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

[Bob Blaylock]

So demanding adherence to the law is denying someone's rights? Really?

It's funny, in a rather disturbing way, how those of you on the far left try to pay lip service to the rule of law, while making excuses for blatantly violating the law and for perverting and abusing the legal system that is in place to protect our rights, in order to use that system to violate our rights.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Freedom of religion, and freedom of expression, both explicitly affirmed in the First Amendment. Freedom of conscience and freedom of association, both very strongly implied by the First Amendment.

Only up the point where said expression and association limits the same rights of others. Your expression is not allowed to create a group of second class citizens with less rights.
Your freedom of association isn't allowed to limit that same freedom when practiced by others with whom you disagree.
There is no constitutional protection that mandates tolerance of the intolerant.
And as far as prohibitions against Supreme Court legislation from the bench, you're just indicating that you do not possess, or willingly disregard, any understanding of what the Supreme Court actually does. The Judicial Branch of government is specifically tasked with enforcing laws and interpreting the terms of said enforcement in the dispatch of same.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Still don't know what rights you think were taken away by the gay couple. They only demanded that the law be followed. You might have a point if you claim the law took away the baker's rights. Laws limit people's rights on a regular basis, but public accommodation laws were in effect long before this incident. What rights do you think the gay couple withheld from the bakers?

Freedom of religion, and freedom of expression, both explicitly affirmed in the First Amendment. Freedom of conscience and freedom of association, both very strongly implied by the First Amendment.

These rights, on the part of the Kleins, were willfully, deliberately, and knowingly violated. There is no basis on which those responsible for this violation can claim that they did not know, or should not have been expected to know, what they were doing. There is no valid excuse for violating these rights. Those responsible for doing so ought to be held fully accountable for their illegal acts.

You just demonstrated you don't understand the Constitution, its case law, or the history of America.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

It's funny, in a rather disturbing way, how those of you on the far left try to

SNIP

Whoa whoa whoa there Nellie...you wouldn't happen to be one of those people who
constantly label EVERYONE who isn't six steps to the right of Attila the Hun "FAR LEFT", would you?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG THE COMMIES ARE COMING!!!

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You just demonstrated you don't understand the Constitution, its case law, or the history of America.

I can read what the Constitution very clearly, explicitly says. When judicial acts, and “case law” are used to “interpret” the Constitution into meanings that directly contradict the written text thereof, then I can recognize that such rulings are acts of corruption and malfeasance. No court has the authority to change the Constitution. That can only be done through the Amendment process.

 

[JoeB131]

Absolutely true. And the state of Oregon can in no way shape or form play ignorant on the protections of religious freedoms. Even the cry of "we were so swept up in this LGBT cult propaganda, we forgot to look at the US Constitution!!" will not save them. They knew better. And now it's time for Oregon to pay the Kleins.

Not going to happen, buddy.

You see, the problem was, Mrs. Klein invited the Cryer-Bowman's to use her shop. She knew they were gay, she knew what product they were interested in. she never gave them a warning, "My Husband is a raging homophobe from that time at camp and he might beat me!"

So generally, they don't have a leg to stand on. They were in violation of the public accommedation law. They have every right to practice their goofy religion, but their business does not.

 

[JoeB131]

Freedom of religion, and freedom of expression, both explicitly affirmed in the First Amendment. Freedom of conscience and freedom of association, both very strongly implied by the First Amendment.

These rights, on the part of the Kleins, were willfully, deliberately, and knowingly violated. There is no basis on which those responsible for this violation can claim that they did not know, or should not have been expected to know, what they were doing. There is no valid excuse for violating these rights. Those responsible for doing so ought to be held fully accountable for their illegal acts.

Once again...

The Kleins have a right to follow their religion.

Their store does not. their store has to comply with all the duly enacted laws regulating commerce, including Public Accommodation Laws.

 

[JoeB131]

It's funny, in a rather disturbing way, how those of you on the far left try to pay lip service to the rule of law, while making excuses for blatantly violating the law and for perverting and abusing the legal system that is in place to protect our rights, in order to use that system to violate our rights.

Not at all.

This is a case of conflicting rights. The right of the Cryer-Bowman's to received services promised vs. the rights of the Kleins to be small-minded religious bigots.

All other things being equal, law favors the consumer over the seller- Caveat Vendor.

If the Klein's feel really and truly that they can't provide promised services to gay people, then they have the option of getting out of that line of work.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Once again...

The Kleins have a right to follow their religion.

Their store does not. their store has to comply with all the duly enacted laws regulating commerce, including Public Accommodation Laws.

Their store is their property. Surely, the abuse of government force to compel the use of private property in a manner contrary to the will of its owner is no different than the abuse of government force to directly compel the behavior of an individual. In any event, per the Fifth Amendment, if government is going to compel the use of private property for a public purpose, then government is required to pay just compensation to the owner of that property.

There is no argument that you can make in favor of the abuse of government force to compel a store to do business that its owners do not want to do, that does not in one way or another directly and blatantly violate the Constitution.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

You just demonstrated you don't understand the Constitution, its case law, or the history of America.

I can read what the Constitution very clearly, explicitly says. When judicial acts, and “case law” are used to “interpret” the Constitution into meanings that directly contradict the written text thereof, then I can recognize that such rulings are acts of corruption and malfeasance. No court has the authority to change the Constitution. That can only be done through the Amendment process.

Sorry but you're just flat out wrong.
The courts are not "changing the Constitution", nor are they attempting to anally rape your hamsters. They are interpreting case law, and they are tasked with doing so specifically.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Once again...

The Kleins have a right to follow their religion.

Their store does not. their store has to comply with all the duly enacted laws regulating commerce, including Public Accommodation Laws.

Their store is their property. Surely, the abuse of government force to compel the use of private property in a

SNIP

Private property being used to conduct business with the general public.
It's not a church, nor is it a private club with members.
When doing business with the general public, laws that govern against discrimination are in effect.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

If the Klein's feel really and truly that they can't provide promised services to gay people, then they have the option of getting out of that line of work.

Or they can change the type of business that they own to one which DOES NOT serve the general public. They can make it a PRIVATE concern by which consumers must sign an agreement that restricts their rights as a condition of doing business, much the way a wholesaler can restrict who buys and sells their product, and at what price. Sometimes license agreements come into play, such as when you agree not to install Apple operating systems on non-Apple computers.

Churches are not obligated to accept members who do not agree with their mission statements.

 

[BULLDOG]

Still don't know what rights you think were taken away by the gay couple. They only demanded that the law be followed. You might have a point if you claim the law took away the baker's rights. Laws limit people's rights on a regular basis, but public accommodation laws were in effect long before this incident. What rights do you think the gay couple withheld from the bakers?

Freedom of religion, and freedom of expression, both explicitly affirmed in the First Amendment. Freedom of conscience and freedom of association, both very strongly implied by the First Amendment.

These rights, on the part of the Kleins, were willfully, deliberately, and knowingly violated. There is no basis on which those responsible for this violation can claim that they did not know, or should not have been expected to know, what they were doing. There is no valid excuse for violating these rights. Those responsible for doing so ought to be held fully accountable for their illegal acts.

They can practice their religion all they want, but if they are in business, they have to provide all services to all people. Lots of people thought denying blacks service at Woolworth's lunch counter was Gods plan that the races shouldn't mix. How did that work out for them?

 

[BULLDOG]

So demanding adherence to the law is denying someone's rights? Really?

It's funny, in a rather disturbing way, how those of you on the far left try to pay lip service to the rule of law, while making excuses for blatantly violating the law and for perverting and abusing the legal system that is in place to protect our rights, in order to use that system to violate our rights.

If you say so. In the mean time, just bake the damn cake.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Private property being used to conduct business with the general public…

…is still private property, and it is the owners of that property who most have the right to dictate what use will or will not be made thereof.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

They can practice their religion all they want, but if they are in business, they have to provide all services to all people. Lots of people thought denying blacks service at Woolworth's lunch counter was Gods plan that the races shouldn't mix. How did that work out for them?

And yet, nobody has yet been able to show me where, in the Constitution, there is any language to be found that suggests that government should have the authority to compel anyone to waive any of their essential Constitutional rights as a condition of being allowed to make an honest living.

 

[Syriusly]

Once again...

The Kleins have a right to follow their religion.

Their store does not. their store has to comply with all the duly enacted laws regulating commerce, including Public Accommodation Laws.

Their store is their property. Surely, the abuse of government force to compel the use of private property in a manner contrary to the will of its owner is no different than the abuse of government force to directly compel the behavior of an individual.

So if the government tells a baker that if they want to be in business, that they have to have a working bathroom- that is a abuse of government force?

 

[Silhouette]

They can practice their religion all they want, but if they are in business, they have to provide all services to all people. Lots of people thought denying blacks service at Woolworth's lunch counter was Gods plan that the races shouldn't mix. How did that work out for them?

You're gonna be so bummed when the new USSC makes you realize you're wrong about that. Behaviors don't have protections under the US Constitution, except religion. And so, the Kleins will prevail.

 

[Syriusly]

They can practice their religion all they want, but if they are in business, they have to provide all services to all people. Lots of people thought denying blacks service at Woolworth's lunch counter was Gods plan that the races shouldn't mix. How did that work out for them?

And yet, nobody has yet been able to show me where, in the Constitution, there is any language to be found that suggests that government should have the authority to compel anyone to waive any of their essential Constitutional rights as a condition of being allowed to make an honest living.

Nor has anybody been able to show me where in the Constitution, there is any language to be found that says that a business owner gets to ignore any business laws it wants by claiming a 'deeply held religious conviction'.