Cakes, Fakes & Counter-Quakes; Do The Kleins Have A Countersuit Against The Lesbians?

[Silhouette]

The lesbians KNEW that Sweet Cakes was a Christian-run business. They were informed of that and CHOSE ON PURPOSE to continue to try to force the Christian couple to do what their faith forbade them to do under peril of eternal damnation: abet the spread of homosexuality in a culture "as normal" (See Jude 1 of the New Testament).

These lesbians were out to sabotage the Kleins' 1st Amendment rights, using inferior local PA laws. It was a direct act of suppressing someone else's constitutional rights. If the Kleins can demonstrate that the lesbians knew the Kleins had constitutionally-protected objections (since "gay" is behavioral and NOT protected as such in the Constitution) ie: their 1st Amendment rights,, AND if the Kleins could demonstrate the lesbians had alternatives (they did and knew they did) a countersuit could show the lesbians were out to suppress constitutional rights of another person or persons. Turn this bitch on its heel and chase the other way?

They went to the appeals court this March 2017.
Argument for the Kleins: Bakers Accused of Hate Get Emotional Day in Court

“The government should never force someone to violate their conscience or their beliefs,” Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of First Liberty Institute, a religious freedom group that represents the Kleins, said in a press statement, adding:

“In a diverse and pluralistic society, people of good will should be able to peacefully coexist with different beliefs. We hope the court will uphold the Kleins’ rights to free speech and religious liberty.”

Argument against the Kleins:

But Charlie Burr, a spokesman for the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, whose lawyers represent the Bowman-Cryers, said:

“The facts of this case clearly demonstrate that the Kleins unlawfully discriminated against a same-sex couple when they refused service based on sexual orientation.”

But Mr. Burr, don't you know that there is NO LANGUAGE AT ALL in the US Constitution either directly or via insinuation or allusion to sexual behaviors and habits? But there is PLENTY of language in the US Constitution about religious freedoms and protections. And, nobody is allowed to suppress or deny the Constitutional rights of another. And Mr. Burr, do you know that the Judicial branch of government cannot use its power to legislate brand spanking new pivotal language into the US Constitution? Might want brush up on that old political science course you had to take in high school in order to pass. Though I realize that in Oregon, "education" is a loose term...

Anyone want to bet on this horse race?

 

[WillowTree]

I knew it was a set up. The gay couple played dirty pool.

 

[Silhouette]

I knew it was a set up. The gay couple played dirty pool.

Of course they did. They went to a Christian bakery (likely they knew beforehand but were certainly appraised within minutes of arriving) with the intent of not backing off and choosing another bakery. They probably had at least five other options in that town at least, dozens more perhaps in neighboring towns or cities.

This was a purposeful attempt to remove clearly enumerated constitutional rights of the Kleins. I think the press has the wrong parties listed as "nefarious".

 

[JakeStarkey]

Well, that's your interpretation, and it is certainly wrong, sil.

 

[Silhouette]

Well, that's your interpretation, and it is certainly wrong, sil.

Nah...I read the Constitution and didn't see anything about deviant sex behaviors anywhere. But I did see a lot of stuff about religion being protected....

...so... yeah...

And it's not like the lesbos were asking the Christians to not wash their feet before entering the church or temple. They were asking the Christians to defy the Order in Jude 1 which comes with a sentence of eternal damnation of the soul.

The lesbians are guilty of violating the Klein's 1st Amendment rights. It also is unfortunate for the lesbian defense that they appear to have premeditated that and targeted Christians specifically. They had numerous alternatives and chose instead to force Christians to either choose to abdicate their faith or not stay in business. So that's violation of the Klein's Constitutional rights by force, threat or duress. State of Oregon's labor board is liable too. Hate to have to work on their defense. Yikers!

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Oregon and the lesbians better pray to God (pun intended) SCOTUS doesn't rule in favor of the Colorado cake baker. SCOTUS does and it's over. Gorsuch is looking like a great pick in that regard

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Since the Lesbos aren't congress, no there's no first amendment case here.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Could be a bad omen for the LGBT crowd.

In major Supreme Court case, Justice Dept. sides with baker who refused to make wedding cake for gay couple

 

[Silhouette]

Could be a bad omen for the LGBT crowd.

In major Supreme Court case, Justice Dept. sides with baker who refused to make wedding cake for gay couple

Thank you for that link!

Ruh-roh...

******
In a major upcoming Supreme Court case that weighs equal rights with religious liberty, the Trump administration on Thursday sided with a Colorado baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.


The Department of Justice on Thursday filed a brief on behalf of baker Jack Phillips, who was found to have violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act by refusing to created a cake to celebrate the marriage of Charlie Craig and David Mullins in 2012. Phillips said he doesn’t create wedding cakes for same-sex couples because it would violate his religious beliefs.


The government agreed with Phillips that his cakes are a form of expression, and he cannot be compelled to use his talents for something in which he does not believe.


“Forcing Phillips to create expression for and participate in a ceremony that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs invades his First Amendment rights,” Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall wrote in the brief.

********
I guess the DOJ read the US Constitution too and didn't find a single word nor an allusion to a single meaning that people doing deviant-sex-behaviors-as-identity had any protections whatsoever.

Did the gay guys in Colorado also have other options and did they force the Christian baker with economic threats or duress to abdicate his faith as well? Why aren't these bakers filing countersuits?????

 

[MaryL]

Please, if you own a business, you have NO business discriminating. But on the other hand, nobody can force you to can do business with, either. IT'S the unsupportable force meeting the immovable object. I want to come out as an a DOCUMENTED legal migrant. Shame on us.

 

[Silhouette]

Please, if you own a business, you have NO business discriminating. But on the other hand, nobody can force you to can do business with, either. IT'S the unsupportable force meeting the immovable object. I want to come out as an a DOCUMENTED legal migrant. Shame on us.

Discriminating against behaviors, unless they are founded in religion, is ABSOLUTELY ALLOWED. You've heard of "no shoes, no shirt, no service"?

 

[bodecea]

The lesbians KNEW that Sweet Cakes was a Christian-run business. They were informed of that and CHOSE ON PURPOSE to continue to try to force the Christian couple to do what their faith forbade them to do under peril of eternal damnation: abet the spread of homosexuality in a culture "as normal" (See Jude 1 of the New Testament).

These lesbians were out to sabotage the Kleins' 1st Amendment rights, using inferior local PA laws. It was a direct act of suppressing someone else's constitutional rights. If the Kleins can demonstrate that the lesbians knew the Kleins had constitutionally-protected objections (since "gay" is behavioral and NOT protected as such in the Constitution) ie: their 1st Amendment rights,, AND if the Kleins could demonstrate the lesbians had alternatives (they did and knew they did) a countersuit could show the lesbians were out to suppress constitutional rights of another person or persons. Turn this bitch on its heel and chase the other way?

They went to the appeals court this March 2017.
Argument for the Kleins: Bakers Accused of Hate Get Emotional Day in Court

“The government should never force someone to violate their conscience or their beliefs,” Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of First Liberty Institute, a religious freedom group that represents the Kleins, said in a press statement, adding:

“In a diverse and pluralistic society, people of good will should be able to peacefully coexist with different beliefs. We hope the court will uphold the Kleins’ rights to free speech and religious liberty.”

Argument against the Kleins:

But Charlie Burr, a spokesman for the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, whose lawyers represent the Bowman-Cryers, said:

“The facts of this case clearly demonstrate that the Kleins unlawfully discriminated against a same-sex couple when they refused service based on sexual orientation.”

But Mr. Burr, don't you know that there is NO LANGUAGE AT ALL in the US Constitution either directly or via insinuation or allusion to sexual behaviors and habits? But there is PLENTY of language in the US Constitution about religious freedoms and protections. And, nobody is allowed to suppress or deny the Constitutional rights of another. And Mr. Burr, do you know that the Judicial branch of government cannot use its power to legislate brand spanking new pivotal language into the US Constitution? Might want brush up on that old political science course you had to take in high school in order to pass. Though I realize that in Oregon, "education" is a loose term...

Anyone want to bet on this horse race?

Do so-called christian businesses get to ignore business laws and statutes even tho they have a business license?

 

[bodecea]

I knew it was a set up. The gay couple played dirty pool.

Of course they did. They went to a Christian bakery (likely they knew beforehand but were certainly appraised within minutes of arriving) with the intent of not backing off and choosing another bakery. They probably had at least five other options in that town at least, dozens more perhaps in neighboring towns or cities.

This was a purposeful attempt to remove clearly enumerated constitutional rights of the Kleins. I think the press has the wrong parties listed as "nefarious".

Do so-called christian businesses get to ignore business laws and statutes even tho they have a business license?

 

[bodecea]

Well, that's your interpretation, and it is certainly wrong, sil.

Nah...I read the Constitution and didn't see anything about deviant sex behaviors anywhere. But I did see a lot of stuff about religion being protected....

...so... yeah...

And it's not like the lesbos were asking the Christians to not wash their feet before entering the church or temple. They were asking the Christians to defy the Order in Jude 1 which comes with a sentence of eternal damnation of the soul.

The lesbians are guilty of violating the Klein's 1st Amendment rights. It also is unfortunate for the lesbian defense that they appear to have premeditated that and targeted Christians specifically. They had numerous alternatives and chose instead to force Christians to either choose to abdicate their faith or not stay in business. So that's violation of the Klein's Constitutional rights by force, threat or duress. State of Oregon's labor board is liable too. Hate to have to work on their defense. Yikers!

Do so-called christian businesses get to ignore business laws and statutes even tho they have a business license?

 

[Silhouette]

Do so-called christian businesses get to ignore business laws and statutes even tho they have a business license?

Yes absolutely if those laws and statutes violate their Constitutional protections. You ask the easiest questions. By the way, gays have no Constitutional protections. The Judicial branch does not get to legislate brand new language to insert into the existing plain language of the Constitution. Deviant-sex-habits-as-identity do not have any mention nor insinuation ANYWHERE in the US Constitution. The Judicial branch simply invented that. 5 unelected lawyers in the USSC don't get to write new language into the Constitution. Neither do their underlings in the lower appellate courts. It's not allowed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Well, that's your interpretation, and it is certainly wrong, sil.

Nah...I read the Constitution and didn't see anything about deviant sex behaviors anywhere. But I did see a lot of stuff about religion being protected....

...so... yeah...

And it's not like the lesbos were asking the Christians to not wash their feet before entering the church or temple. They were asking the Christians to defy the Order in Jude 1 which comes with a sentence of eternal damnation of the soul.

The lesbians are guilty of violating the Klein's 1st Amendment rights. It also is unfortunate for the lesbian defense that they appear to have premeditated that and targeted Christians specifically. They had numerous alternatives and chose instead to force Christians to either choose to abdicate their faith or not stay in business. So that's violation of the Klein's Constitutional rights by force, threat or duress. State of Oregon's labor board is liable too. Hate to have to work on their defense. Yikers!

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but never to your own facts. Hate to break it to you. There is nothing in the Christian faith that says you cannot bake for non-Christians in the public square where you hold out you wares to all.

 

[Silhouette]

Hate to break it to you. There is nothing in the Christian faith that says you cannot bake for non-Christians in the public square where you hold out you wares to all.

Since LGBT isn't a race of people, but are instead a loose collection of people who choose to claim an identity due to their habitual deviant sex behaviors, Christians or any other person need not play along EVER. People can choose in any venue to accept or reject behaviors of others, unless those behaviors have a base in religion...which IS protected under the US Constitution. Even then a Christian cannot force an Orthodox Jewish baker to bake him or her a pork casserole for their wedding. Likewise a Gay Orthodox cannot force a Christian to bake them a "gay wedding cake".

Discriminate away folks. The false premise of Behaviors = Race will soon be exposed for what it is. There is ZERO protection for LGBT behaviors under the US Constitution. Not even by the wildest interpretations out there.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, once again you can have you opinions but not your own facts.

Your silly opinion of religious discrimination is exactly that . . . silly.

 

[bodecea]

Please, if you own a business, you have NO business discriminating. But on the other hand, nobody can force you to can do business with, either. IT'S the unsupportable force meeting the immovable object. I want to come out as an a DOCUMENTED legal migrant. Shame on us.

Discriminating against behaviors, unless they are founded in religion, is ABSOLUTELY ALLOWED. You've heard of "no shoes, no shirt, no service"?

That's individuals, not based on groups. Do so-called christian businesses get to ignore business laws and statutes even tho they have a business license?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well, that's your interpretation, and it is certainly wrong, sil.

Nah...I read the Constitution and didn't see anything about deviant sex behaviors anywhere. But I did see a lot of stuff about religion being protected....

...so... yeah...

And it's not like the lesbos were asking the Christians to not wash their feet before entering the church or temple. They were asking the Christians to defy the Order in Jude 1 which comes with a sentence of eternal damnation of the soul.

The lesbians are guilty of violating the Klein's 1st Amendment rights. It also is unfortunate for the lesbian defense that they appear to have premeditated that and targeted Christians specifically. They had numerous alternatives and chose instead to force Christians to either choose to abdicate their faith or not stay in business. So that's violation of the Klein's Constitutional rights by force, threat or duress. State of Oregon's labor board is liable too. Hate to have to work on their defense. Yikers!

You’re as ignorant as you are wrong; the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law.

And public accommodations laws are perfectly Constitutional, as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

States and local jurisdictions are at liberty to enact public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation as a countermeasure to your bigotry and hate, and the bigotry and hate common to most on the right.