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

[bodecea]

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.

You can say that all you want...you can whine all you want...that doesn't make you correct.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The NRA does not follow under PA laws.End of story.

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

Neither do birthday parties. But make it for the birthday party of a child of gay parents and then baker denies because the parents are gay, then, yes, of course it fits.

 

[martybegan]

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.

You can say that all you want...you can whine all you want...that doesn't make you correct.

I am correct.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

You can say that all you want...you can whine all you want...that doesn't make you correct.

I am correct.

Nope.

 

[martybegan]

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.

You can say that all you want...you can whine all you want...that doesn't make you correct.

I am correct.

Nope.

yep.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

You can say that all you want...you can whine all you want...that doesn't make you correct.

I am correct.

Nope.

yep.

Keep it up. Folks are laughing at you, as the do at Sun Devil and Blaylock and Ilar. You are qualified to have your opinion, but not your own facts. Tis what it is.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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".

How can you claim the intent of the Oregon Public Accommodation laws was not intended to apply to any business that provides a good or service when that is what the law says?

ORS 659A.400 - Place of public accommodation defined - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

§ 659A.400¹
Place of public accommodation defined

(1) A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusions in subsection (2) of this section, means:

(a) Any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements, transportation or otherwise.

§ 659A.403¹
Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited

(1) 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.


>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because Marty is a bozo when it comes to PA.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

No.

The NRA is not a category that falls under public accommodation laws.

2. Would the Baker face the same governmental fine?

No.


>>>>

 

[Iceweasel]

(1) 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.

So a jewish baker can't turn down a Nazi cake order. Gotta love those libs!

 

[martybegan]

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.

You can say that all you want...you can whine all you want...that doesn't make you correct.

I am correct.

Nope.

yep.

Keep it up. Folks are laughing at you, as the do at Sun Devil and Blaylock and Ilar. You are qualified to have your opinion, but not your own facts. Tis what it is.

If people like you are the ones laughing at me, I must be doing something right. The braying of idiots is a badge of honor.

 

[JakeStarkey]

(1) 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.

So a jewish baker can't turn down a Nazi cake order. Gotta love those libs!

Nazis are not protected.

Neither are Weasels.

 

[martybegan]

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".

How can you claim the intent of the Oregon Public Accommodation laws was not intended to apply to any business that provides a good or service when that is what the law says?

ORS 659A.400 - Place of public accommodation defined - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

§ 659A.400¹
Place of public accommodation defined

(1) A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusions in subsection (2) of this section, means:

(a) Any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements, transportation or otherwise.

§ 659A.403¹
Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited

(1) 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.


>>>>

The original federal definition was far more narrowly structured. I don't dispute Oregon's wording, but to me it breaches 1st amendment protections by not even taking into account the religious beliefs of businesses when determining if there is a substantial government interest in pursuing prosecution.

 

[martybegan]

Because Marty is a bozo when it comes to PA.

Go play in traffic, Farkey.

 

[JakeStarkey]

(1) 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.

So a jewish baker can't turn down a Nazi cake order. Gotta love those libs!

Nazis are not protected.

Neither are Weasels.

Neither are Marty Begans.

 

[bodecea]

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?

Ah....interesting. The cake is one thing...the message is another as courts have indicated.

 

[bodecea]

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.

No...the message on the cake comes under the 1st Amendment...just baking a cake doesn't. The CO Court of Appeals just affirmed that in its own bakery case:

https://localtvkdvr.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/colorado-court-of-appeals-decision.pdf

 

[bodecea]

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.

You are totally "qualified" to have your opinion for what it is worth. When stacked up to the opinions of those Constitutional Justices and Judges, guess which one counts more in this issue?

 

[bodecea]

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.

What trouble have I caused?

 

[bodecea]

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.

You can say that all you want...you can whine all you want...that doesn't make you correct.

I am correct.

In your own mind, I'm sure you think that.