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

[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.

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.

They were not fined under the Federal PA law. It was the Oregon PA law.

 

[bodecea]

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.

They did not. The husband started lecturing them on Leviticus on their second meeting....then proceeded to post the couple's info on Facebook knowing the "god squad" would go after them.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

Here are my thoughts...

Three generations ago there were...

1. Areas of the country where black people couldn't rent a room for the night when traveling.

2. Areas of the country where black people traveling couldn't buy gas from white station owners.

3. Areas of the country where blacks couldn't eat unless they could find a black's only food establishment.

4. And we had systematic discrimination against minorities in terms of how government functioned, such as segregated mass transit (buses, trains, etc.), schools, law enforcement, etc.

5. Even segregation in the military.​

In those days such things were commonplace, but society has changed in the last 60 years and changed a lot. There has been a "corporatisation" where you can't spit without finding a company gas station, movie theater, restaurateur, motel/hotel, etc. Just because we repeal Public Accommodation laws, doesn't mean that things are going to go back to the way they were 3-generations ago. And there are a number of factors that impact this:

1. We are much more mobile society. People routinely travel in a manner unprecedented then both temporary and "permanent" relocation's out of the area they grew up in.

2. We are more informed society and information is much more available today about how a business conducts it self in term so taking care of customers we have Criag's list, Angie's list, Yelp, and a plethora of hotel, restaurant, and review sites for any type of business and it's not just the discriminated against who would choose not to associate with such a business. In addition I fully support the ability to community having access to information about businesses and their discriminatory practices. News media (TV, Radio, Newspapers) and social media (email, texting, Facebook, etc.) should all be free to report and have customers report on discriminatory business practices so that the public can make an informed choice.

3. The "corporatisation" of businesses in America watches the bottom line and having your "brand name" associated with and appearing to condone discrimination has a negative impact on the bottom line. With corporate owned "shops" and franchises who still fall under policies of the home office means that these businesses will not allow or condone what was going on prior to the 60's.​

**************************************************

So the question becomes the balance of the rights of the private business owner to manage their private property according to their desires as compared to the desires of others to have access to that private business. With the widespread discrimination 3-generations ago there may have been justification to say the rights of the property owner needed to be usurped - on a temporary basis - but those times are pretty much gone. The balance was greatly tilted toward discrimination. I think of myself as a Goldwater Conservative quite a bit because Goldwater had the testicular fortitude to stand up against Federal Public Accommodation laws, not because he was a bigot or a racist - but because he believed in limited government.

But in general the widespread issues from 60 years ago have been resolved by fundamental shifts in society. Sure there will be isolated instances, that's the price of liberty and dealing with your own issues. A burger joint says - I won't serve a black? OK, walk across the street to Applebee's. A photographer doesn't want to shoot a same-sex wedding? OK, Google or Angie's List another photographer in the area.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all FOR keeping Public Accommodation laws in force in terms of the functioning of government but that is because citizens have an inherent right to equal treatment by the government. There is no such right to equal treatment by other individuals.


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

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?

Marty didn't like it. It's still a valid and legal process followed by couples before (like Turner v Safely and Zablocki v Redhail) but this time it's people Marty finds objectionable.

 

[WorldWatcher]

They did not. The husband started lecturing them on Leviticus on their second meeting....then proceeded to post the couple's info on Facebook knowing the "god squad" would go after them.

1. I wouldn't classify "pleasantly told them" in the case of refusal of service. Marty is implying a situation not in the court record.

2. Bod, you are also wrong about the facts of the case. The Mother and one bride saw Melissa at a bridal show months before, that doesn't count as a "first meeting". At the single tasting meeting to occur at the shop it was Aaron that refused service, the Mother and one bride attended. After they were told that the Klein's refusted them service they left and it was the Mother (by herself) that wen't back into the shop a few minutes later. That is when Aaron called them an abomination by quoting Leviticus to the Mothere. There was no "second meeting", it was just a continuation of the only meeting with Aaron.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Marty didn't like it. It's still a valid and legal process followed by couples before (like Turner v Safely and Zablocki v Redhail) but this time it's people Marty finds objectionable.

Don't forget he supports "valid" religious reasons also, doesn't matter what the individual believes they have to "valid" and approved by the government to count.


>>>

 

[Dot Com]

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.

They did not. The husband started lecturing them on Leviticus on their second meeting....then proceeded to post the couple's info on Facebook knowing the "god squad" would go after them.

that was sick.

 

[paddymurphy]

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

Here are my thoughts...

Three generations ago there were...

1. Areas of the country where black people couldn't rent a room for the night when traveling.

2. Areas of the country where black people traveling couldn't buy gas from white station owners.

3. Areas of the country where blacks couldn't eat unless they could find a black's only food establishment.

4. And we had systematic discrimination against minorities in terms of how government functioned, such as segregated mass transit (buses, trains, etc.), schools, law enforcement, etc.

5. Even segregation in the military.​

In those days such things were commonplace, but society has changed in the last 60 years and changed a lot. There has been a "corporatisation" where you can't spit without finding a company gas station, movie theater, restaurateur, motel/hotel, etc. Just because we repeal Public Accommodation laws, doesn't mean that things are going to go back to the way they were 3-generations ago. And there are a number of factors that impact this:

1. We are much more mobile society. People routinely travel in a manner unprecedented then both temporary and "permanent" relocation's out of the area they grew up in.

2. We are more informed society and information is much more available today about how a business conducts it self in term so taking care of customers we have Criag's list, Angie's list, Yelp, and a plethora of hotel, restaurant, and review sites for any type of business and it's not just the discriminated against who would choose not to associate with such a business. In addition I fully support the ability to community having access to information about businesses and their discriminatory practices. News media (TV, Radio, Newspapers) and social media (email, texting, Facebook, etc.) should all be free to report and have customers report on discriminatory business practices so that the public can make an informed choice.

3. The "corporatisation" of businesses in America watches the bottom line and having your "brand name" associated with and appearing to condone discrimination has a negative impact on the bottom line. With corporate owned "shops" and franchises who still fall under policies of the home office means that these businesses will not allow or condone what was going on prior to the 60's.​

**************************************************

So the question becomes the balance of the rights of the private business owner to manage their private property according to their desires as compared to the desires of others to have access to that private business. With the widespread discrimination 3-generations ago there may have been justification to say the rights of the property owner needed to be usurped - on a temporary basis - but those times are pretty much gone. The balance was greatly tilted toward discrimination. I think of myself as a Goldwater Conservative quite a bit because Goldwater had the testicular fortitude to stand up against Federal Public Accommodation laws, not because he was a bigot or a racist - but because he believed in limited government.

But in general the widespread issues from 60 years ago have been resolved by fundamental shifts in society. Sure there will be isolated instances, that's the price of liberty and dealing with your own issues. A burger joint says - I won't serve a black? OK, walk across the street to Applebee's. A photographer doesn't want to shoot a same-sex wedding? OK, Google or Angie's List another photographer in the area.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all FOR keeping Public Accommodation laws in force in terms of the functioning of government but that is because citizens have an inherent right to equal treatment by the government. There is no such right to equal treatment by other individuals.


>>>>[/QUOT

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

Here are my thoughts...

Three generations ago there were...

1. Areas of the country where black people couldn't rent a room for the night when traveling.

2. Areas of the country where black people traveling couldn't buy gas from white station owners.

3. Areas of the country where blacks couldn't eat unless they could find a black's only food establishment.

4. And we had systematic discrimination against minorities in terms of how government functioned, such as segregated mass transit (buses, trains, etc.), schools, law enforcement, etc.

5. Even segregation in the military.​

In those days such things were commonplace, but society has changed in the last 60 years and changed a lot. There has been a "corporatisation" where you can't spit without finding a company gas station, movie theater, restaurateur, motel/hotel, etc. Just because we repeal Public Accommodation laws, doesn't mean that things are going to go back to the way they were 3-generations ago. And there are a number of factors that impact this:

1. We are much more mobile society. People routinely travel in a manner unprecedented then both temporary and "permanent" relocation's out of the area they grew up in.

2. We are more informed society and information is much more available today about how a business conducts it self in term so taking care of customers we have Criag's list, Angie's list, Yelp, and a plethora of hotel, restaurant, and review sites for any type of business and it's not just the discriminated against who would choose not to associate with such a business. In addition I fully support the ability to community having access to information about businesses and their discriminatory practices. News media (TV, Radio, Newspapers) and social media (email, texting, Facebook, etc.) should all be free to report and have customers report on discriminatory business practices so that the public can make an informed choice.

3. The "corporatisation" of businesses in America watches the bottom line and having your "brand name" associated with and appearing to condone discrimination has a negative impact on the bottom line. With corporate owned "shops" and franchises who still fall under policies of the home office means that these businesses will not allow or condone what was going on prior to the 60's.​

**************************************************

So the question becomes the balance of the rights of the private business owner to manage their private property according to their desires as compared to the desires of others to have access to that private business. With the widespread discrimination 3-generations ago there may have been justification to say the rights of the property owner needed to be usurped - on a temporary basis - but those times are pretty much gone. The balance was greatly tilted toward discrimination. I think of myself as a Goldwater Conservative quite a bit because Goldwater had the testicular fortitude to stand up against Federal Public Accommodation laws, not because he was a bigot or a racist - but because he believed in limited government.

But in general the widespread issues from 60 years ago have been resolved by fundamental shifts in society. Sure there will be isolated instances, that's the price of liberty and dealing with your own issues. A burger joint says - I won't serve a black? OK, walk across the street to Applebee's. A photographer doesn't want to shoot a same-sex wedding? OK, Google or Angie's List another photographer in the area.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all FOR keeping Public Accommodation laws in force in terms of the functioning of government but that is because citizens have an inherent right to equal treatment by the government. There is no such right to equal treatment by other individuals.


>>>>

And the reality is that is what happens the vast majority of the time. There is a reason we keep hearing about the two or three cases where gay couples were denied services: there are far less bigots around than there used to be.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

They did not. The husband started lecturing them on Leviticus on their second meeting....then proceeded to post the couple's info on Facebook knowing the "god squad" would go after them.

Really? What a jerk!

 

[bodecea]

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.

In the eyes of the Law it now is.

 

[bodecea]

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.

1) It would be fun to see you say that to a judge.

2) I agree

 

[bodecea]

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

So, now following the law is reduced to being PC?

 

[bodecea]

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.

There's a lot of people I probably would not like but they follow the law..ergo, no punishment for them.

 

[bodecea]

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.

So what? Are you advocating everything be the same as it was 30 years ago?

 

[bodecea]

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.

So...if what you say is true...that people are using the government to punish others for their beliefs...there are not many people who believe as the Kleins do...because not many are being punished. Do you believe as the Kleins do? If so, how are you being punished by the government?

 

[koshergrl]

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.

So...if what you say is true...that people are using the government to punish others for their beliefs...there are not many people who believe as the Kleins do...because not many are being punished. Do you believe as the Kleins do? If so, how are you being punished by the government?

?

Intellectually-honest and intellectually-dishonest debate tactics

 

[mikegriffith1]

In America, the government is not supposed to be able to punish you for not servicing a ceremony that you find offensive.

This is worlds removed from the phony comparison to restaurants or hotels that used to refuse to let minorities eat or lodge there. We're talking about trying to force a religious business owner to service a ceremony that he finds morally offensive.

But, of course, most liberals just don't care about the First Amendment or tolerance or respect for the beliefs of others. If they had their way, any church that teaches the traditional biblical moral code would be shut down for "hate speech."

 

[Seawytch]

In America, the government is not supposed to be able to punish you for not servicing a ceremony that you find offensive.

This is worlds removed from the phony comparison to restaurants or hotels that used to refuse to let minorities eat or lodge there. We're talking about trying to force a religious business owner to service a ceremony that he finds morally offensive.

But, of course, most liberals just don't care about the First Amendment or tolerance or respect for the beliefs of others. If they had their way, any church that teaches the traditional biblical moral code would be shut down for "hate speech."

Baking a cake isn't performing in any ceremony....which is irrelevant.

You don't think there were/are bakers or florists that would like to refuse to serve blacks, interracial couples, Muslims, etc?

Why do only anti gay bigots get a religious cop out?

 

[JoeB131]

Your disdain for our founding principles, process and the opinions of others is well known.

You are one of those people who will make this world a better place once you leave it.

Our founding principles included slavery and the genocide of Native Americans. Damn straight I have disdain for that.

The thing is, the two reasons you guys give for wanting a gun are absurd.

They are never used in self defense from criminals and the government will always have better guns than you do.

 

[JoeB131]

In America, the government is not supposed to be able to punish you for not servicing a ceremony that you find offensive.

This is worlds removed from the phony comparison to restaurants or hotels that used to refuse to let minorities eat or lodge there. We're talking about trying to force a religious business owner to service a ceremony that he finds morally offensive.

Then he shouldn't be in that line of work. Simple enough. If you have a job that might require you to do something that offends your superstitions, then you probably shouldn't do that for a livlihood.

But, of course, most liberals just don't care about the First Amendment or tolerance or respect for the beliefs of others. If they had their way, any church that teaches the traditional biblical moral code would be shut down for "hate speech."

Works for me. Frankly, I'd be for yanking their tax exemptions first.

The thing is, if you guys followed the "Traditional Biblical Moral Code" you'd be stoning your daughter when your new son in law found out she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night.

You wouldn't allow people with braids, jewelry, tattoos or other things the bible finds offensive to marry.

You guys are using 'the bible" as an excuse for your homophobia.