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

[martybegan]

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.

They are being supported to fight their judgement, not to take the money and run, and they are doing that. Everyone should fight this crap and clog the courts up for decades.

More appeal to authority, "the law is the law is the law" does not answer the morality of the law, the rightness of the law, or the fairness of the law, all concepts you avoid because deep down you know ruining people over this has no compelling government interest, and is solely because you get a stiffy from screwing over people you don't like.

 

[martybegan]

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?

The only forcing happening in this case is on your side, via the government. The religion of "fairness", which is really only fair to progressive busybodies and people with too much hate on their hands.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh, the image is photo shopped and copped from elsewhere.

That group was not a Bundyville.

 

[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?

The only forcing happening in this case is on your side, via the government. The religion of "fairness", which is really only fair to progressive busybodies and people with too much hate on their hands.

The government has the legal power to coerce, to use force, to compel.

We the People gave it that power. That you don't like it changes nothing.

 

[Anathema]

Well, you seem to have a lot in common with that free-loading Clive Bundy.

Only in certain ways. We both understand tbe illegitimacy of this Government and its minions, and refuse to bow before either.

There is one important difference...... I woildnt have waited to see if the BLM thugs were going to actually try something before opening fire.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Visions? Were the 60s very good to you? Or perhaps those chemicals did something to you?

 

[Skylar]

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.

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.

They are being supported to fight their judgement, not to take the money and run, and they are doing that. Everyone should fight this crap and clog the courts up for decades.

They are making a claim that is clearly false. They are not suffering from 'financial hardship'. They have received more than 3 times the fine in donations.

More appeal to authority, "the law is the law is the law" does not answer the morality of the law, the rightness of the law, or the fairness of the law, all concepts you avoid because deep down you know ruining people over this has no compelling government interest, and is solely because you get a stiffy from screwing over people you don't like.

I simply don't accept YOU as the authority. And that's the choice you're giving me: You defining the law, its justification, and is definitions. Or the people doing so through the representatives and the judiciary.

I choose the people and the judiciary over you citing yourself. As does the constitution.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Uh huh.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marty is the libertarian garden variety to Where r my Keys is the religious authority.

They cite themselves. Some keys will do the self evident cite: self evident to himself is what he is really saying.

 

[bodecea]

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.

And now you accuse our courts of being bribed. Is there anything you RWrs won't use as an excuse for your bigotry against your fellow Americans?

 

[bodecea]

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.

At this rate, marty will claim that MLK Jr. would have supported Woolworths lunch counters.

 

[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.

And now you accuse our courts of being bribed. Is there anything you RWrs won't use as an excuse for your bigotry against your fellow Americans?

Courts and certified transcripts being change and courts using false information. Absolutely, I have the recordings and the altered certified transcripts to prove that is exactly what goes on. Bet you can't say the same.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Courts and certified transcripts being change and courts using false information. Absolutely, I have the recordings and the altered certified transcripts to prove that is exactly what goes on. Bet you can't say the same.

Bode - aka shortbus, is a troll who offers nothing rational. She thinks the moronic "prove water is wet" posts of hers are effective.

I ignore 90% of the idiocy she posts.

 

[RodISHI]

Courts and certified transcripts being change and courts using false information. Absolutely, I have the recordings and the altered certified transcripts to prove that is exactly what goes on. Bet you can't say the same.

Bode - aka shortbus, is a troll who offers nothing rational. She thinks the moronic "prove water is wet" posts of hers are effective.

I ignore 90% of the idiocy she posts.

You would but truth is already in the records.

 

[martybegan]

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.

They are being supported to fight their judgement, not to take the money and run, and they are doing that. Everyone should fight this crap and clog the courts up for decades.

They are making a claim that is clearly false. They are not suffering from 'financial hardship'. They have received more than 3 times the fine in donations.

More appeal to authority, "the law is the law is the law" does not answer the morality of the law, the rightness of the law, or the fairness of the law, all concepts you avoid because deep down you know ruining people over this has no compelling government interest, and is solely because you get a stiffy from screwing over people you don't like.

I simply don't accept YOU as the authority. And that's the choice you're giving me: You defining the law, its justification, and is definitions. Or the people doing so through the representatives and the judiciary.

I choose the people and the judiciary over you citing yourself. As does the constitution.

More appeal to authority. I guess not having to think for yourself has its merits.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You would but truth is already in the records.

What "truth" is that?

 

[Skylar]

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.

They are being supported to fight their judgement, not to take the money and run, and they are doing that. Everyone should fight this crap and clog the courts up for decades.

They are making a claim that is clearly false. They are not suffering from 'financial hardship'. They have received more than 3 times the fine in donations.

More appeal to authority, "the law is the law is the law" does not answer the morality of the law, the rightness of the law, or the fairness of the law, all concepts you avoid because deep down you know ruining people over this has no compelling government interest, and is solely because you get a stiffy from screwing over people you don't like.

I simply don't accept YOU as the authority. And that's the choice you're giving me: You defining the law, its justification, and is definitions. Or the people doing so through the representatives and the judiciary.

I choose the people and the judiciary over you citing yourself. As does the constitution.

More appeal to authority. I guess not having to think for yourself has its merits.

I'll chose the constitution, the people and their representatives over you citing yourself any day of the week.

And accepting whatever you make up isn't 'thinking for myself'. Again, the choice you've offered me is you.....or the people and the constitution. I choose the people and the constitution.

 

[martybegan]

Marty is the libertarian garden variety to Where r my Keys is the religious authority.

They cite themselves. Some keys will do the self evident cite: self evident to himself is what he is really saying.

I cite the belief that unless there is a compelling government interest people should be free to do what they want. Hurt feelings is not compelling enough to warrant government sanction.

 

[bodecea]

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.

And now you accuse our courts of being bribed. Is there anything you RWrs won't use as an excuse for your bigotry against your fellow Americans?

Courts and certified transcripts being change and courts using false information. Absolutely, I have the recordings and the altered certified transcripts to prove that is exactly what goes on. Bet you can't say the same.

Well...I look forward to reading your material and listening to the recordings. Link or post away.

 

[martybegan]

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.

They are being supported to fight their judgement, not to take the money and run, and they are doing that. Everyone should fight this crap and clog the courts up for decades.

They are making a claim that is clearly false. They are not suffering from 'financial hardship'. They have received more than 3 times the fine in donations.

More appeal to authority, "the law is the law is the law" does not answer the morality of the law, the rightness of the law, or the fairness of the law, all concepts you avoid because deep down you know ruining people over this has no compelling government interest, and is solely because you get a stiffy from screwing over people you don't like.

I simply don't accept YOU as the authority. And that's the choice you're giving me: You defining the law, its justification, and is definitions. Or the people doing so through the representatives and the judiciary.

I choose the people and the judiciary over you citing yourself. As does the constitution.

More appeal to authority. I guess not having to think for yourself has its merits.

I'll chose the constitution, the people and their representatives over you citing yourself any day of the week.

Lemming.