a vested interest in preventing sexual and racial discrimination. You disagree. So what? The validity of the State's position isn't predicated on your agreement.

Yet once again you pull the same Sovereign Citizen argument, insisting that only those laws that you personally agree with are valid and can be enforced, only using the reasoning that you agree with.

That's not our system of laws. Not from the era of the founders to today.

and you continued use of the "sovereign Citizen" boogeyman shows your immaturity.

When you stop using Sovereign Citizen logic, I'll stop calling on its application. And you're still insisting that the applicability of law is based on your agreement with a law and its reasoning.

Neither is true. Neither validity nor applicability is defined by you or requires your agreement. You can certainly have an opinion. But you're not entitled to your own legal definitions.

it only has a vested interest when an actual harm is being produced.

And the states have found that discrimination in business is harmful. The courts have backed them up. You're dealing with a disagreement with the State on what constitutes harm. And subject to constitutional guarantees, the States have the authority to define this standard.

There are no violations of constitutional principles in the application of PA laws, with the courts having affirmed them repeatedly.

As for your assessment of 'ruin', that's horseshit. The Kleins have earned $500,000 on gofund me. More than 3 times the fines. Making any claim of 'financial hardship' a nonsense argument. They have the funds to pay the fine. They simply don't want to.

That's not a valid legal basis for denying a lawful order

They think the order is unjust, and they are fighting it within the system. and outside support is not guaranteed, so the $135k fine is indeed excessive.

PA laws when used as such, without a compelling government interest, violate free exercise, and the right of free association.

 

[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.

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?

Oh, grow the fuck up.

You are not MLK.

The bakers are denying the civil rights of others to engage in public business without discrimination.

King would not support your immature silliness, your silly libertarianism.

Truth hurts doesn't it? does farkey have a sadz?


King was a minister, I doubt he would agree with government forcing religious beliefs on people.

 

[martybegan]

No, I am arguing that said laws should be interpreted by the courts to exclude non compelling interest situation, like the baker and the wedding cake.

So you support activist judges who rule in cases different than what the law actually says.


>>>>

I support judges support the constitution AS WRITTEN, and reasonable interpretation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rodishi, you talk crap. "Laws mean nothing to queers" is a bullshit hasty generalization.

Jehovah loves you dearly, and He loves gays queerly.

 

[Skylar]

The reasoning behind mandating racial discrimination and forbidding racial discrimination is the same?

I don't think 'same' means what you think it means. The word you're looking for is 'opposite'. Again, you lack the capacity to discern a difference between this:

and this...

A rational person could.

Religious people can think however they'd like. There's no regulation or thinking. There is however regulation of action. And Christians must act in accordance with the law or face the consequences of violating that law.

Sorry, my little Sovereign Citizen. But laws don't disappear just because you disagree with them.

Regulation on acting in this case is just a cop out to regulate their thinking. Again, the issue is a substantial government interest, and except for moralistic busybodies such as yourself, there is none when it comes to a single baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Hurt feelings are not harm.

The state has a vested interest in preventing sexual and racial discrimination. You disagree. So what? The validity of the State's position isn't predicated on your agreement.

Yet once again you pull the same Sovereign Citizen argument, insisting that only those laws that you personally agree with are valid and can be enforced, only using the reasoning that you agree with.

That's not our system of laws. Not from the era of the founders to today.

and you continued use of the "sovereign Citizen" boogeyman shows your immaturity.

When you stop using Sovereign Citizen logic, I'll stop calling on its application. And you're still insisting that the applicability of law is based on your agreement with a law and its reasoning.

Neither is true. Neither validity nor applicability is defined by you or requires your agreement. You can certainly have an opinion. But you're not entitled to your own legal definitions.

it only has a vested interest when an actual harm is being produced.

And the states have found that discrimination in business is harmful. The courts have backed them up. You're dealing with a disagreement with the State on what constitutes harm. And subject to constitutional guarantees, the States have the authority to define this standard.

There are no violations of constitutional principles in the application of PA laws, with the courts having affirmed them repeatedly.

As for your assessment of 'ruin', that's horseshit. The Kleins have earned $500,000 on gofund me. More than 3 times the fines. Making any claim of 'financial hardship' a nonsense argument. They have the funds to pay the fine. They simply don't want to.

That's not a valid legal basis for denying a lawful order

They think the order is unjust, and they are fighting it within the system. and outside support is not guaranteed, so the $135k fine is indeed excessive.

They are claiming financial hardship. Which is clearly horseshit, as they have raised 3 times the fine amount. Which is why their claim of financial hardship has been rejected.

Again, my little Sovereign Citizen.....the validity of a law is not predicated on your agreement with that law or your agreement with its processes. Your are legal definitions subject to whatever re-imagining you wish to inflict upon them.

PA laws when used as such, without a compelling government interest, violate free exercise, and the right of free association.

And who says that there is no compelling government interest? You do, citing yourself.

Its Sovereign Citizen bullshit from beginning to end. When you believe that you define the law and all legal terms because you say you do.

Marty.....you don't. Your beliefs aren't legal evidence. Your beliefs don't define the legitimacy of any ruling or its enforcibility. And it certainly don't make 135,000 larger than 500,000.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You, Marty, want to force religious belief on others. Can't do it, son, ever, in public commerce. King was no more a supporter of libertarianism than you are of Americanism. Hurts, doesn't it?

 

[bodecea]

So...still waiting for proof that those authorities in the picture...the ones that have "Police" on their chests....are BLM agents.

I know that the hate sites told you this little game is clever.

Come back if you have anything rational to add..

I see that you cannot prove anything at all about that picture. That's pretty typical with you RWrs these days.