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

[JakeStarkey]

Save the hamsters!

Send Blaylock away.

 

[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?

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.

So as long as people are not having sex in front of the Kleins(a behavior) then the Klein's don't have a case- since a sexual preference is not a behavior.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

Our rights are regulated in almost every aspect of life. Each and every law we have limits someones rights in some way. Quit whining and bake the damn cake.

 

[Syriusly]

By the way- we will get an answer from the court soon enough on this issue.

Should be interesting.

 

[Silhouette]

Our rights are regulated in almost every aspect of life. Each and every law we have limits someones rights in some way. Quit whining and bake the damn cake.

First of all, behaviors don't have rights. Judicial-legislation to the US Constitution is forbidden; it violates separation of powers. And no language exists in the US Constitution that even hints at protecting deviant sex behavioralists.

Second, these non-enumerated lesbians sought on purpose to extinguish Constitutional rights of the Kleins that DO exist and have since the foundation of our country. The lesbians had other options but chose to force Christians to give up their Constitutional rights. Then the State of Oregon chimed in and fiscally punished the Kleins for exercising their Constitutional rights.

 

[Silhouette]

By the way- we will get an answer from the court soon enough on this issue.

Should be interesting.

Not that it will be decisive....

*******Status of "Sweet Cakes By Melissa" Case - Kaempf Law Firm

A written decision by the Oregon Court of Appeals is expected sometime in late 2017 or early 2018. If the decision goes against them, the Kleins’ next option is to ask the Oregon Supreme Court to exercise its discretion to take their case.

Many court watchers believe that given the important free exercise of religion constitutional issues and the national attention this case has received, further appeals, perhaps even as far as the U.S. Supreme Court, seem likely.

The odds of the U.S. Supreme Court accepting the Kleins’ case are increased by the fact that a virtually identical case, Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, was decided in Colorado. In 2015, the Colorado Court of Appeals held, contrary to the Kleins’ position, that the free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment did not protect a Christian baker’s refusal to sell a wedding cake for a same sex marriage, and that his conduct violated Colorado’s “public accommodations” law. In 2016, The Colorado Supreme Court refused to accept the baker’s appeal. He then filed a “petition for certiorari” to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking that it take the case and decide the federal constitutional issue it raises, which is identical to that raised by Oregon’s Sweet Cakes by Melissa case. That petition is now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Thus, the appellate status of this issue, including whether the U.S. Supreme Court decides it, remains in flux.

*******

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

If you say so. I wouldn't hold my breath for that if I were you. You know animal sacrifice, scarification, and female genital mutilation, and arranged marriages at a very young age are tenants of some religions, don't you? Your rights end when they infringe on someone else's rights. Bake the damn cake.

 

[Silhouette]

If you say so. I wouldn't hold my breath for that if I were you. You know animal sacrifice, scarification, and female genital mutilation, and arranged marriages at a very young age are tenants of some religions, don't you? Your rights end when they infringe on someone else's rights. Bake the damn cake.

So your only position is "if LGBT can convince the USSC that Christianity is a base cult, then we have a chance at prevailing?"

Well, considering most of them belong to that "base cult"....good luck!

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

So as long as people are not having sex in front of the Kleins(a behavior) then the Klein's don't have a case- since a sexual preference is not a behavior.

 

[Silhouette]

So as long as people are not having sex in front of the Kleins(a behavior) then the Klein's don't have a case- since a sexual preference is not a behavior.

Yeah, sure. Just like drug-addiction preference isn't a behavior. Nor is eating disorder preference a behavior either.

 

[HenryBHough]

I advocate euthanasia for liberals.

Now, somebody tell me where I can find a liberal-owned sign shop where I can order a sign to carry in a parade.

I could use the money from the lawsuit that will bring on.

 

[BULLDOG]

Our rights are regulated in almost every aspect of life. Each and every law we have limits someones rights in some way. Quit whining and bake the damn cake.

First of all, behaviors don't have rights. Judicial-legislation to the US Constitution is forbidden; it violates separation of powers. And no language exists in the US Constitution that even hints at protecting deviant sex behavioralists.

Second, these non-enumerated lesbians sought on purpose to extinguish Constitutional rights of the Kleins that DO exist and have since the foundation of our country. The lesbians had other options but chose to force Christians to give up their Constitutional rights. Then the State of Oregon chimed in and fiscally punished the Kleins for exercising their Constitutional rights.

If you say so.

 

[BULLDOG]

If you say so. I wouldn't hold my breath for that if I were you. You know animal sacrifice, scarification, and female genital mutilation, and arranged marriages at a very young age are tenants of some religions, don't you? Your rights end when they infringe on someone else's rights. Bake the damn cake.

So your only position is "if LGBT can convince the USSC that Christianity is a base cult, then we have a chance at prevailing?"

Well, considering most of them belong to that "base cult"....good luck!

That's funny. Say something else just as dumb.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

So as long as people are not having sex in front of the Kleins(a behavior) then the Klein's don't have a case- since a sexual preference is not a behavior.

Yeah, sure. Just like drug-addiction preference isn't a behavior. Nor is eating disorder preference a behavior either.

Are we talking about preference or orientation?
I'm aware that some of you probably still believe that homosexuality is a choice.
Equating it to drug use is a pretty solid indicator that you subscribe to this mindset.

However, the issue has nothing to do with "preferences".
I PREFER chocolate ice cream but I AM an oxygen breathing carbon based heterosexual mammalian life form. I do not choose to breathe oxygen any more than a four leaf clover CHOSE to have four leaves.

 

[Syriusly]

Our rights are regulated in almost every aspect of life. Each and every law we have limits someones rights in some way. Quit whining and bake the damn cake.

First of all, behaviors don't have rights..

People have rights. No one is talking about behaviors except you.

 

[Syriusly]

Our rights are regulated in almost every aspect of life. Each and every law we have limits someones rights in some way. Quit whining and bake the damn cake.

Second, these non-enumerated lesbians sought on purpose to extinguish Constitutional rights of the Kleins that DO exist and have since the foundation of our country. .

LOL these lesbians sought a wedding cake.

And expected that the business would serve them as per the law.

 

[Syriusly]

If you say so. I wouldn't hold my breath for that if I were you. You know animal sacrifice, scarification, and female genital mutilation, and arranged marriages at a very young age are tenants of some religions, don't you? Your rights end when they infringe on someone else's rights. Bake the damn cake.

So your only position is "if LGBT can convince the USSC that Christianity is a base cult, then we have a chance at prevailing?"!

So your only position is that any religion other than Christianity is a base cult?

 

[Syriusly]

So as long as people are not having sex in front of the Kleins(a behavior) then the Klein's don't have a case- since a sexual preference is not a behavior.

Yeah, sure. Just like drug-addiction preference isn't a behavior.

Yes- drug addiction is a preference just like Christianity.

That is what you are saying.

You have acknowledged that religion is a 'preference'- so now you equate drug addiction to religion?

Sounds very Marxist to me.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Not in public commerce when goods or service are offered to the public.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So as long as people are not having sex in front of the Kleins(a behavior) then the Klein's don't have a case- since a sexual preference is not a behavior.

Yeah, sure. Just like drug-addiction preference isn't a behavior.

Yes- drug addiction is a preference just like Christianity.

That is what you are saying.

You have acknowledged that religion is a 'preference'- so now you equate drug addiction to religion?

Sounds very Marxist to me.

Sil is quite Marxian in her desire to control what people can do, who they can marry, who they can adopt, what they can believe.