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

[martybegan]

No you didn't, the interest may be compelling to YOU, but hurt feelings do not a compelling interest make.

I already explained above in the post you quoted how it benefits the states. Economic development, attracting business, smooth business flow.

those are not compelling without some direct harm involved.

Who are you to make that "direct harm" call for others?

I am the person defending other's right to various freedoms.

Why is one person's butthurt more than another person's butthurt in the absence of actual harm?

Wait...you support the alleged butthurt of those who break the law? Do you also support the butthurt of those who steal? Those who murder? Worry about their feelings, do you?

Theft and murder are actual harm.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

That's not even close to the truth but there is plenty of good reason to hate your kind.

it is the truth, and your further statement proves it.

Twat Bigot.

Hating the faggots is one of the few things your side does well....

Not wanting to be a part of something is not hate. if they actively tried to prevent the wedding from occurring, that would be hate.

Your side actually hates anyone that disagrees with them, and the proof is the loud cheering that goes on when government ruins said people.

People like Melissa put herself out of business. The rules were published and she broke them. Don't you believe in obeying the law?

No, the government did that. stop trying to blame the actual victim.

She's not the victim, not even close. Those were the two lesbians, who she has yet to pay off and will soon lose her house over should she not. Same thing, she's fuckin' dumb.

 

[martybegan]

A by contract baking service is not a public accommodation.

Under Oregon State Law, Sweetcakes by Melissa was a business and fell under their Public Accommodation law.


>>>>

And now it is no more, as is appropriate...

Nice gloating there, fucktard.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I already explained above in the post you quoted how it benefits the states. Economic development, attracting business, smooth business flow.

those are not compelling without some direct harm involved.

Who are you to make that "direct harm" call for others?

I am the person defending other's right to various freedoms.

Why is one person's butthurt more than another person's butthurt in the absence of actual harm?

Wait...you support the alleged butthurt of those who break the law? Do you also support the butthurt of those who steal? Those who murder? Worry about their feelings, do you?

Theft and murder are actual harm.

So is discrimination, in most cases.

 

[martybegan]

it is the truth, and your further statement proves it.

Twat Bigot.

Hating the faggots is one of the few things your side does well....

Not wanting to be a part of something is not hate. if they actively tried to prevent the wedding from occurring, that would be hate.

Your side actually hates anyone that disagrees with them, and the proof is the loud cheering that goes on when government ruins said people.

People like Melissa put herself out of business. The rules were published and she broke them. Don't you believe in obeying the law?

No, the government did that. stop trying to blame the actual victim.

She's not the victim, not even close. Those were the two lesbians, who she has yet to pay off and will soon lose her house over should she not. Same thing, she's fuckin' dumb.

Show me the actual harm.

 

[martybegan]

those are not compelling without some direct harm involved.

Who are you to make that "direct harm" call for others?

I am the person defending other's right to various freedoms.

Why is one person's butthurt more than another person's butthurt in the absence of actual harm?

Wait...you support the alleged butthurt of those who break the law? Do you also support the butthurt of those who steal? Those who murder? Worry about their feelings, do you?

Theft and murder are actual harm.

So is discrimination, in most cases.

Not in this case. Hurt feelings are not harm.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

A by contract baking service is not a public accommodation.

Under Oregon State Law, Sweetcakes by Melissa was a business and fell under their Public Accommodation law.


>>>>

And now it is no more, as is appropriate...

Nice gloating there, fucktard.

It makes me happy when justice is served.

 

[martybegan]

A by contract baking service is not a public accommodation.

Under Oregon State Law, Sweetcakes by Melissa was a business and fell under their Public Accommodation law.


>>>>

And now it is no more, as is appropriate...

Nice gloating there, fucktard.

It makes me happy when justice is served.

This isn't justice.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Hating the faggots is one of the few things your side does well....

Not wanting to be a part of something is not hate. if they actively tried to prevent the wedding from occurring, that would be hate.

Your side actually hates anyone that disagrees with them, and the proof is the loud cheering that goes on when government ruins said people.

People like Melissa put herself out of business. The rules were published and she broke them. Don't you believe in obeying the law?

No, the government did that. stop trying to blame the actual victim.

She's not the victim, not even close. Those were the two lesbians, who she has yet to pay off and will soon lose her house over should she not. Same thing, she's fuckin' dumb.

Show me the actual harm.

Read the complaint. It's why the two women were awarded 135K. That, and the fact that Melissa broke the law.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

A by contract baking service is not a public accommodation.

Under Oregon State Law, Sweetcakes by Melissa was a business and fell under their Public Accommodation law.


>>>>

And now it is no more, as is appropriate...

Nice gloating there, fucktard.

It makes me happy when justice is served.

This isn't justice.

The hell it isn't. She got nailed, and deserved to be. Obey the law, or face the consequences.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Who are you to make that "direct harm" call for others?

I am the person defending other's right to various freedoms.

Why is one person's butthurt more than another person's butthurt in the absence of actual harm?

Wait...you support the alleged butthurt of those who break the law? Do you also support the butthurt of those who steal? Those who murder? Worry about their feelings, do you?

Theft and murder are actual harm.

So is discrimination, in most cases.

Not in this case. Hurt feelings are not harm.

It was far more than that, obviously.

 

[Dot Com]

LGBT are minorities, and here minorities are protected from the whims of the majority. Now you know.

bakers who don't want to work gay weddings are a minority as well.

I'm sure hope but that doesn't change the fact that they opened a public accommodation. if they only baked wedding cakes for straight friends they'd have no issues at all.

A by contract baking service is not a public accommodation.

So, change to that, if you think you can get away with it. Just don't sell to the public. You can't have your no faggot cake and sell it too, unless you are very, very careful.

It's not what I want to get away with, that has nothing to do with it. it's about government being able to ruin someone over something as stupid as politely saying they don't want to provide a wedding cake for a gay wedding.

It's also about the fascist cheering squad you belong to, and the fact that your are all miserable, detestable pond scum forgeries of actual human beings.

save the hyperbole kiddo

If you knew anything about the law you'd be aware that "ignorance of the law" is not a defense

 

[kaz]

Well, it ain't workin'. Your position is one of hatred. Give it up,

The only hate here is from your side.

That's not even close to the truth but there is plenty of good reason to hate your kind.

it is the truth, and your further statement proves it.

Twat Bigot.

Hating the faggots is one of the few things your side does well....

Not wanting to be a part of something is not hate. if they actively tried to prevent the wedding from occurring, that would be hate.

Your side actually hates anyone that disagrees with them, and the proof is the loud cheering that goes on when government ruins said people.

Not taking money from "corporations" and the "wealthy" is hate, and not giving money to people who didn't earn it is hate. That isn't intuitively clear to you? Hmmm...me either...

 

[martybegan]

Not wanting to be a part of something is not hate. if they actively tried to prevent the wedding from occurring, that would be hate.

Your side actually hates anyone that disagrees with them, and the proof is the loud cheering that goes on when government ruins said people.

People like Melissa put herself out of business. The rules were published and she broke them. Don't you believe in obeying the law?

No, the government did that. stop trying to blame the actual victim.

She's not the victim, not even close. Those were the two lesbians, who she has yet to pay off and will soon lose her house over should she not. Same thing, she's fuckin' dumb.

Show me the actual harm.

Read the complaint. It's why the two women were awarded 135K. That, and the fact that Melissa broke the law.

No harm seen there, except hurt feewings.

 

[martybegan]

Under Oregon State Law, Sweetcakes by Melissa was a business and fell under their Public Accommodation law.


>>>>

And now it is no more, as is appropriate...

Nice gloating there, fucktard.

It makes me happy when justice is served.

This isn't justice.

The hell it isn't. She got nailed, and deserved to be. Obey the law, or face the consequences.

Wrong laws shouldn't be there in the first place, or at most laws should not be misapplied.

 

[martybegan]

bakers who don't want to work gay weddings are a minority as well.

I'm sure hope but that doesn't change the fact that they opened a public accommodation. if they only baked wedding cakes for straight friends they'd have no issues at all.

A by contract baking service is not a public accommodation.

So, change to that, if you think you can get away with it. Just don't sell to the public. You can't have your no faggot cake and sell it too, unless you are very, very careful.

It's not what I want to get away with, that has nothing to do with it. it's about government being able to ruin someone over something as stupid as politely saying they don't want to provide a wedding cake for a gay wedding.

It's also about the fascist cheering squad you belong to, and the fact that your are all miserable, detestable pond scum forgeries of actual human beings.

save the hyperbole kiddo

If you knew anything about the law you'd be aware that "ignorance of the law" is not a defense

This isn't ignoring the law, its saying the law is wrong, or wrongly applied.

 

[bripat9643]

PA laws outlawed that freedom.

Why didn't you guys cry when PA laws first appeared in the 60s?

Probably because I was in lindergarten.

Why such ignorance? Do you not understand the way our laws work and the reason why they exist? Are you advocating for Americans to discriminate against gay people?

I'm not advocating it, but the freedom to associate also means the freedom to no associate for whatever reason you deem appropriate.

That applies to your personal life, yes. Not with your business practice. Not for "whatever" reason. Nope.

That's your opinion, which has no basis in logic whatsoever. It's purely a personal whim. You can't give a legitimate reason for forcing people to associate with people they don't want to have anything to do with. The notion appears noxious the minute it's stated. So how do you justify it?

 

[bodecea]

That applies to your personal life, yes. Not with your business practice. Not for "whatever" reason. Nope.

Where in the constitution does it state you lose your rights when you open a business?

Where does it state that you can lose your right to own a gun if you're a criminal? Same place...

There is a compelling government interest, plus due process was involved. Its the same concept that allows a person to be incarcerated, or placed on parole or probation.

Great, same answer to your question. A process was used, and it's both valid and constitutional.

Which doesn't make it right. When all you have is appeal to authority, you don't really have your own position.

"Appeal to authority".....in other words, ask to be protected from UNLAWFUL discrimination by the government......the horror!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

People like Melissa put herself out of business. The rules were published and she broke them. Don't you believe in obeying the law?

No, the government did that. stop trying to blame the actual victim.

She's not the victim, not even close. Those were the two lesbians, who she has yet to pay off and will soon lose her house over should she not. Same thing, she's fuckin' dumb.

Show me the actual harm.

Read the complaint. It's why the two women were awarded 135K. That, and the fact that Melissa broke the law.

No harm seen there, except hurt feewings.

Since it wasn't for you to judge, it matters not a damn...

 

[martybegan]

Where in the constitution does it state you lose your rights when you open a business?

Where does it state that you can lose your right to own a gun if you're a criminal? Same place...

There is a compelling government interest, plus due process was involved. Its the same concept that allows a person to be incarcerated, or placed on parole or probation.

Great, same answer to your question. A process was used, and it's both valid and constitutional.

Which doesn't make it right. When all you have is appeal to authority, you don't really have your own position.

"Appeal to authority".....in other words, ask to be protected from UNLAWFUL discrimination by the government......the horror!

When you ask government to ruin someone over a cake, that actually is a horror. when you then go and say they did it to themselves, you are blaming the victim.