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

[martybegan]

Compelling interest requires an actual harm, not hurt feelings.

If it were "all" bakeries that would be an actual harm, considering the limited scope of the number of bakeries that refuse service in these cases, there is no real harm, and thus no compelling interest that overrides a person's freedom of exercise.

The baker is the one with the actual harm, they have to perform an act against their will simply because of someone's hurt feelings. since the force is on the side against them, the harm is on them, not on the gay couple in this case.

again, this argument was made 50 years ago when racists didn't want to served black people and insisted Jesus was totally cool with that.

it didn't fly then, and it doesn't fly now.

If your superstitions don't allow you to do services you offered and advertised as providing, you have a remedy- You can sell your business.

That was systemic government enforced discrimination, where Religion was just a cover for economic oppression and political isolation. That is not the case here, hell there are studies that say gays are often more affluent then straights, and there is no question of their political power as a block.

You are using a tool designed to clear cut a forest to prune one tree, it's not smart, nor fair, nor american.

 

[JoeB131]

More "if I agree with it, it's OK, if I don't, its not OK" logic from you Joe.

And if you think Curves can get away with it, and bakers can't, then you are a hypocrite.

The thing is, there's nothing mean-spirited in the product Curves provides. Some women don't feel comfortable with men watching them work out, just like some women don't feel comfortable with men watching them pee. Are you going to argue that this

is discriminatory, too?

It seems to me that Curves has a good argument. Some women don't like to work out with men oggling them.

Bigoted Bakers argument is that after they offered a service, a Magic Fairy in the Sky told them no to provide it to some people.

 

[JoeB131]

That was systemic government enforced discrimination, where Religion was just a cover for economic oppression and political isolation. That is not the case here, hell there are studies that say gays are often more affluent then straights, and there is no question of their political power as a block.

You are using a tool designed to clear cut a forest to prune one tree, it's not smart, nor fair, nor american.

Again, my dearest friend in the world was fired from her job after 14 years of loyal service because the boss found out she was a lesbian.

I've known gay people who've been beaten up for being gay.

Homophobia is a tree that needs to be uprooted and burned.

After 2000 years of you homophobes getting your way on things, you are now whining because you have to bake a cake you will be paid to bake?

HORSESHIT.

 

[martybegan]

More "if I agree with it, it's OK, if I don't, its not OK" logic from you Joe.

And if you think Curves can get away with it, and bakers can't, then you are a hypocrite.

The thing is, there's nothing mean-spirited in the product Curves provides. Some women don't feel comfortable with men watching them work out, just like some women don't feel comfortable with men watching them pee. Are you going to argue that this

is discriminatory, too?

It seems to me that Curves has a good argument. Some women don't like to work out with men oggling them.

Bigoted Bakers argument is that after they offered a service, a Magic Fairy in the Sky told them no to provide it to some people.

I have a curves 3 blocks from my apartment, the next nearest Gym is 1.5 miles away. If I was a butthurt prog such as yourself I should sue them for making my life just a little bit harder.

But I'm not, so I won't.

The reason doesn't matter when it comes to 1st amendment rights, no matter how bigoted you are against people of faith.

 

[martybegan]

That was systemic government enforced discrimination, where Religion was just a cover for economic oppression and political isolation. That is not the case here, hell there are studies that say gays are often more affluent then straights, and there is no question of their political power as a block.

You are using a tool designed to clear cut a forest to prune one tree, it's not smart, nor fair, nor american.

Again, my dearest friend in the world was fired from her job after 14 years of loyal service because the boss found out she was a lesbian.

I've known gay people who've been beaten up for being gay.

Homophobia is a tree that needs to be uprooted and burned.

After 2000 years of you homophobes getting your way on things, you are now whining because you have to bake a cake you will be paid to bake?

HORSESHIT.

There is no reason to force a baker to bake a cake for the reasons above, again, you are clear cutting a forest to get rid of a few bad trees.

This is nothing but vindictiveness on your part, and I am not surprised considering your posting and position. You are just a small, petty man.

 

[JoeB131]

I have a curves 3 blocks from my apartment, the next nearest Gym is 1.5 miles away. If I was a butthurt prog such as yourself I should sue them for making my life just a little bit harder.

But I'm not, so I won't.

The reason doesn't matter when it comes to 1st amendment rights, no matter how bigoted you are against people of faith.

You could sue them, but you'd lose.

Because they can argue that there really are physical differences between men and women and they have set up their business to cater to women.

I guess you can then sue a gynocologist for not giving you a prostate exam under that 'logic".

Quite a bit different from "I'm providing a service but not to you because my Imaginary Friend in the Sky says not to, even though I happily do business with a bunch of other people who violate the Imaginary Friend's rules."

 

[JoeB131]

There is no reason to force a baker to bake a cake for the reasons above, again, you are clear cutting a forest to get rid of a few bad trees.

This is nothing but vindictiveness on your part, and I am not surprised considering your posting and position. You are just a small, petty man.

No one is forcing them to bake a cake. They are more than free to close up shop and get out of the bakery business. They can even get out of just the business of wedding cakes and just limit themselves to pastries and breads.

 

[martybegan]

I have a curves 3 blocks from my apartment, the next nearest Gym is 1.5 miles away. If I was a butthurt prog such as yourself I should sue them for making my life just a little bit harder.

But I'm not, so I won't.

The reason doesn't matter when it comes to 1st amendment rights, no matter how bigoted you are against people of faith.

You could sue them, but you'd lose.

Because they can argue that there really are physical differences between men and women and they have set up their business to cater to women.

I guess you can then sue a gynocologist for not giving you a prostate exam under that 'logic".

Quite a bit different from "I'm providing a service but not to you because my Imaginary Friend in the Sky says not to, even though I happily do business with a bunch of other people who violate the Imaginary Friend's rules."

Actually there no difference, except that you are OK with one, and not the other because of your bigotry against religious people.

If there are physical differences between men and women, that means there are differences between SSM and OSM right?

 

[martybegan]

There is no reason to force a baker to bake a cake for the reasons above, again, you are clear cutting a forest to get rid of a few bad trees.

This is nothing but vindictiveness on your part, and I am not surprised considering your posting and position. You are just a small, petty man.

No one is forcing them to bake a cake. They are more than free to close up shop and get out of the bakery business. They can even get out of just the business of wedding cakes and just limit themselves to pastries and breads.

Again, that is forcing them. They shouldn't have to change what they do because of someone's hurt feelings.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Why does a person give up rights when they decide they want to sell something? More importantly, why does the government's ability to regulate commerce override a person's freedom of religious exercise, in particular when it comes to services that are not either 1) matters of life and death and 2) non time sensitive?

again- Public Accommodation Laws. This was argued 50 years ago.

If your religion prohibits you from serving certain customers, you have the remedy of getting out of htat line of work.

That's no actual remedy in cases like this, where it is not a true "public accommodation." PA's are not "Every business out there", they are very specific, and are listed in the federal civil rights act.

The case wasn't brought under Federal law, the case was brought under State law which defines a place of Public Accommodation as " 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." The law exclude hospitals, correction facilities, and private entity that is distinctly private.


>>>>

 

[martybegan]

Why does a person give up rights when they decide they want to sell something? More importantly, why does the government's ability to regulate commerce override a person's freedom of religious exercise, in particular when it comes to services that are not either 1) matters of life and death and 2) non time sensitive?

again- Public Accommodation Laws. This was argued 50 years ago.

If your religion prohibits you from serving certain customers, you have the remedy of getting out of htat line of work.

That's no actual remedy in cases like this, where it is not a true "public accommodation." PA's are not "Every business out there", they are very specific, and are listed in the federal civil rights act.

The case wasn't brought under Federal law, the case was brought under State law which defines a place of Public Accommodation as " 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." The law exclude hospitals, correction facilities, and private entity that is distinctly private.


>>>>

The law is far to broad. Under this Curves would be forced to allow men to join.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is no reason to force a baker to bake a cake for the reasons above, again, you are clear cutting a forest to get rid of a few bad trees.

This is nothing but vindictiveness on your part, and I am not surprised considering your posting and position. You are just a small, petty man.

No one is forcing them to bake a cake. They are more than free to close up shop and get out of the bakery business. They can even get out of just the business of wedding cakes and just limit themselves to pastries and breads.

Again, that is forcing them. They shouldn't have to change what they do because of someone's hurt feelings.

Laws force everyone to do things they wouldn't do otherwise. Thank goodness for that.

 

[ChrisL]

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

You don't know anything about me, so shut up. If it weren't for people who are complete and total assholes, we wouldn't NEED laws to make things fair. We could trust people. Unfortunately, the world is filled with ignorant arses.

You have your freedom. No one is forcing you to do anything. If you break the law, that's your own fault and you should take responsibility instead of whining that life is so "unfair" to you. People like you just like to whine about . . . well pretty much everything.

 

[ChrisL]

^^^

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

Second amendment, immigration, military. Any more questions? You see that? You seem to think you know things, but in reality you are QUITE ignorant.

 

[ChrisL]

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

Wait a minute! Isn't it your side who is complaining that it isn't fair that you can't discriminate? Oh yes, I think so. You people have been whining for a week now because, OMG, you have to serve the gays!!! The horror. You poor little thingies.

 

[martybegan]

There is no reason to force a baker to bake a cake for the reasons above, again, you are clear cutting a forest to get rid of a few bad trees.

This is nothing but vindictiveness on your part, and I am not surprised considering your posting and position. You are just a small, petty man.

No one is forcing them to bake a cake. They are more than free to close up shop and get out of the bakery business. They can even get out of just the business of wedding cakes and just limit themselves to pastries and breads.

Again, that is forcing them. They shouldn't have to change what they do because of someone's hurt feelings.

Laws force everyone to do things they wouldn't do otherwise. Thank goodness for that.

Actually laws are mostly for people who would follow them anyway. A society that has a predisposition for lawlessness doesn't last long.

Of course, making so many laws that everything becomes illegal in some way is one of the end results of progressivism and nannyism, which of course go hand in hand.

 

[Redfish]

There is no reason to force a baker to bake a cake for the reasons above, again, you are clear cutting a forest to get rid of a few bad trees.

This is nothing but vindictiveness on your part, and I am not surprised considering your posting and position. You are just a small, petty man.

No one is forcing them to bake a cake. They are more than free to close up shop and get out of the bakery business. They can even get out of just the business of wedding cakes and just limit themselves to pastries and breads.

Again, that is forcing them. They shouldn't have to change what they do because of someone's hurt feelings.

Laws force everyone to do things they wouldn't do otherwise. Thank goodness for that.

yes, and thats a good thing. the problem today is that we are passing laws the punish people for what they think and believe.

Hate crimes------------------its a worse crime if you are killed because the killer doesn't like your race than if he kills you to steal your watch. Does that really make any sense to you?

 

[Redfish]

There is no reason to force a baker to bake a cake for the reasons above, again, you are clear cutting a forest to get rid of a few bad trees.

This is nothing but vindictiveness on your part, and I am not surprised considering your posting and position. You are just a small, petty man.

No one is forcing them to bake a cake. They are more than free to close up shop and get out of the bakery business. They can even get out of just the business of wedding cakes and just limit themselves to pastries and breads.

Again, that is forcing them. They shouldn't have to change what they do because of someone's hurt feelings.

Laws force everyone to do things they wouldn't do otherwise. Thank goodness for that.

Only if they are enforced. Are we enforcing our immigration laws?

 

[JoeB131]

Actually there no difference, except that you are OK with one, and not the other because of your bigotry against religious people.

If there are physical differences between men and women, that means there are differences between SSM and OSM right?

Not in terms of the legal aspects, no.

 

[JoeB131]

Again, that is forcing them. They shouldn't have to change what they do because of someone's hurt feelings.

If they promised a service and didn't provide it, they broke the law.