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

[paddymurphy]

A LOT of gay people are actually business owners too. The laws apply to them too, regardless of how they might feel about straight people or religious people. The applies to everyone the same. You cannot discriminate based upon race, gender, religion, disability, sexual orientation. That pretty much covers everyone, I think.

What about pedophiles? Don't they have a right to be served? What about Nazis? Does a Jewish baker have the right to refuse serving them?

Those same moronic arguments have been made repeatedly and are still moronic.

 

[paddymurphy]

PA laws are here to stay, kiddos. You'll just have to start dealing with the real world, for once.

Thanks for stating your bogus worthless opinion supported by absolutely nothing.

So, fuckwad, you think such laws are going away?

 

[paddymurphy]

What if the baker were an emergency room surgeon in a small hospital in the south, and he refused to operate on a critical patient because he was gay.

Does he have the right to let someone die because it would infringe on his religious rights.

Dumb example. Hospitals generally have more than one surgeon. The Hospital decides who the surgeon operates on, not the surgeon.

Too fucking stupid to answer the question so you change the facts.

 

[paddymurphy]

Oh, you mean between gays and pedophiles? I'm not the one to make the connection. I just note it when I observe it.

Very few gay people are pedophiles.

But then, nearly all pedophiles are gay.

I've read that something like half of all child molesters are gay, whereas they only makeup 3% of the population.

You have not read that you lying prick.

 

[paddymurphy]

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?

Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. Your avatar is so fitting, you angry little man.

His avie is prominently displayed in a gay bar in Palm Springs.

So I must be a closet homosexual? Is that what you're implying?

The first thing a queer does when debating a homosexual issue is accuse her opponent of being gay.

No. Just a hateful little moron.

 

[paravani]

That's when you sell whatever you have, donate the money to charity then let the Government TRY to get money from you.

and live in poverty the rest of your life... sounds like a well thought out plan.

Well, if the Kleins are so insistent on following the Bible... poverty IS the lifestyle Jesus recommended.

 

[Anathema]

Well, if the Kleins are so insistent on following the Bible... poverty IS the lifestyle Jesus recommended.

I see it mire as a means to an end (keeping money from the hands of tbe Government and freaks of nature) and s self-punishment for puttibg themselves in thus position to begin with.

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah, and the victim of a mugging has a solution: turn over his wallet to the mugger if he doesn't want a bullet between the eyes.

That's the leftist conception of "choice," alright.

Leftists can't help revealing their totalitarian cloven hoof.

the Kleins aren't the victims here.

They put up an ad saying "We Sell Wedding Cakes."

Melissa Klein told the Cryer-Bowmans' "Hey, if you ever get married, we'd love to do your cake for you."

Now, if the Klein's were minding their own business in their home praying to their imaginary Sky Fairy to quell their desire for sex, and a bunch of gays kicked down their door and made them start baking a cake at gunpoint, you MIGHT have an argument that this was "Totalitarian" or "a mugging".

But. Uh. No. They actively solicited customers.

 

[martybegan]

PA laws were never meant to cover things like a baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

The were in Oregon.

The legislature specifically included sexual orientation as a characteristic of the customer which cannot be used as a basis for refusing service.


>>>>

Again, the law is wrong. It has to be balanced against a compelling government interest vs. the rights of those providing a service.

Again, the validity of the law isn't predicated on your personal opinion. Or your belief that the reason isn't 'compelling'.

We've been through this, Marty. Your personal opinion isn't a legal standard. Your argument is predicated on the assumption that it is. None of us accept it as such.

Ergo......you've got nothing.

And all you have is running to the law, and saying the law is the law is the law is the law is the law ad nauseum.

What I have is the constitution, the will of the people, the authority of the State, the lack of violations of constitutional guarantees, judicial review and due process of law.

You've got your personal opinion.

Our sources are not equal.

More appeal to authority. and argumentum ad populum as well.

 

[martybegan]

PA laws were never meant to cover things like a baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

The were in Oregon.

The legislature specifically included sexual orientation as a characteristic of the customer which cannot be used as a basis for refusing service.


>>>>

Again, the law is wrong. It has to be balanced against a compelling government interest vs. the rights of those providing a service.

I understand that you disagree with the law, so do I.

However saying that Sweetcakes wasn't a Public Accommodation under Oregon law is incorrect. They are.

However saying that the Public Accommodation law was wrongly applied is incorrect. It was.



Agreeing on what the law "should" be is one thing. Thinking that your view of what "should be" is reality is a different matter all together.


>>>>

I stipulate to the law being written as such, and from now on you don't have to comment on it. That doesn't change the fact that the law as applied flies in the face of everything this country was founded on, nor does it stop making its supporters be a bunch of miserable twat-waddles.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Learn to be rational. If the law says Serve One, Serve All, do that.

The law used to say blacks had to use separate water fountains. Where was your respect for the law then?

Appeal to authority isn't a position, its a cop out.

An excellent example. Thank you for bringing it up, Marty. People worked long and hard to get such Jim Crow laws repealed or struck down in court. It took a while but they did it. If all they had done was verbally complain about it and not take ACTION, there probably would still be segregation laws like separate drinking fountains. People got off their couches and actually TOOK ACTION.

Again resorting to the "you don't do X, so shut up" line of retort. its getting old.

Marty. When have I EVER told you to shut up?

When you resort to "stop whining on the internet and do something"as your retort, then bottom line is you are telling said person to "shut up" via attempting to remove the validity of their statement.

 

[JoeB131]

I stipulate to the law being written as such, and from now on you don't have to comment on it. That doesn't change the fact that the law as applied flies in the face of everything this country was founded on, nor does it stop making its supporters be a bunch of miserable twat-waddles.

This country was founded on a bunch of slave-raping assholes not wanting to pay their fair share of taxes.

I really don't care what people who wore powdered wigs and crapped in chamberpots were thinking.

Does something make sense NOW!

These laws make sense because they protect eveyrone- even Christians- from abuses by merchants acting in bad faith.

These laws make sense because homophobia is an evil that needs to be expunged from our society.

 

[martybegan]

What if the baker were an emergency room surgeon in a small hospital in the south, and he refused to operate on a critical patient because he was gay.

Does he have the right to let someone die because it would infringe on his religious rights.

Timely or necessary services are a compelling government interest that merit anti-discrimination rules. A gay couple having to spend 15 minutes finding another baker and feeling bad about it isn't, and it is not worth ruining the baker in question.

Does not have to be a compelling governmental interest. Only a rational one.

Wrong. If you are going to trample on the freedoms of others, it has to be compelling.

Not your call, Marty.

Not the point of the argument. More "just shut up" logic from you.

 

[martybegan]

What if the baker were an emergency room surgeon in a small hospital in the south, and he refused to operate on a critical patient because he was gay.

Does he have the right to let someone die because it would infringe on his religious rights.

Timely or necessary services are a compelling government interest that merit anti-discrimination rules. A gay couple having to spend 15 minutes finding another baker and feeling bad about it isn't, and it is not worth ruining the baker in question.

Does not have to be a compelling governmental interest. Only a rational one.

Wrong. If you are going to trample on the freedoms of others, it has to be compelling.

Anti -Discrimination laws do not trample on the freedom of others. You seem not to understand that morons have made these same arguments in court many times and always lose.

They have never been applied to a valid religious objection, as is seen here.

 

[martybegan]

I stipulate to the law being written as such, and from now on you don't have to comment on it. That doesn't change the fact that the law as applied flies in the face of everything this country was founded on, nor does it stop making its supporters be a bunch of miserable twat-waddles.

This country was founded on a bunch of slave-raping assholes not wanting to pay their fair share of taxes.

I really don't care what people who wore powdered wigs and crapped in chamberpots were thinking.

Does something make sense NOW!

These laws make sense because they protect eveyrone- even Christians- from abuses by merchants acting in bad faith.

These laws make sense because homophobia is an evil that needs to be expunged from our society.

Your disdain for our founding principles, process and the opinions of others is well known.

You are one of those people who will make this world a better place once you leave it.

 

[martybegan]

PA laws were never meant to cover things like a baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

The were in Oregon.

The legislature specifically included sexual orientation as a characteristic of the customer which cannot be used as a basis for refusing service.


>>>>

Again, the law is wrong. It has to be balanced against a compelling government interest vs. the rights of those providing a service.

According to YOU, it is wrong. As a matter of well established legal precedent, it is not.

More appeal to the law, which is not a debating point.

 

[martybegan]

PA laws were never meant to cover things like a baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

The were in Oregon.

The legislature specifically included sexual orientation as a characteristic of the customer which cannot be used as a basis for refusing service.


>>>>

Again, the law is wrong. It has to be balanced against a compelling government interest vs. the rights of those providing a service.

Again, the validity of the law isn't predicated on your personal opinion. Or your belief that the reason isn't 'compelling'.

We've been through this, Marty. Your personal opinion isn't a legal standard. Your argument is predicated on the assumption that it is. None of us accept it as such.

Ergo......you've got nothing.

And all you have is running to the law, and saying the law is the law is the law is the law is the law ad nauseum.

You do realize, don't you, that we are talking about a case decided on the basis of Oregon law? Since were are talking about the law, what is wrong with citing to the law?

because the point of argument is the validity of the law in the face of the right of a person to freely associate vs. a compelling government interest.

 

[martybegan]

Pope John Paul II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Never be an absolutist, it makes you look stupid.

John Paul II was a scumbag. He hid the fact his Church was molesting children for decades.

The Shame of John Paul II: How the Sex Abuse Scandal Stained His Papacy

Should a pope who turned his back on the worst crisis in modern Catholic history be exalted as a saint? Lawsuits by victims, numerous prosecutions and news coverage of bishops who enabled abuse are the shadow story of John Paul’s twenty-six-year pontificate, during which time he responded to continuing allegations of clergy abuse with denial and inertia. American dioceses and religious orders alone have spent nearly $2 billion on legal actions and treatment of sex offenders, an aching scandal at incalculable cost to the church’s stature.

On the other hand, the pope looked askance at liberation theology, believing the Latin American grassroots movement to be an extension of the Marxism that had subjugated Poland. And he was conflicted on the role of progressive Latin American clergy who were allied with the poor and resisted persecution by death squads.

Moreover, on the greatest internal crisis facing the church, the pope failed, time and again, to take decisive action in response to clear evidence of a criminal underground in the priesthood, a subculture that sexually traumatized tens of thousands of youngsters. Despite a 1984 warning memo from the Rev. Thomas Doyle, then a canon lawyer in the Vatican Embassy in Washington, and a ninety-three-page report on the problem co-written by Doyle in 1985, which was sent to every American bishop, John Paul ordered no outreach to victims, no binding policy to rid the priesthood of deviants. In 1989 the US conference of bishops sent experts in canon law to Rome, seeking a streamlined process for defrocking child molesters rather than waiting for the byzantine Vatican bureaucracy and final word from the pope. John Paul refused. Litigation and prosecutions spread, but the pope remained passive.

My link was about his work against communism. Your line was "religion has never done anything good" and I have proven you wrong.

Now go slink back into your bigot hole.

 

[martybegan]

The whole premise of PA laws was to fight systemic discrimination that had definable economic impacts on those discriminated against. It wasn't to protect the feelings of people. In the current state of society one baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding is not systemic, and is not economic harm.

People should only be forced to do things against their will when there is a compelling government interest.

Getting rid of HOmophobes is compelling governemnt interest.

We're done here.

Our government is not allowed to punish people for thoughts. Of course you approve of that because you are a gutless fascist thug.

 

[WorldWatcher]

PA laws were never meant to cover things like a baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

The were in Oregon.

The legislature specifically included sexual orientation as a characteristic of the customer which cannot be used as a basis for refusing service.


>>>>

Again, the law is wrong. It has to be balanced against a compelling government interest vs. the rights of those providing a service.

I understand that you disagree with the law, so do I.

However saying that Sweetcakes wasn't a Public Accommodation under Oregon law is incorrect. They are.

However saying that the Public Accommodation law was wrongly applied is incorrect. It was.



Agreeing on what the law "should" be is one thing. Thinking that your view of what "should be" is reality is a different matter all together.


>>>>

I stipulate to the law being written as such, and from now on you don't have to comment on it. That doesn't change the fact that the law as applied flies in the face of everything this country was founded on, nor does it stop making its supporters be a bunch of miserable twat-waddles.

Good then you can stop saying that Public Accommodation laws in Oregon don't apply to the case - since this is a case under Oregon law - and you can stop staying that Public Accommodations were not intended to apply all businesses that provide goods and services - since in this case they do under the law as written by the Oregon legislature.


When you make those comments, I will feel free to correct you on them as needed.

Have a good day Marty.


>>>>