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

[martybegan]

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.

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...

Nope, it doesn't say you lose your rights because you own business.

You don't. But you do not have the right to break the law claiming religious freedom.

Oh Really?

42 U.S. Code § 1996a - Traditional Indian religious use of peyote | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

42 U.S. Code § 1996a - Traditional Indian religious use of peyote

Blanket statements come back and bite you in the ass all the time.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

Sure they have the case was. Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc


NEWMAN v. PIGGIE PARK ENTERPRISES, INC. | Leagle.com


>>>>

 

[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.

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.


>>>>

I am saying the a baker for a wedding was never considered a PA under the original federal definition. I have also said the Oregon law is wrong, and violates freedom of association without a compelling government interest.

Now go back to the bathroom and wash your hands 20 times, because someone as anal as this about the letter of the law HAS to be OCD.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Oh no. I'm not implying you are a closet gay in the least.

And I'm not implying that you're a lying sanctimonious militant queer.

I'm sure you aren't.....and as I said....I'm not implying you are a closet gay in the least.

And I'm not implying you are the world's biggest dingbat. Honest!

Nope...I would never say you are a closet gay.

 

[martybegan]

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

Sure they have the case was. Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc


NEWMAN v. PIGGIE PARK ENTERPRISES, INC. | Leagle.com


>>>>

I said "valid" religious reason. Racial discrimination has not been found in the Bible as interpreted by a majority of the sects. Condemnations on homosexual conduct, on the other hand, are almost universally accepted.

 

[bodecea]

You keep thinking that.

They aren't citizens?

They are criminals. Show me where businesses are required to serve criminals. Or.....perhaps you don't think pedophiles are criminals?

So if someone robs a liquor store, serves a 5 year sentence, you think any business should be free to not serve him?

Let's use a clearer example. What if someone is a Nazi. Should a Jewish baker be forced to sell him a chocolate cake?

How would you know and why would you care? If they want your product and are willing to pay you for it, that is all that should matter. Whatever they do on their time outside of your store, is not your business.

bodecea thinks businesses should be free to discriminate against pedophiles.

If you're a Nazi, word gets out, especially if you go around sporting swastikas.

Shy should how you run your business be anyone else's business?

And I proudly admit it. Maybe you too can go to court to fight against me in this regard.

 

[bodecea]

State Takes Legal Action to Seize $135K From Oregon Bakers

Nope no harm done to you if you disagree with homosexuality and won't bend to their will. None at all. Just lose your business,money,freedom,house,cars etc etc etc. Great thing about the internet is it NEVER loses its memory so when time comes it will be fairly simple to find the scum who destroyed this nation and get revenge.

Over a cake? Really? $135K? And this state is going to continue this stupidity? You can kiss this place goodbye...

A christian in the same state got over $300K for being discriminated against using the same law. Think that's stupidity too?

 

[bodecea]

Let me ask you...what are you ACTIVELY doing to get PA laws off the books? Because there IS a way. You can vote for those who promise to repeal such laws. You can run yourself for office. You can petition. You can help fund organizations who lobby to get such laws repealed. You can start such an organization if you wish. All those avenues are open to you.

Trying to change minds

It IS the American way to affect change, you know.

No shit

So...if you are unhappy with PA laws in your state, what are you actively doing to affect change?

I already answered that like a hundred times. Do you clowns have any long term memory at all?

That's right. You are doing nothing. Ok...rant on.

 

[bodecea]

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.

I believe in action. I have seen and supported what action can do for civil rights and womens rights and gay rights. I know that sitting in front of a keyboard and just whining on message boards does not get results. It's laziness that gets you nowhere.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Keep talking, Marty. Don't pretend you are any kind of martyr and don't pretend that anyone is "trying to shut you up".

 

[martybegan]

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.

I believe in action. I have seen and supported what action can do for civil rights and womens rights and gay rights. I know that sitting in front of a keyboard and just whining on message boards does not get results. It's laziness that gets you nowhere.

Duly noted, and rejected.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Keep talking, Marty. Don't pretend you are any kind of martyr and don't pretend that anyone is "trying to shut you up".

Duly noted, and rejected.

 

[bodecea]

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.

I believe in action. I have seen and supported what action can do for civil rights and womens rights and gay rights. I know that sitting in front of a keyboard and just whining on message boards does not get results. It's laziness that gets you nowhere.

Duly noted, and rejected.

Rant on, Marty...if if makes you feel somewhat............useful.

 

[martybegan]

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.

I believe in action. I have seen and supported what action can do for civil rights and womens rights and gay rights. I know that sitting in front of a keyboard and just whining on message boards does not get results. It's laziness that gets you nowhere.

Duly noted, and rejected.

Rant on, Marty...if if makes you feel somewhat............useful.

 

[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.

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.

Actually, they have been. The Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not allow a person to refuse to follow a law that applies generally and does not specifically target religious expression. This is really something you should know if you are going to try to make intelligent comments on this issue

 

[kaz]

Trying to change minds

It IS the American way to affect change, you know.

No shit

So...if you are unhappy with PA laws in your state, what are you actively doing to affect change?

I already answered that like a hundred times. Do you clowns have any long term memory at all?

That's right. You are doing nothing. Ok...rant on.

How do you change policy without changing minds exactly? I mean unless you're a liberal and you just convince a leftist judge to decree it I mean?

Your strategy of circle jerking with people who already agree with you is so educational in researching effective strategies.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

Right. An argument that has been made to the Supreme Court and rejected. There is a compelling interest in outlawing discrimination.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Actually, they have been. The Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not allow a person to refuse to follow a law that applies generally and does not specifically target religious expression. This is really something you should know if you are going to try to make intelligent comments on this issue

The court applies a compelling government interest standard to it.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Right. An argument that has been made to the Supreme Court and rejected. There is a compelling interest in outlawing discrimination.

In your opinion. The compelling interest is in government being neutral, as well as timely and or necessary services. Also the discrimination cannot be systemic. If those conditions don't apply, a persons individual right to associate should win out.

 

[kaz]

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.

Right. An argument that has been made to the Supreme Court and rejected. There is a compelling interest in outlawing discrimination.

Wear and tear on shoes walking across the street to their competitors?

Having a population dependent on government to hold their hand and solve their problems for them?

Letting meanie pants have it?