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

[bodecea]

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?

What does your ideal of "moral principle" have to do with businesses serving the public equally? You are beginning to sound like Chief Justice Roger Taney.

 

[bodecea]

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?"

So you compare our PA laws which require businesses getting a license to treat customers equally...to Nazi Germany. Congrats on your Godwin Award.

 

[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.


>>>>

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!!!!

How so?

 

[bripat9643]

(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.

>>>>

Public accommodation laws aren't mentioned in the Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

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?"

So you compare our PA laws which require businesses getting a license to treat customers equally...to Nazi Germany. Congrats on your Godwin Award.

I'm not surprised that you failed to get the point. You implied that laws are always good things. When confronted with irrefutable evidence that they aren't, you weaseled by whining that PA laws are not bad like Nazi laws.

Now answer the question: are laws always a "good thing?"

 

[bripat9643]

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!!!!

How so?

Liberal turds like you are always whining that states rights are used as an argument to defend racism.

 

[Seawytch]

(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.

>>>>

Public accommodation laws aren't mentioned in the Constitution.

They have been challenged at the SCOTUS and found to be Constitutional.

 

[Seawytch]

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!!!!

How so?

Liberal turds like you are always whining that states rights are used as an argument to defend racism.

Only when racists use it to defend racism.

 

[bripat9643]

(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.

>>>>

Public accommodation laws aren't mentioned in the Constitution.

They have been challenged at the SCOTUS and found to be Constitutional.

The Supreme court found that the interstate commerce clause authorized the government to regulatate wheat grown on your own property for your own consumption.

The fact that hand picked 9 hacks approved of some law doesn't prove a damn thing.

 

[bripat9643]

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!!!!

How so?

Liberal turds like you are always whining that states rights are used as an argument to defend racism.

Only when racists use it to defend racism.

Nope. They make that accusation whenever it's brought up.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

So this money is to pay for the homos pain and suffering for not getting a cake baked?

The article said the couple who were denied never asked for money.

They said an apology would have been fine.

This is a classic case of the far left going to work.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"They aren't going to voluntarily pay and the state will have a very difficult time collecting."

The store owners are in the wrong, they have only themselves to blame, they are in no way "victims."

The state is in the right, its actions appropriate and lawful.

 

[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!

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.

>>>>

Public accommodation laws aren't mentioned in the Constitution.

That's true. They are not. They are state laws. Are you now going to tell us that that only laws that count are those in the Constitution?

 

[bodecea]

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?"

So you compare our PA laws which require businesses getting a license to treat customers equally...to Nazi Germany. Congrats on your Godwin Award.

I'm not surprised that you failed to get the point. You implied that laws are always good things. When confronted with irrefutable evidence that they aren't, you weaseled by whining that PA laws are not bad like Nazi laws.

Now answer the question: are laws always a "good thing?"

"Implied"....That means I really didn't say it...you just assume that's what I meant..... There are bad laws....but there are procedures for repealing them....why aren't you working on that?

 

[bodecea]

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!!!!

How so?

Liberal turds like you are always whining that states rights are used as an argument to defend racism.

They have been....does that now mean that all states rights are racist?

 

[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!

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.

>>>>

Public accommodation laws aren't mentioned in the Constitution.

They have been challenged at the SCOTUS and found to be Constitutional.

Well, you know...the Supreme Court doesn't really know law all that well...................

 

[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!

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.

>>>>

Public accommodation laws aren't mentioned in the Constitution.

They have been challenged at the SCOTUS and found to be Constitutional.

The Supreme court found that the interstate commerce clause authorized the government to regulatate wheat grown on your own property for your own consumption.

The fact that hand picked 9 hacks approved of some law doesn't prove a damn thing.

In this country it does.

 

[bodecea]

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

That's RACISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSST!!!!

How so?

Liberal turds like you are always whining that states rights are used as an argument to defend racism.

Only when racists use it to defend racism.

Nope. They make that accusation whenever it's brought up.

Like you just did?

 

[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!

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.

Nope, they can't.because no judge will give them religious cover.

 

[OnePercenter]

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

Good!