Oregon Bakers: You get to pay 135,000 for being radical religious morons, Judge so orders!

[Pop23]

Curious,

If the baker subcontracted the work out, to satisfy his religious beliefs (someone else created the cake and made the profit, the Baker is just the middleman) how would that sit under the PA laws?

I would think it would be fine. The relationship is between the customer and the business. How the business supplies the product is irrelevant.

I can't see that at all. The Baker would still be "discriminating". Kinda puts the whole thing in perspective.

 

[sakinago]

It it is a freedom of religion issue. That’s exactly what this is. And that’s what Congress is expressly told what not to do in the 1st A. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t extend to other sincerely held beliefs, but in this scenario it’s absolutely a freedom of religion issue

So someone can claim "religion" and then get to discriminate, right?

How did that work for Piggie Park Enterprises when they claimed a religious right to discriminate (Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises) or when Bob Jones University claimed a religious right to discriminate (Bob Jones University v. United States)?

In approximately 21 States it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation but in all 50 states it is illegal to discriminate based on religion. In other words in most States bakers can refuse service to gays, but in NO states can a baker refuse a Christian because of their religious views on same-sex marriage.



>>>>

And everybody continues to ignore the first amendment on this issue. It’s a pretty big one. I know defending the first means I have to defend slim balls rights to their point of view...but I do so because it is so important.

No. Not everybody.

Did you bother to read the actual ruling.

The First Amendment is cited ...oh, about 200 times.

It might behoove you to give it a once-over: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A159899.pdf

I can cite and acknowledge something...that doesn’t mean I didn’t completely ignore and bulldozed it. I could say racism is bad, but goddamn those Asians are shitty drivers. Just because I stated that racism is bad, doesn’t mean that statement is no longer racist. What the hell has happened to critical thinking skills in this country. If you are forced to participate in an act that you religiously object to, by the government, you no longer have freedom of religion or excercise of that religion....there’s no middle ground on that (outside of the obvious as long as your “religious” beliefs don’t hurt or steal from others against their will...which I can’t believe I have to state this, but such is the climate of the world today). You can’t have partial freedom of religion. It’s no longer a freedom, it’s a privilege, with ground rules.

This is a definite violation of the first amendment, despite what your thoughts on religion are, or your thoughts on gay marriage are. DOMA too was a violation of the first amendment....WHY THE FUCK ARE WE TRYING TO SOLVE PROBLEMS AND VIOLATIONS OF RIGHTS WITH OTHER PROBLEMS AND VIOLATIONS OF RIGHTS!!!??? It’s just lunacy.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Make me a sammich. Not that kind. The kind I want. Or face jail and a fine.

If your business offers custom made sandwiches, then you have to make what the customer requests. Unless he wants ingredients that you do not stock.

Or even if he wants something I don't provide to anybody no matter who they fuck.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Beyond serving gays with equal access to everything he offers, what is his business required to do. You tell us.

That is exactly what the bakery had to do. And exactly what they did not. They refused to provide a wedding cake, a product they offer to everybody else.

No one gets a gay themed wedding cake.

 

[sakinago]

It it is a freedom of religion issue. That’s exactly what this is. And that’s what Congress is expressly told what not to do in the 1st A. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t extend to other sincerely held beliefs, but in this scenario it’s absolutely a freedom of religion issue

So someone can claim "religion" and then get to discriminate, right?

How did that work for Piggie Park Enterprises when they claimed a religious right to discriminate (Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises) or when Bob Jones University claimed a religious right to discriminate (Bob Jones University v. United States)?

In approximately 21 States it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation but in all 50 states it is illegal to discriminate based on religion. In other words in most States bakers can refuse service to gays, but in NO states can a baker refuse a Christian because of their religious views on same-sex marriage.



>>>>

Curious,

If the baker subcontracted the work out, to satisfy his religious beliefs (someone else created the cake and made the profit, the Baker is just the middleman) how would that sit under the PA laws?

Easier solution...good people shouldn’t be getting government to force people to violate their belief system, whether or not they agree or like their beliefs. That’s not a free society. How about go down the road and find someone who has no problem with gay marriage and would be perfectly happy to accept your business...what’s with the need for middlemen??

 

[WorldWatcher]

Or even if he wants something I don't provide to anybody no matter who they fuck.

The bakers confirmed in the Statement of Facts in court that yes, they did sell Wedding Cakes.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

No one gets a gay themed wedding cake.

The bakery offered Wedding Cakes which is what was requested. The customers were turned away after requesting a product that the bakery offered.

No "gay themed cake" was requested because the customers were refused service before any discussion of design.

This is included in the Statement of Facts that the bakers agreed to as part of the legal proceedings. It helps the discussion to discuss the actual facts of a cake instead of making up strawman arguments and then arguing against them.


>>>>

 

[Aba Incieni]

Or even if he wants something I don't provide to anybody no matter who they fuck.

The bakers confirmed in the Statement of Facts in court that yes, they did sell Wedding Cakes.


>>>>

Not the kind the clients demanded.

 

[Aba Incieni]

No one gets a gay themed wedding cake.

The bakery offered Wedding Cakes which is what was requested. The customers were turned away after requesting a product that the bakery offered.

No "gay themed cake" was requested because the customers were refused service before any discussion of design.

This is included in the Statement of Facts that the bakers agreed to as part of the legal proceedings. It helps the discussion to discuss the actual facts of a cake instead of making up strawman arguments and then arguing against them.


>>>>

If they were refused service before discussion of any kind they wouldn't know if they still sold the type of wedding cake the baker offered to everyone except them.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Not the kind the clients demanded.

The customer never "demanded" anything. As soon as the baker found out the customers were 2 brides, service was refused.

No "gay themed cake" was requested because the customers were refused service before any discussion of design.

This is included in the Statement of Facts that the bakers agreed to as part of the legal proceedings. It helps the discussion to discuss the actual facts of a cake instead of making up strawman arguments and then arguing against them.


>>>>

 

[Aba Incieni]

Not the kind the clients demanded.

The customer never "demanded" anything. As soon as the baker found out the customers were 2 brides, service was refused.

No "gay themed cake" was requested because the customers were refused service before any discussion of design.

This is included in the Statement of Facts that the bakers agreed to as part of the legal proceedings. It helps the discussion to discuss the actual facts of a cake instead of making up strawman arguments and then arguing against them.


>>>>

They demanded a custom made wedding cake. Custom. Made. Of the type the bakery did not provide to anyone.

You vill mek zee kek...or vee vill put you in zee offen.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

There is no place for decency or morality in the United States today. We are well on our way to the culture of the putrid.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If they were refused service before discussion of any kind they wouldn't know if they still sold the type of wedding cake the baker offered to everyone except them.

I didn't say "discussion of any kind" did I?

Court documents include a Statement of Facts, The Kleins agreed to the facts. The clients came in for a Wedding Cake tasting. The Kleins and the clients knew before hand that it was for a Wedding Cake. Ms. Klein had invited the clients at an earlier bridal show. Mr. Klein is the one that was at the tasting, has soon as he found out that the Wedding Cake tasting was for 2 brides he refused. Service. He knew the tasting was for a Wedding Cake, a product they offered.

However the tasting did not proceed to a design discussion because he refused service since the couple were 2 brides.



>>>>

 

[Votto]

not sure why people cheer when the Constitution is ignored.

leftist, hating America since fdr

The constitution wasn’t ignored. Thus the ruling.

Right, it specifically says in Article 7 section 4 that everyone must make a gay a cake who requests one.

 

[WorldWatcher]

They demanded a custom made wedding cake. Custom. Made. Of the type the bakery did not provide to anyone.

You vill mek zee kek...or vee vill put you in zee offen.

Custom <> Gay Themed.

They didn't "demand" anything unless you classify all customers as "demanding" a product or service. They requested a cake, the owner called them an abomination, they left, they reported the violation of the law.

Then they went to another baker.



>>>>

 

[Aba Incieni]

If they were refused service before discussion of any kind they wouldn't know if they still sold the type of wedding cake the baker offered to everyone except them.

I didn't say "discussion of any kind" did I?

Court documents include a Statement of Facts, The Kleins agreed to the facts. The clients came in for a Wedding Cake tasting. The Kleins and the clients knew before hand that it was for a Wedding Cake. Ms. Klein had invited the clients at an earlier bridal show. Mr. Klein is the one that was at the tasting, has soon as he found out that the Wedding Cake tasting was for 2 brides he refused. Service. He knew the tasting was for a Wedding Cake, a product they offered.

However the tasting did not proceed to a design discussion because he refused service since the couple were 2 brides.



>>>>

The baker did not provide the product they desired. To anyone.

 

[Aba Incieni]

They demanded a custom made wedding cake. Custom. Made. Of the type the bakery did not provide to anyone.

You vill mek zee kek...or vee vill put you in zee offen.

Custom <> Gay Themed.


>>>>

They did not provide that product to anyone. Are these dykes special people?

 

[WorldWatcher]

They did not provide that product to anyone. Are these dykes special people?

The bakery offered Wedding Cakes which is what was requested. The customers were turned away after requesting a product that the bakery offered.

No "gay themed cake" was requested because the customers were refused service before any discussion of design.

This is included in the Statement of Facts that the bakers agreed to as part of the legal proceedings. It helps the discussion to discuss the actual facts of a cake instead of making up strawman arguments and then arguing against them.


>>>>

 

[Aba Incieni]

They did not provide that product to anyone. Are these dykes special people?

The bakery offered Wedding Cakes which is what was requested. The customers were turned away after requesting a product that the bakery offered.

No "gay themed cake" was requested because the customers were refused service before any discussion of design.

This is included in the Statement of Facts that the bakers agreed to as part of the legal proceedings. It helps the discussion to discuss the actual facts of a cake instead of making up strawman arguments and then arguing against them.


>>>>

So yes, these dykes are special people. I wonder if the SC will agree. You think?

 

[TheOldSchool]

not sure why people cheer when the Constitution is ignored.

leftist, hating America since fdr

The constitution wasn’t ignored. Thus the ruling.

Right, it specifically says in Article 7 section 4 that everyone must make a gay a cake who requests one.

No, you should probably read it again.