The dreaded gay-wedding-cake saga ends: bakers must pay 135 K

[paddymurphy]

This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage," Avakian wrote. "It is about a business's refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.

"Within Oregon's public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society. The ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry."

Oregon law violates,their right to religious freedom.....

Baking a cake is not a religious exercise. It is baking a cake.

A wedding is a religious exercise. Doofus.

Baking a cake is not, dumbass. Try to keep up.

 

[paddymurphy]

There is no appeal to the federal court system for a case based solely on state law.

That's not true. A State Supreme Court ruling can be appealed directly to the United States Supreme Court.


>>>>

Not where the issue is a state law issue.

 

[paddymurphy]

The more I think about it, the more I realize this has nothing to do with the bakers religious rights.

He may believe gays shouldn't get married, and that belief maybe influenced by his religion. However, his religion does not instruct him to refuse service to a gay couple. That is his decision, not his religious instructions.

Nice of you to pass judgement. Now back to the real world. He had no problem serving gay people. He did have a problem being made to bake a cake for their gay wedding and having to transport it there etc etc.
His religion, his rules.

Actually, they are society's rules and he, and you, will follow them or pay.

 

[Seawytch]

"Obey the law, unless it's a law we don't care about, like illegal immigration, pot smoking, stealing flags, whatever strikes our fancy."

Obey the law.

Too fuckin' funny. Hypocrites.

.

Who says ignore those laws? Quote them with links if you please.

Change them is not the same as ignore them.

Anyone trying to get rid of Title II of the CRA?

Anyone?

 

[paddymurphy]

The PA laws are NOT CONSTITUTIONAL IF THEY INTERFERE WITH THE 1ST AMENDMENT. CHECK THE 9TH AMENDMENT FOR DETAILS..

These people should defy the gag order. They should hold an interview with Fox News right in the courtroom of the judge who issued the gag, while its in session. That judge knows how illegal his/her order was. Maybe that judge should be turned into the commission in the state of Oregon responsible for judicial discipline. If unseated for suppression of someone's civil 1st Amendment rights, then the judge could be sued as a private citizen.

If you go before a judge for a traffic ticket, to get a divorce, or deal with a crime, you want to know the court system is clean. The Center for Public Integrity and Public Radio International have assembled a report card that rates judicial accountability. Oregon’s grade was a “D.” Oregon Earns D Grade In National Judicial Review . News OPB

Here's the link if this couple wants this judge removed for suppression of their civil rights. As I understand it, if the judge is successfully removed, the case for which s/he was found in violation on is subject to re-review/appeal.

CJFD Home - CJFD Home
The Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability reviews complaints about Oregon state judges and justices of the peace and investigates when the alleged conduct might violate the state’s Code of Judicial Conduct or Article VII (amended), Section 8 of the state constitution. If the Commission files formal charges, a public hearing is held. The Commission then makes a recommendation to the Supreme Court which could be dismissal of the charges or censure, suspension or removal of the judge.

From the code of Judicial Conduct (link in text above)
(A) A judge shall observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity, impartiality and independence of the judiciary and access to justice are preserved and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary and the judicial system.
(B) A judge shall not commit a criminal act.
(C) A judge shall not engage in conduct that reflects adversely on the judge's character, competence, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge.
(D) A judge shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
.......
(C) A judge shall not convey or permit others to convey the impression that any person or organization is in a position to improperly influence a judge.
**********
Suppressing someone's civil rights violates (A), (B) & (C) above and (C) in a lower category.

It's time to fight back mothafuckas

I love all of the non-lawyers and their ridiculously wrong description of the law. Do you also try to comment on other professions you have no education or experience in? Want to tell us the proper way to remove a gall bladder?

 

[Mac1958]

"Obey the law, unless it's a law we don't care about, like illegal immigration, pot smoking, stealing flags, whatever strikes our fancy."

Obey the law.

Too fuckin' funny. Hypocrites.

.

Who says ignore those laws? Quote them with links if you please.

Change them is not the same as ignore them.

Anyone trying to get rid of Title II of the CRA?

Anyone?

You want examples of lefties supporting those things?

Seriously?

.

 

[Iceweasel]

how many small businesses having to close up shop over this shit will be ENOUGH for these people? don't even think they done. they are just GETTING STARTED

None. All they have to do is perform the advertised service.

Which ones advertised wedding cakes for all perversions?

 

[Seawytch]

"Obey the law, unless it's a law we don't care about, like illegal immigration, pot smoking, stealing flags, whatever strikes our fancy."

Obey the law.

Too fuckin' funny. Hypocrites.

.

Who says ignore those laws? Quote them with links if you please.

Change them is not the same as ignore them.

Anyone trying to get rid of Title II of the CRA?

Anyone?

You want examples of lefties supporting those things?

Seriously?

.

I want you to quote where "lefties" are saying "ignore the law".

I know a lot of them are working to CHANGE the laws...working hard in fact.

You working hard on the CRA?

 

[paddymurphy]

Weddings are a particularly stressful time. Vendors can easily increase the stress, give gays an emotional price to pay that is higher than they would pay somewhere else.

Don't worry the ISIS flags on cakes have not been banned so they will be happy for a while..

Can not get a Confederate flag on a cake, but can get a gay themed cake or a cake supporting ISIS. So all is right in the far left world..

Is the far left world the same as a far left drone?

You should know it is your world, the far left matrix. You know that world that is not connected to reality?

But you have expressed why the far left posts the bunk they do on this board. At least you can admit to pleasuring yourself when posting far left debunked religious dogma..

It's not 'bunk,' it's settled and accepted Constitutional case law: the Commerce Clause authorizes public accommodations laws, those laws are Constitutional, and they in no way 'violate' religious liberty.

Consequently, it's only you and others on the angry, ridiculous right who reject that settled and accepted case law disconnected from reality.

Says the far left drone!

See how the far left wants to dictate what is and is not "hate". This is why the far left religion is the most dangerous religion on the planet.

See how they will defend someone that will only make certain cakes, especially one that has the ISIS flag on it?

Another far left post proving that they support ISIS..

It was a wal-mart. They employ dumb folks like you. Folks too stupid to know what an Isis flag looked like.

 

[Syriusly]

Batshittians 3:42: "Because it was destiny that sweet cakes, Jeebus and 'ghey' would all belong within the same sentence one day in the land of Or, for the holy Spaghetti Monster foresaw it all with his longest noodle."​

Sweet Cakes final order Gresham bakery must pay 135 000 for denying service to same-sex couple OregonLive.com

Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian on Thursday ordered the owners of a former Gresham bakery to pay $135,000 in damages to a lesbian couple for refusing to make them a wedding cake.

Avakian's ruling upheld a preliminary finding earlier this year that the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa had discriminated against the women on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Bakery owners Melissa and Aaron Klein cited their Christian beliefs against same-sex marriage in denying service. The case ignited a long-running skirmish in the nation's culture wars, pitting civil rights advocates against religious freedom proponents who argued business owners should have the right to refuse services for gay and lesbian weddings.

Avakian's final order makes clear that serving potential customers equally trumps the Kleins' religious beliefs. Under Oregon law, businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot turn customers away because of race, sex, disability, age or religion, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said in a news release.

"This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage," Avakian wrote. "It is about a business's refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.

"Within Oregon's public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society. The ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So, when do the cries of evil, evil, evil ZOG persecution begin?
And when will this all be Obama's fault?
And when does the GoFundMe account go up?
Anyone know how much delicious icing 135 K can buy?

No mudslinging, folks! But you may throw delicious icing.

Ouch!

I am tempted to feel sorry for this couple, but ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
Like many such resolutions a fine like this is a signal to other business's that they need to follow the law.

 

[Dot Com]

Batshittians 3:42: "Because it was destiny that sweet cakes, Jeebus and 'ghey' would all belong within the same sentence one day in the land of Or, for the holy Spaghetti Monster foresaw it all with his longest noodle."​

Sweet Cakes final order Gresham bakery must pay 135 000 for denying service to same-sex couple OregonLive.com

Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian on Thursday ordered the owners of a former Gresham bakery to pay $135,000 in damages to a lesbian couple for refusing to make them a wedding cake.

Avakian's ruling upheld a preliminary finding earlier this year that the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa had discriminated against the women on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Bakery owners Melissa and Aaron Klein cited their Christian beliefs against same-sex marriage in denying service. The case ignited a long-running skirmish in the nation's culture wars, pitting civil rights advocates against religious freedom proponents who argued business owners should have the right to refuse services for gay and lesbian weddings.

Avakian's final order makes clear that serving potential customers equally trumps the Kleins' religious beliefs. Under Oregon law, businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot turn customers away because of race, sex, disability, age or religion, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said in a news release.

"This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage," Avakian wrote. "It is about a business's refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.

"Within Oregon's public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society. The ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So, when do the cries of evil, evil, evil ZOG persecution begin?
And when will this all be Obama's fault?
And when does the GoFundMe account go up?
Anyone know how much delicious icing 135 K can buy?

No mudslinging, folks! But you may throw delicious icing.

There IS justice in this world

Statistikhengst

 

[Syriusly]

I'll donate to their account........the gay fascists will target churches next.......

I am going to set up a Gofund account to defend churches from attacks by 'gay fascists'- I don't care how many decades we have to wait- we will be ready!

I will of course administer the funds until the first case and charge a reasonable fee for my services.....

 

[Mac1958]

"Obey the law, unless it's a law we don't care about, like illegal immigration, pot smoking, stealing flags, whatever strikes our fancy."

Obey the law.

Too fuckin' funny. Hypocrites.

.

Who says ignore those laws? Quote them with links if you please.

Change them is not the same as ignore them.

Anyone trying to get rid of Title II of the CRA?

Anyone?

You want examples of lefties supporting those things?

Seriously?

.

I want you to quote where "lefties" are saying "ignore the law".

I know a lot of them are working to CHANGE the laws...working hard in fact.

You working hard on the CRA?

Breaking the law/supporting those who break the law, and working to change the law are two entirely different things.

So I assume you're against sanctuary cities, illegal pot smoking, stealing flags, and would support prosecution for each?

.

 

[Iceweasel]

The 134K was their point.

Their point was to make sure the next asshole who thinks about discriminating against gay people understand that there will be a cost. That is, in fact, the point of these types of laws; to discourage unacceptable behavior.

There are many ways to discourage unacceptable behavior. Gays should be subjected to all of them.

The bakery should bake the cake, then protest the forced labor at the wedding itself.

Forced labor at the wedding? Please explain.

If they are forced to provide labor and artistic talent for the wedding cake that's forced labor. The place to protest that is obviously not where the baker can be punished for it, it's where the baker still retains some free speech rights, at the wedding itself. Like any other protester, on the sidewalk. The baker, florist, photographer will always know where the wedding is, they are forced to participate. Take advantage of what they are given.

I'm such a bitch, that the couple could show up for the design appointment and find both the baker and designer picketing their own bakery. Sell them the cake, with a very high emotional price.

They are not forced. They can either provide the service at their normal price or be sued.

Rosa Parks should have sat at the back of the bus too. It was the law.

You libs have the morals of jello, it can take on any shape to accomplish the goal.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

how many small businesses having to close up shop over this shit will be ENOUGH for these people? don't even think they done. they are just GETTING STARTED

None. All they have to do is perform the advertised service.

Which ones advertised wedding cakes for all perversions?

All wedding cakes are gay, and the cake for this couple, no different.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Their point was to make sure the next asshole who thinks about discriminating against gay people understand that there will be a cost. That is, in fact, the point of these types of laws; to discourage unacceptable behavior.

There are many ways to discourage unacceptable behavior. Gays should be subjected to all of them.

The bakery should bake the cake, then protest the forced labor at the wedding itself.

Forced labor at the wedding? Please explain.

If they are forced to provide labor and artistic talent for the wedding cake that's forced labor. The place to protest that is obviously not where the baker can be punished for it, it's where the baker still retains some free speech rights, at the wedding itself. Like any other protester, on the sidewalk. The baker, florist, photographer will always know where the wedding is, they are forced to participate. Take advantage of what they are given.

I'm such a bitch, that the couple could show up for the design appointment and find both the baker and designer picketing their own bakery. Sell them the cake, with a very high emotional price.

They are not forced. They can either provide the service at their normal price or be sued.

Rosa Parks should have sat at the back of the bus too. It was the law.

You libs have the morals of jello, it can take on any shape to accomplish the goal.

She was tired, literally. It's what happened after she was arrested that changed the US.

 

[Seawytch]

"Obey the law, unless it's a law we don't care about, like illegal immigration, pot smoking, stealing flags, whatever strikes our fancy."

Obey the law.

Too fuckin' funny. Hypocrites.

.

Who says ignore those laws? Quote them with links if you please.

Change them is not the same as ignore them.

Anyone trying to get rid of Title II of the CRA?

Anyone?

You want examples of lefties supporting those things?

Seriously?

.

I want you to quote where "lefties" are saying "ignore the law".

I know a lot of them are working to CHANGE the laws...working hard in fact.

You working hard on the CRA?

Breaking the law/supporting those who break the law, and working to change the law are two entirely different things.

So I assume you're against sanctuary cities, illegal pot smoking, stealing flags, and would support prosecution for each?

.

Not against them but I support the consequences of getting caught.

 

[paddymurphy]

Their point was to make sure the next asshole who thinks about discriminating against gay people understand that there will be a cost. That is, in fact, the point of these types of laws; to discourage unacceptable behavior.

There are many ways to discourage unacceptable behavior. Gays should be subjected to all of them.

The bakery should bake the cake, then protest the forced labor at the wedding itself.

Forced labor at the wedding? Please explain.

If they are forced to provide labor and artistic talent for the wedding cake that's forced labor. The place to protest that is obviously not where the baker can be punished for it, it's where the baker still retains some free speech rights, at the wedding itself. Like any other protester, on the sidewalk. The baker, florist, photographer will always know where the wedding is, they are forced to participate. Take advantage of what they are given.

I'm such a bitch, that the couple could show up for the design appointment and find both the baker and designer picketing their own bakery. Sell them the cake, with a very high emotional price.

They are not forced. They can either provide the service at their normal price or be sued.

Rosa Parks should have sat at the back of the bus too. It was the law.

You libs have the morals of jello, it can take on any shape to accomplish the goal.

Compare a law that requires discrimination to one that bans it and you must be an ignorant right winger.

 

[WorldWatcher]

There is no appeal to the federal court system for a case based solely on state law.

That's not true. A State Supreme Court ruling can be appealed directly to the United States Supreme Court.


>>>>

Not where the issue is a state law issue.

Incorrect.


For example, Elane Photography v. Willock (New Mexico Photographers) was appealed to the United States Supreme Court after the New Mexico Supreme Court upheld the lower court ruling.

State Supreme Court rulings can be appealed to the United States Supreme Court when the question raised on appeal is one which falls under the United States Constitution.


>>>>

 

[PaintMyHouse]

There is no appeal to the federal court system for a case based solely on state law.

That's not true. A State Supreme Court ruling can be appealed directly to the United States Supreme Court.


>>>>

Not where the issue is a state law issue.

Incorrect.


For example, Elane Photography v. Willock (New Mexico Photographers) was appealed to the United States Supreme Court after the New Mexico Supreme Court upheld the lower court ruling.

State Supreme Court rulings can be appealed to the United States Supreme Court when the question raised on appeal is one which falls under the United States Constitution.


>>>>

And note to Sil, they rejected hearing it.