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

[Pop23]

Buzz off.

Nope. Your argument is shit. No one cares about libertarianism except you and the Dunder Mifflins.

The fact is that the bakers were practicing baking not religion. They are subject to the law.

So are you.

The law is being applied in the wrong manner.

The courts that determine such things disagree with you.

The Courts are wrong, either through ignorance, or malice.

Who says the Courts are wrong? And what is the legal basis for declaring the Courts wrong? Keep in mind, this is a Country Ruled by Law...you can't just pout and say "wrong! wrong! wrong!".....Make your case.

Correct, yet I'm running into this from your side each and every time I bring up the fact that the Obergfell ruling actually made same sex sibling marriage a distinct possibility.

Since sex is not a requirement in obtaining a marriage licence, what is the Compelling State reason to deny same sex siblings from marrying?

Maybe the baker see's the truth of what happened after Obergfell, and doesn't want to have to cater sibling marriage should it become legal (which there is no reason it won't). They're just being proactive.

 

[bodecea]

Nope. Your argument is shit. No one cares about libertarianism except you and the Dunder Mifflins.

The fact is that the bakers were practicing baking not religion. They are subject to the law.

So are you.

The law is being applied in the wrong manner.

The courts that determine such things disagree with you.

The Courts are wrong, either through ignorance, or malice.

Who says the Courts are wrong? And what is the legal basis for declaring the Courts wrong? Keep in mind, this is a Country Ruled by Law...you can't just pout and say "wrong! wrong! wrong!".....Make your case.

Correct, yet I'm running into this from your side each and every time I bring up the fact that the Obergfell ruling actually made same sex sibling marriage a distinct possibility.

Since sex is not a requirement in obtaining a marriage licence, what is the Compelling State reason to deny same sex siblings from marrying?

Maybe the baker see's the truth of what happened after Obergfell, and doesn't want to have to cater sibling marriage should it become legal (which there is no reason it won't). They're just being proactive.

Good luck with that.

 

[martybegan]

Buzz off.

Nope. Your argument is shit. No one cares about libertarianism except you and the Dunder Mifflins.

The fact is that the bakers were practicing baking not religion. They are subject to the law.

So are you.

The law is being applied in the wrong manner.

The courts that determine such things disagree with you.

The Courts are wrong, either through ignorance, or malice.

Who says the Courts are wrong? And what is the legal basis for declaring the Courts wrong? Keep in mind, this is a Country Ruled by Law...you can't just pout and say "wrong! wrong! wrong!".....Make your case.

I can say "wrong wrong wrong" all i want. All you have is appeal to authority, and that isn't a position but more of a cop out.

I've expanded on my position countless times, you can dismiss it, not understand it, or hate it, but your responses of "your not qualified to have that opinion, or the law disagrees with your opinion, or get off your ass because of your opinion" have no weight.

 

[martybegan]

Ah, "Blame the victim".

And death threats seem to happen whenever someone is put in the limelight. The Memories Pizza people got them, so your side is just as culpable in this crap.

They claim they did...and they also got a boat load of money and never did close their Pizza place. Good scam if you can get it.

So you are saying they made this whole thing up from the start to make money?

Prove it.

A more likely explanation is that progressive asshats have the attention span of a goldfish, and once they got their anger out of their system, they went on to crucify the next target, allowing the pizza people to move on with their lives?

You don't hear much about that lion shooting dentist anymore, do you?

I didn't say that at all. But it sure worked out nicely for them.....are they out of business now?

Not that I know of, but that's not from lack of trying by progressives.

If you don't know....why are you talking about it?

Because it was brought up in the context of death threats to the couple in this case as a comparison, and it was part of the point I was making.

 

[martybegan]

Buzz off.

Nope. Your argument is shit. No one cares about libertarianism except you and the Dunder Mifflins.

The fact is that the bakers were practicing baking not religion. They are subject to the law.

So are you.

The law is being applied in the wrong manner.

The state has a compelling interest to ensure that public commerce cannot be used to discriminate against peoples: "we don't serve Negros, gays, and libertarians."

Where is the compelling interest when it comes to a single baker and a wedding cake? Where is the actual harm to the "offended"?

You can't answer that.

Simply this....A business, ONE business, regardless of how small, cannot set the precedence of ignoring business law. But it seems you want this business to be exempt. Why?

it's not ignoring the law, its applying PA laws as intended, to fight systemic discrimination of necessary services, and to provide economic equality. PA's were never intended to be "every business everywhere".

 

[bripat9643]

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.

That's easy enough. Because the Christian Right made a big deal about this, the gay couple in question got a shit load of death threats from all these people who just love them some Jesus.

If she didn't want to participate in a gay wedding, she shouldn't have invited the couple to come to her bakery a couple years earlier.

Did she "invite" the couple, or did they just walk through the door? How does patronizing her business entitle them to anything?

They and their parents have done regular business with this baker for a while....

So how does that entitle them to anything from the baker?

 

[Pop23]

Nope. Your argument is shit. No one cares about libertarianism except you and the Dunder Mifflins.

The fact is that the bakers were practicing baking not religion. They are subject to the law.

So are you.

The law is being applied in the wrong manner.

The state has a compelling interest to ensure that public commerce cannot be used to discriminate against peoples: "we don't serve Negros, gays, and libertarians."

Where is the compelling interest when it comes to a single baker and a wedding cake? Where is the actual harm to the "offended"?

You can't answer that.

Simply this....A business, ONE business, regardless of how small, cannot set the precedence of ignoring business law. But it seems you want this business to be exempt. Why?

it's not ignoring the law, its applying PA laws as intended, to fight systemic discrimination of necessary services, and to provide economic equality. PA's were never intended to be "every business everywhere".

I'm curious and will just throw an hypothetical out there:

A baker has a good friend who's child was recently killed in a school mass shooting, the baker is asked to bake a cake for an NRA meeting that says, "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

The Baker refuses and explains that it's too close to the death of the child.

If the customer is refused:

1. Is he violating the PA Law

2. Would the Baker face the same governmental fine?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The NRA does not follow under PA laws.

End of story.

 

[Pop23]

The NRA does not follow under PA laws.

End of story.

OK, then it's simply for someone's birthday party.

Now?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I'm curious and will just throw an hypothetical out there:

A baker has a good friend who's child was recently killed in a school mass shooting, the baker is asked to bake a cake for an NRA meeting that says, "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

The Baker refuses and explains that it's too close to the death of the child.

If the customer is refused:

1. Is he violating the PA Law

2. Would the Baker face the same governmental fine?

Yes, and yes.

 

[martybegan]

The law is being applied in the wrong manner.

The state has a compelling interest to ensure that public commerce cannot be used to discriminate against peoples: "we don't serve Negros, gays, and libertarians."

Where is the compelling interest when it comes to a single baker and a wedding cake? Where is the actual harm to the "offended"?

You can't answer that.

Simply this....A business, ONE business, regardless of how small, cannot set the precedence of ignoring business law. But it seems you want this business to be exempt. Why?

it's not ignoring the law, its applying PA laws as intended, to fight systemic discrimination of necessary services, and to provide economic equality. PA's were never intended to be "every business everywhere".

I'm curious and will just throw an hypothetical out there:

A baker has a good friend who's child was recently killed in a school mass shooting, the baker is asked to bake a cake for an NRA meeting that says, "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

The Baker refuses and explains that it's too close to the death of the child.

If the customer is refused:

1. Is he violating the PA Law

2. Would the Baker face the same governmental fine?

What progressives would say is this doesn't concern a protected class, but merely a group of people with an opinion. So you are free to discriminate against the NRA for being the NRA.

You have to be a protected class for your butt hurt to be government mandated and protected butt hurt.

 

[Pop23]

I'm curious and will just throw an hypothetical out there:

A baker has a good friend who's child was recently killed in a school mass shooting, the baker is asked to bake a cake for an NRA meeting that says, "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

The Baker refuses and explains that it's too close to the death of the child.

If the customer is refused:

1. Is he violating the PA Law

2. Would the Baker face the same governmental fine?

Yes, and yes.

You think they would give the damaged party a 100K judgement for the loss of a birthday cake?

Kinda doubting that.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I'm curious and will just throw an hypothetical out there:

A baker has a good friend who's child was recently killed in a school mass shooting, the baker is asked to bake a cake for an NRA meeting that says, "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

The Baker refuses and explains that it's too close to the death of the child.

If the customer is refused:

1. Is he violating the PA Law

2. Would the Baker face the same governmental fine?

Yes, and yes.

You think they would give the damaged party a 100K judgement for the loss of a birthday cake?

Kinda doubting that.

So do I but the same goddamned rules apply, kids.

 

[Seawytch]

The law is being applied in the wrong manner.

The state has a compelling interest to ensure that public commerce cannot be used to discriminate against peoples: "we don't serve Negros, gays, and libertarians."

Where is the compelling interest when it comes to a single baker and a wedding cake? Where is the actual harm to the "offended"?

You can't answer that.

Simply this....A business, ONE business, regardless of how small, cannot set the precedence of ignoring business law. But it seems you want this business to be exempt. Why?

it's not ignoring the law, its applying PA laws as intended, to fight systemic discrimination of necessary services, and to provide economic equality. PA's were never intended to be "every business everywhere".

I'm curious and will just throw an hypothetical out there:

A baker has a good friend who's child was recently killed in a school mass shooting, the baker is asked to bake a cake for an NRA meeting that says, "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

The Baker refuses and explains that it's too close to the death of the child.

If the customer is refused:

1. Is he violating the PA Law

2. Would the Baker face the same governmental fine?

Argument already tried and failed. They would have to bake the cake, they would not have to write the words. You can't compel speech.

 

[bodecea]

Nope. Your argument is shit. No one cares about libertarianism except you and the Dunder Mifflins.

The fact is that the bakers were practicing baking not religion. They are subject to the law.

So are you.

The law is being applied in the wrong manner.

The courts that determine such things disagree with you.

The Courts are wrong, either through ignorance, or malice.

Who says the Courts are wrong? And what is the legal basis for declaring the Courts wrong? Keep in mind, this is a Country Ruled by Law...you can't just pout and say "wrong! wrong! wrong!".....Make your case.

I can say "wrong wrong wrong" all i want. All you have is appeal to authority, and that isn't a position but more of a cop out.

I've expanded on my position countless times, you can dismiss it, not understand it, or hate it, but your responses of "your not qualified to have that opinion, or the law disagrees with your opinion, or get off your ass because of your opinion" have no weight.

You don't seem to understand how it works in this Country. Who, according to the Constitution, interprets the law? Is it you?

 

[bodecea]

They claim they did...and they also got a boat load of money and never did close their Pizza place. Good scam if you can get it.

So you are saying they made this whole thing up from the start to make money?

Prove it.

A more likely explanation is that progressive asshats have the attention span of a goldfish, and once they got their anger out of their system, they went on to crucify the next target, allowing the pizza people to move on with their lives?

You don't hear much about that lion shooting dentist anymore, do you?

I didn't say that at all. But it sure worked out nicely for them.....are they out of business now?

Not that I know of, but that's not from lack of trying by progressives.

If you don't know....why are you talking about it?

Because it was brought up in the context of death threats to the couple in this case as a comparison, and it was part of the point I was making.

Anyone who makes death threats...they should be traced and arrested. It is a crime. And I don't cry that the law shouldn't apply to them. It should.

 

[bodecea]

Nope. Your argument is shit. No one cares about libertarianism except you and the Dunder Mifflins.

The fact is that the bakers were practicing baking not religion. They are subject to the law.

So are you.

The law is being applied in the wrong manner.

The state has a compelling interest to ensure that public commerce cannot be used to discriminate against peoples: "we don't serve Negros, gays, and libertarians."

Where is the compelling interest when it comes to a single baker and a wedding cake? Where is the actual harm to the "offended"?

You can't answer that.

Simply this....A business, ONE business, regardless of how small, cannot set the precedence of ignoring business law. But it seems you want this business to be exempt. Why?

it's not ignoring the law, its applying PA laws as intended, to fight systemic discrimination of necessary services, and to provide economic equality. PA's were never intended to be "every business everywhere".

So far, those who the Constitution assigned to interpret the law disagree with you. So, it looks like your best bet is to get PA laws repealed. Get to work.

 

[martybegan]

The law is being applied in the wrong manner.

The courts that determine such things disagree with you.

The Courts are wrong, either through ignorance, or malice.

Who says the Courts are wrong? And what is the legal basis for declaring the Courts wrong? Keep in mind, this is a Country Ruled by Law...you can't just pout and say "wrong! wrong! wrong!".....Make your case.

I can say "wrong wrong wrong" all i want. All you have is appeal to authority, and that isn't a position but more of a cop out.

I've expanded on my position countless times, you can dismiss it, not understand it, or hate it, but your responses of "your not qualified to have that opinion, or the law disagrees with your opinion, or get off your ass because of your opinion" have no weight.

You don't seem to understand how it works in this Country. Who, according to the Constitution, interprets the law? Is it you?

It's not like I am creating a fake court an issuing decisions, I am saying the court is wrong in these instances. Again, you keep running to the safe hole of "you aren't qualified to have your opinion." It's getting old.

 

[martybegan]

The law is being applied in the wrong manner.

The state has a compelling interest to ensure that public commerce cannot be used to discriminate against peoples: "we don't serve Negros, gays, and libertarians."

Where is the compelling interest when it comes to a single baker and a wedding cake? Where is the actual harm to the "offended"?

You can't answer that.

Simply this....A business, ONE business, regardless of how small, cannot set the precedence of ignoring business law. But it seems you want this business to be exempt. Why?

it's not ignoring the law, its applying PA laws as intended, to fight systemic discrimination of necessary services, and to provide economic equality. PA's were never intended to be "every business everywhere".

So far, those who the Constitution assigned to interpret the law disagree with you. So, it looks like your best bet is to get PA laws repealed. Get to work.

I am am working. I'm keeping you busy so you can't cause any more trouble.

 

[bodecea]

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.

That's easy enough. Because the Christian Right made a big deal about this, the gay couple in question got a shit load of death threats from all these people who just love them some Jesus.

If she didn't want to participate in a gay wedding, she shouldn't have invited the couple to come to her bakery a couple years earlier.

Did she "invite" the couple, or did they just walk through the door? How does patronizing her business entitle them to anything?

They and their parents have done regular business with this baker for a while....

So how does that entitle them to anything from the baker?

It doesn't....what does happen if a baker is a business that sells wedding cakes, they can't refuse to sell wedding cakes to someone because they are: 1) a minority race, 2) a specific gender, 3) or a specific sexual orientation. Oregon state law makes that clear.