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

[Seawytch]

Enough of this insanity already!!! What ever happened to "we reserve the right to refuse to serve anyone"? Some people don't deserve the right to be served, particularly when we're having it shoved down our throats.

It's time the Left got a dose of their own medicine. It's time for public accommodation laws to be struck down by the Supreme Court.

All of them.

And yet when they had a chance, they sent the case back to the lower court.

Supreme Court declines case of photographer who denied service to gay couple - The Washington Post

 

[Seawytch]

Evidently it hasn't ended, the bakers filed suit yesterday. It will probably end up with SCOTUS

SCOTUS has already thrown out similiar lawsuits, and that was BEFORE marriage was declared a right.

The Bigoted Kleins don't have a leg to stand on.

This was not a fine. These were damages. Not only for refusing the service, but also the misery that the Kleins put the Bowman-Crier family through by putting their names and address out on Facebook and the public domain. In turn, they received death threats from "Christians" showing how much of what Jesus had to say really sunk in.

Forgot about Hobby Lobby already, did you? Leftwats sure do have short memories.

Nothing to forget...didn't read the opinions did you?

But on Monday morning, the apocalypse didn’t come. In fact, quite the opposite: In its ruling for Hobby Lobby, the court—in an opinion authored by arch-conservative Justice Samuel Alito—explicitly stated that RFRA could not be used as a “shield” to “cloak … discrimination in hiring” as a “religious practice to escape legal sanction.” RFRA doesn’t permit employers to break a law when there is a compelling government interest backing that regulation, and, according to Alito, the government “has a compelling interest in providing an equal opportunity to participate in the workforce.”

Alito cites racial discrimination in his opinion. But Justice Anthony Kennedy, in a concurrence, cabins the court’s ruling even further, making clear that the majority isn’t rewriting RFRA (or the First Amendment) to protect anti-gay discrimination. Kennedy denies that the opinion is a startling “breadth and sweep,” noting that this case could easily be “distinguish[ed] ... from many others in which it is more difficult” to strike a balance between legal regulations and “an alleged statutory right of free exercise.” While religious liberty may permit employers to exercise their own beliefs to a point, “neither may that same exercise unduly restrict … employees in protecting their own interests.” Translation: This case is about birth control and nothing more—and as a general rule, employees still have a compelling interest in most laws that protect their rights.

The Hobby Lobby ruling is good for gays and doesn t allow discrimination.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Evidently it hasn't ended, the bakers filed suit yesterday. It will probably end up with SCOTUS

SCOTUS has already thrown out similiar lawsuits, and that was BEFORE marriage was declared a right.

The Bigoted Kleins don't have a leg to stand on.

This was not a fine. These were damages. Not only for refusing the service, but also the misery that the Kleins put the Bowman-Crier family through by putting their names and address out on Facebook and the public domain. In turn, they received death threats from "Christians" showing how much of what Jesus had to say really sunk in.

Forgot about Hobby Lobby already, did you? Leftwats sure do have short memories.

Nothing to forget...didn't read the opinions did you?

But on Monday morning, the apocalypse didn’t come. In fact, quite the opposite: In its ruling for Hobby Lobby, the court—in an opinion authored by arch-conservative Justice Samuel Alito—explicitly stated that RFRA could not be used as a “shield” to “cloak … discrimination in hiring” as a “religious practice to escape legal sanction.” RFRA doesn’t permit employers to break a law when there is a compelling government interest backing that regulation, and, according to Alito, the government “has a compelling interest in providing an equal opportunity to participate in the workforce.”

Alito cites racial discrimination in his opinion. But Justice Anthony Kennedy, in a concurrence, cabins the court’s ruling even further, making clear that the majority isn’t rewriting RFRA (or the First Amendment) to protect anti-gay discrimination. Kennedy denies that the opinion is a startling “breadth and sweep,” noting that this case could easily be “distinguish[ed] ... from many others in which it is more difficult” to strike a balance between legal regulations and “an alleged statutory right of free exercise.” While religious liberty may permit employers to exercise their own beliefs to a point, “neither may that same exercise unduly restrict … employees in protecting their own interests.” Translation: This case is about birth control and nothing more—and as a general rule, employees still have a compelling interest in most laws that protect their rights.

The Hobby Lobby ruling is good for gays and doesn t allow discrimination.

Oh, good, you're still alive..

The case had to do with a specific law that pointedly forced a company to violate it's religious beliefs and it falls in line with the simple fact that the Constitution protects religious freedom. The courts will likely also distinguish serving gays in general and serving them in a specific fashion that forces company owners to violate their religious sense of right and wrong. The Constitution protects religious belief, it does NOT protect the "right" to be served by any business...

Which is why the unconstitutional public accommodation laws will soon be in our cross hairs too.

 

[Seawytch]

Evidently it hasn't ended, the bakers filed suit yesterday. It will probably end up with SCOTUS

SCOTUS has already thrown out similiar lawsuits, and that was BEFORE marriage was declared a right.

The Bigoted Kleins don't have a leg to stand on.

This was not a fine. These were damages. Not only for refusing the service, but also the misery that the Kleins put the Bowman-Crier family through by putting their names and address out on Facebook and the public domain. In turn, they received death threats from "Christians" showing how much of what Jesus had to say really sunk in.

Forgot about Hobby Lobby already, did you? Leftwats sure do have short memories.

Nothing to forget...didn't read the opinions did you?

But on Monday morning, the apocalypse didn’t come. In fact, quite the opposite: In its ruling for Hobby Lobby, the court—in an opinion authored by arch-conservative Justice Samuel Alito—explicitly stated that RFRA could not be used as a “shield” to “cloak … discrimination in hiring” as a “religious practice to escape legal sanction.” RFRA doesn’t permit employers to break a law when there is a compelling government interest backing that regulation, and, according to Alito, the government “has a compelling interest in providing an equal opportunity to participate in the workforce.”

Alito cites racial discrimination in his opinion. But Justice Anthony Kennedy, in a concurrence, cabins the court’s ruling even further, making clear that the majority isn’t rewriting RFRA (or the First Amendment) to protect anti-gay discrimination. Kennedy denies that the opinion is a startling “breadth and sweep,” noting that this case could easily be “distinguish[ed] ... from many others in which it is more difficult” to strike a balance between legal regulations and “an alleged statutory right of free exercise.” While religious liberty may permit employers to exercise their own beliefs to a point, “neither may that same exercise unduly restrict … employees in protecting their own interests.” Translation: This case is about birth control and nothing more—and as a general rule, employees still have a compelling interest in most laws that protect their rights.

The Hobby Lobby ruling is good for gays and doesn t allow discrimination.

Oh, good, you're still alive..

The case had to do with a specific law that pointedly forced a company to violate it's religious beliefs and it falls in line with the simple fact that the Constitution protects religious freedom. The courts will likely also distinguish serving gays in general and serving them in a specific fashion that forces company owners to violate their religious sense of right and wrong. The Constitution protects religious belief, it does NOT protect the "right" to be served by any business...

Which is why the unconstitutional public accommodation laws will soon be in our cross hairs too.

Great! Make sure you start with the Federal law that protects Christians.

Not a "states rights" guy?

 

[JoeB131]

Hillary will be well to have avoided prison by then. I see Gowdy caught her in yet another whopper. But you're a left loon, honesty and credibility means nothing to you....just push that agenda

Uh, yeah, here's the thing. I've been hearing from you guys for 20 years about how you were going to send Hillary to jail for something.

So crediblity on your part is lacking.

Gowdy is going to be a laughingstock when this is done.

Meanwhile, you guys still haven't solved the same problem you had in 2012... how to get non-white people to vote for you. You are of to a great start with Donald Trump, though.

 

[JoeB131]

It's time the Left got a dose of their own medicine. It's time for public accommodation laws to be struck down by the Supreme Court.

All of them.

Why? Frankly, they do a lot of good.

Not seeing any good reason to change very good and fair laws so a few asshole vendors can be comfortable in their bigotry.

 

[Jackson]

Getting really tired of some people declaring they are better or more moral than others. Pay the damn fine and get over your bigotry.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

It's time the Left got a dose of their own medicine. It's time for public accommodation laws to be struck down by the Supreme Court.

All of them.

Why? Frankly, they do a lot of good.

Not seeing any good reason to change very good and fair laws so a few asshole vendors can be comfortable in their bigotry.

Actually those laws increased bigotry. You're an example of that.

 

[Vigilante]

Did anyone happen to mention this?

Sweet Cakes by Melissa raises more than $200,000 to cover fine by Oregon Gaystapo

CainTV.com ^ | July 8, 2015 | Dan Calabrese
Score one for the good guys, even if it's only a partial victory. The State of Oregon has failed in its attempt to bankrupt Aaron and Melissa Klein for the crime of declining to bake a cake - as the preposterous $135,000 fine it levied was no match for the willingness of good people to help out the Kleins and their now exclusively online business, Sweet Cakes by Melissa. Through a campaign via Continue to Give, people who still respect both faith and freedom have responded to the following appeal by contributing more than $200,000:

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Evidently it hasn't ended, the bakers filed suit yesterday. It will probably end up with SCOTUS

SCOTUS has already thrown out similiar lawsuits, and that was BEFORE marriage was declared a right.

The Bigoted Kleins don't have a leg to stand on.

This was not a fine. These were damages. Not only for refusing the service, but also the misery that the Kleins put the Bowman-Crier family through by putting their names and address out on Facebook and the public domain. In turn, they received death threats from "Christians" showing how much of what Jesus had to say really sunk in.

Forgot about Hobby Lobby already, did you? Leftwats sure do have short memories.

Nothing to forget...didn't read the opinions did you?

But on Monday morning, the apocalypse didn’t come. In fact, quite the opposite: In its ruling for Hobby Lobby, the court—in an opinion authored by arch-conservative Justice Samuel Alito—explicitly stated that RFRA could not be used as a “shield” to “cloak … discrimination in hiring” as a “religious practice to escape legal sanction.” RFRA doesn’t permit employers to break a law when there is a compelling government interest backing that regulation, and, according to Alito, the government “has a compelling interest in providing an equal opportunity to participate in the workforce.”

Alito cites racial discrimination in his opinion. But Justice Anthony Kennedy, in a concurrence, cabins the court’s ruling even further, making clear that the majority isn’t rewriting RFRA (or the First Amendment) to protect anti-gay discrimination. Kennedy denies that the opinion is a startling “breadth and sweep,” noting that this case could easily be “distinguish[ed] ... from many others in which it is more difficult” to strike a balance between legal regulations and “an alleged statutory right of free exercise.” While religious liberty may permit employers to exercise their own beliefs to a point, “neither may that same exercise unduly restrict … employees in protecting their own interests.” Translation: This case is about birth control and nothing more—and as a general rule, employees still have a compelling interest in most laws that protect their rights.

The Hobby Lobby ruling is good for gays and doesn t allow discrimination.

Oh, good, you're still alive..

The case had to do with a specific law that pointedly forced a company to violate it's religious beliefs and it falls in line with the simple fact that the Constitution protects religious freedom. The courts will likely also distinguish serving gays in general and serving them in a specific fashion that forces company owners to violate their religious sense of right and wrong. The Constitution protects religious belief, it does NOT protect the "right" to be served by any business...

Which is why the unconstitutional public accommodation laws will soon be in our cross hairs too.

Great! Make sure you start with the Federal law that protects Christians.

Not a "states rights" guy?

States don't have rights under the Constitution, they have powers. I wouldn't expect you to know that.

 

[Statistikhengst]

White trash sphincter blossom is my fave.

You described yourself so beautifully.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I am sensing that this thread will last a long, long time, cuz gay wedding cakes are important, goshdarnit!

 

[Esmeralda]

Did anyone happen to mention this?

Sweet Cakes by Melissa raises more than $200,000 to cover fine by Oregon Gaystapo

CainTV.com ^ | July 8, 2015 | Dan Calabrese
Score one for the good guys.......

Good guys? You mean the small minded, mean spirited, bigoted, hypocritical, self rightous Christians? LMAO Good guys indeed....quel imbécile.

 

[Esmeralda]

Getting really tired of some people declaring they are better or more moral than others. Pay the damn fine and get over your bigotry.

 

[Esmeralda]

I am sensing that this thread will last a long, long time, cuz gay wedding cakes are important, goshdarnit!

It's not about cake. It's about social hierarchy....we the religious (religious fundamentalists) are better and more righteous than others...

 

[bripat9643]

If you read the post you will see the grounds. I object to either plural marriage or incestuous marriage being legal, but I see no sound legal argument that will stop it.

You?

If so, please explain. It seems that the arguments that afforded the right of marriage to same sex apply equally to plural and many forms of incestuous marriage.

I think, Pop, is has to do with what society as a whole finds acceptable, what becomes a cultural more. It is a fact that most of society accepts homosexual marriage, one person married to one person. They are not being forced to accept it, it is simply how the society is evolving, and it is happening all over the planet, not just in the US. That is how things work. They change and evolve.


If someday, incestual marriages and/or plural marriages become part of our cultural mores, they will probably be legal too, but I think that is unlikely because, in the past, both have been legal, and society has evolved away from that: it's not likely we will go backward.


You don't agree with homosexual marriage, but that doesn't mean most of society doesn’t agree with it. It is something that is becoming accepted around the world. It's part of social change, natural social change. The times are changing; get with the program or sink like a stone--to paraphrase some singer, now who was it? LOL

If it is 'a fact' that most of our society accepts homosexual marriage....why is it more than 30 states voted against it....?

the will of The People has been struck down by lousy lawyers in black robes....and now the fascists are attempting to silence Christians...

States That Voted Against Gay Marriage Now Have It Forced Upon Them

Those votes happened in what year mostly? I'll give you a hint...pick a number between 2000 and 2008...

(FYI...it's 2015)

Polls are not to be trusted.......votes are much more reliable....

The polls all said Romney was losing. That you believed Karl Rove is not the fault of the polls.

You don't get to vote on Civil Rights.

It's not a civil right.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[Pop23]

Did anyone happen to mention this?

Sweet Cakes by Melissa raises more than $200,000 to cover fine by Oregon Gaystapo

CainTV.com ^ | July 8, 2015 | Dan Calabrese
Score one for the good guys.......

Good guys? You mean the small minded, mean spirited, bigoted, hypocritical, self rightous Christians? LMAO Good guys indeed....quel imbécile.

They take the long veiw, without the limiting factor of one man to one woman, not blood related, incest is just a few steps away.

Not good, not good at all

 

[ChrisL]

Did anyone happen to mention this?

Sweet Cakes by Melissa raises more than $200,000 to cover fine by Oregon Gaystapo

CainTV.com ^ | July 8, 2015 | Dan Calabrese
Score one for the good guys.......

Good guys? You mean the small minded, mean spirited, bigoted, hypocritical, self rightous Christians? LMAO Good guys indeed....quel imbécile.

They take the long veiw, without the limiting factor of one man to one woman, not blood related, incest is just a few steps away.

Not good, not good at all

Poor poppy.

 

[Pop23]

Did anyone happen to mention this?

Sweet Cakes by Melissa raises more than $200,000 to cover fine by Oregon Gaystapo

CainTV.com ^ | July 8, 2015 | Dan Calabrese
Score one for the good guys.......

Good guys? You mean the small minded, mean spirited, bigoted, hypocritical, self rightous Christians? LMAO Good guys indeed....quel imbécile.

They take the long veiw, without the limiting factor of one man to one woman, not blood related, incest is just a few steps away.

Not good, not good at all

Poor poppy.

Not me, the poor children created by defective bloodlines. Such horrible disfigurements they will have to endure.

But that's OK to progressives, right?

 

[ChrisL]

I think, Pop, is has to do with what society as a whole finds acceptable, what becomes a cultural more. It is a fact that most of society accepts homosexual marriage, one person married to one person. They are not being forced to accept it, it is simply how the society is evolving, and it is happening all over the planet, not just in the US. That is how things work. They change and evolve.


If someday, incestual marriages and/or plural marriages become part of our cultural mores, they will probably be legal too, but I think that is unlikely because, in the past, both have been legal, and society has evolved away from that: it's not likely we will go backward.


You don't agree with homosexual marriage, but that doesn't mean most of society doesn’t agree with it. It is something that is becoming accepted around the world. It's part of social change, natural social change. The times are changing; get with the program or sink like a stone--to paraphrase some singer, now who was it? LOL

If it is 'a fact' that most of our society accepts homosexual marriage....why is it more than 30 states voted against it....?

the will of The People has been struck down by lousy lawyers in black robes....and now the fascists are attempting to silence Christians...

States That Voted Against Gay Marriage Now Have It Forced Upon Them

Those votes happened in what year mostly? I'll give you a hint...pick a number between 2000 and 2008...

(FYI...it's 2015)

Polls are not to be trusted.......votes are much more reliable....

The polls all said Romney was losing. That you believed Karl Rove is not the fault of the polls.

You don't get to vote on Civil Rights.

It's not a civil right.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Yes it is a civil right. We are ALL entitled to the same rights and privileges. If you deny a specific group one of the same rights or privileges that you have (such as the privilege to marry who you want within the confines of the law), then you are violating that group's civil rights. This is America and we are all equal here.