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

[martybegan]

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.

and the posters on your side continue to support punishment for ThoughtCrime.

 

[kaz]

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.

So businesses can discriminate randomly, that sounds effective.

The hotel belongs to the owner. What right does anyone have to force him how to use his personal property? Where in the Constitution does it make the hotel owner's property yours to force him what to do with it?

the Constitution says your rights can be deprived with due process of law, but I can't find the part where your rights can be deprived becasue money changed hands

 

[martybegan]

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.

No, the point is that all these things you are calling Public Accommodations, are not, based on the original concept, and furthermore, a compelling government interest has to be found to force someone to do something they don't want to do.

 

[martybegan]

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.

So businesses can discriminate randomly, that sounds effective.

The hotel belongs to the owner. What right does anyone have to force him how to use his personal property? Where in the Constitution does it make the hotel owner's property yours to force him what to do with it?

the Constitution says your rights can be deprived with due process of law, but I can't find the part where your rights can be deprived becasue money changed hands

it's not random. A simple effective test can be applied, i.e. what is the harm? A person travelling and needing a room right now is harmed by having to leave somewhere and go somewhere else. a person seeking food or medicine is being denied an essential service.

Neither applies to a contracted cake for a wedding. The only exception would be if so many bakers in an area didn't want to provide a cake that it created an actual burden (harm) on the couple.

The right to do this flows out of the commerce clause for the federal government, and rights of the States to regulate commerce in their own territories. What progressives want is for the various governments to have unfettered access to deny people rights when the mood strikes it. To me, there has to be a compelling government interest that allows the override of an individuals right to association and free exercise of religion.

 

[kaz]

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.

Really? who gave a shit that you called them to action?

 

[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.

No, the point is that all these things you are calling Public Accommodations, are not, based on the original concept, and furthermore, a compelling government interest has to be found to force someone to do something they don't want to do.

Consistently applying "informed consent" on the populace ameliorates appeals to ignorance of the law.

 

[kaz]

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.

So businesses can discriminate randomly, that sounds effective.

The hotel belongs to the owner. What right does anyone have to force him how to use his personal property? Where in the Constitution does it make the hotel owner's property yours to force him what to do with it?

the Constitution says your rights can be deprived with due process of law, but I can't find the part where your rights can be deprived becasue money changed hands

it's not random. A simple effective test can be applied, i.e. what is the harm? A person travelling and needing a room right now is harmed by having to leave somewhere and go somewhere else. a person seeking food or medicine is being denied an essential service.

Neither applies to a contracted cake for a wedding. The only exception would be if so many bakers in an area didn't want to provide a cake that it created an actual burden (harm) on the couple.

The right to do this flows out of the commerce clause for the federal government, and rights of the States to regulate commerce in their own territories. What progressives want is for the various governments to have unfettered access to deny people rights when the mood strikes it. To me, there has to be a compelling government interest that allows the override of an individuals right to association and free exercise of religion.

Does the sound familiar? "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

And the 14th extended this protection from States

Where in that does it say money changing hands suspends that right? Money in the hands of one person, their property, is exchanged for your delightful pencil set, your property. Where did due process go? Government already took your property when it forced you to engage in the transaction

 

[martybegan]

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.

No, the point is that all these things you are calling Public Accommodations, are not, based on the original concept, and furthermore, a compelling government interest has to be found to force someone to do something they don't want to do.

Consistently applying "informed consent" on the populace ameliorates appeals to ignorance of the law.

It's not ignorance of the law, it's saying the law is wrong.

 

[martybegan]

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.

So businesses can discriminate randomly, that sounds effective.

The hotel belongs to the owner. What right does anyone have to force him how to use his personal property? Where in the Constitution does it make the hotel owner's property yours to force him what to do with it?

the Constitution says your rights can be deprived with due process of law, but I can't find the part where your rights can be deprived becasue money changed hands

it's not random. A simple effective test can be applied, i.e. what is the harm? A person travelling and needing a room right now is harmed by having to leave somewhere and go somewhere else. a person seeking food or medicine is being denied an essential service.

Neither applies to a contracted cake for a wedding. The only exception would be if so many bakers in an area didn't want to provide a cake that it created an actual burden (harm) on the couple.

The right to do this flows out of the commerce clause for the federal government, and rights of the States to regulate commerce in their own territories. What progressives want is for the various governments to have unfettered access to deny people rights when the mood strikes it. To me, there has to be a compelling government interest that allows the override of an individuals right to association and free exercise of religion.

Does the sound familiar? "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

And the 14th extended this protection from States

Where in that does it say money changing hands suspends that right? Money in the hands of one person, their property, is exchanged for your delightful pencil set, your property. Where did due process go? Government already took your property when it forced you to engage in the transaction

Governments have the right to regulate commerce. I understand your absolutist views on this, but I just don't see them as workable, and I do see a compelling government interest in the cases I listed above via their ability to regulate commerce.

 

[kaz]

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.

No, the point is that all these things you are calling Public Accommodations, are not, based on the original concept, and furthermore, a compelling government interest has to be found to force someone to do something they don't want to do.

Consistently applying "informed consent" on the populace ameliorates appeals to ignorance of the law.

It's not ignorance of the law, it's saying the law is wrong.

He doesn't' understand, but it's OK, he's Canadian

 

[kaz]

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.

So businesses can discriminate randomly, that sounds effective.

The hotel belongs to the owner. What right does anyone have to force him how to use his personal property? Where in the Constitution does it make the hotel owner's property yours to force him what to do with it?

the Constitution says your rights can be deprived with due process of law, but I can't find the part where your rights can be deprived becasue money changed hands

it's not random. A simple effective test can be applied, i.e. what is the harm? A person travelling and needing a room right now is harmed by having to leave somewhere and go somewhere else. a person seeking food or medicine is being denied an essential service.

Neither applies to a contracted cake for a wedding. The only exception would be if so many bakers in an area didn't want to provide a cake that it created an actual burden (harm) on the couple.

The right to do this flows out of the commerce clause for the federal government, and rights of the States to regulate commerce in their own territories. What progressives want is for the various governments to have unfettered access to deny people rights when the mood strikes it. To me, there has to be a compelling government interest that allows the override of an individuals right to association and free exercise of religion.

Does the sound familiar? "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

And the 14th extended this protection from States

Where in that does it say money changing hands suspends that right? Money in the hands of one person, their property, is exchanged for your delightful pencil set, your property. Where did due process go? Government already took your property when it forced you to engage in the transaction

Governments have the right to regulate commerce. I understand your absolutist views on this, but I just don't see them as workable, and I do see a compelling government interest in the cases I listed above via their ability to regulate commerce.

I don't give a shit about government's interest, I care about the people's interest. And the purpose of the commerce clause was to prevent States from putting up barriers prohibiting the free movement of goods across borders, it was never designed to be a government power to force anyone to transact business.

And as for not workable, you are giving government a huge power for something that almost never happens, companies turning down customers. How is that 'workable?'

 

[martybegan]

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.

So businesses can discriminate randomly, that sounds effective.

The hotel belongs to the owner. What right does anyone have to force him how to use his personal property? Where in the Constitution does it make the hotel owner's property yours to force him what to do with it?

the Constitution says your rights can be deprived with due process of law, but I can't find the part where your rights can be deprived becasue money changed hands

it's not random. A simple effective test can be applied, i.e. what is the harm? A person travelling and needing a room right now is harmed by having to leave somewhere and go somewhere else. a person seeking food or medicine is being denied an essential service.

Neither applies to a contracted cake for a wedding. The only exception would be if so many bakers in an area didn't want to provide a cake that it created an actual burden (harm) on the couple.

The right to do this flows out of the commerce clause for the federal government, and rights of the States to regulate commerce in their own territories. What progressives want is for the various governments to have unfettered access to deny people rights when the mood strikes it. To me, there has to be a compelling government interest that allows the override of an individuals right to association and free exercise of religion.

Does the sound familiar? "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

And the 14th extended this protection from States

Where in that does it say money changing hands suspends that right? Money in the hands of one person, their property, is exchanged for your delightful pencil set, your property. Where did due process go? Government already took your property when it forced you to engage in the transaction

Governments have the right to regulate commerce. I understand your absolutist views on this, but I just don't see them as workable, and I do see a compelling government interest in the cases I listed above via their ability to regulate commerce.

I don't give a shit about government's interest, I care about the people's interest. And the purpose of the commerce clause was to prevent States from putting up barriers prohibiting the free movement of goods across borders, it was never designed to be a government power to force anyone to transact business.

And as for not workable, you are giving government a huge power for something that almost never happens, companies turning down customers. How is that 'workable?'

As our opponents have stated, most of these are State laws, and States can have the ability to regulate commerce in their own borders. My points on compelling government interest are still valid. You can't have people picking and choosing who to serve for timely, necessary, or emergency services. You CAN have them pick and choose for other services, and that is the crux of the argument.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

So businesses can discriminate randomly, that sounds effective.

The hotel belongs to the owner. What right does anyone have to force him how to use his personal property? Where in the Constitution does it make the hotel owner's property yours to force him what to do with it?

the Constitution says your rights can be deprived with due process of law, but I can't find the part where your rights can be deprived becasue money changed hands

it's not random. A simple effective test can be applied, i.e. what is the harm? A person travelling and needing a room right now is harmed by having to leave somewhere and go somewhere else. a person seeking food or medicine is being denied an essential service.

Neither applies to a contracted cake for a wedding. The only exception would be if so many bakers in an area didn't want to provide a cake that it created an actual burden (harm) on the couple.

The right to do this flows out of the commerce clause for the federal government, and rights of the States to regulate commerce in their own territories. What progressives want is for the various governments to have unfettered access to deny people rights when the mood strikes it. To me, there has to be a compelling government interest that allows the override of an individuals right to association and free exercise of religion.

There is a compelling governmental interest to outlaw discrimination. That has been the state of the law for decades. You act as if this is a new issue, never before presented to the Courts or the Supreme Court, in particular. It has. Bigots attacked anti-discrimination laws on the same basis as they were passed in the 1960's and 1970's. They claimed that their right to free association was violated. The Court rejected that over and over again. Some even claimed that their religious freedom was affected by having to comply with such laws. Those arguments were soundly rejected. The law on this is clear. There is a compelling governmental interest in outlawing discrimination in public accommodation. That interest outweighs the right to freedom of association and freedom of religious exercise.

 

[martybegan]

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.

So businesses can discriminate randomly, that sounds effective.

The hotel belongs to the owner. What right does anyone have to force him how to use his personal property? Where in the Constitution does it make the hotel owner's property yours to force him what to do with it?

the Constitution says your rights can be deprived with due process of law, but I can't find the part where your rights can be deprived becasue money changed hands

it's not random. A simple effective test can be applied, i.e. what is the harm? A person travelling and needing a room right now is harmed by having to leave somewhere and go somewhere else. a person seeking food or medicine is being denied an essential service.

Neither applies to a contracted cake for a wedding. The only exception would be if so many bakers in an area didn't want to provide a cake that it created an actual burden (harm) on the couple.

The right to do this flows out of the commerce clause for the federal government, and rights of the States to regulate commerce in their own territories. What progressives want is for the various governments to have unfettered access to deny people rights when the mood strikes it. To me, there has to be a compelling government interest that allows the override of an individuals right to association and free exercise of religion.

There is a compelling governmental interest to outlaw discrimination. That has been the state of the law for decades. You act as if this is a new issue, never before presented to the Courts or the Supreme Court, in particular. It has. Bigots attacked anti-discrimination laws on the same basis as they were passed in the 1960's and 1970's. They claimed that their right to free association was violated. The Court rejected that over and over again. Some even claimed that their religious freedom was affected by having to comply with such laws. Those arguments were soundly rejected. The law on this is clear. There is a compelling governmental interest in outlawing discrimination in public accommodation. That interest outweighs the right to freedom of association and freedom of religious exercise.

There is compelling government interest to fight government based discrimination, or systemic discrimination, or timely or necessary service discrimination. IF these are not met, the only reason becomes to punish people for what they believe. There has to be actual harm to warrant diminishing a persons right to association or free exercise.

 

[GWV5903]

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?

Sounds just as dumb...

 

[bripat9643]

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.

There were no facts, moron, just a fantasy dreamed up by a moron.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

No, the Court does not apply that test to challenges to laws that are alleged to restrict religious exercise. That was the law until 35 years ago when that notorious liberals William Rehnquist, Anontin Scalia, Sandra Day O'Connor and Whizzer White joined Stevens in holding that any law of general application is constitutional as long as it does not target religious exercise even if it has the effect of doing to. Here, educate yourself: FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

Not my opinion. The Opinion of the SCOTUS.

 

[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.

and the posters on your side continue to support punishment for ThoughtCrime.

No...but rant on, Marty.

 

[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.

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.

No, the Court does not apply that test to challenges to laws that are alleged to restrict religious exercise. That was the law until 35 years ago when that notorious liberals William Rehnquist, Anontin Scalia, Sandra Day O'Connor and Whizzer White joined Stevens in holding that any law of general application is constitutional as long as it does not target religious exercise even if it has the effect of doing to. Here, educate yourself: FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

Correction, the courts SHOULD apply a compelling government interest standard to it.