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

[NYcarbineer]

Do you not see the difference between making a cake for a person's wedding and hate speech?

Where are the HATE speech laws on this...............................
Have we gone the way of Europe where if you say the wrong thing you go to jail........
I don't agree with the cake...............I'm sure you don't either...............but you cannot cherry pick the law to only the subject of anti discrimination laws which concern you and not that of others...........Equal justice under the law..........Nazi's who would want this are the scourge........I wouldn't bake it..................same as I wouldn't bake an ISIS cake........but under the anti discrimination BLANKET..............I would be in violation of the law.............

No, the point here is that these bakers opened a business, and they must operate their business in accordance with the laws in the state in which they opened the business. Refusal to make a cake because people who are requesting it are gay is against the law in that state.

You are terminally stupid. This is the 20th time or so you've made the argument that they must obey the law. It is an invalid argument. The greatest moments in this country occurred when people stood up against a law they believed was unfair and unjust. The bakers are doing just that.

Oh, so it's like a Nathan Bedford Forrest moment.

 

[paperview]

That is a bogus interpretation of "serving the public". Those laws were originally meant to cover things like taxis and hotel rooms - things for which the person being discriminated against was put to extreme inconvenience due to the nature of the service. It was not meant to convert every private business into Public Space.

Heaping pile of dung. They actually defined PA in the CRA (just in case you were wondering) --

and more specifically to this case, in Oregon.

"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."

ORS 659A.400 - Place of public accommodation defined - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

You are so very wrong.

 

[The Rabbi]

Do you not see the difference between making a cake for a person's wedding and hate speech?

Where are the HATE speech laws on this...............................
Have we gone the way of Europe where if you say the wrong thing you go to jail........
I don't agree with the cake...............I'm sure you don't either...............but you cannot cherry pick the law to only the subject of anti discrimination laws which concern you and not that of others...........Equal justice under the law..........Nazi's who would want this are the scourge........I wouldn't bake it..................same as I wouldn't bake an ISIS cake........but under the anti discrimination BLANKET..............I would be in violation of the law.............

No, the point here is that these bakers opened a business, and they must operate their business in accordance with the laws in the state in which they opened the business. Refusal to make a cake because people who are requesting it are gay is against the law in that state.

You are terminally stupid. This is the 20th time or so you've made the argument that they must obey the law. It is an invalid argument. The greatest moments in this country occurred when people stood up against a law they believed was unfair and unjust. The bakers are doing just that.

Don't address my posts anymore if you cannot behave like a gentleman. I refuse to discuss the issue with you if you are going to insult me. There is absolutely no need for it, it is uncalled for, and if you cannot have a discussion like an adult, put me on ignore. I don't mind at all, seriously.

You repeat the same points over and over. You just dont seem to get that the legality is pretty much irrelevant. It is a non argument.
But I am happy to put your stupid ass on Ignore.

 

[eagle1462010]

Do you not see the difference between making a cake for a person's wedding and hate speech?

Where are the HATE speech laws on this...............................
Have we gone the way of Europe where if you say the wrong thing you go to jail........
I don't agree with the cake...............I'm sure you don't either...............but you cannot cherry pick the law to only the subject of anti discrimination laws which concern you and not that of others...........Equal justice under the law..........Nazi's who would want this are the scourge........I wouldn't bake it..................same as I wouldn't bake an ISIS cake........but under the anti discrimination BLANKET..............I would be in violation of the law.............

No, the point here is that these bakers opened a business, and they must operate their business in accordance with the laws in the state in which they opened the business. Refusal to make a cake because people who are requesting it are gay is against the law in that state.

Do the protections of the Constitution to their religious rights or the State laws have precedence........................
At what point does the small business become public domain versus private domain.
They are the owners.........we are not talking about Walmart here............and their faith is part of their business..........that is the question that needs CLARIFICATION in SCOTUS................

You just said hate speech need not apply.................therefore we can't be forced to bake the Nazi cake........I would state that the law applies to ALL............even the Nazi's who wanted this cake................therefore denied service.........can they not now SUE......................

This whole deal is a GIANT BUCKET OF WORMS...............and it Freakin needs clarification by SCOTUS and our CONGRESS.................................

 

[ChrisL]

Do you not see the difference between making a cake for a person's wedding and hate speech?

Where are the HATE speech laws on this...............................
Have we gone the way of Europe where if you say the wrong thing you go to jail........
I don't agree with the cake...............I'm sure you don't either...............but you cannot cherry pick the law to only the subject of anti discrimination laws which concern you and not that of others...........Equal justice under the law..........Nazi's who would want this are the scourge........I wouldn't bake it..................same as I wouldn't bake an ISIS cake........but under the anti discrimination BLANKET..............I would be in violation of the law.............

No, the point here is that these bakers opened a business, and they must operate their business in accordance with the laws in the state in which they opened the business. Refusal to make a cake because people who are requesting it are gay is against the law in that state.

You are terminally stupid. This is the 20th time or so you've made the argument that they must obey the law. It is an invalid argument. The greatest moments in this country occurred when people stood up against a law they believed was unfair and unjust. The bakers are doing just that.

Don't address my posts anymore if you cannot behave like a gentleman. I refuse to discuss the issue with you if you are going to insult me. There is absolutely no need for it, it is uncalled for, and if you cannot have a discussion like an adult, put me on ignore. I don't mind at all, seriously.

You repeat the same points over and over. You just dont seem to get that the legality is pretty much irrelevant. It is a non argument.
But I am happy to put your stupid ass on Ignore.

Good.

 

[paperview]

Do you not see the difference between making a cake for a person's wedding and hate speech?

Where are the HATE speech laws on this...............................
Have we gone the way of Europe where if you say the wrong thing you go to jail........
I don't agree with the cake...............I'm sure you don't either...............but you cannot cherry pick the law to only the subject of anti discrimination laws which concern you and not that of others...........Equal justice under the law..........Nazi's who would want this are the scourge........I wouldn't bake it..................same as I wouldn't bake an ISIS cake........but under the anti discrimination BLANKET..............I would be in violation of the law.............

No, the point here is that these bakers opened a business, and they must operate their business in accordance with the laws in the state in which they opened the business. Refusal to make a cake because people who are requesting it are gay is against the law in that state.

You are terminally stupid. This is the 20th time or so you've made the argument that they must obey the law. It is an invalid argument. The greatest moments in this country occurred when people stood up against a law they believed was unfair and unjust. The bakers are doing just that.

Oh, so it's like a Nathan Bedford Forrest moment.

 

[ChrisL]

Do you not see the difference between making a cake for a person's wedding and hate speech?

Where are the HATE speech laws on this...............................
Have we gone the way of Europe where if you say the wrong thing you go to jail........
I don't agree with the cake...............I'm sure you don't either...............but you cannot cherry pick the law to only the subject of anti discrimination laws which concern you and not that of others...........Equal justice under the law..........Nazi's who would want this are the scourge........I wouldn't bake it..................same as I wouldn't bake an ISIS cake........but under the anti discrimination BLANKET..............I would be in violation of the law.............

No, the point here is that these bakers opened a business, and they must operate their business in accordance with the laws in the state in which they opened the business. Refusal to make a cake because people who are requesting it are gay is against the law in that state.

Do the protections of the Constitution to their religious rights or the State laws have precedence........................
At what point does the small business become public domain versus private domain.
They are the owners.........we are not talking about Walmart here............and their faith is part of their business..........that is the question that needs CLARIFICATION in SCOTUS................

You just said hate speech need not apply.................therefore we can't be forced to bake the Nazi cake........I would state that the law applies to ALL............even the Nazi's who wanted this cake................therefore denied service.........can they not now SUE......................

This whole deal is a GIANT BUCKET OF WORMS...............and it Freakin needs clarification by SCOTUS and our CONGRESS.................................

Businesses have to follow the laws in their respective states. End of story. If you don't like the law, you can petition to have it changed.

 

[ChrisL]

Do you not see the difference between making a cake for a person's wedding and hate speech?

Where are the HATE speech laws on this...............................
Have we gone the way of Europe where if you say the wrong thing you go to jail........
I don't agree with the cake...............I'm sure you don't either...............but you cannot cherry pick the law to only the subject of anti discrimination laws which concern you and not that of others...........Equal justice under the law..........Nazi's who would want this are the scourge........I wouldn't bake it..................same as I wouldn't bake an ISIS cake........but under the anti discrimination BLANKET..............I would be in violation of the law.............

No, the point here is that these bakers opened a business, and they must operate their business in accordance with the laws in the state in which they opened the business. Refusal to make a cake because people who are requesting it are gay is against the law in that state.

Do the protections of the Constitution to their religious rights or the State laws have precedence........................
At what point does the small business become public domain versus private domain.
They are the owners.........we are not talking about Walmart here............and their faith is part of their business..........that is the question that needs CLARIFICATION in SCOTUS................

You just said hate speech need not apply.................therefore we can't be forced to bake the Nazi cake........I would state that the law applies to ALL............even the Nazi's who wanted this cake................therefore denied service.........can they not now SUE......................

This whole deal is a GIANT BUCKET OF WORMS...............and it Freakin needs clarification by SCOTUS and our CONGRESS.................................

If discriminating against people is important to you, petition to change the law so that you can be free to discriminate.

 

[Yarddog]

We are a Nation in distress over the fanning of flames........Yeah I know it's off topic..............and goes to the other issue of today...........the Rebel Flag...............

This is sad

 

[eagle1462010]

That is a bogus interpretation of "serving the public". Those laws were originally meant to cover things like taxis and hotel rooms - things for which the person being discriminated against was put to extreme inconvenience due to the nature of the service. It was not meant to convert every private business into Public Space.

Heaping pile of dung. They actually defined PA in the CRA (just in case you were wondering) --

and more specifically to this case, in Oregon.

"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."

ORS 659A.400 - Place of public accommodation defined - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

You are so very wrong.

State laws versus the Constitution...............Which is the higher authority..................

SCOTUS needs to clear it up.

 

[eagle1462010]

Do you not see the difference between making a cake for a person's wedding and hate speech?

Where are the HATE speech laws on this...............................
Have we gone the way of Europe where if you say the wrong thing you go to jail........
I don't agree with the cake...............I'm sure you don't either...............but you cannot cherry pick the law to only the subject of anti discrimination laws which concern you and not that of others...........Equal justice under the law..........Nazi's who would want this are the scourge........I wouldn't bake it..................same as I wouldn't bake an ISIS cake........but under the anti discrimination BLANKET..............I would be in violation of the law.............

No, the point here is that these bakers opened a business, and they must operate their business in accordance with the laws in the state in which they opened the business. Refusal to make a cake because people who are requesting it are gay is against the law in that state.

Do the protections of the Constitution to their religious rights or the State laws have precedence........................
At what point does the small business become public domain versus private domain.
They are the owners.........we are not talking about Walmart here............and their faith is part of their business..........that is the question that needs CLARIFICATION in SCOTUS................

You just said hate speech need not apply.................therefore we can't be forced to bake the Nazi cake........I would state that the law applies to ALL............even the Nazi's who wanted this cake................therefore denied service.........can they not now SUE......................

This whole deal is a GIANT BUCKET OF WORMS...............and it Freakin needs clarification by SCOTUS and our CONGRESS.................................

If discriminating against people is important to you, petition to change the law so that you can be free to discriminate.

You don't get my point Chris.................the sword cuts both ways.........laws apply to everyone............even those we disagree with....................

State law versus the Constitution at play here...........were does Freedom of Religion end..................and State Discrimination laws begin...............Do State laws supersede the Constitution...........This has not been answered in the current case..............and needs to be clarified in SCOTUS.......................

 

[ChrisL]

That is a bogus interpretation of "serving the public". Those laws were originally meant to cover things like taxis and hotel rooms - things for which the person being discriminated against was put to extreme inconvenience due to the nature of the service. It was not meant to convert every private business into Public Space.

Heaping pile of dung. They actually defined PA in the CRA (just in case you were wondering) --

and more specifically to this case, in Oregon.

"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."

ORS 659A.400 - Place of public accommodation defined - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

You are so very wrong.

State laws versus the Constitution...............Which is the higher authority..................

SCOTUS needs to clear it up.

Freedom of religion does not mean you can use it to discriminate. That is a BOGUS claim. It means you can practice your religion without interference from government. That does not apply to secular laws when you go into business. When you open a business, you had better be aware of the fact that you have to treat everyone the same, regardless of your own personal views.

 

[ChrisL]

Do you not see the difference between making a cake for a person's wedding and hate speech?

Where are the HATE speech laws on this...............................
Have we gone the way of Europe where if you say the wrong thing you go to jail........
I don't agree with the cake...............I'm sure you don't either...............but you cannot cherry pick the law to only the subject of anti discrimination laws which concern you and not that of others...........Equal justice under the law..........Nazi's who would want this are the scourge........I wouldn't bake it..................same as I wouldn't bake an ISIS cake........but under the anti discrimination BLANKET..............I would be in violation of the law.............

No, the point here is that these bakers opened a business, and they must operate their business in accordance with the laws in the state in which they opened the business. Refusal to make a cake because people who are requesting it are gay is against the law in that state.

Do the protections of the Constitution to their religious rights or the State laws have precedence........................
At what point does the small business become public domain versus private domain.
They are the owners.........we are not talking about Walmart here............and their faith is part of their business..........that is the question that needs CLARIFICATION in SCOTUS................

You just said hate speech need not apply.................therefore we can't be forced to bake the Nazi cake........I would state that the law applies to ALL............even the Nazi's who wanted this cake................therefore denied service.........can they not now SUE......................

This whole deal is a GIANT BUCKET OF WORMS...............and it Freakin needs clarification by SCOTUS and our CONGRESS.................................

If discriminating against people is important to you, petition to change the law so that you can be free to discriminate.

You don't get my point Chris.................the sword cuts both ways.........laws apply to everyone............even those we disagree with....................

State law versus the Constitution at play here...........were does Freedom of Religion end..................and State Discrimination laws begin...............Do State laws supersede the Constitution...........This has not been answered in the current case..............and needs to be clarified in SCOTUS.......................

Freedom of religion ends when you open a business and try to use it for an excuse to discriminate against people.

 

[paperview]

That is a bogus interpretation of "serving the public". Those laws were originally meant to cover things like taxis and hotel rooms - things for which the person being discriminated against was put to extreme inconvenience due to the nature of the service. It was not meant to convert every private business into Public Space.

Heaping pile of dung. They actually defined PA in the CRA (just in case you were wondering) --

and more specifically to this case, in Oregon.

"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."

ORS 659A.400 - Place of public accommodation defined - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

You are so very wrong.

State laws versus the Constitution...............Which is the higher authority..................

SCOTUS needs to clear it up.

They have. You lose.

Look up things like Heart of Atlanta v US

or

Newman v Piggie Park

Just for starters...

 

[boedicca]

That is a bogus interpretation of "serving the public". Those laws were originally meant to cover things like taxis and hotel rooms - things for which the person being discriminated against was put to extreme inconvenience due to the nature of the service. It was not meant to convert every private business into Public Space.

Heaping pile of dung. They actually defined PA in the CRA (just in case you were wondering) --

and more specifically to this case, in Oregon.

"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."

ORS 659A.400 - Place of public accommodation defined - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

You are so very wrong.

That is the recent Prog modfication. Here is the original. It does not encompass all retail businesses, but rather the ones where a service is consumed onsite or engaged in interstate commerce.

A local bakery providing only take out goods to the local community doesn't fall under this original definition.

Title II
Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private"

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

More detail at this link:

Civil Rights Act of 1964 Public Accommodation

 

[boedicca]

Where are the HATE speech laws on this...............................
Have we gone the way of Europe where if you say the wrong thing you go to jail........
I don't agree with the cake...............I'm sure you don't either...............but you cannot cherry pick the law to only the subject of anti discrimination laws which concern you and not that of others...........Equal justice under the law..........Nazi's who would want this are the scourge........I wouldn't bake it..................same as I wouldn't bake an ISIS cake........but under the anti discrimination BLANKET..............I would be in violation of the law.............

No, the point here is that these bakers opened a business, and they must operate their business in accordance with the laws in the state in which they opened the business. Refusal to make a cake because people who are requesting it are gay is against the law in that state.

Do the protections of the Constitution to their religious rights or the State laws have precedence........................
At what point does the small business become public domain versus private domain.
They are the owners.........we are not talking about Walmart here............and their faith is part of their business..........that is the question that needs CLARIFICATION in SCOTUS................

You just said hate speech need not apply.................therefore we can't be forced to bake the Nazi cake........I would state that the law applies to ALL............even the Nazi's who wanted this cake................therefore denied service.........can they not now SUE......................

This whole deal is a GIANT BUCKET OF WORMS...............and it Freakin needs clarification by SCOTUS and our CONGRESS.................................

If discriminating against people is important to you, petition to change the law so that you can be free to discriminate.

You don't get my point Chris.................the sword cuts both ways.........laws apply to everyone............even those we disagree with....................

State law versus the Constitution at play here...........were does Freedom of Religion end..................and State Discrimination laws begin...............Do State laws supersede the Constitution...........This has not been answered in the current case..............and needs to be clarified in SCOTUS.......................

Freedom of religion ends when you open a business and try to use it for an excuse to discriminate against people.

I call shenanigans. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the bakery owners opened their bakery in order to discriminate against gays. You loons are really unhinged. SRSLY

 

[bodecea]

Is Christianity a race, or a behavior?

It's neither, it's a faith. Many came here seeking religious freedoms and is a major foundation of our system of government. Or it was.

So it's not a race; it's a choice of lifestyle. Just like homosexuality.

The person you replied to obviously has a problem confusing the United States of America with the colony of England the pilgrims established.

Yes the pilgrims set up a theocratic monarchy with the king in England. However the founders of the United States of America fought a war to be free from that theocratic monarchy.

The monarchy lost and the founders of the United States of America wrote what was at the time a very radical document to govern our nation. That document takes religion out of our government and created a secular nation with everyone having the right to choose the faith they want to follow or none at all.

The United States of America isn't the theocratic monarchy that the pilgrims established. America isn't a christian nation no matter what the right says.

It was the people of that theocratic monarchy that burned people, mostly women, at the stake for being a witch.

We live in the United States of America but it seems that about 25% of our people don't realize it. They believe we're still the theocratic monarchy the pilgrims established.

Close.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

EAGLE1462010 SAID:

“The Bakers are a small business.............and their Religion is an extension of their business as well..........And to say they must Bake or decorate cakes that is against their beliefs is discrimination against their personal beliefs.”

This is both ridiculous and wrong:

“Although a State would be "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" in violation of the Clause if it sought to ban the performance of (or abstention from) physical acts solely because of their religious motivation, the Clause does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a law that incidentally forbids (or requires) the performance of an act that his religious belief requires (or forbids) if the law is not specifically directed to religious practice and is otherwise constitutional as applied to those who engage in the specified act for nonreligious reasons.
[…]
We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.”

Employment Division v. Smith US Law LII Legal Information Institute

This means that the sole intent of state and local public accommodations laws is to regulate markets, not disadvantage religion, and as such they do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

Moreover, state and local public accommodations laws are valid measures “prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate,” in this case regulate local markets where state and local public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional as authorized by the Commerce Clause. (Wickard v. Filburn, Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US)

EAGLE1462010 SAID:

“They are receiving funding and SCOTUS will see this again.”

Actually not.

Employment Division v. Smith was unanimous, predicated on settled, accepted case law dating back to the 19th Century; no Federal court or appellate court is going to ignore that case law, so no such case will ever make it to the Supreme Court.

The Court is not going to rule in a manner which will allow criminal suspects to attempt to avoid being convicted by claiming that obeying a given law 'violates their religion.'

 

[NYcarbineer]

That is a bogus interpretation of "serving the public". Those laws were originally meant to cover things like taxis and hotel rooms - things for which the person being discriminated against was put to extreme inconvenience due to the nature of the service. It was not meant to convert every private business into Public Space.

Heaping pile of dung. They actually defined PA in the CRA (just in case you were wondering) --

and more specifically to this case, in Oregon.

"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."

ORS 659A.400 - Place of public accommodation defined - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

You are so very wrong.

That is the recent Prog modfication. Here is the original. It does not encompass all retail businesses, but rather the ones where a service is consumed onsite or engaged in interstate commerce.

A local bakery providing only take out goods to the local community doesn't fall under this original definition.

Title II
Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private"

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

More detail at this link:

Civil Rights Act of 1964 Public Accommodation

They were held liable under state law, not federal law..

 

[eagle1462010]

That is a bogus interpretation of "serving the public". Those laws were originally meant to cover things like taxis and hotel rooms - things for which the person being discriminated against was put to extreme inconvenience due to the nature of the service. It was not meant to convert every private business into Public Space.

Heaping pile of dung. They actually defined PA in the CRA (just in case you were wondering) --

and more specifically to this case, in Oregon.

"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."

ORS 659A.400 - Place of public accommodation defined - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

You are so very wrong.

State laws versus the Constitution...............Which is the higher authority..................

SCOTUS needs to clear it up.

Freedom of religion does not mean you can use it to discriminate. That is a BOGUS claim. It means you can practice your religion without interference from government. That does not apply to secular laws when you go into business. When you open a business, you had better be aware of the fact that you have to treat everyone the same, regardless of your own personal views.

Forcing someone to cater to something against their faith is not a bogus claim...................

The dissenting views at SCOTUS said this would happen.............hell it was already happening..............So they need to clear this up..........................When do Religious rights end..................and I believe it will go there..................

Early in this thread I flamed it..................and showed what I consider to be BS which is normal behavior at times in San Fransiko.............I don't want that garbage here.................keep it there..............having sex on the street and bondage rituals in public places..............both straight and gay................Is this the new norm for this country............

If I'm considered a bigot for saying so............then so be it.................I've always liked your posts Chris...........and still do.........but we will disagree on this one.