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

[bripat9643]

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.

In other words, the government should make discrimination by service providers illegal because it's illegal.

That's the moron substitute for "logic" that you have posted.

The way you keep calling me a moron is amusing. it's like you think repeating it enough will make it come true.

In other words, you're wrong again. That is not what I said. You're clearly not capable of understanding what I said. And I repeat pointing out you're a moron because you scream that in almost every post you submit. Stop saying retarded shit and I'll stop saying you're retarded. Deal? Personally, I don't think you can.

Yes, that's exactly what you said. According to you, discrimination in buying a product or service is different from discriminating in selling a product or service because the later is illegal. Therefore, the later should be illegal.

How is that not an accurate paraphrase of what you said?

You're too stupid to see the fallacy in what you posted even after it has been pointed out to you.

 

[Faun]

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.

In other words, the government should make discrimination by service providers illegal because it's illegal.

That's the moron substitute for "logic" that you have posted.

The way you keep calling me a moron is amusing. it's like you think repeating it enough will make it come true.

In other words, you're wrong again. That is not what I said. You're clearly not capable of understanding what I said. And I repeat pointing out you're a moron because you scream that in almost every post you submit. Stop saying retarded shit and I'll stop saying you're retarded. Deal? Personally, I don't think you can.

Yes, that's exactly what you said. According to you, discrimination in buying a product or service is different from discriminating in selling a product or service because the later is illegal. Therefore, the later should be illegal.

How is that not an accurate paraphrase of what you said?

You're too stupid to see the fallacy in what you posted even after it has been pointed out to you.

See that, retard? I knew you couldn't do it.

 

[toxicmedia]

Of course they do! They also have to follow their local and state laws regarding business practice.

Who says that? I offend all people all the time.

can you cite a case of a muslim business being fined for refusing service to gays? I am quite sure it has happened.

Muslim taxi driver ordered to pay lesbian couple 10k for telling them to stop kissing - The Express Tribune

That's not for refusing service. In fact they decided to not pay the driver.

He's being actually fined for their hurt feelings.

Do you think restaurants in the south should still have the freedom to refuse service to blacks?

The 1964 Civil Rights Act already prohibited discrimination by valid Public Accomodations such as restaurants, hotels, transportation, and entertainment venues. The rationale is that the inconvenience of being denied real time service, i.e. a meal, was important enough to qualify as equal protection.

Other retail businesses do not fall into this category. There is no urgent imperative to have a wedding cake Right This Minute. The public policy in this instance should be 1st Amendment protections. There is no right to not have one's feelings hurt.

I'm glad you don't feel that restaurants in the south should still have the freedom to refuse service to blacks

It's reassuring

 

[toxicmedia]

Have you ever been to Portland OR?

Oregon is extremely liberal, especially in Portland. They make Californians look conservative.

The majority of Oregonians support the anti discrimination laws.

The bakery is required to obey laws that the majority of Portlandians support, and that is not totalitarian, it's a great example of a fully functioning constitutional republic.

I'm not sure if you agree with my characterization...but it's adorable watching the right get all outraged over stuff that happens in liberal bastions like San Francisco and Portland.

So!...on that note!.....The Left Coast, love it, or leave it!

Comrade, if a homeless man walks up to your Prius and demands to know where you are going, you tell him "downtown." He demands that you take him, because your car is in public and you already are engaged in the activity - thus you are his slave - do you as a party member have to obey him? You are in Portland, a city that hates the concept of rights and individuality, so you must be the Uber service for any who so desire.

You're a huge retard and a racist

 

[toxicmedia]

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.

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.

After being a member of this forum, I am skeptical. I used to think racism and gay-haters were rare and the minority, but not anymore. I see what a problem it really is in our society, especially from the older generation who are out of date and out of touch.

Not just that, Fox News and righty talk radio are cultivating new racists with their promotion of conservative Christian victimhood

 

[toxicmedia]

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.

Gays aren't discriminated against in Oregon. They've been welcomed and included..hence the problem.

Sweet Cakes, which was in Oregon, discriminated against gays.

Wrong. They simply opted not to participate in sacrilege. The state can't force them to participate in sacrilege, nor can they tell them what does, and what doesn't, constitute sacrilege.

Haven't you heard of separation of church and state, statist?

No, of course you haven't, lol.

sacrilege...you're all drama

 

[koshergrl]

Here come the race baiters. So it's racist to fail to participate in sacrilege. Got it, loon.

 

[Dragonlady]

I think the state has a right to question why the notion of a gay marriage was so abhorrent to their faith that they would refuse to bake a cake for the occasion when other classes of sinners weren't refused.

You can believe that gay marriage is wrong but you can't refuse service to gays.

 

[The Rabbi]

You and your little friend are getting annoying, you two don't understand the Bible, neither of you knew the difference between Covenants and Testaments, you don't know what moral, ceremonial and Mosaic laws are and you're posting crap I have no intention of wading through. I take neither of you serious because you failed out of the gate, learn what you profess to know and then comment.

You obviously know neither the 613 mosaic laws, 7 of which are noahidic. And nowhere does a covenant supplant a law. As a matter of fact, most covenants enshrined the law even further. Poor you.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

You're not embarassed that a Roman Catholic knows the Torah better than you do? Because what you write is total crap, on a par with "mitzvoteem."

Only, that is bullshit, fake fucking Rabbi. Fake fucking racist bullshit Rabbi.

You are no Jew. You are a faker, a poseur. Nothing more. You are a mote.

Thanks for admitting you dont know what you're talking about. The fact is The Roman Catholic lady knows more about the Bible than you do, fake poseur Jew.

Quite incorrect, as you always are.

Try again, fake Rabbi.

Denial. Also not a river in Egypt. Face it: she handed you your ass and made you look like the dumbass you are.
Remind me what you know about Christianity and its relationship to Mosaic law.

 

[koshergrl]

The state certainly doesn't. Weren't you fools shrieking about separation of church and state when we said the state can't change the definition of marriage? Guess what....it's still separate. The state doesn't dictate the tenets of faith. You sad totalitarian fools. Fags don't fare well during civil wars.

 

[koshergrl]

You obviously know neither the 613 mosaic laws, 7 of which are noahidic. And nowhere does a covenant supplant a law. As a matter of fact, most covenants enshrined the law even further. Poor you.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

You're not embarassed that a Roman Catholic knows the Torah better than you do? Because what you write is total crap, on a par with "mitzvoteem."

Only, that is bullshit, fake fucking Rabbi. Fake fucking racist bullshit Rabbi.

You are no Jew. You are a faker, a poseur. Nothing more. You are a mote.

Thanks for admitting you dont know what you're talking about. The fact is The Roman Catholic lady knows more about the Bible than you do, fake poseur Jew.

Quite incorrect, as you always are.

Try again, fake Rabbi.

Denial. Also not a river in Egypt. Face it: she handed you your ass and made you look like the dumbass you are.
Remind me what you know about Christianity and its relationship to Mosaic law.

And he's crying again. This is like the fourth time Statist has run squealing from the too today.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

NO, you did not make me cry, for I am neither gay nor am I a Nazi.

n.

Wow 3 lies in one sentence. Of course you are wrong. You always are.
The bakers represent the best tradition of American disobedience to authority. You havbe a problem with that because you worship authority, like a good little Nazi.

 

[Pop23]

The state certainly doesn't. Weren't you fools shrieking about separation of church and state when we said the state can't change the definition of marriage? Guess what....it's still separate. The state doesn't dictate the tenets of faith. You sad totalitarian fools. Fags don't fare well during civil wars.

They also argue that separate but equal is bad public policy (marriage vs civil uniouns) but then staunchly defend it when it comes to other things.

 

[Synthaholic]

Can a bakery refuse to bake a retirement cake for a vaccination lab?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

The Kleins are a good Christian couple and I hate seeing this happen to them. I reversed my approval of gay weddings over this outrage. Now I am totally opposed to any gay marriage and will work to have this court decision overturned by new legislation or constutitional convention to outlaw gay marriage. Gays have overstepped. They couldn't leave their victory alone. Now they are using it to persecute decent people who cannot violate their Christian beliefs. The Kleins are going to appeal this decision and I wish them God-speed.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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 am embarrassed for you.

 

[Faun]

Now I am totally opposed to any gay marriage and will work to have this court decision overturned by new legislation or constutitional convention to outlaw gay marriage.

You do that.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

NO, you did not make me cry, for I am neither gay nor am I a Nazi.

n.

Wow 3 lies in one sentence. Of course you are wrong. You always are.
The bakers represent the best tradition of American disobedience to authority. You havbe a problem with that because you worship authority, like a good little Nazi.

You could not possibly be more wrong, fake Rabbi. Thank G-d 99.9% of Jewry is not like you.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Kleins are a good Christian couple and I hate seeing this happen to them. I reversed my approval of gay weddings over this outrage. Now I am totally opposed to any gay marriage and will work to have this court decision overturned by new legislation or constutitional convention to outlaw gay marriage. Gays have overstepped. They couldn't leave their victory alone. Now they are using it to persecute decent people who cannot violate their Christian beliefs. The Kleins are going to appeal this decision and I wish them God-speed.

It's remarkable that anyone can truly be this ignorant of the Constitution and hateful toward gay Americans.

Clearly we're still very much in need of the 14th Amendment jurisprudence that safeguards all Americans' civil rights from this sort of ignorance and hate.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Bigot Cakes By Melissa isn't innocent. We've already established this. There are PA Laws in Oregon, she broke them.

Laws are only meaningful if they are seen to be enforced.