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

[JoeB131]

Open to the public never meant publicly owned. If you don't want to make a product for someone that wants to celebrate their open anything goes relationship that should be/was your right. The problem with you tyrants is that you want the government to force YOUR morality onto others while you're screaming about morality. You want it defined your way, pure and simple. I disagree with Planned Parenthood and turned work down, that should be my right.

Under normal circumstances, yes.

However, if you advertised that you provide a service and then say, "I'm not going to provide that service to you because of who you are", then you really are breaking the law.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

You and George Wallace have a lot in common. He thought mandated desegregation was government tyranny. I don't think he cared one iota about the "hurt feelings" of those black folks who experienced discrimination in public accommodations. You don't care either, so you are willfully blind to the harm that discrimination causes. Those of us who can see, however, recognize that discrimination against persons based on their sexual orientation is just as harmful as discrimination against persons based on the color of their skin.

Mandated desegregation is tyranny.

 

[bodecea]

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. 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.

You and George Wallace have a lot in common. He thought mandated desegregation was government tyranny. I don't think he cared one iota about the "hurt feelings" of those black folks who experienced discrimination in public accommodations. You don't care either, so you are willfully blind to the harm that discrimination causes. Those of us who can see, however, recognize that discrimination against persons based on their sexual orientation is just as harmful as discrimination against persons based on the color of their skin.

Mandated desegregation is tyranny.

What a wonderful motto for you, Allie.

 

[BULLDOG]

When u start a business there are laws that business must follow .

Maybe I'd be ok if they just ignored food safety rules too?

And religious rights come WAY ahead of some homosexual whining over a cake. Go get someone else to make a cake. EVERY business I have been into has a sign that says we reserve the right to refuse business to anyone for any reason. This is an attack by homosexuals on the rights of religious people. Simple as that.

That's the argument they used in court. I didn't work then either.

Was no court.It was a dictator like "commission"

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission is part of the Colorado Government. Using the term dictator in relationship with that commission is pretty stupid..

 

[Skylar]

When u start a business there are laws that business must follow .

Maybe I'd be ok if they just ignored food safety rules too?

And religious rights come WAY ahead of some homosexual whining over a cake. Go get someone else to make a cake. EVERY business I have been into has a sign that says we reserve the right to refuse business to anyone for any reason. This is an attack by homosexuals on the rights of religious people. Simple as that.

That's the argument they used in court. I didn't work then either.

Was no court.It was a dictator like "commission"

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission is part of the Colorado Government. Using the term dictator in relationship with that commission is pretty stupid..

These terms have all become random pejoratives for these folks. The rhetorical equivalent of calling them 'dum-dum heads' or 'doody pants'.

 

[Preacher]

Facts hurt liberals feelings

 

[Seawytch]

Facts hurt liberals feelings

When you actually post some, let us know.

The facts are that a law was broken and the perpetrator was punished. If you don't like the law, get it changed but I recommend you start with Title II of the Civil Rights Act which prohibits discrimination in Public Accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. That's the "tyranny" you're sniveling about at a Federal level, not a state law like the one you're attacking in Oregon.

Not much of a state's rights person I take it?

 

[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?

Dr. King advocated inclusion and anti-discrimination.

Ms. Klein advocates exclusion and discrimination.

The two are not the same.

Ms. Klein did not go to jail, however. She was ordered to pay damages to the victims of her unlawful conduct.

No, she just doesn't want to participate in a gay wedding, she's not trying to stop the wedding, or stop people from attending, or protesting it, or anything else, she just doesn't want to participate, and for that she gets ruined.

and I would think a few days in jail would be preferable to a $135k fine.

Please show me $135k worth of damages done to the couple in question.

 

[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. 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.

You and George Wallace have a lot in common. He thought mandated desegregation was government tyranny. I don't think he cared one iota about the "hurt feelings" of those black folks who experienced discrimination in public accommodations. You don't care either, so you are willfully blind to the harm that discrimination causes. Those of us who can see, however, recognize that discrimination against persons based on their sexual orientation is just as harmful as discrimination against persons based on the color of their skin.

We don't have anything in common. I think government has to be neutral, certain industries such as gas stations, grocery stores, motels, etc, can't decide who they will or will not serve due to government interest. What I fail to see is why government has to force non essential service providers to do something against their morals or go out of business. Again, hurt feelings don't count as actual harm.

 

[bodecea]

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. 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.

You and George Wallace have a lot in common. He thought mandated desegregation was government tyranny. I don't think he cared one iota about the "hurt feelings" of those black folks who experienced discrimination in public accommodations. You don't care either, so you are willfully blind to the harm that discrimination causes. Those of us who can see, however, recognize that discrimination against persons based on their sexual orientation is just as harmful as discrimination against persons based on the color of their skin.

We don't have anything in common. I think government has to be neutral, certain industries such as gas stations, grocery stores, motels, etc, can't decide who they will or will not serve due to government interest. What I fail to see is why government has to force non essential service providers to do something against their morals or go out of business. Again, hurt feelings don't count as actual harm.

So...PA laws need to be repealed. That requires a majority of people pushing for them to be repealed and ACTIVELY petitioning their Legislators to repeal them. Get right on that.

 

[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. 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.

You and George Wallace have a lot in common. He thought mandated desegregation was government tyranny. I don't think he cared one iota about the "hurt feelings" of those black folks who experienced discrimination in public accommodations. You don't care either, so you are willfully blind to the harm that discrimination causes. Those of us who can see, however, recognize that discrimination against persons based on their sexual orientation is just as harmful as discrimination against persons based on the color of their skin.

We don't have anything in common. I think government has to be neutral, certain industries such as gas stations, grocery stores, motels, etc, can't decide who they will or will not serve due to government interest. What I fail to see is why government has to force non essential service providers to do something against their morals or go out of business. Again, hurt feelings don't count as actual harm.

So...PA laws need to be repealed. That requires a majority of people pushing for them to be repealed and ACTIVELY petitioning their Legislators to repeal them. Get right on that.

No need, if the courts actually did their job.

 

[bodecea]

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. 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.

You and George Wallace have a lot in common. He thought mandated desegregation was government tyranny. I don't think he cared one iota about the "hurt feelings" of those black folks who experienced discrimination in public accommodations. You don't care either, so you are willfully blind to the harm that discrimination causes. Those of us who can see, however, recognize that discrimination against persons based on their sexual orientation is just as harmful as discrimination against persons based on the color of their skin.

We don't have anything in common. I think government has to be neutral, certain industries such as gas stations, grocery stores, motels, etc, can't decide who they will or will not serve due to government interest. What I fail to see is why government has to force non essential service providers to do something against their morals or go out of business. Again, hurt feelings don't count as actual harm.

So...PA laws need to be repealed. That requires a majority of people pushing for them to be repealed and ACTIVELY petitioning their Legislators to repeal them. Get right on that.

No need, if the courts actually did their job.

The courts have been doing their job....as have people who actually use the system instead of just whining on the internet.

 

[martybegan]

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.

You and George Wallace have a lot in common. He thought mandated desegregation was government tyranny. I don't think he cared one iota about the "hurt feelings" of those black folks who experienced discrimination in public accommodations. You don't care either, so you are willfully blind to the harm that discrimination causes. Those of us who can see, however, recognize that discrimination against persons based on their sexual orientation is just as harmful as discrimination against persons based on the color of their skin.

We don't have anything in common. I think government has to be neutral, certain industries such as gas stations, grocery stores, motels, etc, can't decide who they will or will not serve due to government interest. What I fail to see is why government has to force non essential service providers to do something against their morals or go out of business. Again, hurt feelings don't count as actual harm.

So...PA laws need to be repealed. That requires a majority of people pushing for them to be repealed and ACTIVELY petitioning their Legislators to repeal them. Get right on that.

No need, if the courts actually did their job.

The courts have been doing their job....as have people who actually use the system instead of just whining on the internet.

Can't debate the point, so you attack the person. nice work you fucking hack.

 

[Anathema]

Now, if the Klein's really want to argue to revoke Public Accomodations laws, and stand side by side with Klansmen and Nazis who don't want to serve blacks and Jews, they are totally free to do that. But they have to obey the law until it is changed.

No. They just have to either accept the consequences of breaking the law or find a way to avoid those consequences.

 

[BULLDOG]

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?

Dr. King advocated inclusion and anti-discrimination.

Ms. Klein advocates exclusion and discrimination.

The two are not the same.

Ms. Klein did not go to jail, however. She was ordered to pay damages to the victims of her unlawful conduct.

No, she just doesn't want to participate in a gay wedding, she's not trying to stop the wedding, or stop people from attending, or protesting it, or anything else, she just doesn't want to participate, and for that she gets ruined.

and I would think a few days in jail would be preferable to a $135k fine.

Please show me $135k worth of damages done to the couple in question.

How many weddings have you been to where baking the damn cake was part of the ceremony? That's the only way she could have participated in the wedding.

 

[martybegan]

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?

Dr. King advocated inclusion and anti-discrimination.

Ms. Klein advocates exclusion and discrimination.

The two are not the same.

Ms. Klein did not go to jail, however. She was ordered to pay damages to the victims of her unlawful conduct.

No, she just doesn't want to participate in a gay wedding, she's not trying to stop the wedding, or stop people from attending, or protesting it, or anything else, she just doesn't want to participate, and for that she gets ruined.

and I would think a few days in jail would be preferable to a $135k fine.

Please show me $135k worth of damages done to the couple in question.

How many weddings have you been to where baking the damn cake was part of the ceremony? That's the only way she could have participated in the wedding.

not part of the ceremony, participating. there is a difference.

and fine, lets use the example of a photographer, who HAS to attend.

 

[BULLDOG]

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?

Dr. King advocated inclusion and anti-discrimination.

Ms. Klein advocates exclusion and discrimination.

The two are not the same.

Ms. Klein did not go to jail, however. She was ordered to pay damages to the victims of her unlawful conduct.

No, she just doesn't want to participate in a gay wedding, she's not trying to stop the wedding, or stop people from attending, or protesting it, or anything else, she just doesn't want to participate, and for that she gets ruined.

and I would think a few days in jail would be preferable to a $135k fine.

Please show me $135k worth of damages done to the couple in question.

How many weddings have you been to where baking the damn cake was part of the ceremony? That's the only way she could have participated in the wedding.

not part of the ceremony, participating. there is a difference.

and fine, lets use the example of a photographer, who HAS to attend.

The photographer is not participating. He's just taking pictures of it. All he has to do is what he is paid to do. Baking a cake or taking pictures is no more participation than that dumb ass county clerk who doesn't want to do her job.

 

[martybegan]

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

Dr. King advocated inclusion and anti-discrimination.

Ms. Klein advocates exclusion and discrimination.

The two are not the same.

Ms. Klein did not go to jail, however. She was ordered to pay damages to the victims of her unlawful conduct.

No, she just doesn't want to participate in a gay wedding, she's not trying to stop the wedding, or stop people from attending, or protesting it, or anything else, she just doesn't want to participate, and for that she gets ruined.

and I would think a few days in jail would be preferable to a $135k fine.

Please show me $135k worth of damages done to the couple in question.

How many weddings have you been to where baking the damn cake was part of the ceremony? That's the only way she could have participated in the wedding.

not part of the ceremony, participating. there is a difference.

and fine, lets use the example of a photographer, who HAS to attend.

The photographer is not participating. He's just taking pictures of it. All he has to do is what he is paid to do. Baking a cake or taking pictures is no more participation than that dumb ass county clerk who doesn't want to do her job.

Wrong. Its amazing the stretches you take all in the name of forcing your views on others.

 

[bodecea]

You and George Wallace have a lot in common. He thought mandated desegregation was government tyranny. I don't think he cared one iota about the "hurt feelings" of those black folks who experienced discrimination in public accommodations. You don't care either, so you are willfully blind to the harm that discrimination causes. Those of us who can see, however, recognize that discrimination against persons based on their sexual orientation is just as harmful as discrimination against persons based on the color of their skin.

We don't have anything in common. I think government has to be neutral, certain industries such as gas stations, grocery stores, motels, etc, can't decide who they will or will not serve due to government interest. What I fail to see is why government has to force non essential service providers to do something against their morals or go out of business. Again, hurt feelings don't count as actual harm.

So...PA laws need to be repealed. That requires a majority of people pushing for them to be repealed and ACTIVELY petitioning their Legislators to repeal them. Get right on that.

No need, if the courts actually did their job.

The courts have been doing their job....as have people who actually use the system instead of just whining on the internet.

Can't debate the point, so you attack the person. nice work you fucking hack.

Who's attacking the person. It was a generic statement for those who do nothing but whine on the internet. That doesn't include you, does it? If it doesn't.....no attack. If it does, consider it a call to action. And stop being so sensitive.....not everything IS an attack.

 

[bodecea]

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?

Dr. King advocated inclusion and anti-discrimination.

Ms. Klein advocates exclusion and discrimination.

The two are not the same.

Ms. Klein did not go to jail, however. She was ordered to pay damages to the victims of her unlawful conduct.

No, she just doesn't want to participate in a gay wedding, she's not trying to stop the wedding, or stop people from attending, or protesting it, or anything else, she just doesn't want to participate, and for that she gets ruined.

and I would think a few days in jail would be preferable to a $135k fine.

Please show me $135k worth of damages done to the couple in question.

How many weddings have you been to where baking the damn cake was part of the ceremony? That's the only way she could have participated in the wedding.

Every wedding I've been to, the cake is usually in the wedding reception venue with is usually separate from the actual ceremony....may even be miles away. And the cake itself doesn't even get touched until after speeches, first dance, etc. Who here believes the cake is somehow a necessary part of the wedding ceremony itself?