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

[paddymurphy]

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.

So, refusing to show up for jury duty is not an "action" that a court can punish? Refusing to pay taxes is not an action; refusing to register for the selective service is not, in your mind, an action for which anyone can be punished.

 

[martybegan]

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.

In this case it is perfectly legitimate, because the government is overstepping its bounds.

 

[martybegan]

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.

What a PA is by federal law:

42 U.S. Code § 12181 - Definitions | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

Because of Obergefell, all fifty state marriage laws now no longer contain any language limiting marriage to opposite sex couples. That is what happens when the Supreme Court strikes down a law. That portion that rendered it unconstitutional is void and unenforceable but the rest of the law remains in full force and effect.

 

[martybegan]

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.

So, refusing to show up for jury duty is not an "action" that a court can punish? Refusing to pay taxes is not an action; refusing to register for the selective service is not, in your mind, an action for which anyone can be punished.

those are all government interactions, baking the cake in question was not.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

And another thing you don't understand. Bob Jones was decided on the basis of equal protection and due process of law; just like obergefell. There is no such thing as a "greater good" ruling.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Because of Obergefell, all fifty state marriage laws now no longer contain any language limiting marriage to opposite sex couples. That is what happens when the Supreme Court strikes down a law. That portion that rendered it unconstitutional is void and unenforceable but the rest of the law remains in full force and effect.

The SC overstepped its bounds in this case. What it should have done is allow States to not issue SSM's, but force them to recognize SSM's from other States under full faith and credit.

 

[ChrisL]

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

NOBODY is telling you how to think. You just cannot discriminate when doing business. It's the same for black people. These laws aren't anything new! If you want to discriminate, then do it on your personal time. When you open a business that serves the public, you agree to serve the public, not just those you agree with.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

In this case it is perfectly legitimate, because the government is overstepping its bounds.

The branch of the government that decides that does not agree with you.

 

[Dot Com]

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.

The "public infrastructure" cop out is one of the weakest used by your side. by that definition government can tell me whatever it wants me to do because I walk on a sidewalk and drink tap water.

u don't like it, move off the grid w/ your buddies in Idaho

 

[ChrisL]

So, when are you all going to finally stop whining and bitching about homosexuals? Someday? Never?

 

[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.

And another thing you don't understand. Bob Jones was decided on the basis of equal protection and due process of law; just like obergefell. There is no such thing as a "greater good" ruling.

From wikipedia

Bob Jones University v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Court applied a strict scrutiny analysis and found that the "Government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education . . . which substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on [the University's] exercise of their religious beliefs." The Court made clear, however, that its holding dealt "only with religious schools—not with churches or other purely religious institutions."

 

[martybegan]

So, when are you all going to finally stop whining and bitching about homosexuals? Someday? Never?

Not homosexuals, progressive twats that use government to punish others for their beliefs.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

What a PA is by federal law:

42 U.S. Code § 12181 - Definitions | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

And according to Oregon Law:

Place of public accommodation defined
(1)A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusions in subsection (2) of this section, means:

(a)Any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements, transportation or otherwise.

(b)Any place that is open to the public and owned or maintained by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (Public body defined), regardless of whether the place is commercial in nature.

(c)Any service to the public that is provided by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (Public body defined), regardless of whether the service is commercial in nature.

All of the venues specifically listed in federal law are included in either (a) or (b).

 

[martybegan]

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.

The "public infrastructure" cop out is one of the weakest used by your side. by that definition government can tell me whatever it wants me to do because I walk on a sidewalk and drink tap water.

u don't like it, move off the grid w/ your buddies in Idaho

No.

 

[martybegan]

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.

What a PA is by federal law:

42 U.S. Code § 12181 - Definitions | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

And according to Oregon Law:

Place of public accommodation defined
(1)A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusions in subsection (2) of this section, means:

(a)Any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements, transportation or otherwise.

(b)Any place that is open to the public and owned or maintained by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (Public body defined), regardless of whether the place is commercial in nature.

(c)Any service to the public that is provided by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (Public body defined), regardless of whether the service is commercial in nature.

All of the venues specifically listed in federal law are included in either (a) or (b).

And as I said, this is overly broad, and turns PA's into "every business whatsoever"

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

And another thing you don't understand. Bob Jones was decided on the basis of equal protection and due process of law; just like obergefell. There is no such thing as a "greater good" ruling.

From wikipedia

Bob Jones University v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Court applied a strict scrutiny analysis and found that the "Government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education . . . which substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on [the University's] exercise of their religious beliefs." The Court made clear, however, that its holding dealt "only with religious schools—not with churches or other purely religious institutions."

"The Court applied a strict scrutiny analysis and found that the "Government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education . . . which substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on [the University's] exercise of their religious beliefs." The Court made clear, however, that its holding dealt "only with religious schools—not with churches or other purely religious institutions." Proving that eradicating discrimination is a compelling interest that outweighs claims that doing so burdens religious expression. Why would you cite to a case that proves you wrong?

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

What a PA is by federal law:

42 U.S. Code § 12181 - Definitions | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

And according to Oregon Law:

Place of public accommodation defined
(1)A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusions in subsection (2) of this section, means:

(a)Any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements, transportation or otherwise.

(b)Any place that is open to the public and owned or maintained by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (Public body defined), regardless of whether the place is commercial in nature.

(c)Any service to the public that is provided by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109 (Public body defined), regardless of whether the service is commercial in nature.

All of the venues specifically listed in federal law are included in either (a) or (b).

And as I said, this is overly broad, and turns PA's into "every business whatsoever"

Sure you said that. And, as with most of what you said, you are wrong. Tell us what "business" that would be included in the Oregon definition would not be included in the following definition your provided:
(A) an inn, hotel, motel, or other place of lodging, except for an establishment located within a building that contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as the residence of such proprietor;
(B) a restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food or drink;
(C) a motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition or entertainment;
(D) an auditorium, convention center, lecture hall, or other place of public gathering;
(E) a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment;
(F) a laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment;
(G) a terminal, depot, or other station used for specified public transportation;
(H) a museum, library, gallery, or other place of public display or collection;
(I) a park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of recreation;
(J) a nursery, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private school, or other place of education;
(K) a day care center, senior citizen center, homeless shelter, food bank, adoption agency, or other social service center establishment; and
(L) a gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf course, or other place of exercise or recreation.

 

[bodecea]

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.

You don't think there was a process?

it was the wrong process.

What was wrong about it?

 

[bodecea]

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.

So much for personal responsibility, eh?
You make it sound like the government randomly picked this couple and decided to shit all over them.