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

[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"

Nope....that is, unless their beliefs go against the law. For example...let's go back to what Britpat is going on about....I would be PROUD to punish a pedophile for their beliefs. I would be PROUD to punish a murderer for their beliefs. I would be PROUD to punish a terrorist member of ISIS for their beliefs. I would be PROUD to punish a litterer for their belief that the world is their trash can.

Would you be proud of fining a litterer $138k?

You are ruining someone over not baking a cake.

 

[Dot Com]

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.

as bodey said, they are 1/3 of the gov't hence- America, love it or ..... GTFO!!!

Fuck off, twat.

I'm not the one saying I don't like laws that were duly enacted even though I (in this case- you) didn't lift a finger to influence the enactment of such laws. That would be you twit boi

We are a nation of laws, not men.

You only go running for the law when it suits you.

Last gasp of a losing debater evasion ..... FAIL!!!

 

[martybegan]

Not ignoring them, saying they can kiss my ass.

Try to keep up.

as bodey said, they are 1/3 of the gov't hence- America, love it or ..... GTFO!!!

Fuck off, twat.

I'm not the one saying I don't like laws that were duly enacted even though I (in this case- you) didn't lift a finger to influence the enactment of such laws. That would be you twit boi

We are a nation of laws, not men.

You only go running for the law when it suits you.

As do we all. You make it sound like it's something out of the ordinary.

Wrong. Some people care more about the process than the results.

 

[martybegan]

Not ignoring them, saying they can kiss my ass.

Try to keep up.

as bodey said, they are 1/3 of the gov't hence- America, love it or ..... GTFO!!!

Fuck off, twat.

I'm not the one saying I don't like laws that were duly enacted even though I (in this case- you) didn't lift a finger to influence the enactment of such laws. That would be you twit boi

We are a nation of laws, not men.

You only go running for the law when it suits you.

Nice attempt at evasion..... FAIL!!!

Not at all.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Right. It was a travesty for the Court to stop the government from denying to gay people the fundamental right to marry whomever they wanted and to stop the government from denying equal application of the law to gay couples. You think that there should be a right to discriminate on the basis of race, gender or any other characteristic you can think of but there should not be the right to make the most important association anyone will ever make; marriage. What fucked values you possess.

I agree. It is fucked up. I never knew such people even existed until I started posting on these forums. Lol. They are DINOSAURS.

You must live in a very nice progressive hipster-ville bubble then.

 

[Dot Com]

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.

So running to government to fight your battles for you as usual.

What a fucking pussy.

They are my battles only in that all should be equal before the law and in PAs. Using the government to nail these guys was entirely appropriate. They broke the law the government established, the law that's lets everyone get on with their day without having to worry about do they serve my kind here...

equal before the law implies things that involve the government, which should be neutral. when you want to force people to do things, you have to have a compelling government interest, which in the case of a wedding cake, is not even close to one.

They weren't forced to do anything they didn't already do, for a living, which is bake cakes. Had they done their job you never would have heard of them and there's nothing unreasonable in that.

There is everything unreasonable with the government forcing people to do something they do not want to without a compelling government interest.

You must be a libertarian like Rand who said people should be able to refuse service based on color. 1964 much?

 

[martybegan]

So running to government to fight your battles for you as usual.

What a fucking pussy.

They are my battles only in that all should be equal before the law and in PAs. Using the government to nail these guys was entirely appropriate. They broke the law the government established, the law that's lets everyone get on with their day without having to worry about do they serve my kind here...

equal before the law implies things that involve the government, which should be neutral. when you want to force people to do things, you have to have a compelling government interest, which in the case of a wedding cake, is not even close to one.

They weren't forced to do anything they didn't already do, for a living, which is bake cakes. Had they done their job you never would have heard of them and there's nothing unreasonable in that.

There is everything unreasonable with the government forcing people to do something they do not want to without a compelling government interest.

You must be a libertarian like Rand who said people should be able to refuse service based on color. 1964 much?

Back then they should not have because the discrimination was systemic.

Today? as long as the service is not of a timely or necessary nature? let the market handle it.

 

[bodecea]

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.

So running to government to fight your battles for you as usual.

What a fucking pussy.

They are my battles only in that all should be equal before the law and in PAs. Using the government to nail these guys was entirely appropriate. They broke the law the government established, the law that's lets everyone get on with their day without having to worry about do they serve my kind here...

equal before the law implies things that involve the government, which should be neutral. when you want to force people to do things, you have to have a compelling government interest, which in the case of a wedding cake, is not even close to one.

They weren't forced to do anything they didn't already do, for a living, which is bake cakes. Had they done their job you never would have heard of them and there's nothing unreasonable in that.

There is everything unreasonable with the government forcing people to do something they do not want to without a compelling government interest.

So....not a fan of people being treated fairly and equally in business dealings, eh? Don't see that as a compelling interest, eh?

 

[ChrisL]

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.

Right. It was a travesty for the Court to stop the government from denying to gay people the fundamental right to marry whomever they wanted and to stop the government from denying equal application of the law to gay couples. You think that there should be a right to discriminate on the basis of race, gender or any other characteristic you can think of but there should not be the right to make the most important association anyone will ever make; marriage. What fucked values you possess.

I agree. It is fucked up. I never knew such people even existed until I started posting on these forums. Lol. They are DINOSAURS.

You must live in a very nice progressive hipster-ville bubble then.

I guess I just don't know very many bigots.

 

[bodecea]

They are my battles only in that all should be equal before the law and in PAs. Using the government to nail these guys was entirely appropriate. They broke the law the government established, the law that's lets everyone get on with their day without having to worry about do they serve my kind here...

equal before the law implies things that involve the government, which should be neutral. when you want to force people to do things, you have to have a compelling government interest, which in the case of a wedding cake, is not even close to one.

They weren't forced to do anything they didn't already do, for a living, which is bake cakes. Had they done their job you never would have heard of them and there's nothing unreasonable in that.

There is everything unreasonable with the government forcing people to do something they do not want to without a compelling government interest.

You must be a libertarian like Rand who said people should be able to refuse service based on color. 1964 much?

Back then they should not have because the discrimination was systemic.

Today? as long as the service is not of a timely or necessary nature? let the market handle it.

And what makes you think it wouldn't be systemic today without PA laws?

 

[martybegan]

So running to government to fight your battles for you as usual.

What a fucking pussy.

They are my battles only in that all should be equal before the law and in PAs. Using the government to nail these guys was entirely appropriate. They broke the law the government established, the law that's lets everyone get on with their day without having to worry about do they serve my kind here...

equal before the law implies things that involve the government, which should be neutral. when you want to force people to do things, you have to have a compelling government interest, which in the case of a wedding cake, is not even close to one.

They weren't forced to do anything they didn't already do, for a living, which is bake cakes. Had they done their job you never would have heard of them and there's nothing unreasonable in that.

There is everything unreasonable with the government forcing people to do something they do not want to without a compelling government interest.

So....not a fan of people being treated fairly and equally in business dealings, eh? Don't see that as a compelling interest, eh?

If the transaction is of a time sensitive or necessary nature, government has a compelling interest. If a whole town of bakers decided they wouldn't provide a service, government has a compelling interest.

This isn't one of those cases.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Right. It was a travesty for the Court to stop the government from denying to gay people the fundamental right to marry whomever they wanted and to stop the government from denying equal application of the law to gay couples. You think that there should be a right to discriminate on the basis of race, gender or any other characteristic you can think of but there should not be the right to make the most important association anyone will ever make; marriage. What fucked values you possess.

I agree. It is fucked up. I never knew such people even existed until I started posting on these forums. Lol. They are DINOSAURS.

You must live in a very nice progressive hipster-ville bubble then.

I guess I just don't know very many bigots.

You probably do, they just hate the things you don't like as well.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And here we see what this is really about – the unwarranted hatred of gay Americans common to many on the right.

Yes, as opposed to the hatred of Christians by the left. Stop targeting citizens, live and let live, and we'll all be better off.

You do realize don't you that most "on the left" are Christians as well? Some 70% of this country are Christian...I'm sure even someone who is likely 12 can do that math, yes?

Yes. I'm sure. So you're saying we're a Christian nation.

No, we're a Constitutional Republic whose citizens hail primarily from one religion, Christianity.

So were you able to do the math? Did you figure out that Christians aren't the persecuted minority you're making them out to be? They are, however, protected from discrimination in Public Accommodation in all 50 states. (unlike gays)

Oh, I disagree. The Constitution is being twisted and tortured by a few activist lawyers on the USSC.

Lame, ignorant, and wrong.

 

[ChrisL]

I think bigotry is something that is more common amongst the older generations. It is much more rare among younger people.

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.

Right. It was a travesty for the Court to stop the government from denying to gay people the fundamental right to marry whomever they wanted and to stop the government from denying equal application of the law to gay couples. You think that there should be a right to discriminate on the basis of race, gender or any other characteristic you can think of but there should not be the right to make the most important association anyone will ever make; marriage. What fucked values you possess.

I agree. It is fucked up. I never knew such people even existed until I started posting on these forums. Lol. They are DINOSAURS.

You must live in a very nice progressive hipster-ville bubble then.

I guess I just don't know very many bigots.

You probably do, they just hate the things you don't like as well.

I don't think so.

 

[martybegan]

equal before the law implies things that involve the government, which should be neutral. when you want to force people to do things, you have to have a compelling government interest, which in the case of a wedding cake, is not even close to one.

They weren't forced to do anything they didn't already do, for a living, which is bake cakes. Had they done their job you never would have heard of them and there's nothing unreasonable in that.

There is everything unreasonable with the government forcing people to do something they do not want to without a compelling government interest.

You must be a libertarian like Rand who said people should be able to refuse service based on color. 1964 much?

Back then they should not have because the discrimination was systemic.

Today? as long as the service is not of a timely or necessary nature? let the market handle it.

And what makes you think it wouldn't be systemic today without PA laws?

A combination of keeping the laws on the books to prevent that, and the explosion of social and other media that would publicize any such denials of service.

Add in that without government support, a systemic denial of anything will result in a supply being formed, and government doesn't have to get involved with non timely and non necessary service discrimination.

 

[martybegan]

I think bigotry is something that is more common amongst the older generations. It is much more rare among younger people.

Right. It was a travesty for the Court to stop the government from denying to gay people the fundamental right to marry whomever they wanted and to stop the government from denying equal application of the law to gay couples. You think that there should be a right to discriminate on the basis of race, gender or any other characteristic you can think of but there should not be the right to make the most important association anyone will ever make; marriage. What fucked values you possess.

I agree. It is fucked up. I never knew such people even existed until I started posting on these forums. Lol. They are DINOSAURS.

You must live in a very nice progressive hipster-ville bubble then.

I guess I just don't know very many bigots.

You probably do, they just hate the things you don't like as well.

I don't think so.

The blinders of groupthink don't discriminate based on age.

 

[ChrisL]

I think bigotry is something that is more common amongst the older generations. It is much more rare among younger people.

I agree. It is fucked up. I never knew such people even existed until I started posting on these forums. Lol. They are DINOSAURS.

You must live in a very nice progressive hipster-ville bubble then.

I guess I just don't know very many bigots.

You probably do, they just hate the things you don't like as well.

I don't think so.

The blinders of groupthink don't discriminate based on age.

Oh, you don't like that? What if someone doesn't like old people and they don't want to serve them at their store? Make the old hags take the bus to the other side of town to the old folks store.

 

[martybegan]

I think bigotry is something that is more common amongst the older generations. It is much more rare among younger people.

You must live in a very nice progressive hipster-ville bubble then.

I guess I just don't know very many bigots.

You probably do, they just hate the things you don't like as well.

I don't think so.

The blinders of groupthink don't discriminate based on age.

Oh, you don't like that? What if someone doesn't like old people and they don't want to serve them at their store? Make the old hags take the bus to the other side of town to the old folks store.

It depends, is it a timely or necessary service?

 

[ChrisL]

I think bigotry is something that is more common amongst the older generations. It is much more rare among younger people.

I guess I just don't know very many bigots.

You probably do, they just hate the things you don't like as well.

I don't think so.

The blinders of groupthink don't discriminate based on age.

Oh, you don't like that? What if someone doesn't like old people and they don't want to serve them at their store? Make the old hags take the bus to the other side of town to the old folks store.

It depends, is it a timely or necessary service?

Maybe they need some Depends?

 

[Dot Com]

They are my battles only in that all should be equal before the law and in PAs. Using the government to nail these guys was entirely appropriate. They broke the law the government established, the law that's lets everyone get on with their day without having to worry about do they serve my kind here...

equal before the law implies things that involve the government, which should be neutral. when you want to force people to do things, you have to have a compelling government interest, which in the case of a wedding cake, is not even close to one.

They weren't forced to do anything they didn't already do, for a living, which is bake cakes. Had they done their job you never would have heard of them and there's nothing unreasonable in that.

There is everything unreasonable with the government forcing people to do something they do not want to without a compelling government interest.

You must be a libertarian like Rand who said people should be able to refuse service based on color. 1964 much?

Back then they should not have because the discrimination was systemic.

Today? as long as the service is not of a timely or necessary nature? let the market handle it.

You think the court didn't take everything into consideration before reaching their ruling or are you just "makin' stuff up" to muddle the waters?

You utilize the public infrastructure then you serve the public. Simple as that.