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

[BULLDOG]

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.

Not just my view. It's the courts view as well. Do right wingers hate the constitution now?

 

[martybegan]

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So...PA laws need to be repealed. That requires a majority of people pushing for them to be repealed and ACTIVELY petitioning their Legislators to repeal them.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

Some people don't have the time to take up a cause, that does not mean they cannot have a position, or express it on a message board.
Trying to stifle an opinion instead of countering it is the lowest form of debate, something progressives seem to run to right at the start.

 

[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.

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?

it's not what you believe, it's what the provider believes.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Not just my view. It's the courts view as well. Do right wingers hate the constitution now?

No, we hate what progressive asshats are doing to the constitution.

You only run to it when it suits you, and ignore it when it doesn't/

 

[bodecea]

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.

No...he is correct. A photographer is not part of the ceremony. In fact, in most cases, there is NO official picture taking during the ceremony itself (maybe a video running), especially if it's in a church. The official photos are either before or afterward with family, friends, etc. Every wedding I've attended in a church (re

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.

Not just my view. It's the courts view as well. Do right wingers hate the constitution now?

No, we hate what progressive asshats are doing to the constitution.

You only run to it when it suits you, and ignore it when it doesn't/

What is being done to the Constitution that you hate?

 

[martybegan]

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.

No...he is correct. A photographer is not part of the ceremony. In fact, in most cases, there is NO official picture taking during the ceremony itself (maybe a video running), especially if it's in a church. The official photos are either before or afterward with family, friends, etc. Every wedding I've attended in a church (re

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.

Not just my view. It's the courts view as well. Do right wingers hate the constitution now?

No, we hate what progressive asshats are doing to the constitution.

You only run to it when it suits you, and ignore it when it doesn't/

What is being done to the Constitution that you hate?

My photographer took pictures during the ceremonies, nice attempt at a dodge, but failed as usual.

Lets see, ignoring the 2nd amendment, creating "rights" out of thin air, ignoring the 1st when it suits you. The list goes on and on.

 

[bodecea]

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?

it's not what you believe, it's what the provider believes.

Oh? So the provider gets to believe whatever they want with no real solid basis in fact? DIdn't this cake baker get their day in court and get to plead their case?

 

[bodecea]

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.

No...he is correct. A photographer is not part of the ceremony. In fact, in most cases, there is NO official picture taking during the ceremony itself (maybe a video running), especially if it's in a church. The official photos are either before or afterward with family, friends, etc. Every wedding I've attended in a church (re

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.

Not just my view. It's the courts view as well. Do right wingers hate the constitution now?

No, we hate what progressive asshats are doing to the constitution.

You only run to it when it suits you, and ignore it when it doesn't/

What is being done to the Constitution that you hate?

My photographer took pictures during the ceremonies, nice attempt at a dodge, but failed as usual.

Lets see, ignoring the 2nd amendment, creating "rights" out of thin air, ignoring the 1st when it suits you. The list goes on and on.

Why are you talking about photographers in reply to a post about the Constitution?

And who's ignoring the 2nd amendment?

And what "rights" are being created out of think air?

And what in the 1st Amendment is being ignored?

 

[martybegan]

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?

it's not what you believe, it's what the provider believes.

Oh? So the provider gets to believe whatever they want with no real solid basis in fact? DIdn't this cake baker get their day in court and get to plead their case?

Since when was faith based on fact?

 

[ogibillm]

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.

no you don't. you're a liar.

 

[martybegan]

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.

No...he is correct. A photographer is not part of the ceremony. In fact, in most cases, there is NO official picture taking during the ceremony itself (maybe a video running), especially if it's in a church. The official photos are either before or afterward with family, friends, etc. Every wedding I've attended in a church (re

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

Not just my view. It's the courts view as well. Do right wingers hate the constitution now?

No, we hate what progressive asshats are doing to the constitution.

You only run to it when it suits you, and ignore it when it doesn't/

What is being done to the Constitution that you hate?

My photographer took pictures during the ceremonies, nice attempt at a dodge, but failed as usual.

Lets see, ignoring the 2nd amendment, creating "rights" out of thin air, ignoring the 1st when it suits you. The list goes on and on.

Why are you talking about photographers in reply to a post about the Constitution?

And who's ignoring the 2nd amendment?

And what "rights" are being created out of think air?

And what in the 1st Amendment is being ignored?

You said photographers don't "participate" in the wedding ceremony.

Attending is bearing witness, i.e. participating.

NYC ignores the 2nd amendment, the right to an abortion and gay marriage were created out of thin air, and PA laws as being used here ignore the 1st amendment.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

No...he is correct. A photographer is not part of the ceremony. In fact, in most cases, there is NO official picture taking during the ceremony itself (maybe a video running), especially if it's in a church. The official photos are either before or afterward with family, friends, etc. Every wedding I've attended in a church (re

Not just my view. It's the courts view as well. Do right wingers hate the constitution now?

No, we hate what progressive asshats are doing to the constitution.

You only run to it when it suits you, and ignore it when it doesn't/

What is being done to the Constitution that you hate?

My photographer took pictures during the ceremonies, nice attempt at a dodge, but failed as usual.

Lets see, ignoring the 2nd amendment, creating "rights" out of thin air, ignoring the 1st when it suits you. The list goes on and on.

Why are you talking about photographers in reply to a post about the Constitution?

And who's ignoring the 2nd amendment?

And what "rights" are being created out of think air?

And what in the 1st Amendment is being ignored?

You said photographers don't "participate" in the wedding ceremony.

Attending is bearing witness, i.e. participating.

NYC ignores the 2nd amendment, the right to an abortion and gay marriage were created out of thin air, and PA laws as being used here ignore the 1st amendment.

So you think the framers of the constitution should have named you as the arbiter of the laws instead of the courts?

 

[martybegan]

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

No...he is correct. A photographer is not part of the ceremony. In fact, in most cases, there is NO official picture taking during the ceremony itself (maybe a video running), especially if it's in a church. The official photos are either before or afterward with family, friends, etc. Every wedding I've attended in a church (re

No, we hate what progressive asshats are doing to the constitution.

You only run to it when it suits you, and ignore it when it doesn't/

What is being done to the Constitution that you hate?

My photographer took pictures during the ceremonies, nice attempt at a dodge, but failed as usual.

Lets see, ignoring the 2nd amendment, creating "rights" out of thin air, ignoring the 1st when it suits you. The list goes on and on.

Why are you talking about photographers in reply to a post about the Constitution?

And who's ignoring the 2nd amendment?

And what "rights" are being created out of think air?

And what in the 1st Amendment is being ignored?

You said photographers don't "participate" in the wedding ceremony.

Attending is bearing witness, i.e. participating.

NYC ignores the 2nd amendment, the right to an abortion and gay marriage were created out of thin air, and PA laws as being used here ignore the 1st amendment.

So you think the framers of the constitution should have named you as the arbiter of the laws instead of the courts?

I am voicing my opinions, nothing more or less.

 

[BULLDOG]

No...he is correct. A photographer is not part of the ceremony. In fact, in most cases, there is NO official picture taking during the ceremony itself (maybe a video running), especially if it's in a church. The official photos are either before or afterward with family, friends, etc. Every wedding I've attended in a church (re
What is being done to the Constitution that you hate?

My photographer took pictures during the ceremonies, nice attempt at a dodge, but failed as usual.

Lets see, ignoring the 2nd amendment, creating "rights" out of thin air, ignoring the 1st when it suits you. The list goes on and on.

Why are you talking about photographers in reply to a post about the Constitution?

And who's ignoring the 2nd amendment?

And what "rights" are being created out of think air?

And what in the 1st Amendment is being ignored?

You said photographers don't "participate" in the wedding ceremony.

Attending is bearing witness, i.e. participating.

NYC ignores the 2nd amendment, the right to an abortion and gay marriage were created out of thin air, and PA laws as being used here ignore the 1st amendment.

So you think the framers of the constitution should have named you as the arbiter of the laws instead of the courts?

I am voicing my opinions, nothing more or less.

And I am explaining why your opinions are wrong.

 

[Preacher]

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?

Wasn't a law and even if it was nothing was broken. Simple as that. Now continue crying because you can't force them to pay for your butt fuckery.

 

[martybegan]

My photographer took pictures during the ceremonies, nice attempt at a dodge, but failed as usual.

Lets see, ignoring the 2nd amendment, creating "rights" out of thin air, ignoring the 1st when it suits you. The list goes on and on.

Why are you talking about photographers in reply to a post about the Constitution?

And who's ignoring the 2nd amendment?

And what "rights" are being created out of think air?

And what in the 1st Amendment is being ignored?

You said photographers don't "participate" in the wedding ceremony.

Attending is bearing witness, i.e. participating.

NYC ignores the 2nd amendment, the right to an abortion and gay marriage were created out of thin air, and PA laws as being used here ignore the 1st amendment.

So you think the framers of the constitution should have named you as the arbiter of the laws instead of the courts?

I am voicing my opinions, nothing more or less.

And I am explaining why your opinions are wrong.

Nope, your view is the wrong one.

 

[BULLDOG]

Why are you talking about photographers in reply to a post about the Constitution?

And who's ignoring the 2nd amendment?

And what "rights" are being created out of think air?

And what in the 1st Amendment is being ignored?

You said photographers don't "participate" in the wedding ceremony.

Attending is bearing witness, i.e. participating.

NYC ignores the 2nd amendment, the right to an abortion and gay marriage were created out of thin air, and PA laws as being used here ignore the 1st amendment.

So you think the framers of the constitution should have named you as the arbiter of the laws instead of the courts?

I am voicing my opinions, nothing more or less.

And I am explaining why your opinions are wrong.

Nope, your view is the wrong one.

Only if you are willing to throw out the constitution. You can believe what you want, but that doesn't make it right or rational.

 

[martybegan]

You said photographers don't "participate" in the wedding ceremony.

Attending is bearing witness, i.e. participating.

NYC ignores the 2nd amendment, the right to an abortion and gay marriage were created out of thin air, and PA laws as being used here ignore the 1st amendment.

So you think the framers of the constitution should have named you as the arbiter of the laws instead of the courts?

I am voicing my opinions, nothing more or less.

And I am explaining why your opinions are wrong.

Nope, your view is the wrong one.

Only if you are willing to throw out the constitution. You can believe what you want, but that doesn't make it right or rational.

The constitution says you have to bake a cake or else?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

My photographer took pictures during the ceremonies, nice attempt at a dodge, but failed as usual.

Lets see, ignoring the 2nd amendment, creating "rights" out of thin air, ignoring the 1st when it suits you. The list goes on and on.

Why are you talking about photographers in reply to a post about the Constitution?

And who's ignoring the 2nd amendment?

And what "rights" are being created out of think air?

And what in the 1st Amendment is being ignored?

You said photographers don't "participate" in the wedding ceremony.

Attending is bearing witness, i.e. participating.

NYC ignores the 2nd amendment, the right to an abortion and gay marriage were created out of thin air, and PA laws as being used here ignore the 1st amendment.

So you think the framers of the constitution should have named you as the arbiter of the laws instead of the courts?

I am voicing my opinions, nothing more or less.

And I am explaining why your opinions are wrong.

Opinions are opinions, they can't be wrong... except in a totalitarian world.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

So you think the framers of the constitution should have named you as the arbiter of the laws instead of the courts?

I am voicing my opinions, nothing more or less.

And I am explaining why your opinions are wrong.

Nope, your view is the wrong one.

Only if you are willing to throw out the constitution. You can believe what you want, but that doesn't make it right or rational.

The constitution says you have to bake a cake or else?

Of course!!! Everyone knows t he framers were obsessed with gay marriage and fruitcakes!