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

[boedicca]

... "Harm" is not the proper criteria for deciding whether actions should be legal.

I swear to dawg, the dumbing down of America has reached it's zenith.

You must really love having the company.

 

[boedicca]

That would require an actual contract. Having a sign "we bake wedding cakes" is not a contract or a promise. If they decide AFTER the contract is signed to back out, then there is harm, and damages can result.

But not $135k in damages unless we are talking about a $135k cake.

Or a $135K message that Homophobes aren't welcome.

Here's the thing. Bigot Melissa is going ot come out okay. She's enjoying her time in the limelight as "Bigot of the Week" and getting money for it.

But the $135K pricetag will get all the other bigots in line, and therefore serves its purpose.

Oh great. That really is the purpose of the Law for Progressives: to make basically innocent people into Sacrifices to their Statist Gods so that the rest of the Small Folk are cowed into obedience.

 

[koshergrl]

Ahhhh, but the Christians get skewered there. Paul counseled Christians to have little dealings with those not of the faith. In fact, he pretty much preached a doctrine of socialism within Christian communities. The Amish Mennonites et al. all have some commercial dealings, but unlike the bakers, their goods are not tied to any specific "religious rite."

That's one reason I have difficulty summoning sympathy for the bakers. I knew a Christian family years ago that employed every adult (and some kids) in a commercial printing business. Can't the Christians find an avocation that does not require them to discriminate in order to not offend their oh-so-precious beliefs of who others can marry?

Or simply act like an adult and a professional

Amazing that Christians of this hateful, bigoted sort have completely forgotten the history of the masons..... and why they were formed.... and how they functioned.

Just amazing.

For we they to know the history, they would know that Christians have been doing business with "unbelievers" of practically all stripes for a good 1800 years now. But all of a sudden, gay people are suddenly too icky for those upstanding Christians to even touch.

Funny that.

The Christians on this thread, well many of them, are almost as stupid and worthless as the fake Rabbi, who is no Rabbi, much less a Jew.

Dude, if you want to talk about hateful bigots then you had best distance yourself from guno. Lately he's descended into the use of NAZI terminology such as "subhumans" when describing those he dislikes. He traveled even further down the NAZI road when he openly wondered what should be "done with them" in future times.

He's a fucking loon.

He's just Statist's type then.

Stat has never advocated for the forced imprisonment and murder of christians as guno has.

But he encourages those who do. He's just nominally more socially adept than guano. He still has the same desire.

 

[koshergrl]

Have some cake, Statist:

Even if we did play dumb, since that's the only way you know how to play....show me where in the Constitution it says that homos can force people to participate in their 'ceremonies'? And in the meantime...you don't have to agree with my religion before I am allowed to practice it. Nor do you get to dictate what is, or is not, a sacrament. I know you've admitted you don't understand what sacrament or sacrilege mean....but for the rest of us who do, it needs to be said.

Practicing your religion and owning a commercial business that serves the public are two different things. When you own a commercial business, you are required to keep to the state and national laws governing commerical business. Period. It is completely separate from your personal religious beliefs.

No, it's not.

That was easy.

According to the law, the law of the land and of the majority, your commercial business is subject to the law. Your personal beliefs are something else, something completely separate. Yes they are.

Your simple minded response is exceptionally unimpressive.

Not according to the majority. Remember? The majority wouldn't pass the laws. So you Nazis bypassed the majority and by a vote of ONE forced this bad, un-Constitutional law upon the rest of the country.

Just how fucking nuts are you? The majority wouldn't pass the laws?? Same-sex marriage was already legal in 3/4ths of the states.

Have some cake, Statist:

Even if we did play dumb, since that's the only way you know how to play....show me where in the Constitution it says that homos can force people to participate in their 'ceremonies'? And in the meantime...you don't have to agree with my religion before I am allowed to practice it. Nor do you get to dictate what is, or is not, a sacrament. I know you've admitted you don't understand what sacrament or sacrilege mean....but for the rest of us who do, it needs to be said.

Practicing your religion and owning a commercial business that serves the public are two different things. When you own a commercial business, you are required to keep to the state and national laws governing commerical business. Period. It is completely separate from your personal religious beliefs.

No, it's not.

That was easy.

According to the law, the law of the land and of the majority, your commercial business is subject to the law. Your personal beliefs are something else, something completely separate. Yes they are.

Your simple minded response is exceptionally unimpressive.

Not according to the majority. Remember? The majority wouldn't pass the laws. So you Nazis bypassed the majority and by a vote of ONE forced this bad, un-Constitutional law upon the rest of the country.

Nice butthurt! But not based in reality.

You see, nazis do not sit at Justices in the Supreme Court.

Of course they do:

"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.."

"In 1992, Ron Weddington, co-counsel in the Roe v. Wade case, wrote a letter to President-elect Clinton, imploring him to rush RU-486 — a.k.a. “the abortion pill” — to market as quickly as possible. “(Y)ou can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country,” Weddington insisted. All the president had to do was make abortion cheap and easy for the populations we don’t want. “It’s what we all know is true, but we only whisper it. . . . Think of all the poverty, crime and misery . . . and then add 30 million unwanted babies to the scenario. We lost a lot of ground during the Reagan-Bush religious orgy. We don’t have a lot of time left.” Weddington offered a clue about who, in particular, he had in mind: “For every Jesse Jackson who has fought his way out of the poverty of a large family, there are millions mired in poverty, drugs and crime.”
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Really Wants Poor People To Stop Having Babies

 

[Statistikhengst]

Or simply act like an adult and a professional

Amazing that Christians of this hateful, bigoted sort have completely forgotten the history of the masons..... and why they were formed.... and how they functioned.

Just amazing.

For we they to know the history, they would know that Christians have been doing business with "unbelievers" of practically all stripes for a good 1800 years now. But all of a sudden, gay people are suddenly too icky for those upstanding Christians to even touch.

Funny that.

The Christians on this thread, well many of them, are almost as stupid and worthless as the fake Rabbi, who is no Rabbi, much less a Jew.

Dude, if you want to talk about hateful bigots then you had best distance yourself from guno. Lately he's descended into the use of NAZI terminology such as "subhumans" when describing those he dislikes. He traveled even further down the NAZI road when he openly wondered what should be "done with them" in future times.

He's a fucking loon.

He's just Statist's type then.

Stat has never advocated for the forced imprisonment and murder of christians as guno has.

But he encourages those who do. He's just nominally more socially adept than guano. He still has the same desire.

YOU are the one on this thread who has called for people to die, not I.

Your own words betray you.

So very christian of you, too.

 

[koshergrl]

Amazing that Christians of this hateful, bigoted sort have completely forgotten the history of the masons..... and why they were formed.... and how they functioned.

Just amazing.

For we they to know the history, they would know that Christians have been doing business with "unbelievers" of practically all stripes for a good 1800 years now. But all of a sudden, gay people are suddenly too icky for those upstanding Christians to even touch.

Funny that.

The Christians on this thread, well many of them, are almost as stupid and worthless as the fake Rabbi, who is no Rabbi, much less a Jew.

Dude, if you want to talk about hateful bigots then you had best distance yourself from guno. Lately he's descended into the use of NAZI terminology such as "subhumans" when describing those he dislikes. He traveled even further down the NAZI road when he openly wondered what should be "done with them" in future times.

He's a fucking loon.

He's just Statist's type then.

Stat has never advocated for the forced imprisonment and murder of christians as guno has.

But he encourages those who do. He's just nominally more socially adept than guano. He still has the same desire.

YOU are the one on this thread who has called for people to die, not I.

Your own words betray you.

So very christian of you, too.

Omigosh, I didn't mean to make you cry! Your friend guano is nearby to comfort you, thank goodness.

 

[bripat9643]

Including the baker? Isn't the baker simply having their " feelings hurt" by making the cake?

No, the baker is placed in involuntary servitude.

You are a leftist, thus dedicated to the eradication of civil rights, so the act of placing enemies of the party in defacto slavery pleases you.

Defacto slavery? Involuntary servitude?
I think if you offer your services to the public then your servitude is quite voluntary.

They didn't offer their services "to the public." They offered their services to those they chose to serve. Love the way liberal morons try to use a play on words as if it was some kind of irrefutable logic justifying the government to hammer anyone who isn't inclined to comply with its dictates.

 

[bripat9643]

... "Harm" is not the proper criteria for deciding whether actions should be legal.

I swear to dawg, the dumbing down of America has reached it's zenith.

What's dumb about that? You turds claim if I don't give you a job that I have "harmed" you. if I choose not to shop in your store, then I have also "harmed" you, and in exactly the same sense. In both cases, you didn't get something you wanted.

How can you possibly argue with this?

 

[westwall]

Or simply act like an adult and a professional

Amazing that Christians of this hateful, bigoted sort have completely forgotten the history of the masons..... and why they were formed.... and how they functioned.

Just amazing.

For we they to know the history, they would know that Christians have been doing business with "unbelievers" of practically all stripes for a good 1800 years now. But all of a sudden, gay people are suddenly too icky for those upstanding Christians to even touch.

Funny that.

The Christians on this thread, well many of them, are almost as stupid and worthless as the fake Rabbi, who is no Rabbi, much less a Jew.

Dude, if you want to talk about hateful bigots then you had best distance yourself from guno. Lately he's descended into the use of NAZI terminology such as "subhumans" when describing those he dislikes. He traveled even further down the NAZI road when he openly wondered what should be "done with them" in future times.

He's a fucking loon.

He's just Statist's type then.

Stat has never advocated for the forced imprisonment and murder of christians as guno has.

But he encourages those who do. He's just nominally more socially adept than guano. He still has the same desire.

No, he doesn't. He might rub you the wrong way and he will support positions that asshats like guno might have, but I have never seen him support one of those asshats when they advocate murder as guno is now doing on a regular basis.

 

[bripat9643]

The new gaystapo flag:

Yes, when all else fails, go full Godwin.

As I have pointed out many times before, "Godwin's law" is just a rhetorical scam designed to protect liberals from the inevitable comparisons with something everyone knows is evil.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

If that were true, then discrimination against blacks would be legal. Discrimination is not legal. And according to Oregon state law, the lesbian couple was harmed.

Blacks used to be harmed because the discrimination was systemic and government mandated. Nowadays the amount of places that would restrict blacks from using them is probably about the same as the number that don't want to work gay weddings, minuscule, and not even coming close to causing harm.

Any blacks being discriminated against are harmed, regardless if it is "miniscule." Same with gays in Oregon.

If I quit shopping at Winn Dixie and switch to Publix, I have "harmed" Winn Dixie. "Harm" is not the proper criteria for deciding whether actions should be legal.

And the retarded offers their tripe... Moron .... this isn't about where you shop -- it's about where you're banned from shopping due to illegal discrimination.

That you think being "harmed" is not legally actionable speaks volumes towards your G-d given mental handicap.

In other words, "I don't have a good argument against your analogy, so I'm just going to tell everyone to ignore it." As my example shows, "harm" is not a good indicator of whether the law should prevent a given action, especially when nobody has been harmed, or when no property has been damaged or even changed hands.

My example shows harm in exactly the sense liberal retards mean it, and yet everyone agrees that it should remain legal.

 

[bripat9643]

Discrimination is not a religious practice.
You have freedom of speech. In some cases your speech has consequences.

Ahhhh, but the Christians get skewered there. Paul counseled Christians to have little dealings with those not of the faith. In fact, he pretty much preached a doctrine of socialism within Christian communities. The Amish Mennonites et al. all have some commercial dealings, but unlike the bakers, their goods are not tied to any specific "religious rite."

That's one reason I have difficulty summoning sympathy for the bakers. I knew a Christian family years ago that employed every adult (and some kids) in a commercial printing business. Can't the Christians find an avocation that does not require them to discriminate in order to not offend their oh-so-precious beliefs of who others can marry?

Or simply act like an adult and a professional

Amazing that Christians of this hateful, bigoted sort have completely forgotten the history of the masons..... and why they were formed.... and how they functioned.

Just amazing.

For we they to know the history, they would know that Christians have been doing business with "unbelievers" of practically all stripes for a good 1800 years now. But all of a sudden, gay people are suddenly too icky for those upstanding Christians to even touch.

Funny that.

The Christians on this thread, well many of them, are almost as stupid and worthless as the fake Rabbi, who is no Rabbi, much less a Jew.

Dude, if you want to talk about hateful bigots then you had best distance yourself from guno. Lately he's descended into the use of NAZI terminology such as "subhumans" when describing those he dislikes. He traveled even further down the NAZI road when he openly wondered what should be "done with them" in future times.

He's a fucking loon.

I concur with you on that point. No one is a "subhuman".

Hillary Clinton is.

 

[bripat9643]

... "Harm" is not the proper criteria for deciding whether actions should be legal.

I swear to dawg, the dumbing down of America has reached it's zenith.

Can you believe that?

You and paperview only demonstrated how profoundly stupid you are.

I'll bet you can't explain why it's "dumb" or "unbelievable." Go ahead, we're all waiting to be enlightened.

 

[koshergrl]

Amazing that Christians of this hateful, bigoted sort have completely forgotten the history of the masons..... and why they were formed.... and how they functioned.

Just amazing.

For we they to know the history, they would know that Christians have been doing business with "unbelievers" of practically all stripes for a good 1800 years now. But all of a sudden, gay people are suddenly too icky for those upstanding Christians to even touch.

Funny that.

The Christians on this thread, well many of them, are almost as stupid and worthless as the fake Rabbi, who is no Rabbi, much less a Jew.

Dude, if you want to talk about hateful bigots then you had best distance yourself from guno. Lately he's descended into the use of NAZI terminology such as "subhumans" when describing those he dislikes. He traveled even further down the NAZI road when he openly wondered what should be "done with them" in future times.

He's a fucking loon.

He's just Statist's type then.

Stat has never advocated for the forced imprisonment and murder of christians as guno has.

But he encourages those who do. He's just nominally more socially adept than guano. He still has the same desire.

No, he doesn't. He might rub you the wrong way and he will support positions that asshats like guno might have, but I have never seen him support one of those asshats when they advocate murder as guno is now doing on a regular basis.

Guano has always done it.

And you're wrong to think well of Statist.

 

[Faun]

If that were true, then discrimination against blacks would be legal. Discrimination is not legal. And according to Oregon state law, the lesbian couple was harmed.

Blacks used to be harmed because the discrimination was systemic and government mandated. Nowadays the amount of places that would restrict blacks from using them is probably about the same as the number that don't want to work gay weddings, minuscule, and not even coming close to causing harm.

Any blacks being discriminated against are harmed, regardless if it is "miniscule." Same with gays in Oregon.

If I quit shopping at Winn Dixie and switch to Publix, I have "harmed" Winn Dixie. "Harm" is not the proper criteria for deciding whether actions should be legal.

And the retarded offers their tripe... Moron .... this isn't about where you shop -- it's about where you're banned from shopping due to illegal discrimination.

That you think being "harmed" is not legally actionable speaks volumes towards your G-d given mental handicap.

In other words, "I don't have a good argument against your analogy, so I'm just going to tell everyone to ignore it." As my example shows, "harm" is not a good indicator of whether the law should prevent a given action, especially when nobody has been harmed, or when no property has been damaged or even changed hands.

My example shows harm in exactly the sense liberal retards mean it, and yet everyone agrees that it should remain legal.

You're a fucking imbecile. Where did I suggest people ignore your post?? I want people to read it. I want people to see just how fucking retarded you are.

Regardless, your example doesn't show harm in the same sense as anything Liberals are saying because your example doesn't make any sense in the context of Sweet Cakes. For your example to make sense in that regard, the lesbians would have had to harm Sweet Cakes by shopping elsewhere. You really are stupid enough to confuse a person preferring one establishment over another; with an establishment violating the law to not do business with a prospective customer because they don't approve with whom they have sex.

 

[Faun]

... "Harm" is not the proper criteria for deciding whether actions should be legal.

I swear to dawg, the dumbing down of America has reached it's zenith.

Can you believe that?

You and paperview only demonstrated how profoundly stupid you are.

I'll bet you can't explain why it's "dumb" or "unbelievable." Go ahead, we're all waiting to be enlightened.

Yeah? How much you wanna bet?

 

[bripat9643]

Blacks used to be harmed because the discrimination was systemic and government mandated. Nowadays the amount of places that would restrict blacks from using them is probably about the same as the number that don't want to work gay weddings, minuscule, and not even coming close to causing harm.

Any blacks being discriminated against are harmed, regardless if it is "miniscule." Same with gays in Oregon.

If I quit shopping at Winn Dixie and switch to Publix, I have "harmed" Winn Dixie. "Harm" is not the proper criteria for deciding whether actions should be legal.

And the retarded offers their tripe... Moron .... this isn't about where you shop -- it's about where you're banned from shopping due to illegal discrimination.

That you think being "harmed" is not legally actionable speaks volumes towards your G-d given mental handicap.

In other words, "I don't have a good argument against your analogy, so I'm just going to tell everyone to ignore it." As my example shows, "harm" is not a good indicator of whether the law should prevent a given action, especially when nobody has been harmed, or when no property has been damaged or even changed hands.

My example shows harm in exactly the sense liberal retards mean it, and yet everyone agrees that it should remain legal.

You're a fucking imbecile. Where did I suggest people ignore your post?? I want people to read it. I want people to see just how fucking retarded you are.

Regardless, your example doesn't show harm in the same sense as anything Liberals are saying because your example doesn't make any sense in the context of Sweet Cakes. For your example to make sense in that regard, the lesbians would have had to harm Sweet Cakes by shopping elsewhere. You really are stupid enough to confuse a person preferring one establishment over another; with an establishment violating the law to not do business with a prospective customer because they don't approve with whom they have sex.

If government made the former illegal then it would be against the law, moron. The point of this discussion is determining the basis for making certain kinds of economic decisions illegal. You begged the question by assumming the decision has already been made.

 

[bripat9643]

... "Harm" is not the proper criteria for deciding whether actions should be legal.

I swear to dawg, the dumbing down of America has reached it's zenith.

Can you believe that?

You and paperview only demonstrated how profoundly stupid you are.

I'll bet you can't explain why it's "dumb" or "unbelievable." Go ahead, we're all waiting to be enlightened.

Yeah? How much you wanna bet?

You failed. You used a logical fallacy - more than one, actually.

 

[Carla_Danger]

When Jesus fed the multitude with the miracle of the loaves and fishes,

I wonder if he had his disciples screen the crowd for gays?

No fish sandwich for you!!!!!!!!

lol, fake Christianity is so lame.

I doubt Jesus was handing out loaves and fishes at a gay wedding.

Just sayin'.

He was busy hanging out with his guy friends. lol

 

[Faun]

Any blacks being discriminated against are harmed, regardless if it is "miniscule." Same with gays in Oregon.

If I quit shopping at Winn Dixie and switch to Publix, I have "harmed" Winn Dixie. "Harm" is not the proper criteria for deciding whether actions should be legal.

And the retarded offers their tripe... Moron .... this isn't about where you shop -- it's about where you're banned from shopping due to illegal discrimination.

That you think being "harmed" is not legally actionable speaks volumes towards your G-d given mental handicap.

In other words, "I don't have a good argument against your analogy, so I'm just going to tell everyone to ignore it." As my example shows, "harm" is not a good indicator of whether the law should prevent a given action, especially when nobody has been harmed, or when no property has been damaged or even changed hands.

My example shows harm in exactly the sense liberal retards mean it, and yet everyone agrees that it should remain legal.

You're a fucking imbecile. Where did I suggest people ignore your post?? I want people to read it. I want people to see just how fucking retarded you are.

Regardless, your example doesn't show harm in the same sense as anything Liberals are saying because your example doesn't make any sense in the context of Sweet Cakes. For your example to make sense in that regard, the lesbians would have had to harm Sweet Cakes by shopping elsewhere. You really are stupid enough to confuse a person preferring one establishment over another; with an establishment violating the law to not do business with a prospective customer because they don't approve with whom they have sex.

If government made the former illegal then it would be against the law, moron. The point of this discussion is determining the basis for making certain kinds of economic decisions illegal. You begged the question by assumming the decision has already been made.

If you had balls you'd be a man. Regrettably for you, neither is the case.

Still, yours is a morons' example since it is a failed comparison. There is no comparison between you preferring where you shop (not illegal) with a person being denied service due to their sexual orientation (illegal).

That you're incapable of comprehending that only serves to demonstrate just how retarded you are.

Which is why I want people to read your posts; to remove any doubt.