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

[toxicmedia]

You guys are always trying to use arguments that are false analogies. Plural marriage is not analogous to same sex marriage, not at all: it's a completely different thing. One marriage: two people. That's the traditional way and the same sex way. Plural spouses is not at all the same thing.

Ok, let's examine it then:

Prior to same sex marriage becoming law, a requirement of the license was that the participants be one woman and one man, not too closely related.

Why did that requirement exist in traditional marriage?

The answer is that it made it impossible for bloodlines to produce defective children or defective children in future generations, due to inbreeding.

That argument has zero merit when we speak of same sex marriage, correct?

The limit of two, was connected to the limit of "not too closely related", so the number is arbitrary.

The argument against plural marriage is based on several issues, none of which has merit in same sex plural marriage.

It allows males dominance over females? In an all male plural marriage? How so?

The biological relationships of the children in a all male plural marriage? HUH?

None of the arguments that were reasonable with opposite sex marriage, have merit with same sex marriage as it relates to many forms of incest or plural marriage do they?

Now, how do you exclude straights from these, when you have no compelling state interest in the denial of this "right" to same sex couples?

We have that Equal Protection laws and the right to due process that seem to indicate that you can't discriminate based on one couple ability to procreate and the others inability.

Remember, I did not create this argument, it was actually created to support same sex couple rights to marry.

Don't blame me, I have been arguing for years that removing the limiting factors in marriage opened the doors to all.

Same sex marriage will either implode or force states to end the institution.

You poor thing.

Butthurt because you can't find a flaw in the logic?

Reality bites, huh?

You're not even displaying logic, let alone anything like flawless logic.

The logical difference between a marriage, and plural marriage, is simple math at work.

With plural marriage, an equal partnership (1 + 1 - marriage) is not possible. Plural marriage takes the form of a primary participant, and a limited number of secondary participants.

In plural marriages, the division of the primary participant's financial and emotional assets puts all secondary participants in an inferior state.

Wow, the traditional viewpoint. The argument is then that marriage should be denied, because one partner may be dominant over the other, or in this case others.

Where in the marriage law is it stated that no partner may choose to be dominated, or that you may not assume a submissive role in a marriage?

And, using the classic, traditional role of plural marriage would deny due process to those that may desire a plural marriage that traditional "morals" are simply absurd to apply to them.

Example, three brothers wish to marry so two of them can inherit the thirds farm when he dies and not pay the inheritance tax. They are all straight. what legal reasoning is there to deny them equal protection and due process if all agree to the arrangement?

I personally don't have any problem with people who want to be part of plural marriage. And if someone wants to marry a horse, why should I care?

What I was presenting was the difference between same sex/opposite sex marriages (1 + 1 = M) , and plural marriage (1 + 1/A = M)

Part of the anti gay marriage argument has included the slippery slope of "who knows who'll be getting married next, oh God, the sky is falling"

It's not unlike how anti abortion activists use the term "baby killer" to describe the legal termination of a non sentient fetus.

Your slippery slope is neutralized when people like me admit they're all for baby killing upon demand during the first and second trimesters, and we also admit we shouldn't care if someone wants 3 wives, or to marry their horse. After all, that horse thing will almost never happen anyway.

 

[toxicmedia]

You just called someone a bigot.

So thinking it, instead of saying it...is just fine huh?

You're still missing the point. I am pointing out your hypocrisy. You loons wore out the racist angle and now are wearing out the bigot card. I laugh at it

It doesn't matter how many times someone points out the bigotry that you deny, or minimize, the fact is you are a bigot, and you just want people to stop pointing that out

Pegged her. Dead to rights.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

LOL Oh look, it's the know nothing chiming in. Effin moon bat

But you are a bigot, and just want people to stop pointing that out.

Truth hurts, sorry

 

[SassyIrishLass]

So thinking it, instead of saying it...is just fine huh?

You're still missing the point. I am pointing out your hypocrisy. You loons wore out the racist angle and now are wearing out the bigot card. I laugh at it

It doesn't matter how many times someone points out the bigotry that you deny, or minimize, the fact is you are a bigot, and you just want people to stop pointing that out

Pegged her. Dead to rights.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

LOL Oh look, it's the know nothing chiming in. Effin moon bat

But you are a bigot, and just want people to stop pointing that out.

Truth hurts, sorry

Bleh, I don't really care. You're an asshole....I just pointed that out. Sorry....not

 

[Pop23]

Ok, let's examine it then:

Prior to same sex marriage becoming law, a requirement of the license was that the participants be one woman and one man, not too closely related.

Why did that requirement exist in traditional marriage?

The answer is that it made it impossible for bloodlines to produce defective children or defective children in future generations, due to inbreeding.

That argument has zero merit when we speak of same sex marriage, correct?

The limit of two, was connected to the limit of "not too closely related", so the number is arbitrary.

The argument against plural marriage is based on several issues, none of which has merit in same sex plural marriage.

It allows males dominance over females? In an all male plural marriage? How so?

The biological relationships of the children in a all male plural marriage? HUH?

None of the arguments that were reasonable with opposite sex marriage, have merit with same sex marriage as it relates to many forms of incest or plural marriage do they?

Now, how do you exclude straights from these, when you have no compelling state interest in the denial of this "right" to same sex couples?

We have that Equal Protection laws and the right to due process that seem to indicate that you can't discriminate based on one couple ability to procreate and the others inability.

Remember, I did not create this argument, it was actually created to support same sex couple rights to marry.

Don't blame me, I have been arguing for years that removing the limiting factors in marriage opened the doors to all.

Same sex marriage will either implode or force states to end the institution.

You poor thing.

Butthurt because you can't find a flaw in the logic?

Reality bites, huh?

You're not even displaying logic, let alone anything like flawless logic.

The logical difference between a marriage, and plural marriage, is simple math at work.

With plural marriage, an equal partnership (1 + 1 - marriage) is not possible. Plural marriage takes the form of a primary participant, and a limited number of secondary participants.

In plural marriages, the division of the primary participant's financial and emotional assets puts all secondary participants in an inferior state.

Wow, the traditional viewpoint. The argument is then that marriage should be denied, because one partner may be dominant over the other, or in this case others.

Where in the marriage law is it stated that no partner may choose to be dominated, or that you may not assume a submissive role in a marriage?

And, using the classic, traditional role of plural marriage would deny due process to those that may desire a plural marriage that traditional "morals" are simply absurd to apply to them.

Example, three brothers wish to marry so two of them can inherit the thirds farm when he dies and not pay the inheritance tax. They are all straight. what legal reasoning is there to deny them equal protection and due process if all agree to the arrangement?

I personally don't have any problem with people who want to be part of plural marriage. And if someone wants to marry a horse, why should I care?

What I was presenting was the difference between same sex/opposite sex marriages (1 + 1 = M) , and plural marriage (1 + 1/A = M)

Part of the anti gay marriage argument has included the slippery slope of "who knows who'll be getting married next, oh God, the sky is falling"

It's not unlike how anti abortion activists use the term "baby killer" to describe the legal termination of a non sentient fetus.

Your slippery slope is neutralized when people like me admit they're all for baby killing upon demand during the first and second trimesters, and we also admit we shouldn't care if someone wants 3 wives, or to marry their horse. After all, that horse thing will almost never happen anyway.

Got it.

So, to legitimize same sex marriage, we must also be open to incest and beastiality!

How much political capital do you think would have been spent if that was a heavily publicized ramification of legal same sex marriage?

What do you think the poll numbers would have done?

 

[toxicmedia]

You poor thing.

Butthurt because you can't find a flaw in the logic?

Reality bites, huh?

You're not even displaying logic, let alone anything like flawless logic.

The logical difference between a marriage, and plural marriage, is simple math at work.

With plural marriage, an equal partnership (1 + 1 - marriage) is not possible. Plural marriage takes the form of a primary participant, and a limited number of secondary participants.

In plural marriages, the division of the primary participant's financial and emotional assets puts all secondary participants in an inferior state.

Wow, the traditional viewpoint. The argument is then that marriage should be denied, because one partner may be dominant over the other, or in this case others.

Where in the marriage law is it stated that no partner may choose to be dominated, or that you may not assume a submissive role in a marriage?

And, using the classic, traditional role of plural marriage would deny due process to those that may desire a plural marriage that traditional "morals" are simply absurd to apply to them.

Example, three brothers wish to marry so two of them can inherit the thirds farm when he dies and not pay the inheritance tax. They are all straight. what legal reasoning is there to deny them equal protection and due process if all agree to the arrangement?

I personally don't have any problem with people who want to be part of plural marriage. And if someone wants to marry a horse, why should I care?

What I was presenting was the difference between same sex/opposite sex marriages (1 + 1 = M) , and plural marriage (1 + 1/A = M)

Part of the anti gay marriage argument has included the slippery slope of "who knows who'll be getting married next, oh God, the sky is falling"

It's not unlike how anti abortion activists use the term "baby killer" to describe the legal termination of a non sentient fetus.

Your slippery slope is neutralized when people like me admit they're all for baby killing upon demand during the first and second trimesters, and we also admit we shouldn't care if someone wants 3 wives, or to marry their horse. After all, that horse thing will almost never happen anyway.

Got it.

So, to legitimize same sex marriage, we must also be open to incest and beastiality!

How much political capital do you think would have been spent if that was a heavily publicized ramification of legal same sex marriage?

What do you think the poll numbers would have done?

No, I'm not asking anyone to be open to incest and beastiality.

Incest is illegal, and I wasn't aware beastiality has been a significant problem.

I just want to point out the lack of foundation for the futile, yet persistent, anti gay marriage argument. Which seems, out of desperation, to include all manner of slippery slope.

You need to accept that the gay marriage horse has left the building...and the mixed metaphor was on purpose

 

[Vandalshandle]

The Right! Proudly fighting last centuries battles! As soon as we repeal SS and Medicare, we are going to do away with SSM and ACA! granted, we finally gave up on the segregation thing, but not for more than 100 years!

 

[Pop23]

Butthurt because you can't find a flaw in the logic?

Reality bites, huh?

You're not even displaying logic, let alone anything like flawless logic.

The logical difference between a marriage, and plural marriage, is simple math at work.

With plural marriage, an equal partnership (1 + 1 - marriage) is not possible. Plural marriage takes the form of a primary participant, and a limited number of secondary participants.

In plural marriages, the division of the primary participant's financial and emotional assets puts all secondary participants in an inferior state.

Wow, the traditional viewpoint. The argument is then that marriage should be denied, because one partner may be dominant over the other, or in this case others.

Where in the marriage law is it stated that no partner may choose to be dominated, or that you may not assume a submissive role in a marriage?

And, using the classic, traditional role of plural marriage would deny due process to those that may desire a plural marriage that traditional "morals" are simply absurd to apply to them.

Example, three brothers wish to marry so two of them can inherit the thirds farm when he dies and not pay the inheritance tax. They are all straight. what legal reasoning is there to deny them equal protection and due process if all agree to the arrangement?

I personally don't have any problem with people who want to be part of plural marriage. And if someone wants to marry a horse, why should I care?

What I was presenting was the difference between same sex/opposite sex marriages (1 + 1 = M) , and plural marriage (1 + 1/A = M)

Part of the anti gay marriage argument has included the slippery slope of "who knows who'll be getting married next, oh God, the sky is falling"

It's not unlike how anti abortion activists use the term "baby killer" to describe the legal termination of a non sentient fetus.

Your slippery slope is neutralized when people like me admit they're all for baby killing upon demand during the first and second trimesters, and we also admit we shouldn't care if someone wants 3 wives, or to marry their horse. After all, that horse thing will almost never happen anyway.

Got it.

So, to legitimize same sex marriage, we must also be open to incest and beastiality!

How much political capital do you think would have been spent if that was a heavily publicized ramification of legal same sex marriage?

What do you think the poll numbers would have done?

No, I'm not asking anyone to be open to incest and beastiality.

Incest is illegal, and I wasn't aware beastiality has been a significant problem.

I just want to point out the lack of foundation for the futile, yet persistent, anti gay marriage argument. Which seems, out of desperation, to include all manner of slippery slope.

You need to accept that the gay marriage horse has left the building...and the mixed metaphor was on purpose

Please post a single post of mine in which I have said I do not accept the law? I have no choice.

When I point out that, using the same arguments that legalized same sex marriage also work in favor of legal polygamy and incest , which I have said for years, somehow I am as a homophobe?

The ramifications are huge and will be highly unpopular.

A. They exist and become sanctions by the government

Or

B. The government will quit issuing marriage licenses.

How does same sex marriage effect mine????

 

[WorldWatcher]

Apparently, a $135K fine isn't enough for the Special Snowflake Totalitarians.

Now the state is threatening to take away their home if they don't pay up. This is a preview of future state asset forfeitures for anyone who doesn't share the required Groupthink.

Placing a lien on the home doesn't mean the State is taking away their home.

A lien on a property means the property can't be sold while the lien is in place. What it does is prevent debtors from selling assets (in this case a home) and skipping town with the profit on the sale of the asset.

Lien's on real property are a normal part of the business process if someone refused to pay a debt.

On top of that the Klien's can still appeal the BOLI ruling in court challenging both the fine and request an injunction against the lien during the appeal process. The courts would then make the call.


>>>>

 

[boedicca]

Apparently, a $135K fine isn't enough for the Special Snowflake Totalitarians.

Now the state is threatening to take away their home if they don't pay up. This is a preview of future state asset forfeitures for anyone who doesn't share the required Groupthink.

Placing a lien on the home doesn't mean the State is taking away their home.

A lien on a property means the property can't be sold while the lien is in place. What it does is prevent debtors from selling assets (in this case a home) and skipping town with the profit on the sale of the asset.

Lien's on real property are a normal part of the business process if someone refused to pay a debt.

On top of that the Klien's can still appeal the BOLI ruling in court challenging both the fine and request an injunction against the lien during the appeal process. The courts would then make the call.


>>>>

What an apologist.

SRSLY

 

[Dragonlady]

It turns out the fine isn't because the bakers' refused to make the wedding cake, but rather for the emotional distress they caused the couple by publicizing their names and addresses on their Facebook page, which caused the couple to be harassed and threatened. They also went on TV and gave public interviews publicizing the names of the offending gay couple, which violated their privacy.

The Kleins were so busy publically claiming to be discriminated against because of their religion, they failed to recognize that publicizing the couples names and addresses led the couple to be targeted by hate groups, who threatened their lives and their family. The couple, who were in the processing of adopting two children, nearly lost custody of the children for failing to keep them safe from threats.

It was the emotional distress they caused the couple by publishing their names and address without permission, and not the refusal to bake the cake, that cost the Kleins $135,000.00.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Apparently, a $135K fine isn't enough for the Special Snowflake Totalitarians.

Now the state is threatening to take away their home if they don't pay up. This is a preview of future state asset forfeitures for anyone who doesn't share the required Groupthink.

Placing a lien on the home doesn't mean the State is taking away their home.

A lien on a property means the property can't be sold while the lien is in place. What it does is prevent debtors from selling assets (in this case a home) and skipping town with the profit on the sale of the asset.

Lien's on real property are a normal part of the business process if someone refused to pay a debt.

On top of that the Klien's can still appeal the BOLI ruling in court challenging both the fine and request an injunction against the lien during the appeal process. The courts would then make the call.


>>>>

What an apologist.

SRSLY

Nope, I just understand what a lien is.

BTW - sometime researching and understanding the law is better then regurgitating things that sources like Breitbart news and Todd Starnes tell you to think.


>>>>

 

[Pop23]

Apparently, a $135K fine isn't enough for the Special Snowflake Totalitarians.

Now the state is threatening to take away their home if they don't pay up. This is a preview of future state asset forfeitures for anyone who doesn't share the required Groupthink.

Placing a lien on the home doesn't mean the State is taking away their home.

A lien on a property means the property can't be sold while the lien is in place. What it does is prevent debtors from selling assets (in this case a home) and skipping town with the profit on the sale of the asset.

Lien's on real property are a normal part of the business process if someone refused to pay a debt.

On top of that the Klien's can still appeal the BOLI ruling in court challenging both the fine and request an injunction against the lien during the appeal process. The courts would then make the call.


>>>>

Liens are a bitch, no doubt, but there is a theory that since the lien reduced the value of the house (try getting a home improvement loan on a home with a lien) that real estate taxes should be disallowed, or that the lien holder be the payer.

 

[Faun]

Apparently, a $135K fine isn't enough for the Special Snowflake Totalitarians.

Now the state is threatening to take away their home if they don't pay up. This is a preview of future state asset forfeitures for anyone who doesn't share the required Groupthink.


Fox News is reporting that the fascist state of Oregon is ramping up its persecution campaign against Christian bakers who declined to bake a wedding cake for a same sex lesbian couple. Aaron and Melissa Klein, the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, have been told that if they don’t pay the $135,000 awarded to the lesbian couple who sued them, a lien will be placed against their home next week.

Speaking to Todd Starnes of Fox News, Klein said that the case in on appeal and the couple is worried that if they win the appeal, they will never get their money back. ” “This is intimidation and bullying – that’s exactly what it is,” Klein said.

The fascist state of Orgeon has also placed a gag order on the Kleins that makes it illegal for them to talk openly about their desire to participate and profit from same sex weddings through their small business....

H8 Wins Oregon Threatens Home of Christian Bakers - Breitbart

Look at how the rightie lies ... he claims the state is threatening to take their home; but then links to a Fox News article which doesn't state that.

 

[Andylusion]

Apparently, a $135K fine isn't enough for the Special Snowflake Totalitarians.

Now the state is threatening to take away their home if they don't pay up. This is a preview of future state asset forfeitures for anyone who doesn't share the required Groupthink.


Fox News is reporting that the fascist state of Oregon is ramping up its persecution campaign against Christian bakers who declined to bake a wedding cake for a same sex lesbian couple. Aaron and Melissa Klein, the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, have been told that if they don’t pay the $135,000 awarded to the lesbian couple who sued them, a lien will be placed against their home next week.

Speaking to Todd Starnes of Fox News, Klein said that the case in on appeal and the couple is worried that if they win the appeal, they will never get their money back. ” “This is intimidation and bullying – that’s exactly what it is,” Klein said.

The fascist state of Orgeon has also placed a gag order on the Kleins that makes it illegal for them to talk openly about their desire to participate and profit from same sex weddings through their small business....

H8 Wins Oregon Threatens Home of Christian Bakers - Breitbart

Look at how the rightie lies ... he claims the state is threatening to take their home; but then links to a Fox News article which doesn't state that.

Did you read something other than what I did?

Bakers who refused to make lesbian wedding cake told to pay 135K by Monday -- or else Fox News

Two Christian bakers who refused to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding have been ordered to pay $135,000 in damages by July 13 or else the state of Oregon could place a lien on their home.​

This is standard procedure. If you don't pay the fines, they put a lien on your property. Just like if you owed the IRS money, they would put a lien on your home.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Apparently, a $135K fine isn't enough for the Special Snowflake Totalitarians.

Now the state is threatening to take away their home if they don't pay up. This is a preview of future state asset forfeitures for anyone who doesn't share the required Groupthink.

Placing a lien on the home doesn't mean the State is taking away their home.

A lien on a property means the property can't be sold while the lien is in place. What it does is prevent debtors from selling assets (in this case a home) and skipping town with the profit on the sale of the asset.

Lien's on real property are a normal part of the business process if someone refused to pay a debt.

On top of that the Klien's can still appeal the BOLI ruling in court challenging both the fine and request an injunction against the lien during the appeal process. The courts would then make the call.


>>>>

Liens are a bitch, no doubt, but there is a theory that since the lien reduced the value of the house (try getting a home improvement loan on a home with a lien) that real estate taxes should be disallowed, or that the lien holder be the payer.

Lien's don't reduce the value of a house.

(Not getting loan to improve the condition of the house is not a reduction in the existing value of the house.)


>>>>

 

[JoeB131]

Look at how the rightie lies ... he claims the state is threatening to take their home; but then links to a Fox News article which doesn't state that.

The thing is, the Kleins probably sucked as business people. their business was on the ropes before the gay couple came along. But they are enjoying their 15 minutes of fame as the apple of right wing hate's eye.

 

[JoeB131]

Did you read something other than what I did?

Bakers who refused to make lesbian wedding cake told to pay 135K by Monday -- or else Fox News

Two Christian bakers who refused to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding have been ordered to pay $135,000 in damages by July 13 or else the state of Oregon could place a lien on their home.
This is standard procedure. If you don't pay the fines, they put a lien on your property. Just like if you owed the IRS money, they would put a lien on your home.

Then they should pay the damned money. Not seeing a problem here, they raised twice that from bigots on line.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Did you read something other than what I did?

Bakers who refused to make lesbian wedding cake told to pay 135K by Monday -- or else Fox News

Two Christian bakers who refused to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding have been ordered to pay $135,000 in damages by July 13 or else the state of Oregon could place a lien on their home.
This is standard procedure. If you don't pay the fines, they put a lien on your property. Just like if you owed the IRS money, they would put a lien on your home.

Then they should pay the damned money. Not seeing a problem here, they raised twice that from bigots on line.

A bigot calling others a bigot. SMH

 

[Faun]

Apparently, a $135K fine isn't enough for the Special Snowflake Totalitarians.

Now the state is threatening to take away their home if they don't pay up. This is a preview of future state asset forfeitures for anyone who doesn't share the required Groupthink.

Placing a lien on the home doesn't mean the State is taking away their home.

A lien on a property means the property can't be sold while the lien is in place. What it does is prevent debtors from selling assets (in this case a home) and skipping town with the profit on the sale of the asset.

Lien's on real property are a normal part of the business process if someone refused to pay a debt.

On top of that the Klien's can still appeal the BOLI ruling in court challenging both the fine and request an injunction against the lien during the appeal process. The courts would then make the call.


>>>>

Liens are a bitch, no doubt, but there is a theory that since the lien reduced the value of the house (try getting a home improvement loan on a home with a lien) that real estate taxes should be disallowed, or that the lien holder be the payer.

There's no reason to have a lien put on their house. Purportedly, they've already collected over $200 in donations; there's no excuse not to put $135K of it into an escrow account until their appeal is settled.

 

[Andylusion]

Did you read something other than what I did?

Bakers who refused to make lesbian wedding cake told to pay 135K by Monday -- or else Fox News

Two Christian bakers who refused to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding have been ordered to pay $135,000 in damages by July 13 or else the state of Oregon could place a lien on their home.
This is standard procedure. If you don't pay the fines, they put a lien on your property. Just like if you owed the IRS money, they would put a lien on your home.

Then they should pay the damned money. Not seeing a problem here, they raised twice that from bigots on line.

I would refuse. They should do what their religious convictions lead them to do.
Or perhaps they will pay the fine, and yet continue to practice their faith.

Regardless, that isn't the point. The point is they are in fact being threatened in losing their home. As much as you leftist claim to never try and punish people of faith, here is a clear example that you are.