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

[WillowTree]

Up until last nite the Democrats forced us to do business with insurance companies! Not any more.

 

[bodecea]

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.

religion isn't a race either. PA laws are not limited to race. You might want to look them up in your state sometime.

 

[Silhouette]

religion isn't a race either. PA laws are not limited to race. You might want to look them up in your state sometime.

Yes but in the US Constitution (dominant law if there's ever a conflict between state and federal protections...as there is in this case (duh), there IS mention of protections of religious practices and faith. Nothing whatsoever about deviant gay sex behaviors-as-identity. Nada. Zip. And since this question is heading to the highest legal authority in the land, YOU might want to look up the US Constitution to see which will prevail, a religion (check the 1st and 14th Amendments) or a deviant sex behavior calling itself "an identity". I guess drug addict Americans will have their day in court next? Also, eating disorder Americans...cleptomaniac Americans...etc. Habitual behavioral groups that the majority reject as normal don't have special rights that force others to play along.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

religion isn't a race either. PA laws are not limited to race. You might want to look them up in your state sometime.

Religion is explicitly stated as a protected right under the First Amendment. There is nothing anywhere in the Constitution that even faintly hints at nor implies any protected-right status for perverse, immoral, deviant sexual behavior.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one says the bakers do not have a right to believe in their religion.

What they cannot do in public accommodation is commit an act that violates the law.

Yes, certain religious acts can be regulated by law.

You can symbolically eat the body of God, but you cannot sacrifice a human and eat his flesh in a religious act.

No religious right exists that permits a bake to refuse to serve to gays his product that is offered to the whole.

 

[Mac1958]

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

At the foundation of all of this is the fact that the PA laws that are being leveraged don't HAVE to be leveraged. The gay couple didn't HAVE to act on them. They CHOSE to. Their supporters conveniently and dishonestly choose to avoid that fact.

What I find ironic is that the people who claim to be so fixated on laws and the Constitution are the same people who ignore them for illegal aliens, and who claim the Constitution is an outdated piece of paper written by rich white slave rapists. I guess it depends on the timing, huh?

These people are illiberal authoritarians, and they're clearly emboldened.
.

 

[Silhouette]

No religious right exists that permits a bake to refuse to serve to gays his product that is offered to the whole.

No rights exist that say the majority must play along with minority deviant or repugnant behaviors. Those "rights" were made up by judicial legislation citing "protections" in the US Constitution that do not exist.

So any local laws that assign protected class to deviant sex practitioners are at best optional to follow. They aren't laws but instead mere suggestion. If they are used with force to suppress other's real actual Constitutional protections...beware. The enforcers could be on the hook for $millions.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Religious rights are Constitutional

Gays whining about cakes isn't

 

[Silhouette]

^^ What she said.

 

[Silhouette]

The majority supports the rights of LGBTQ to not be discriminated against.

If you don't like that, I don't care.

You mean the majority of nine unelected lawyers on the Judicially-Legislating 2015 US Supreme Court "deciding" massive social change against protests of the 300 million? "Gay marriage" is still illegal on the books in California, voted down by a majority TWICE...in the leftiest lefty state in the Union. Your "fake it till you make it" "polling data" is bullshit.

 

[Silhouette]

Get ready Oregon because you may be compensating the Kleins:
Constitutional Rights Violation Cases | § 1983 Claims

United States law allows an individual who believes that his or her constitutional rights have been violated to bring a civil action against the government to recover the damages sustained as a result of that violation. Specifically, 42 USC §1983 “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws by any person acting under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory.” Gomez v Toledo, 446 US 635, 638 (1980)(internal quotations omitted).

No state can enact a law that acts to suppress the Constitutional Rights of its citizens...and then use that law under force to destroy their economic well being. Even while saying it is acting under a statute or law; like a public accommodation law.

 

[Silhouette]

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

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

Silly or illegal. See my last post.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The majority supports the rights of LGBTQ to not be discriminated against.

If you don't like that, I don't care.

Also the law disagrees with you, and if you don't like that, either, I don't care.

Your positions suck. (heh)

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil sounds so shrill, so desperate.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil sounds so shrill, so desperate.

I would say the opposite. Look at the tone in your posts vs mine.

As to the nature of local laws being able to strip people of their Constitutional rights, no desperation there either. Either they can or they can't. They did in the Klein's case and Oregon had better brace itself...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course you would, Sil. My tone is that you are out there on your own. That's the nature of thing. The local and state and federal laws do nothing of w hat you claim. They are their to protect all of us equally.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

A counter suit for filing a legal complaint that has been upheld in the courts?

I guess if the Klein's have a lot of money to throw away on attorneys- and on paying damages for filing a frivolous lawsuit- sure.

 

[Syriusly]

Sil sounds so shrill, so desperate.

I would say the opposite. Look at the tone in your posts vs mine.

As to the nature of local laws being able to strip people of their Constitutional rights, no desperation there either. Either they can or they can't. They did in the Klein's case and Oregon had better brace itself...

Public Accommodation laws have been upheld by the courts for decades now.

Nothing new here.

 

[Syriusly]

No state can enact a law that acts to suppress the Constitutional Rights of its citizens...and then use that law under force to destroy their economic well being. Even while saying it is acting under a statute or law; like a public accommodation law.

So you are saying that every single couple that was denied a marriage license by the unconstitutional bans on gay marriage- can sue those states for violating their constitutional rights and ask for damages

 

[Silhouette]

^^ spam spam spam spam...another page gone....