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

[eagle1462010]

Ridiculous. SMH.

To you I'm sure it is...................

It's Ok to insult Religion.........Church and State......Church and State.............Cheer when you win a victory and a Nativity scene is not allowed........as the Constitution...................

And say nothing about these events from the very crowds pushing the current debate...................

and demand we say nothing to offend Muslims.................

This issue is not about a CAKE............it is about the path your side chooses to take this country.............and be damned those who disagree..........and their FREEDOM OF RELIGION BE DAMNED...................

And now the Flood Gates of law suits will commence..............via JUDICIAL ACTIVISM.................TO SILENCE ANY DISSENT.................

And at the same time........................say you are for Freedom of Speech..............the only Speech that is Free to be said in your little world.............is anything you agree with............

No others need apply...................

 

[Andylusion]

Just as they are wrong to discriminate against you because of your religious beliefs, you are wrong to discriminate against them. It's quite simple really. If an atheist cannot bring him or herself to bake a cake for a Christian or a Christian cannot bring him or herself to bake a cake for an atheist or a gay person, both are being discriminatory, and that is not going to fly anymore.

Well, too bad. Because we're not going away, and we are not bowing to your dictation on our lives. So, you gotta decide what you will do. Kill us? Fine us? Take away our lives, and our property? What will it be?

Because we are simply not going to cater to SSM. Sorry. It's just not going to happen.... Period. So do whatever you want, it's not changing us.

Nobody wants you to go away or kill you, you nut. Just don't break our secular laws and don't discriminate. If you feel you have to discriminate, then don't go into business for the public.

Well.. we are going to go in business.... and we are going to follow our religious views.

So.... what you going to do? Fines, and jail time won't stop us. So... make up your mind.

 

[frigidweirdo]

said...

1. Kennedy as a Justice by definition should not have a predictable stance.

2. That you feel you can predict him is troubling.

3. Perhaps the six or so adult children raised by gay couples who wrote amicus briefs against gay marriage could petition a case on behalf of children.

4. "Gay" is a behavior. So for that matter any citizen who feels they have a right as a voter to regulate any behaviors (since gay ones aren't more or less special than any others due to equality) might bring a case for suppression of their civil rights.

5. Texas may bring a case for suppression of its civil rights to govern by majority rule.

6. And then there's the aspect of the 1st Amendment and the 9th which says that no other contemporary addition to the Constitution may suppress rights enjoyed in another part.

7. And then there's the problem that the new addition of "behaviors equal race' to the Constitution, which suppresses voters rights to self-govern with regards to behaviors (the only reason TO self-govern) was done by the judicial branch when the legislative is the only one with power to do that.

I'd like to see your rebuttal to 1-7 Frigid.

said..

1) Should not have a "predictable stance", what does that mean? I want to say, surely they should interpret the constitution in a predictable manner because the constitution should be quite predictable in the first place. What worries me a lot is that 4 Supreme Court justices think the 14th Amendment is a load of carp.

2) Why would it be worrying that you could predict what someone does?

3) Six or so children of those in gay couples, wow, so, because of six children in the US, all gay people should be denied equal rights? Hmm, that's interesting.
So, I would take from this stance that you too don't like rights either.

4) ""Gay" is a behavior"? Playing basketball is a behavior, does that mean anyone who plays basketball should be denied the right to choose the consenting adult they wish to marry?

5) Texas can do what it likes. It won't make it to the Supreme Court. The Constitution is clear. States get POWERS (not rights, states don't have rights) that the Constitution hasn't given to the federal govt. The 14th Amendment equality of the law clearly states that the federal govt and the state govts CAN'T treat people in a manner which isn't equal to the law.

So anything Texas does will get taken down time and again, they'll only win with judges who are in their favor automatically. But they're not going to get through the whole federal court system AND be accepted by the Supreme Court.

6) Anyone who thinks your freedom of religion is being suppressed by people marrying is going to fall flat on their face. It's an idiotic argument at best.

7) again, you go off on "behavior", which doesn't make any difference. All individuals should have the right to choose the consenting person of their choice to marry, that's equality under the law (within reason, incest is considered harmful to potential children so is not allowed).

answers...

1. The Constitution is predictable, which makes me wonder why the judicial branch thinks it can make brand new additions to it where just their favorite sexual orientations in minority get protection from majority regulation on marriage while other sexual orientations like polyamory and incest are discriminated against. The legislature may only make changes to the Constitution. So either each and every conceivable sexual orientation got the right to marry last Friday, or none of them did. Any other set of conditions would be a brand new addition to the Constitution; which is forbidden by SCOTUS to do.

2. You're an idiot. If you don't understand why its bad to be able to predict with clockwork regularity what a Justice will do...especially a 'swing' Justice like Kennedy who's claim is that he is impartial and middle road.. then you failed your poli-sci class. You may enjoy biased justice. But the founding fathers didn't. And it was the reason they wrote the bylaws of this country exactly like they did. The dismissiveness with how people take the Supreme Court today and their decorum (Ginsburg & Kagan performing gay marriages as federal entities as the question was pending) is stunning.

3. You seem to promote in each of your appeal's cases that just one couple should not be denied "gay marriage". So when its children, six aren't enough to be spokespeople for their movement? You really are a hypocrite aren't you?

4. Playing basketball isn't marriage. More to the point, it isn't parenting. Gay marriage harms children in that it structurally-deprives them of either a father or a mother. Marriage was the incentive program for a father and mother, grandfather/grandmother in the home for the best benefit of children. Gay marriage shot a torpedo through that and turned marriage into a circus by for and about adults only.

5. Yes, Texas can do what it wants and contrary to your hopes, the "rule of four" will make sure the case comes before Kennedy again. Did you forget about the "rule of four"?

6. Jude 1 of the New Testament of Jesus says that any Christian who enables the spread of a homosexual culture is doomed to hell for eternity. It is one and the same as soul-death. You have a little hurdle dearie...two of them rather...the 1st Amendment which guarantees EACH INDIVIDUAL Christian (it says nothing about "churches") the right to exercise their religion and the 9th Amendment which says that no one part of the Constitution may squelch another. Your negative prognosis on Christian's merits is "silly at best"..

7. So you believe that polygamy and incest marriage are already legal. OK, got that out of you finally. Unless it's found that last Friday's Ruling was a new legislation of the Constitution: and therefore unconstitutional by the judicial branch. And therefore no more binding than a piece of stale chewing gum..

I'm sorry, please forgive me. I didn't realise I was replying to you. Had I known I wouldn't have bothered. I'll put you on ignore now so this mistake doesn't not happen in the future. You have my humblest apologies at my mistake. I simply don't converse with insulters and people whose who notion is to attack other people behind the safety of the internet. Thank you for your understanding.

 

[pauls]

I always thought that religion was for saving the soul and laws were for governing interaction on the physical plane of existence.
The fact is, the store would not serve them only because they were gay. The store is a "public access business" which has to abide by the laws in place. The law says you can't discriminate on the basis of; race, religion, color... long list... or sexual preference. That is an act that usurps the rights of the gay couple. If they had told the couple that they were too busy it would have been fine! No discrimination there! If it had been a gay couple's shop and a Christian couple had been turned down because they weren't gay or because they were Christian then the gay couple would be paying the fine.

Get it through your heads! NO DISCRIMINATION! Your religious beliefs offer no protection against discrimination laws. If it had been a religious bakery - operated by a church - then they could have said no on the basis that it was against the churches canon to serve gays.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, you break the law, you get fined.

Paperview keeps saying it's not a fine. But then, it's not a civil judgement either. Where does some government agency get the authority to impose a monetary judgement on anyone?

They get this authority from the rich people who give them a load of cash to advertise themselves to death so people don't think about voting for anyone else.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Hmmmm,

So two married couples work out at a gym together, one couple married lesbians, the other married straights. They go to the showers. One couple gets to enter their locker/showers together, the other has to go to separate.

Lesbians are attracted to females in the same way males are, but the lesbians get access greater than the straights?

This is going to be a mess folks. Enjoy it while you're ahead!

lol, you mean like the big mess the military was going to be in when gays were given equal rights...

...as in the big mess that never happened and no one even talks about anymore?

Oh, is your argument that this is NOT A PUBLIC ACCOMODATION problem?

Too funny

 

[Pop23]

Because no one talks (or is allowed to) about the big mess doesn't mean there isn't one.

Yep, count on it?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Because no one talks (or is allowed to) about the big mess doesn't mean there isn't one.

Yep, count on it?

Still trying to figure out why Polygamy is a problem for you Pops? Oh did you simply give up?

 

[Andylusion]

I always thought that religion was for saving the soul and laws were for governing interaction on the physical plane of existence.
The fact is, the store would not serve them only because they were gay. The store is a "public access business" which has to abide by the laws in place. The law says you can't discriminate on the basis of; race, religion, color... long list... or sexual preference. That is an act that usurps the rights of the gay couple. If they had told the couple that they were too busy it would have been fine! No discrimination there! If it had been a gay couple's shop and a Christian couple had been turned down because they weren't gay or because they were Christian then the gay couple would be paying the fine.

Get it through your heads! NO DISCRIMINATION! Your religious beliefs offer no protection against discrimination laws. If it had been a religious bakery - operated by a church - then they could have said no on the basis that it was against the churches canon to serve gays.

Don't care. I don't care what you think my religious beliefs offer, or don't offer. Nor do I care about your laws.

As for me and my part... I wouldn't sue a gay couple that refused to serve me. I don't think there is any rational for me to try and dictate to another human being, that they "must serve me". I don't believe in slavery, in either direction.

Yes, they refused to serve because they were gay. They SHOULD have the right to refuse, for any reason. If I don't like the color of your shoes, I should be able to refuse.

Its their business. Their stuff. Their property. Their work. Their labor. Their product. Their everything. Not yours.

So to respond to your rant... yes that's law. The law is wrong, and we intend to fight it. Too bad.... we can vote too.

 

[Pop23]

Because no one talks (or is allowed to) about the big mess doesn't mean there isn't one.

Yep, count on it?

Still trying to figure out why Polygamy is a problem for you Pops? Oh did you simply give up?

We know anything goes with you....

I want better for this land.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Because no one talks (or is allowed to) about the big mess doesn't mean there isn't one.

Yep, count on it?

Still trying to figure out why Polygamy is a problem for you Pops? Oh did you simply give up?

We know anything goes with you....

I want better for this land.

So do I but what the hell does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Oh right, nothin'.

Until you can find a rational reason against polygamy, stop making comment on it.

 

[Statistikhengst]

One of my favorite parts of this case -- is the owner of the bakery -- who called the two women "abominations unto the Lord" (the woman went in with her mother -- and were only there for literally a few minutes at the bakery)

the anti-gay baker -- sports a tattoo on his arm.

Which is -- an abomination unto the Lord.

Yepp. According to Halakha, tattoos are strictly forbidden.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Statistikhengst]

One of my favorite parts of this case -- is the owner of the bakery -- who called the two women "abominations unto the Lord" (the woman went in with her mother -- and were only there for literally a few minutes at the bakery)

-- sports a tattoo on his arm.

Which is -- an abomination unto the Lord.

No it's not, dope

Yes, it is, you stupid fuck. Tanakh forbids tattoos and declares them an abomination. So, go fuck yourself Sassylezbithing.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[The Rabbi]

One of my favorite parts of this case -- is the owner of the bakery -- who called the two women "abominations unto the Lord" (the woman went in with her mother -- and were only there for literally a few minutes at the bakery)

-- sports a tattoo on his arm.

Which is -- an abomination unto the Lord.

No it's not, dope

Yes, it is, you stupid fuck. Tanakh forbids tattoos and declares them an abomination. So, go fuck yourself Sassylezbithing.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

You dont know jack-shit, jack. Quote the passage that calls it an abomination.
More ignorant bawk from the chief of stupidity on USMB.

 

[paperview]

One of my favorite parts of this case -- is the owner of the bakery -- who called the two women "abominations unto the Lord" (the woman went in with her mother -- and were only there for literally a few minutes at the bakery)

-- sports a tattoo on his arm.

Which is -- an abomination unto the Lord.

No it's not, dope

Yes, it is, you stupid fuck. Tanakh forbids tattoos and declares them an abomination. So, go fuck yourself Sassylezbithing.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

You dont know jack-shit, jack. Quote the passage that calls it an abomination.
More ignorant bawk from the chief of stupidity on USMB.

Your near every post are Abominations, Mr. haughty eyes and lying tongue.

 

[JoeB131]

Jesus was killed by Romans.....you know.........the one's partying down with Toga's on and off as they practiced radical sex rituals and cheered as Christians were fed to the Lion's............

Conservative religious Principles..................ROME................

Did you even read your own bible, guy?

Pontius Pilate didn't want to execute Jesus. He went out of his way to try to spare him. He even put up Barabas, a murderer, to try to get the Jews to spare Jesus. He tried to get Herod Antipas to take responsibility for him. finally, he 'washed his hands' of him when the Jewish mob demanded Jesus' death.

Now, yeah, I know after 2000 years of Christian Anti-Semitism, you guys are retconning it blame the Romans. But Jesus got executed because he claimed to be God and the Jews said he wasn't. Which was perfectly correct under Mosaic Law.

Oh. Roman Lions. Never happened. Which is too bad, I'd pay good money to see that.

 

[JoeB131]

Your side defends these Fairs as Freedom of Speech...............Celebrate it in San Fran Scko................
and yet DENOUNCE a REFUSAL TO BAKE A CAKE..........

We must accept this shit in San Fran as perfectly ok............1st Amendment.......1st Amendment.........1st Amendment.......

Freedom of Religion need not apply.

again, public accommedations laws trump first amendment. Just like someone can't walk into this leather fair and say, "I"m offended, I demand you put some clothes on."

When the bakers said, "We make wedding cakes", they put themselves out there as people who make wedding cakes, not just wedding cakes for people they agree with.

 

[JoeB131]

Judge denies bid for Nativity displays in Santa Monica

Yes, it's a religious display on public property.

Unlike the leather show, which is a closed event on private property.

 

[JoeB131]

Well.. we are going to go in business.... and we are going to follow our religious views.

So.... what you going to do? Fines, and jail time won't stop us. So... make up your mind.

I'm happy to keep fining you homophobes until you are broke.

 

[Statistikhengst]

One of my favorite parts of this case -- is the owner of the bakery -- who called the two women "abominations unto the Lord" (the woman went in with her mother -- and were only there for literally a few minutes at the bakery)

-- sports a tattoo on his arm.

Which is -- an abomination unto the Lord.

No it's not, dope

Yes, it is, you stupid fuck. Tanakh forbids tattoos and declares them an abomination. So, go fuck yourself Sassylezbithing.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

You dont know jack-shit, jack. Quote the passage that calls it an abomination.
More ignorant bawk from the chief of stupidity on USMB.

Vayikra 19:28, you stupid fuckwad, which is then interpreted by Maimonides in Mishnah Torah 12:11 (you know, the most revered of Rabbis, a fact you should know, but you don't, because you are fake) as the most base form of idolatry, which is indeed to'evah. Anything that invokes false gods is to'evah, and if you were a real Jew, you would have known it. Here you are, always railing on others about context, you claim to be a Rabbi, and yet, you cannot connect two simple dots from the Tanakh and one of our most revered commentaries. This is how willingly stupid and unlearned you are, you disgusting fuckwad. Maimonides even goes so far as to argue that if a certain tattoo does not have the name of a false god etched into it, it is still idolatry, for it takes on the trappings of pagan culture, which is also strictly forbidden in Tanakh, something you would also know if you were a real Jew and had some brain cells to rub together.

You know, ever since my first day in USMB, you have been a rude, disgusting fuckwad to me from the get-go and I have given you more than the benefit of the doubt.

You are not a Jew. Hell, you are not even an adult. You are prolly some 22 year old twinky kid who just can't wait for the next big bare cock to fill up your boypussy with a lot of that protein filled cum that you so crave, and this is why you act so fucked-up. You are as gay as it gets, but don't want to admit it, and so you attack others in order to stay in your fragile closet. You are a fraud, a fake.

So, it's of no use to tell you to go fuck yourself; your to'evah hole is filled day and night, fuckwad. Don't forget to take your truvada, whore.

And by the way, this is the end of my even giving you the slightest benefit of the doubt. Until now, you have seen my nice side. Just wait until you see the other side.

I am sure that when death gets the contract to come pick you up, it will want it's money back.