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

[martybegan]

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?

They have found a way of punishing people for ThoughtCrime. They hope the example of a few will force anyone who disagrees with them into the shadows.

I think me and you disagree over the scope of PA laws, i.e. I think the government can have a case for them in certain situations, but overall their side is basically under the impression that government can force anyone to associate with anyone else as long as "they" think its the right thing to do.

 

[bodecea]

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?

They have found a way of punishing people for ThoughtCrime. They hope the example of a few will force anyone who disagrees with them into the shadows.

I think me and you disagree over the scope of PA laws, i.e. I think the government can have a case for them in certain situations, but overall their side is basically under the impression that government can force anyone to associate with anyone else as long as "they" think its the right thing to do.

"ThoughtCrime"....drama! drama! drama!

 

[kaz]

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?

They have found a way of punishing people for ThoughtCrime. They hope the example of a few will force anyone who disagrees with them into the shadows.

I think me and you disagree over the scope of PA laws, i.e. I think the government can have a case for them in certain situations, but overall their side is basically under the impression that government can force anyone to associate with anyone else as long as "they" think its the right thing to do.

Why should government ever be able to force you what to do with your personal property?

As for unnecessary, Jim Crow showed how unnecessary PA laws are. Government even in the 50s south had to force businesses not to have blacks as customers

 

[kaz]

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?

They have found a way of punishing people for ThoughtCrime. They hope the example of a few will force anyone who disagrees with them into the shadows.

I think me and you disagree over the scope of PA laws, i.e. I think the government can have a case for them in certain situations, but overall their side is basically under the impression that government can force anyone to associate with anyone else as long as "they" think its the right thing to do.

"ThoughtCrime"....drama! drama! drama!

OMG, they had to go to another baker is the seriously drama queen side

 

[bodecea]

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?

They have found a way of punishing people for ThoughtCrime. They hope the example of a few will force anyone who disagrees with them into the shadows.

I think me and you disagree over the scope of PA laws, i.e. I think the government can have a case for them in certain situations, but overall their side is basically under the impression that government can force anyone to associate with anyone else as long as "they" think its the right thing to do.

"ThoughtCrime"....drama! drama! drama!

OMG, they had to go to another baker is the seriously drama queen side

So, your true complaint is with the couple actually reporting a law broken. Gotcha.

 

[mdk]

After fifty-six pages of discussing this issue has anyone honestly switched their position?

 

[kaz]

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?

They have found a way of punishing people for ThoughtCrime. They hope the example of a few will force anyone who disagrees with them into the shadows.

I think me and you disagree over the scope of PA laws, i.e. I think the government can have a case for them in certain situations, but overall their side is basically under the impression that government can force anyone to associate with anyone else as long as "they" think its the right thing to do.

"ThoughtCrime"....drama! drama! drama!

OMG, they had to go to another baker is the seriously drama queen side

So, your true complaint is with the couple actually reporting a law broken. Gotcha.

you weren't popular in school running to the teacher all the time rather than just handling your own problems, were you?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Of course they have. The racists felt their religious views were just as valid as the anti gay bigots think theirs are.

 

[martybegan]

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?

They have found a way of punishing people for ThoughtCrime. They hope the example of a few will force anyone who disagrees with them into the shadows.

I think me and you disagree over the scope of PA laws, i.e. I think the government can have a case for them in certain situations, but overall their side is basically under the impression that government can force anyone to associate with anyone else as long as "they" think its the right thing to do.

"ThoughtCrime"....drama! drama! drama!

It's the truth. It's another progressive end run to get what they want.

 

[bodecea]

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?

They have found a way of punishing people for ThoughtCrime. They hope the example of a few will force anyone who disagrees with them into the shadows.

I think me and you disagree over the scope of PA laws, i.e. I think the government can have a case for them in certain situations, but overall their side is basically under the impression that government can force anyone to associate with anyone else as long as "they" think its the right thing to do.

"ThoughtCrime"....drama! drama! drama!

OMG, they had to go to another baker is the seriously drama queen side

So, your true complaint is with the couple actually reporting a law broken. Gotcha.

you weren't popular in school running to the teacher all the time rather than just handling your own problems, were you?

Why do you feel that you have to make this about me? But if I saw a student trying to cheat off my test or steal something from me.....yes, I would tell an adult. I wouldn't just meekly take it like you seem to advocate. Some people actually take action to right wrongs.

 

[martybegan]

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?

They have found a way of punishing people for ThoughtCrime. They hope the example of a few will force anyone who disagrees with them into the shadows.

I think me and you disagree over the scope of PA laws, i.e. I think the government can have a case for them in certain situations, but overall their side is basically under the impression that government can force anyone to associate with anyone else as long as "they" think its the right thing to do.

Why should government ever be able to force you what to do with your personal property?

As for unnecessary, Jim Crow showed how unnecessary PA laws are. Government even in the 50s south had to force businesses not to have blacks as customers

It's part of a compelling government interest, and to me timeliness and necessity dictate this. For example a hotel shouldn't be able to deny a room to anyone due to any form of discrimination, but should be able to decide who uses one of their ballrooms for a catered event. A doctor should not be able to discriminate, nor should point of service over the counter sales of items like food or medicine.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Condemnations on the mixing of races was almost universally accepted...until it wasn't.

Who the fuck are you to determine an individuals religious beliefs? Racists felt their racist views were just as supported in the bible as you believe homophobic ones are. You're both wrong. I don't get to decide that for YOU and you don't get to decide that for racists. Why do your bigotries trump theirs?

 

[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.

Of course they have. The racists felt their religious views were just as valid as the anti gay bigots think theirs are.

A vast majority of Christian sects do not find racism valid in the bible, they do agree however that homosexual acts are sinful.

 

[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.

Condemnations on the mixing of races was almost universally accepted...until it wasn't.

Who the fuck are you to determine an individuals religious beliefs? Racists felt their racist views were just as supported in the bible as you believe homophobic ones are. You're both wrong. I don't get to decide that for YOU and you don't get to decide that for racists. Why do your bigotries trump theirs?

Only a few sects used the bible to back up their beliefs, and all of those were found wanting by most respected theological scholars.

And if we are going with "who the fuck are you", WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU to demand someone compromise their moral code over an easily replaceable service? Furthermore, WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU to demand they be ruined if they don't knuckle under?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Of course they have. The racists felt their religious views were just as valid as the anti gay bigots think theirs are.

A vast majority of Christian sects do not find racism valid in the bible, they do agree however that homosexual acts are sinful.

NOW they do...they didn't used to. Intermingling of the races was universally condemned by Christian sects all over the US...until it wasn't. (pssst, hate to break it to you, but the same thing is happening with gays and churches...churches are deciding to interpret the bible differently just like with race. Amazing isn't it?)

 

[bodecea]

After fifty-six pages of discussing this issue has anyone honestly switched their position?

I think it's 56 pages of some very revealing stuff:

1. One poster upset that another poster would not serve pedophiles

2. Two posters who get upset when called to action.....no, make that three posters

3. One poster learning that the Muslim cake bakers were in a state with no PA protections for sexual orientation

Just off the top of my head.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Condemnations on the mixing of races was almost universally accepted...until it wasn't.

Who the fuck are you to determine an individuals religious beliefs? Racists felt their racist views were just as supported in the bible as you believe homophobic ones are. You're both wrong. I don't get to decide that for YOU and you don't get to decide that for racists. Why do your bigotries trump theirs?

Only a few sects used the bible to back up their beliefs, and all of those were found wanting by most respected theological scholars.

And if we are going with "who the fuck are you", WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU to demand someone compromise their moral code over an easily replaceable service? Furthermore, WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU to demand they be ruined if they don't knuckle under?

I didn't demand they be ruined, a fine was imposed for breaking the law. That's what happens.

You missed the point I see. I think you're religious views on gays are wrong therefore you can't use it as an excuse.

(which is exactly what you said about why racists can't use their religion to discriminate)

 

[kaz]

They have found a way of punishing people for ThoughtCrime. They hope the example of a few will force anyone who disagrees with them into the shadows.

I think me and you disagree over the scope of PA laws, i.e. I think the government can have a case for them in certain situations, but overall their side is basically under the impression that government can force anyone to associate with anyone else as long as "they" think its the right thing to do.

"ThoughtCrime"....drama! drama! drama!

OMG, they had to go to another baker is the seriously drama queen side

So, your true complaint is with the couple actually reporting a law broken. Gotcha.

you weren't popular in school running to the teacher all the time rather than just handling your own problems, were you?

Why do you feel that you have to make this about me? But if I saw a student trying to cheat off my test or steal something from me.....yes, I would tell an adult. I wouldn't just meekly take it like you seem to advocate. Some people actually take action to right wrongs.

Terrible examples. A better example is:

Bodecca: Teacher, Steven won't share his crayon with me, it's because I'm gay, isn't it?

 

[danielpalos]

The point is that if Persons engaged in Commerce via public accommodations, then public accommodation laws apply unless they are willing to exercise the subjective value of morals on a not-for-the-profit-of-lucre basis.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Of course they have. The racists felt their religious views were just as valid as the anti gay bigots think theirs are.

A vast majority of Christian sects do not find racism valid in the bible, they do agree however that homosexual acts are sinful.

NOW they do...they didn't used to. Intermingling of the races was universally condemned by Christian sects all over the US...until it wasn't. (pssst, hate to break it to you, but the same thing is happening with gays and churches...churches are deciding to interpret the bible differently just like with race. Amazing isn't it?)

SOME churches, and the bible is very clear that homosexuality is sinful.

Where is the quote that says anything involving race is sinful?

Also, the biggest Church out there was against miscegenation laws.

Catholics, Marriage and Race | Catholics For The Common Good