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

[WorldWatcher]

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

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

1. The law in question has nothing to do with Federal law, the case in question is strictly an issue under Oregon law, unless that law is found to be in violation of the Federal Constitution. The case hasn't gone that far yet. But the SCOTUS (a) upholding previous Public Accommodation laws under the States power to regulate commerce, and (b) their denial of review in the Elane Photography case out of New Mexico to not bode well for the challengers of the law.

2. I'm not OCD, I'm CDO (Compulsive Disorder for Obsessives) which is OCD alphabetized.



>>>>

 

[martybegan]

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.

If that fine causes all of the bigots to think twice before acting on their bigotry, then it served its purpose.

Again, you seek to punish Thought Crime. How Orwellian.

No, assholes like you can think hateful thoughts all you want. You can even say hateful things. What you cannot do, it you provide a public accommodation, is ACT on your hatred. How the fuck is it a thought crime when it is a) not a crime; and b) only punishes actions.

How is not wanting to do something acting? They pleasantly told them they should go somewhere else for a non-essential service, and they get ruined for it?

You use the action as an end run to punish thought, and to make people who feel the same hide in the shadows.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

I don't think I ever witnessed someone use a legal term so frequently without having a damn clue what it means.

 

[bodecea]

"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.

If that fine causes all of the bigots to think twice before acting on their bigotry, then it served its purpose.

Again, you seek to punish Thought Crime. How Orwellian.

That isn't Thought Crime. The Bakers broke the law which was an ACTION, not a THOUGHT. Show us in the Oregon PA law where it is illegal to THINK a certain way.

 

[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.

They don't need a compelling governmental interest because the law applies to everyone equally. It did not target a particular religious belief. I though you understood this. Apparently not.

Equal protection under the law applies to protection from government.

This is an exact quote of that portion of the 14th:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That assumes SSM is the same as opposite sex marriage, which it is not.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

If that fine causes all of the bigots to think twice before acting on their bigotry, then it served its purpose.

Again, you seek to punish Thought Crime. How Orwellian.

No, assholes like you can think hateful thoughts all you want. You can even say hateful things. What you cannot do, it you provide a public accommodation, is ACT on your hatred. How the fuck is it a thought crime when it is a) not a crime; and b) only punishes actions.

How is not wanting to do something acting? They pleasantly told them they should go somewhere else for a non-essential service, and they get ruined for it?

You use the action as an end run to punish thought, and to make people who feel the same hide in the shadows.

Not wanting to do it is not an action; refusing to do it is an action.

 

[bodecea]

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?

Necessary service, medical.

Look friend. What you are suggesting is absolutely ridiculous and is NOT going to happen. I suggest you begin to accept that the world is changing and people realize that discriminating against certain groups of Americans is very UN-American.

So basically accept the fact that government can ruin a person over not baking a cake? NEVER.

"So basically accept the fact that government can ruin a person over breaking the law then refusing to pay the fine AND refusal to follow the law in the future". That's what you really mean.

 

[martybegan]

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

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

1. The law in question has nothing to do with Federal law, the case in question is strictly an issue under Oregon law, unless that law is found to be in violation of the Federal Constitution. The case hasn't gone that far yet. But the SCOTUS (a) upholding previous Public Accommodation laws under the States power to regulate commerce, and (b) their denial of review in the Elane Photography case out of New Mexico to not bode well for the challengers of the law.

2. I'm not OCD, I'm CDO (Compulsive Disorder for Obsessives) which is OCD alphabetized.



>>>>

1. The courts can go suck it.

2) that was actually funny.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

They don't need a compelling governmental interest because the law applies to everyone equally. It did not target a particular religious belief. I though you understood this. Apparently not.

Equal protection under the law applies to protection from government.

This is an exact quote of that portion of the 14th:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That assumes SSM is the same as opposite sex marriage, which it is not.

It is still marriage.

 

[Rustic]

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.

If that fine causes all of the bigots to think twice before acting on their bigotry, then it served its purpose.

Again, you seek to punish Thought Crime. How Orwellian.

That isn't Thought Crime. The Bakers broke the law which was an ACTION, not a THOUGHT. Show us in the Oregon PA law where it is illegal to THINK a certain way.

They were not acting politically correct, then charged.

Hashtag thought police

 

[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.

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.

I don't think I ever witnessed someone use a legal term so frequently without having a damn clue what it means.

I know perfectly well what it means.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

The owners of the restaurant did believe that their religious views were valid. Do you really want the standard to be "the government must review and approve of religious views before they are considered valid or not?". I don't.

Piggie lost.

Bob Jones University also considered their discrimination to be religiously based. They lost also.


Here is another case, not really a Public Accommodation case, but another case where an individual claimed religious rights not to provide equal service to interracial couples. He lost also. (United States v. Brittain, 319 F. Supp. 1058 (N.D. Ala. 1970))


>>>>

 

[bodecea]

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.

The bubble where the majority of Americans live; you know, the ones who support marriage equality.

I supported it when it was through convincing State legislatures to change the marriage laws, not by judicial fiat.

So...you didn't like Loving v. Virginia either. Or Brown v. Board of Ed.

 

[martybegan]

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

You are ruining someone over not baking a cake.

If that fine causes all of the bigots to think twice before acting on their bigotry, then it served its purpose.

Again, you seek to punish Thought Crime. How Orwellian.

No, assholes like you can think hateful thoughts all you want. You can even say hateful things. What you cannot do, it you provide a public accommodation, is ACT on your hatred. How the fuck is it a thought crime when it is a) not a crime; and b) only punishes actions.

How is not wanting to do something acting? They pleasantly told them they should go somewhere else for a non-essential service, and they get ruined for it?

You use the action as an end run to punish thought, and to make people who feel the same hide in the shadows.

Not wanting to do it is not an action; refusing to do it is an action.

Semantics. you just want to punish people you don't like. plain and simple.

 

[paddymurphy]

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?

Necessary service, medical.

Look friend. What you are suggesting is absolutely ridiculous and is NOT going to happen. I suggest you begin to accept that the world is changing and people realize that discriminating against certain groups of Americans is very UN-American.

So basically accept the fact that government can ruin a person over not baking a cake? NEVER.

No. They can enforce the anti-discrimination laws that were passed by the people's representatives. Blaming the government for the consequences of some assholes refusal to follow the law is ridiculous.

 

[ChrisL]

Maybe they need some Depends?

Necessary service, medical.

Look friend. What you are suggesting is absolutely ridiculous and is NOT going to happen. I suggest you begin to accept that the world is changing and people realize that discriminating against certain groups of Americans is very UN-American.

So basically accept the fact that government can ruin a person over not baking a cake? NEVER.

Well, that is the way things are. If you are going to open a business that serves the public, then you have to be intelligent enough to realize that the "public" includes ALL kinds of people that you might disagree with on a personal level. Grow up!

Yes, using government to ruin people who disagree with you is really fucking mature.

Um no, those people have nobody but themselves to blame. They should have been aware of the law before signing a business license and agreeing to the terms and conditions of operating a business in their state. If they were aware and purposefully broke the law, then that is also THEIR fault. Personal responsibility for your own behavior.

 

[martybegan]

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

They don't need a compelling governmental interest because the law applies to everyone equally. It did not target a particular religious belief. I though you understood this. Apparently not.

Equal protection under the law applies to protection from government.

This is an exact quote of that portion of the 14th:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That assumes SSM is the same as opposite sex marriage, which it is not.

It is still marriage.

30 years ago it wasn't even a concept. It only becomes "marriage if a State legislature agrees to change the terms of its marriage contract to include it.

 

[paddymurphy]

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?

Necessary service, medical.

PA laws don't specify "necessary service only".

They should, and the original federal definition of a PA wasn't "any business" but very specific ones.

The exact same words defining "public accommodation" were used in the Oregon civil rights laws as were used in the federal laws. You keep talking about the law as if you have a fucking clue what the law provides.

 

[Rustic]

Just like blacks that don't believe how white progressives think they ought believe, thought police...

 

[martybegan]

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.

The owners of the restaurant did believe that their religious views were valid. Do you really want the standard to be "the government must review and approve of religious views before they are considered valid or not?". I don't.

Piggie lost.

Bob Jones University also considered their discrimination to be religiously based. They lost also.


>>>>

I don't either, but I also don't want what we currently have, which is people being ruined for their beliefs.

The Bob Jones case was lost back when systemic racism was just being gotten rid of. From what I read it was a "greater good" ruling which to me isn't as valid today.