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

[martybegan]

Yes, they are. Stop trying to sugar coat it. If the law says provide the cake or be fined/punished, and you don't want to, you are being forced to participate in it.

When government fines are involved, it is force. When any government agency is involved, it is forced.

Nope, you have to follow the laws which the state has the right to set about anti-discrimination. See civil rights for the people. Sorry that you don't understand laws.

What is Discrimination - FindLaw

Wow over 100 pages and you're still repeating the same failed argument.
Everything the Nazis did was legal. I guess the members of the resistence should have been told the law is the law.

And allowing gays to be married or to receive services is like the nazis how? ROFL. YOU are grasping at straws now. Like I said, you can be an arse on your time. No one is stopping you from being an arse.

If your argument is the law is the law and needs to be followed then that applies across the board, whether you're talking about gay marriage or adherence to Nazi ideology. Right?

No. Gay marriage doesn't harm anyone. Neither does selling them a cake. Get a grip, old man. The world is passing you by.

In your opinion, and your's shouldn't count when it comes to someone else's religious freedom.

And the last argument is typical of someone who doesn't grasp the cyclical nature of cultural based phenomenons.

 

[martybegan]

Yes, they are. Stop trying to sugar coat it. If the law says provide the cake or be fined/punished, and you don't want to, you are being forced to participate in it.

When government fines are involved, it is force. When any government agency is involved, it is forced.

Nope, you have to follow the laws which the state has the right to set about anti-discrimination. See civil rights for the people. Sorry that you don't understand laws.

What is Discrimination - FindLaw

I understand them just fine, and appealing to "the law is the law" doesn't answer the question of the law being just or not, something you keep skirting around.

In this case there is a definite conflict between the rights of one side to exercise their religion, and the right of another side to commerce. You think that all the power is on the commerce side, which is a wrong interpretation of the laws, or at least the basis of the laws. You ignore the need to find a compelling government interest needed for the government to take one side or the other, and instead go with "I agree with side X, so side X wins".

The law is set up to protect people from being discriminated against when seeking "public accommodation services" from people like you. Simple really. Because here in America, we are all equals according to the law. Your religious views do not preclude you from following the laws like everyone else has to.

I wouldn't deny a gay couple services if I provided such services, however I don't see why government has to force others who disagree with my position, when there is no compelling government interest.

And again, PA laws have been stretched to include "every business" when they were once strictly defined. Contracted catering services are not public accommodations.

Because it is against the law in that particular state, and states most certainly do have the right to create rules and regulations that businesses have to follow, and that includes civil rights and anti-discrimination laws. Now, you can moan and cry about it all day long, but it changes jack shit. The fact is, in today's day and age, you can no longer open a business and openly discriminate against certain segments of the population because "you don't like them."

States cannot ignore 1st amendment rights, and any laws that do so have to show a compelling government interest.

But in your world it is OK to ruin people via government action because YOU don't like them. Awfully brave of you.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Nope, you have to follow the laws which the state has the right to set about anti-discrimination. See civil rights for the people. Sorry that you don't understand laws.

What is Discrimination - FindLaw

I understand them just fine, and appealing to "the law is the law" doesn't answer the question of the law being just or not, something you keep skirting around.

In this case there is a definite conflict between the rights of one side to exercise their religion, and the right of another side to commerce. You think that all the power is on the commerce side, which is a wrong interpretation of the laws, or at least the basis of the laws. You ignore the need to find a compelling government interest needed for the government to take one side or the other, and instead go with "I agree with side X, so side X wins".

The law is set up to protect people from being discriminated against when seeking "public accommodation services" from people like you. Simple really. Because here in America, we are all equals according to the law. Your religious views do not preclude you from following the laws like everyone else has to.

I wouldn't deny a gay couple services if I provided such services, however I don't see why government has to force others who disagree with my position, when there is no compelling government interest.

And again, PA laws have been stretched to include "every business" when they were once strictly defined. Contracted catering services are not public accommodations.

Because it is against the law in that particular state, and states most certainly do have the right to create rules and regulations that businesses have to follow, and that includes civil rights and anti-discrimination laws. Now, you can moan and cry about it all day long, but it changes jack shit. The fact is, in today's day and age, you can no longer open a business and openly discriminate against certain segments of the population because "you don't like them."

States cannot ignore 1st amendment rights, and any laws that do so have to show a compelling government interest.

But in your world it is OK to ruin people via government action because YOU don't like them. Awfully brave of you.

What's okay is putting a business that breaks the laws, like them or not, out of business.

 

[bripat9643]

Remarks about radical muslim terrorists who want to kill you and me? Yes, I have and will continue to do so. Obama can kiss my cajun ass as he caters to muslims.

Well, then, no one is stopping you from making these remarks, are they? Have you been fined or arrested? No? Then what is your point?

BTW, was the whitehouse lit up in red, white, and blue yesterday? or still in rainbow?

I don't believe so, but that would be a great idea for Independence Day. In fact, I just mentioned that in another thread.

So you see Obama's agenda as being anti american when he lights up the people's house in rainbow colors but does not light it up in patriotic colors on July 4th?

Do you not see what is wrong with that?

Look, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that because I support equal rights and privileges for all American citizens, that I am an Obama supporter. You couldn't BE more wrong. I am not a liberal. I am more a libertarian.

If you wre libertarian you wouldn't support the government telling private bisinesses who the must serve.

You're more of a liberal than a libertarian. The later believe in freedom, not in having government make life fair.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[bripat9643]

^^^

Well, I guess I do hold some liberal social beliefs, to be completely honest, but I also agree with conservatives on some issues too, so I guess I'm actually a centrist.

What issues are those?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[bripat9643]

Bad laws are still laws, you are correct. Laws that discriminate against people because of their religious or personal beliefs are unconstitutional.

It is quite likely that a future SC will vacate this ruling.

What are you talking about? Public accommodation laws and anti-discrimination laws? Don't think so. Lol.

I am talking about the gay marriage ruling, thats what this thread is basically about.

Okay, why don't you clearly state your reason for wanting to deny gay people the same rights and privileges that you have please.

I want them to have every right that I have. I want a gay bakery to be able to refuse service to the KKK or the black panthers or the skinheads.

I want a gay bakery to be free to bake a rebel flag cake or to refuse to bake one.

I want muslims to be free to serve nothing but halal foods or to serve pork if they choose.

Freedom is a two way street.

Sorry, but discrimination does not equal freedom in any sense of the word. If you are to open a business, look up the laws in your area and do not break them, or you will be the one who pays.

Yes it does. How does being compelled by the government to serve 'X' equate to freedom.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[Faun]

You not doing what you get paid to do when I need you to is an actual loss...

That's a stretch.

No, it isn't. And business isn't faith.

Starting a business does not override faith or a persons ability to live under their faith without a compelling government interest.

But starting a business is subject to the laws and regulations of the jurisdiction it falls under. And those laws and regulations cannot be ignored due to one's particular religious belief.

Actually why not? Government has to show a compelling interest when they deny any right to someone, and free exercise of a religion is a right.

How about Halal meat? If a government agency decides to ban halal slaughter, doesn't the religious rights of the Muslims in question override the government desire to regulate, unless a compelling interest is found?

The compelling interest you seek is that they are infringing upon the Civil rights of others. In the case of Sweet Cakes, they infringed upon the civil rights of the lesbians by discriminating against them due to their sexual orientation. Imagine, if that were permissible, all bakeries could refuse selling wedding cakes to Muslims. Or to any group, for that matter.

 

[koshergrl]

That's a stretch.

No, it isn't. And business isn't faith.

Starting a business does not override faith or a persons ability to live under their faith without a compelling government interest.

But starting a business is subject to the laws and regulations of the jurisdiction it falls under. And those laws and regulations cannot be ignored due to one's particular religious belief.

Actually why not? Government has to show a compelling interest when they deny any right to someone, and free exercise of a religion is a right.

How about Halal meat? If a government agency decides to ban halal slaughter, doesn't the religious rights of the Muslims in question override the government desire to regulate, unless a compelling interest is found?

The compelling interest you seek is that they are infringing upon the Civil rights of others. In the case of Sweet Cakes, they infringed upon the civil rights of the lesbians by discriminating against them due to their sexual orientation. Imagine, if that were permissible, all bakeries could refuse selling wedding cakes to Muslims. Or to any group, for that matter.

Bullshit. They didn't infringe upon anybody's rights. They opted out of participating in sacrilege. They provided a list of bakers who would happily serve the customer.

 

[Faun]

No, it isn't. And business isn't faith.

Starting a business does not override faith or a persons ability to live under their faith without a compelling government interest.

But starting a business is subject to the laws and regulations of the jurisdiction it falls under. And those laws and regulations cannot be ignored due to one's particular religious belief.

Actually why not? Government has to show a compelling interest when they deny any right to someone, and free exercise of a religion is a right.

How about Halal meat? If a government agency decides to ban halal slaughter, doesn't the religious rights of the Muslims in question override the government desire to regulate, unless a compelling interest is found?

The compelling interest you seek is that they are infringing upon the Civil rights of others. In the case of Sweet Cakes, they infringed upon the civil rights of the lesbians by discriminating against them due to their sexual orientation. Imagine, if that were permissible, all bakeries could refuse selling wedding cakes to Muslims. Or to any group, for that matter.

Bullshit. They didn't infringe upon anybody's rights. They opted out of participating in sacrilege. They provided a list of bakers who would happily serve the customer.

They broke the law by discriminating against them. Neither a wedding nor baking a cake for one is sacreligious.

 

[boilermaker55]

One of your own, donnie trump sues everyone.
Must be in the right wings blood

Well, you break the law, you get fined.

And if you sprain an ankle in NYC you can file a lawsuit for $5 million.

 

[Borillar]

Damages? they should have been fined the price it cost the couple to walk down the street to a different baker.

$130,000?

Bullshit.

I have to agree. The Fine is excessive and way out of proportion to any harm done.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

This means Chinese restaurants have to make lasagna.

 

[paperview]

Damages? they should have been fined the price it cost the couple to walk down the street to a different baker.

$130,000?

Bullshit.

I have to agree. The Fine is excessive and way out of proportion to any harm done.

How do you feel about the Christian who was discriminated against in Oregon, and was found by the same Oregon Labor Board to receive 325,000.00 dollars?

 

[paperview]

This means Chinese restaurants have to make lasagna.

No, pastahead.

It doesn't.

Why are some cons so stoopid when it comes to using basic logic?

 

[Seawytch]

This means Chinese restaurants have to make lasagna.

Nope. It means if the Chinese restaurant makes noodles for an Asian person, they can't refuse to sell the same noodles to a Christian.

 

[koshergrl]

Starting a business does not override faith or a persons ability to live under their faith without a compelling government interest.

But starting a business is subject to the laws and regulations of the jurisdiction it falls under. And those laws and regulations cannot be ignored due to one's particular religious belief.

Actually why not? Government has to show a compelling interest when they deny any right to someone, and free exercise of a religion is a right.

How about Halal meat? If a government agency decides to ban halal slaughter, doesn't the religious rights of the Muslims in question override the government desire to regulate, unless a compelling interest is found?

The compelling interest you seek is that they are infringing upon the Civil rights of others. In the case of Sweet Cakes, they infringed upon the civil rights of the lesbians by discriminating against them due to their sexual orientation. Imagine, if that were permissible, all bakeries could refuse selling wedding cakes to Muslims. Or to any group, for that matter.

Bullshit. They didn't infringe upon anybody's rights. They opted out of participating in sacrilege. They provided a list of bakers who would happily serve the customer.

They broke the law by discriminating against them. Neither a wedding nor baking a cake for one is sacreligious.

The state doesn't dictate to me what is sacrilegious. It doesn't and never has had that authority. So fuck off and die, authoritarian scumbag.

 

[koshergrl]

PS..refusing to attend an event is not discrimination.

 

[Uncensored2008]

AND the assclowns celebrate the death of the 1st Amendment.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

PS..refusing to attend an event is not discrimination.

There is a SSM wedding coming up I know we will receive and invite to and it's going to create an issue when we have to refuse to atttend

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well, you break the law, you get fined.

Laws that break the Constitution USED to be considered unconstitutional - back in the Old Republic.