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

[bodecea]

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.


>>>>

Hey...don't confuse his self-righteous fantasy with facts.

 

[bodecea]

(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!

Depends...if it's just a cake, no he cannot....if it is a cake with Nazi symbols and sayings on the top, that goes to free speech and the cake baker is protected under the 1st Amendment.

 

[martybegan]

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

Splitting hairs to make your argument valid. Typical.

 

[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 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?

Another appeal to authority.

 

[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 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?

Another appeal to authority.

They are the authority, and you are not. That's the point.

 

[Dot Com]

They better follow the law next time!!! >:-(

Sent from my VS415PP using Tapatalk

 

[boilermaker55]

Pay the taxes! Pay the penalties!

 

[bodecea]

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

Splitting hairs to make your argument valid. Typical.

Not splitting hairs at all...have you read the link? It may be long, but it gives a very clear explanation as to what would be considered Freedom of Speech and what would not.

 

[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?

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.

That may be the law, but we are talking morals here. What moral rule entitles the queer couple to be served by any business?

 

[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 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?

Another appeal to authority.

Whose opinion counts more when it comes to interpreting the law? C'mon...you can answer. Don't be shy. Your opinion? Or the opinion of those trained in Constitutional law and appointed to make interpretation decisions based on the Constitution?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Yep, when they can't win based on logic, they start spouting the law.

 

[bodecea]

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.

That may be the law, but we are talking morals here. What moral rule entitles the queer couple to be served by any business?

^ a prime reason why we have the 14th amendment so that people like above can't legally make 2nd class citizens out of people he doesn't like.

 

[WorldWatcher]

(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!

Nazi's are included in Public Accommodation laws - so Ya, they can turn down a Nazi cake order.

Nazi isn't a race,

Nazi isn't a color,

Nazi isn't a religion,

Nazi isn't a sex,

Nazi isn't a sexual orientation,

Nazi isn't a national origin,

Nazi Isn't a marital status

Nazi isn't an age.

>>>>

 

[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.


>>>>

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.

We aren't talking about Federal Public Accommodation laws, we are talking about a case under State Public Accommodation law and the law is pretty clear on how the State defines public accommodation.


>>>>

 

[bodecea]

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.

Yep, when they can't win based on logic, they start spouting the law.

I find it very revealing that you think that is a bad thing.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

We aren't talking about Federal Public Accommodation laws, we are talking about a case under State Public Accommodation law and the law is pretty clear on how the State defines public accommodation.


>>>>

What?!?! Does that make it a "states rights" issue?

 

[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!

Nazi's are included in Public Accommodation laws - so Ya, they can turn down a Nazi cake order.

Nazi isn't a race,

Nazi isn't a color,

Nazi isn't a religion,

Nazi isn't a sex,

Nazi isn't a sexual orientation,

Nazi isn't a national origin,

Nazi Isn't a marital status

Nazi isn't an age.

You sorta missed the point there, just because they haven't payed off the right politicians. The KKK is a religious group, they can make a black man bake their cake. That's the problem, any special interest can get included with enough political clout, PA laws aren't based on freedom from government, aka the Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

That may be the law, but we are talking morals here. What moral rule entitles the queer couple to be served by any business?

^ a prime reason why we have the 14th amendment so that people like above can't legally make 2nd class citizens out of people he doesn't like.

Did you think I wouldn't notice you weaseled out of answering the question? What is the moral principle that entitles anyone to be served by a business?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

We aren't talking about Federal Public Accommodation laws, we are talking about a case under State Public Accommodation law and the law is pretty clear on how the State defines public accommodation.


>>>>

What?!?! Does that make it a "states rights" issue?

That's RACISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSST!!!!

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Yep, when they can't win based on logic, they start spouting the law.

I find it very revealing that you think that is a bad thing.

You obviously think logic is a bad thing. They had laws in Nazi Germany. Were those a "good thing?"