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

[Silhouette]

"EVERY business I have been into has a sign that says we reserve the right to refuse business to anyone for any reason." And you think that that sign gives the business the right to ignore all laws?

What we are dealing with in gay marriage are laws protecting behaviors. Behaviors aren't protected Constitutionally. So this false premise has brought about the legal quagmire between a Christian's legitimate refusal to condone homosexual behaviors vs a homosexual believing everyone must play along with their lifestyle.

The deciding factor will be children. Because everybody knows this isn't a battle at the bakery, the photo studio, the florist, the caterer or even the County Clerk's office....this is a battle at Christian adoption agencies. They best sit down this time and think who all shares the marriage contract first and how that contract uniquely serves each and every implicit party who shares it. Children were ignored and never asked by SCOTUS what they thought about institutionalizing their homes to be fatherless or motherless. In fact, when they tried to weigh in as children raised in gay homes not in favor of gay marriage with amicus briefs, the Court flatly ignored their pleas.

Therefore, 2015's Hearing on the matter was a mistrial. When modifying a contract, in this case radically, all parties must have consideration at the tribunal. This was not done. Contract case law will save the day.

 

[mdk]

"EVERY business I have been into has a sign that says we reserve the right to refuse business to anyone for any reason." And you think that that sign gives the business the right to ignore all laws?

What we are dealing with in gay marriage are laws protecting behaviors. Behaviors aren't protected Constitutionally. So this false premise has brought about the legal quagmire between a Christian's legitimate refusal to condone homosexual behaviors vs a homosexual believing everyone must play along with their lifestyle.

The deciding factor will be children. Because everybody knows this isn't a battle at the bakery, the photo studio, the florist, the caterer or even the County Clerk's office....this is a battle at Christian adoption agencies. They best sit down this time and think who all shares the marriage contract first and how that contract uniquely serves each and every implicit party who shares it. Children were ignored and never asked by SCOTUS what they thought about institutionalizing their homes to be fatherless or motherless. In fact, when they tried to weigh in as children raised in gay homes not in favor of gay marriage with amicus briefs, the Court flatly ignored their pleas.

Therefore, 2015's Hearing on the matter was a mistrial.

You have been laughably wrong on every one of your legal opinions/predictions so you'll have to excuse me if I don't take your legal opinions very seriously.

 

[bodecea]

So...you think the Oregon PA law was corrupt when it ruled FOR and awarded over $300,000 to a Christian woman who was discriminated against based on her religion by her employer? It is the same law used in the cake baking case....AND it was cited as a precedent in the cake baking case. (You would know that if you were really watching that case closely)

Oh, yes. Totally corrupt. The AG and judge are leftist activist lawyers.

What do you base that on beyond you not liking their legal decisions? Where is the corruption?

Their corruption is using government in a tyrannical manner on citizens by ignoring their first amendment right and excessive fines for harming no one.

What first amendment right was ignored? And what excessive fine? The cake bakers were given only HALF the fine levied on the Dentist who discriminated against his Christian employee in the same state. Where was your complaint about "excessive fines" in that case? You must have heard about it...it was used as a precedent in the baking case...the case you claim to know all about.

"free exercise thereof". You obviously haven't read your own constitutional. Were you studying dentistry instead?

Tell us how running a business baking cakes is "free exercise of". And now you are resorting to snarkiness? Shall I take that as your concession?

 

[Sally Vater]

v

Oh, yes. Totally corrupt. The AG and judge are leftist activist lawyers.

What do you base that on beyond you not liking their legal decisions? Where is the corruption?

Their corruption is using government in a tyrannical manner on citizens by ignoring their first amendment right and excessive fines for harming no one.

What first amendment right was ignored? And what excessive fine? The cake bakers were given only HALF the fine levied on the Dentist who discriminated against his Christian employee in the same state. Where was your complaint about "excessive fines" in that case? You must have heard about it...it was used as a precedent in the baking case...the case you claim to know all about.

"free exercise thereof". You obviously haven't read your own constitutional. Were you studying dentistry instead?

Tell us how running a business baking cakes is "free exercise of". And now you are resorting to snarkiness? Shall I take that as your concession?

You never answered my question and this is the third request. What's your opinion of Chief Justice Roberts written opinion in the same-sex marriage decision?

 

[bodecea]

If you own a business in a locality with PA laws that also protect gays, you will "respect the union" and provide the service you advertise, however.

Your corrupt PA laws do not force me to serve you in violation of my conscience. Kinda like exemption from the draft as a conscientious objector. There are laws being passed by startes to exempt Christian businesses from your government tyranny. Ha ha.

So...you think the Oregon PA law was corrupt when it ruled FOR and awarded over $300,000 to a Christian woman who was discriminated against based on her religion by her employer? It is the same law used in the cake baking case....AND it was cited as a precedent in the cake baking case. (You would know that if you were really watching that case closely)

Oh, yes. Totally corrupt. The AG and judge are leftist activist lawyers.

What do you base that on beyond you not liking their legal decisions? Where is the corruption?

You never answered my question. What's your opinion of the opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts on the same-sex marriage decision?

No...you asked me if I had read it and I said yes I did.

 

[Sally Vater]

Your corrupt PA laws do not force me to serve you in violation of my conscience. Kinda like exemption from the draft as a conscientious objector. There are laws being passed by startes to exempt Christian businesses from your government tyranny. Ha ha.

So...you think the Oregon PA law was corrupt when it ruled FOR and awarded over $300,000 to a Christian woman who was discriminated against based on her religion by her employer? It is the same law used in the cake baking case....AND it was cited as a precedent in the cake baking case. (You would know that if you were really watching that case closely)

Oh, yes. Totally corrupt. The AG and judge are leftist activist lawyers.

What do you base that on beyond you not liking their legal decisions? Where is the corruption?

You never answered my question. What's your opinion of the opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts on the same-sex marriage decision?

No...you asked me if I had read it and I said yes I did.

What's your opinion of it?

 

[bodecea]

"EVERY business I have been into has a sign that says we reserve the right to refuse business to anyone for any reason." And you think that that sign gives the business the right to ignore all laws?

What we are dealing with in gay marriage are laws protecting behaviors. Behaviors aren't protected Constitutionally. So this false premise has brought about the legal quagmire between a Christian's legitimate refusal to condone homosexual behaviors vs a homosexual believing everyone must play along with their lifestyle.

The deciding factor will be children. Because everybody knows this isn't a battle at the bakery, the photo studio, the florist, the caterer or even the County Clerk's office....this is a battle at Christian adoption agencies. They best sit down this time and think who all shares the marriage contract first and how that contract uniquely serves each and every implicit party who shares it. Children were ignored and never asked by SCOTUS what they thought about institutionalizing their homes to be fatherless or motherless. In fact, when they tried to weigh in as children raised in gay homes not in favor of gay marriage with amicus briefs, the Court flatly ignored their pleas.

Therefore, 2015's Hearing on the matter was a mistrial. When modifying a contract, in this case radically, all parties must have consideration at the tribunal. This was not done. Contract case law will save the day.

So...you don't think laws should protect behaviors.

 

[bodecea]

So...you think the Oregon PA law was corrupt when it ruled FOR and awarded over $300,000 to a Christian woman who was discriminated against based on her religion by her employer? It is the same law used in the cake baking case....AND it was cited as a precedent in the cake baking case. (You would know that if you were really watching that case closely)

Oh, yes. Totally corrupt. The AG and judge are leftist activist lawyers.

What do you base that on beyond you not liking their legal decisions? Where is the corruption?

You never answered my question. What's your opinion of the opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts on the same-sex marriage decision?

No...you asked me if I had read it and I said yes I did.

What's your opinion of it?

Well, poor Chief Justice Roberts is wrong right out of the gate when he goes on about the Supreme Court decision being "legislation". If it is legislation...so is Brown v. Board of Ed and Loving v. Virginia even tho all they did was strike down unConstitutional laws/restrictions.

 

[Sally Vater]

Oh, yes. Totally corrupt. The AG and judge are leftist activist lawyers.

What do you base that on beyond you not liking their legal decisions? Where is the corruption?

You never answered my question. What's your opinion of the opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts on the same-sex marriage decision?

No...you asked me if I had read it and I said yes I did.

What's your opinion of it?

Well, poor Chief Justice Roberts is wrong right out of the gate when he goes on about the Supreme Court decision being "legislation". If it is legislation...so is Brown v. Board of Ed and Loving v. Virginia even tho all they did was strike down unConstitutional laws/restrictions.

Oh, you disagree. So you have decisions you agree with and decisions you disagree with, just like me. You can get off your self-righteous high horse now.

 

[Silhouette]

She's an idiot, what else would you expect?

 

[Silhouette]

Well, poor Chief Justice Roberts is wrong right out of the gate when he goes on about the Supreme Court decision being "legislation". If it is legislation...so is Brown v. Board of Ed and Loving v. Virginia even tho all they did was strike down unConstitutional laws/restrictions.

Those last cases were about race, not human behaviors-as-lifestyle. VERY different premises upon which launched, the divergent conclusions couldn't be further apart. Roberts is absolutely right. They legislated "just some deviant sex behaviors but not others" as a "protected class" (which isn't covered under the 14th by a long stretch). And, they did so using inequality. JUST the Court's pet-favorite deviant sex behaviors got protection; while they wrote in no protection for other deviant sex lifestyles like polygamy and incest. They just either closed the door in their faces or left it wide open so that states MAY NOT regulate against those lifestyles either...in the name of blind justice and equality.

And it gets worse...

Since marriage is a contract sanctioned by the state and there are more than just two persons implied to that contract (children), when the tribunal held this last Spring disincluded children, it created a mistrial. Case law says that when a contract is up for revision, all parties to it must have a seat at the table. In this case, children of gay homes even wrote in their protests "don't make other kids go through this!" in amicus briefs which were wholly ignored by the Court.

The revision of the contract was radical, unheard of and fundamental. And one of the parties was banned from attending that revision; which is against American law. Who was the guardian ad litem attorney present at the Hearing? None? Then by definition it was a mistrial.

 

[martybegan]

And I see you are still out of actual debating points on the topic at hand, and are still resorting to attacking my right to even have my opinions.

I don't have to whine. Our side worked hard WITHIN THE SYSTEM for decades to get legalized gay marriage. AKA....we won.

You used the wrong system. The right way would have been to get state legislatures to change the contracts, and have the courts enforce full faith and credit. What you did is got lawyers who shit on the constitution who happen to be judges to agree with you because of "feels".

We used the wrong system? We used the legal system. You apparently are not from the U.S. or familiar with the U.S. Constitution then. No wonder you do nothing but whine.

The court overstepped its bounds, like it as done numerous times the past decade.

And you are a legal expert? Link your credentials.

I don't need no stinking credentials.

 

[martybegan]

I don't have to whine. Our side worked hard WITHIN THE SYSTEM for decades to get legalized gay marriage. AKA....we won.

You used the wrong system. The right way would have been to get state legislatures to change the contracts, and have the courts enforce full faith and credit. What you did is got lawyers who shit on the constitution who happen to be judges to agree with you because of "feels".

We used the wrong system? We used the legal system. You apparently are not from the U.S. or familiar with the U.S. Constitution then. No wonder you do nothing but whine.

The court overstepped its bounds, like it as done numerous times the past decade.

And you are a legal expert? Link your credentials.

No, you're not getting it. Marty quotes himself as the law. And then insists that unless you accept him as an infallible authority on the law, you're using the 'appeal to authority' fallacy.

You have to accept Marty's pseudo-legal definitions, any assessment he makes on degree of the law, or about the constitution. See, in Marty's world the only way to avoid the appeal to authority fallacy...

...is to accept Marty as the sole legal authority.

That's all on you, not on me. I'm just voicing my opinions, and I'm concentrating on the "why" of the law, while your side seems to only deal with the "how".

 

[martybegan]

You used the wrong system. The right way would have been to get state legislatures to change the contracts, and have the courts enforce full faith and credit. What you did is got lawyers who shit on the constitution who happen to be judges to agree with you because of "feels".

We used the wrong system? We used the legal system. You apparently are not from the U.S. or familiar with the U.S. Constitution then. No wonder you do nothing but whine.

The court overstepped its bounds, like it as done numerous times the past decade.

And you are a legal expert? Link your credentials.

No, you're not getting it. Marty quotes himself as the law. And then insists that unless you accept him as an infallible authority on the law, you're using the 'appeal to authority' fallacy.

You have to accept Marty's pseudo-legal definitions, any assessment he makes on degree of the law, or about the constitution. See, in Marty's world the only way to avoid the appeal to authority fallacy...

...is to accept Marty as the sole legal authority.

Plus it seems to me that he wants us to hold his "opinion" as the equivalent of The Truth.

Again, that's on you, not me.

 

[martybegan]

A law that covers hurt feelings and not actual harm is a stupid law.

and the fact that you can say "Religion has never done anything good in the whole of human history" shows your bias, and the total inability to believe anything that you type on the topic.

A church that promotes racism has lost tax exempt status because explicitly of that? Examples please.

Bob Jones universtiy lost its tax exemption because they didn't allow interracial dating until 2000.

And, no, religion has never accomplished anything good, not once, not even by fucking accident.

Sorry, there was actual harm done to the Bowman-Cryers.

No, there wasn't actual harm.

and Religion has done plenty of good, from preserving knowledge during the dark ages, to providing care to the poor. You are just too much of a egotistical smarmy bigot to see it.

 

[martybegan]

It's an observation on your metal state, and it is accurate. You are a drive by thug, using government to hurt people you don't like.

And your statement of vendor vs. consumer is comical, and of course self serving in your quest to force people to do things they don't want to do, because being an asshole gives you a chubby.

Once again. I've known gay people who've been fired for being gay, I've known gay people who have been beaten up by bigots for being gay.

Making someone provide a service they will be paid for and offered publically is nowhere near that level of being an asshole.

I just can't get worked up because the Klein Family had to do their job.

It's the inner fascist in you. Your problem isn't with the beatings, its (to you) the wrong people being beaten.

 

[martybegan]

The way your side did it leaves the issue open, just like Roe V Wade hasn't ended the abortion debate.

And the only challenge to Title II or the CRA would have to involve limiting PA's to actual PA's, not every business in the country.

Uh huh...do you really think a SCOTUS will ever repeal civil marriage for gays? Come on...by the time you could even get a "conservative" justice to replace a "liberal" one...WAY too many horses will be out for there to be a closing of the barn door. You'd have to get rid of more than one 'cause despite his dissention, Roberts is in no way going to agree with repealing it.

2nd option? A Constitutional Amendment. (cue hysterical laughter). Non starter.

So when you going to legally challenge PA laws? You going after the big dog or just the local and state ones that protect icky gays?

I will leave it up to the people with the free time on their hands.

Right...you're too busy whining about it on the internet to actually DO something about it.

No, i'm voicing my opinion on it, something you seem to have an issue with. But it's easier for those like you to attack the ability of someone to have an opinion (in your view) than the opinion itself.

Voicing your opinion as an anonymous poster on a message board is not taking action.

You don't get to judge that.

 

[bodecea]

What do you base that on beyond you not liking their legal decisions? Where is the corruption?

You never answered my question. What's your opinion of the opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts on the same-sex marriage decision?

No...you asked me if I had read it and I said yes I did.

What's your opinion of it?

Well, poor Chief Justice Roberts is wrong right out of the gate when he goes on about the Supreme Court decision being "legislation". If it is legislation...so is Brown v. Board of Ed and Loving v. Virginia even tho all they did was strike down unConstitutional laws/restrictions.

Oh, you disagree. So you have decisions you agree with and decisions you disagree with, just like me. You can get off your self-righteous high horse now.

Yes...I disagree with some decisions. I DON'T go calling justices and judges corrupt over it though. See the difference?

 

[Sally Vater]

You never answered my question. What's your opinion of the opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts on the same-sex marriage decision?

No...you asked me if I had read it and I said yes I did.

What's your opinion of it?

Well, poor Chief Justice Roberts is wrong right out of the gate when he goes on about the Supreme Court decision being "legislation". If it is legislation...so is Brown v. Board of Ed and Loving v. Virginia even tho all they did was strike down unConstitutional laws/restrictions.

Oh, you disagree. So you have decisions you agree with and decisions you disagree with, just like me. You can get off your self-righteous high horse now.

Yes...I disagree with some decisions. I DON'T go calling justices and judges corrupt over it though. See the difference?

I agree with Chief Justice Roberts that the five activist lawyers didn't use the Constitution in their decision. That's corruption.

 

[bodecea]

Uh huh...do you really think a SCOTUS will ever repeal civil marriage for gays? Come on...by the time you could even get a "conservative" justice to replace a "liberal" one...WAY too many horses will be out for there to be a closing of the barn door. You'd have to get rid of more than one 'cause despite his dissention, Roberts is in no way going to agree with repealing it.

2nd option? A Constitutional Amendment. (cue hysterical laughter). Non starter.

So when you going to legally challenge PA laws? You going after the big dog or just the local and state ones that protect icky gays?

I will leave it up to the people with the free time on their hands.

Right...you're too busy whining about it on the internet to actually DO something about it.

No, i'm voicing my opinion on it, something you seem to have an issue with. But it's easier for those like you to attack the ability of someone to have an opinion (in your view) than the opinion itself.

Voicing your opinion as an anonymous poster on a message board is not taking action.

You don't get to judge that.

Sure I do....just voicing an opinion is not taking action. It's.....just voicing off.