Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If that couple wanted an S&M cake for their wedding I can guarantee you Christians could rightfully object to that too.All wedding cakes are gay, and the cake for this couple, no different.
Thanks for making the legal argument for the Christian bakers vs the gay sex cult.
No, I made the point that those two also ordered a perfectly standard wedding cake, and they are a lot more "perverse" than the average gay couple. You can turn down the kinky cake, just not the kinky couple. See how that works??All wedding cakes are gay, and the cake for this couple, no different.
If that couple wanted an S&M cake for their wedding I can guarantee you Christians could rightfully object to that too.
You blew it. You just made the point that it's about behaviors. Oops!
yep. Conservatives seem to think that if you still have checks in your check book that there must be money thereLaw enforcement is always about priorities and manpower. Not everyone who speeds gets a ticket. Stick you head up too far and it gets whacked. That's life.My point exactly, thanks.All of whom can be nailed, if one wishes to.They don't give a shit about "the law".
This is about control, intimidation, submission.
They have no problem, among other things, with:
You want to punish people, you don't have to.
Perfect.
Conz 
So it would seem...yep. Conservatives seem to think that if you still have checks in your check book that there must be money thereLaw enforcement is always about priorities and manpower. Not everyone who speeds gets a ticket. Stick you head up too far and it gets whacked. That's life.My point exactly, thanks.All of whom can be nailed, if one wishes to.They don't give a shit about "the law".
This is about control, intimidation, submission.
They have no problem, among other things, with:
You want to punish people, you don't have to.
Perfect.
Your brain on drugs.Does the GLOATING ever stop with these people? having a Government FINE SOMEONE for not BAKING a cake and these people see nothing wrong with this.
that's fascism and Oppression of our Freedoms all over a gawddamn CAKE
JUST call us the USSR
What you want tested has already been tried, and failed.Note to Paint. there are some sharp lawyers working on other cases and a rejection doesn't mean one cannot appeal higher.
The 1st & 9th Amendments on this question will have their day before SCOTUS...
Time to appeal to the courts, the fags suffered no harm, they got their fucking cake elsewhere.
That's not how the law works.
Really, they can challenge the constitutionality of the law, because the bakers can show actual harm.
When you start your own business, that means you work for government, didn't you know that?
Not really.
You need to click the needle on your sarcasm detector, I think it's stuck.
That's what the left is saying, correct? When you put out a shingle, you work for government. They set the rules for who you deal with, not you
exactly, is there a law there that says "must" or "shall" bake ?
and why are they not protected against such stupid actions by the
Fourteenth Amendment ? in addition, it forbids states from denying any person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law"
A phrase in the Fourteenth Amendment to the UnitedStates Constitution requiring that states guarantee thesame rights, privileges, and protections to all citizens.This doctrine reinforces that of due process of law and prevents states from passing or enforcing laws that arbitrarily discriminate against anyone.
can anyone right or left explain why those fags were given $135,000.00 by a discriminating court ?And this is an example of the hate and ignorance that warrants public accommodations regulatory measures.
Those hostile to gay Americans in matters of commerce will find no relief in the courts, where public accommodations laws have been consistently upheld as necessary, proper, and Constitutional as authorized by the Commerce Clause (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US), and such necessary, proper, and Constitutional laws cannot be ignored or violated with the notion of 'religious liberty' as an 'excuse' or 'justification' to do so.
As a fact of law the gay patrons were in fact harmed, and that they might find a similar product from another provider is irrelevant, as the issue concerns regulating the markets, that refusing to accommodate patrons because of sexual orientation is disruptive to the local market and all other related markets, subject to government regulation (Wickard v. Filburn).
Can the law force a Christian pastor to participate in a faghadist wedding?
If you understood the law you wouldn't have to ask that.
Answer the question, deflection doesn't work.
So you honestly don't know what the law is?
Or is it a trick question because there's no such thing as a faghadist?
I know the law, I asked the question to see if you do or should I say if clayton did. You butted in, so answer or go away.
the repeal public accommodation laws...this has been a statute for 30 years, so the reality is the law made them payYep, "consequences" have been served.
The gay couple chose to make these people pay; they didn't have to, but they chose to.
Yeah, this will certainly improve relations.
No doubt the Left will also want to enforce the laws on illegal immigration, pot smoking, and other law-breaking activities too.
Right?
.
Your argument was the law is the law. Now you want to pretend that wasn't the issue, like I said...jello.Compare a law that requires discrimination to one that bans it and you must be an ignorant right winger.Rosa Parks should have sat at the back of the bus too. It was the law.They are not forced. They can either provide the service at their normal price or be sued.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.
You libs have the morals of jello, it can take on any shape to accomplish the goal.
It's a wedding, dumbshit. What part of that do you not get?Baking a cake is not, dumbass. Try to keep up.A wedding is a religious exercise. Doofus.Baking a cake is not a religious exercise. It is baking a cake.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.....
Ironic post is moronic.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?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.
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.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
From the code of Judicial Conduct (link in text above)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.
(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
Message: Disobey the state out of religious conscience and we WILL send your ass to the gulag.Good, whether or not the two women collect, a message has been sent. It's the law.
