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

[martybegan]

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.

SCOTUS can kiss my ass.

 

[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.

No...but rant on, Marty.

It's the truth. Deny it all you want.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

SCOTUS can kiss my ass.

Brilliant argument.

 

[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.

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

It is called a hypothetical. And since you cannot answer it, you change the hypothetical and then just pussy out entirely.

 

[martybegan]

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.

SCOTUS can kiss my ass.

Brilliant argument.

You're welcome. It was appropriate considering your banal appeal to authority.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

SCOTUS can kiss my ass.

Brilliant argument.

You're welcome. It was appropriate considering your banal appeal to authority.

I was trying to explain to a brain dead fuck that he was wrong in describing the law. I guess I failed.

 

[martybegan]

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.

SCOTUS can kiss my ass.

Brilliant argument.

You're welcome. It was appropriate considering your banal appeal to authority.

I was trying to explain to a brain dead fuck that he was wrong in describing the law. I guess I failed.

And My argument is with the basis of the law, and the reason for having the law you fascist twat waddle.

Go play in traffic.

 

[paddymurphy]

Not my opinion. The Opinion of the SCOTUS.

SCOTUS can kiss my ass.

Brilliant argument.

You're welcome. It was appropriate considering your banal appeal to authority.

I was trying to explain to a brain dead fuck that he was wrong in describing the law. I guess I failed.

And My argument is with the basis of the law, and the reason for having the law you fascist twat waddle.

Go play in traffic.

You have no fucking idea what your "legal" argument is. You heard some talking head on TV use words like "compelling governmental interest" and "fundamental right" and think that you are smarter than every one of the dozens of Supreme Court Justices and hundreds of lower Court judges whose rulings have given us an entire body of law. Your high opinion of yourself is evidence of either profound stupidity or profound illness.

 

[martybegan]

SCOTUS can kiss my ass.

Brilliant argument.

You're welcome. It was appropriate considering your banal appeal to authority.

I was trying to explain to a brain dead fuck that he was wrong in describing the law. I guess I failed.

And My argument is with the basis of the law, and the reason for having the law you fascist twat waddle.

Go play in traffic.

You have no fucking idea what your "legal" argument is. You heard some talking head on TV use words like "compelling governmental interest" and "fundamental right" and think that you are smarter than every one of the dozens of Supreme Court Justices and hundreds of lower Court judges whose rulings have given us an entire body of law. Your high opinion of yourself is evidence of either profound stupidity or profound illness.

I came to my conclusions all on my own, of course with input from various sources, mostly online, some written. And as an american citizen I take the opinions of those in power and make my own mind up about them. To me the current and most recent crop of jurists have been lacking more often then they have been competent. That 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers can unleash such profound changes on a whim is troubling for those of us who value individual liberty tempered by government input. Your side thinks government, on the other hand, mandates what we must do and the rest of us have to baa like good little sheep.

You may not desire a spine, but the rest of us do.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Turds like you always find the simple truth to be "moronic."

 

[paddymurphy]

Brilliant argument.

You're welcome. It was appropriate considering your banal appeal to authority.

I was trying to explain to a brain dead fuck that he was wrong in describing the law. I guess I failed.

And My argument is with the basis of the law, and the reason for having the law you fascist twat waddle.

Go play in traffic.

You have no fucking idea what your "legal" argument is. You heard some talking head on TV use words like "compelling governmental interest" and "fundamental right" and think that you are smarter than every one of the dozens of Supreme Court Justices and hundreds of lower Court judges whose rulings have given us an entire body of law. Your high opinion of yourself is evidence of either profound stupidity or profound illness.

I came to my conclusions all on my own, of course with input from various sources, mostly online, some written. And as an american citizen I take the opinions of those in power and make my own mind up about them. To me the current and most recent crop of jurists have been lacking more often then they have been competent. That 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers can unleash such profound changes on a whim is troubling for those of us who value individual liberty tempered by government input. Your side thinks government, on the other hand, mandates what we must do and the rest of us have to baa like good little sheep.

You may not desire a spine, but the rest of us do.

You have no clue what you are talking about. You prattled on about "compelling" interests because you thought that was the law. When I pointed out you were wrong, your response was that "SCOTUS could kiss your ass." The legal principles you pretend to know about are not the product of the current or recent crop of jurists; they are the product of decades of decisions by the Supreme Court and lower Courts. Your side wants to be allowed to harm others through your bigotry. Denying service to people based on race or some other immutable factor creates a societal harm; a harm that society has the right and authority to remedy. The ability of 5 of 9 Justices to determine that a law is not consistent with the protection of rights found in the Constitution is the most fundamental principle of our Constitution; it places the rights of individuals beyond the reach of government. You idiots seem to forget that the Obergefell decision was brought by individuals asking the Court to protect their rights from government intrusion.

 

[martybegan]

You're welcome. It was appropriate considering your banal appeal to authority.

I was trying to explain to a brain dead fuck that he was wrong in describing the law. I guess I failed.

And My argument is with the basis of the law, and the reason for having the law you fascist twat waddle.

Go play in traffic.

You have no fucking idea what your "legal" argument is. You heard some talking head on TV use words like "compelling governmental interest" and "fundamental right" and think that you are smarter than every one of the dozens of Supreme Court Justices and hundreds of lower Court judges whose rulings have given us an entire body of law. Your high opinion of yourself is evidence of either profound stupidity or profound illness.

I came to my conclusions all on my own, of course with input from various sources, mostly online, some written. And as an american citizen I take the opinions of those in power and make my own mind up about them. To me the current and most recent crop of jurists have been lacking more often then they have been competent. That 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers can unleash such profound changes on a whim is troubling for those of us who value individual liberty tempered by government input. Your side thinks government, on the other hand, mandates what we must do and the rest of us have to baa like good little sheep.

You may not desire a spine, but the rest of us do.

You have no clue what you are talking about. You prattled on about "compelling" interests because you thought that was the law. When I pointed out you were wrong, your response was that "SCOTUS could kiss your ass." The legal principles you pretend to know about are not the product of the current or recent crop of jurists; they are the product of decades of decisions by the Supreme Court and lower Courts. Your side wants to be allowed to harm others through your bigotry. Denying service to people based on race or some other immutable factor creates a societal harm; a harm that society has the right and authority to remedy. The ability of 5 of 9 Justices to determine that a law is not consistent with the protection of rights found in the Constitution is the most fundamental principle of our Constitution; it places the rights of individuals beyond the reach of government. You idiots seem to forget that the Obergefell decision was brought by individuals asking the Court to protect their rights from government intrusion.

Compelling interest is what is required when you want to trample the rights of others. And its not "my bigotry" I am worried about, I am worried about others right to free exercise of religion.

And there is no harm asking a couple to go to another baker, the only "harm" is hurt feeeewwwwiiinnnggggs!!!!!

The travesty of the SC decision on gay marriage is another topic. What should have happened is that States could decide to issue SSM if they chose, but would be forced to recognize SSM's from other states.

 

[bodecea]

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.

SCOTUS can kiss my ass.

You may not believe in SCOTUS, but they ARE 1/3rd of our Federal system. Can't ignore them. Sorry.

 

[martybegan]

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.

SCOTUS can kiss my ass.

You may not believe in SCOTUS, but they ARE 1/3rd of our Federal system. Can't ignore them. Sorry.

Not ignoring them, saying they can kiss my ass.

Try to keep up.

 

[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.

It's the truth. Deny it all you want.

"ThoughtCrime"......sure, Marty.

 

[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.

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.

SCOTUS can kiss my ass.

Brilliant argument.

Now! Now! Stop telling Marty to "shut up!".

 

[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.

No...but rant on, Marty.

It's the truth. Deny it all you want.

"ThoughtCrime"......sure, Marty.

yep, you found a way to punish people for their beliefs. Plus you get to ruin them, and make an example of them "pour l'encouragement les autres"

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

It's the truth. Deny it all you want.

"ThoughtCrime"......sure, Marty.

yep, you found a way to punish people for their beliefs. Plus you get to ruin them, and make an example of them "pour l'encouragement les autres"

Serve one - serve all isn't complicated, and it's good business. They are baking cakes for money, not God...

 

[martybegan]

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

No...but rant on, Marty.

It's the truth. Deny it all you want.

"ThoughtCrime"......sure, Marty.

yep, you found a way to punish people for their beliefs. Plus you get to ruin them, and make an example of them "pour l'encouragement les autres"

Serve one - serve all isn't complicated, and it's good business. They are baking cakes for money, not God...

Then reason with them to do it, don't force them. Bake or Die isn't the American way.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No...but rant on, Marty.

It's the truth. Deny it all you want.

"ThoughtCrime"......sure, Marty.

yep, you found a way to punish people for their beliefs. Plus you get to ruin them, and make an example of them "pour l'encouragement les autres"

Serve one - serve all isn't complicated, and it's good business. They are baking cakes for money, not God...

Then reason with them to do it, don't force them. Bake or Die isn't the American way.

We don't need to reason with them, they were a PA and those are the rules. You don't have to like a law but unless you want all hell to breaks loose, obey it until you can change it. These laws are better for everyone, and would have worked in their favor as well, had they obeyed them.