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

[WorldWatcher]

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

Don't know.

In Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises the owner claimed a religious exemption to Public Accommodation laws, they lost. In Bob Jones University v. United States they claimed a religious exemption to discriminate, they lost.

Even with Gorusch the composition of the court remains the same as it has for years (Gorsuch replacing Scalia). So you can pretty much bet that it will be the 4 Justices in the left wing of the court that will side with the couple and 4 Justices in the right wing of the court ruling against them. That leaves Kennedy as the swing vote but Kennedy is also the author of Lawrence, Windsor, and Obergefel.

Right now I'd say it's a coin toss.

********************************************

IMHO it's time to repeal Public Accommodation laws as applied to private business entities restoring the rights of property and association. I don't support claims of a "religious" exemption to a law which is general in nature and applicability.

Do you know who said "Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities."


>>>>

 

[Two Thumbs]

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.

86 pages and not one leftist has figured out that they are anti-Constitutional in their stance.


simply irrefutable proof that leftism is a contagious brain tumor.

 

[Aba Incieni]

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

Don't know.

In Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises the owner claimed a religious exemption to Public Accommodation laws, they lost. In Bob Jones University v. United States they claimed a religious exemption to discriminate, they lost.

Even with Gorusch the composition of the court remains the same as it has for years (Gorsuch replacing Scalia). So you can pretty much bet that it will be the 4 Justices in the left wing of the court that will side with the couple and 4 Justices in the right wing of the court ruling against them. That leaves Kennedy as the swing vote but Kennedy is also the author of Lawrence, Windsor, and Obergefel.

Right now I'd say it's a coin toss.

********************************************

IMHO it's time to repeal Public Accommodation laws as applied to private business entities restoring the rights of property and association. I don't support claims of a "religious" exemption to a law which is general in nature and applicability.

Do you know who said "Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities."


>>>>

They were offered the exact same products as everyone else was offered. Unless they're special people because...well, you know.

 

[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.

86 pages and not one leftist has figured out that they are anti-Constitutional in their stance.


simply irrefutable proof that leftism is a contagious brain tumor.

86 pages and amateur conservatives continue to think they know the law better than expert Judges

 

[WorldWatcher]

They were offered the exact same products as everyone else was offered. Unless they're special people because...well, you know.

No. The bakers refused to sell them a Wedding Cake which was a product routinely offered.


>>>>

 

[Aba Incieni]

They were offered the exact same products as everyone else was offered. Unless they're special people because...well, you know.

No. The bakers refused to sell them a Wedding Cake which was a product routinely offered.


>>>>

No decorations?

 

[Two Thumbs]

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.

86 pages and not one leftist has figured out that they are anti-Constitutional in their stance.


simply irrefutable proof that leftism is a contagious brain tumor.

86 pages and amateur conservatives continue to think they know the law better than expert Judges

Law? no

the Constitution?

no on that as well, I do know, unlike you, that judges have and will ignore the Constitution, as is clearly the case.

 

[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.

No, you should probably read it again.

Curses!

Then just took the general welfare clause. If it is for my general welfare then it's Constitutional.

Case closed.

Next.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No decorations?

Don't know, their was never any design discussion. The baker refused service based on who the couple was.

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.

No decorations?

Is the decoration of this cake for a same-sex couple or a different-sex couple?


>>>>

 

[Votto]

No decorations?

Don't know, their was never any design discussion. The baker refused service based on who the couple was.

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.

No decorations?

Is the decoration of this cake for a same-sex couple or a different-sex couple?


>>>>

The baker made it clear that he was no denying them service based upon the fact they were gay.

No, he made it clear that he was not making the gay cake because it was for a ceremony he considered to be an abomination.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The baker made it clear that he was no denying them service based upon the fact they were gay.

No, he made it clear that he was not making the gay cake because it was for a ceremony he considered to be an abomination.

Based on who the customers were.


>>>>

 

[Aba Incieni]

No decorations?

Don't know, their was never any design discussion. The baker refused service based on who the couple was.

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.

No decorations?

Is the decoration of this cake for a same-sex couple or a different-sex couple?


>>>>

Looks pretty queer to me, but you're the expert on gay rights.

I've quoted the baker as stating that they serve gays, but you edited my post in your response. Sum ting wong with this story.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Looks pretty queer to me, but you're the expert on gay rights.

It's for a different-sex couples wedding (it's from Masterpiece Cakeshop catalog).

So if a same-sex couple orders the same cake, what then makes it "gay themed"?

I've quoted the baker as stating that they serve gays, but you edited my post in your response. Sum ting wong with this story.

The fact that they may have sold them other products is irrelevant. The baker confirmed in the Statement of Facts to the court that they refused to sell them a Wedding Cake (a product they normally sold).

Providing all products and services to one group while limiting the same products and services to another another group is a clear violation of the law. I've posted the Oregon statutes for you, the law requires full and equal access to goods and services, not a subset of goods and services.


>>>>

 

[Aba Incieni]

Looks pretty queer to me, but you're the expert on gay rights.

It's for a different-sex couples wedding (it's from Masterpiece Cakeshop catalog).

So if a same-sex couple orders the same cake, what then makes it "gay themed"?

I've quoted the baker as stating that they serve gays, but you edited my post in your response. Sum ting wong with this story.

The fact that they may have sold them other products is irrelevant. The baker confirmed in the Statement of Facts to the court that they refused to sell them a Wedding Cake (a product they normally sold).

Providing all products and services to one group while limiting the same products and services to another another group is a clear violation of the law. I've posted the Oregon statutes for you, the law requires full and equal access to goods and services, not a subset of goods and services.


>>>>

So if I go back and find the baker stating that they serve gay people, you lose your point and the discussion.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So if I go back and find the baker stating that they serve gay people, you lose your point and the discussion.

If you go back and find that the baker agree to sell them a Wedding Cake just like other customers, then sure. But then their would have been no legal complaint or follow on legal proceedings.

However, ...

The fact that they may have sold them other products is irrelevant.

Providing all products and services to one group while limiting the same products and services to another another group is a clear violation of the law. I've posted the Oregon statutes for you, the law requires full and equal access to goods and services, not a subset of goods and services.


>>>>

 

[Aba Incieni]

So if I go back and find the baker stating that they serve gay people, you lose your point and the discussion.

If you go back and find that the baker agree to sell them a Wedding Cake just like other customers, then sure. But then their would have been no legal complaint or follow on legal proceedings.

However, ...

The fact that they may have sold them other products is irrelevant.

Providing all products and services to one group while limiting the same products and services to another another group is a clear violation of the law. I've posted the Oregon statutes for you, the law requires full and equal access to goods and services, not a subset of goods and services.


>>>>

You've lost your point. He serves gays. He would not sell the cake they desired to a straight person. Nor would they write, "Fuck you, nigglers," although I believe that's covered under free speech laws.

Are you saying they would only sell them cupcakes?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

You can help the Klein's by going here:

Click to support Help Sweetcakes by melissa

 

[WorldWatcher]

You've lost your point. He serves gays.

The fact that they may have sold them other products is irrelevant.

Providing all products and services to one group while limiting the same products and services to another another group is a clear violation of the law. I've posted the Oregon statutes for you, the law requires full and equal access to goods and services, not a subset of goods and services.

He would not sell the cake they desired to a straight person.

If a different-sex couple came in and selected this cake design from his catalog - he would sell it to them.

If a same-sex couple came in and selected this cake design from his catalog - he would not sell it to them.

There is no difference in the cake, the only customers.

Nor would they write, "Fuck you, nigglers," although I believe that's covered under free speech laws.

Are you saying they would only sell them cupcakes?

Totally different issue.

Your attempted strawman argument fails in view of facts agreed to by the bakers, there was never any discussion of design at the Wedding Cake tasting appointment since service was refused as soon as Mr. Klein understood that the party Ms. Klein invited included 2 brides.


>>>>

 

[Aba Incieni]

You've lost your point. He serves gays.

The fact that they may have sold them other products is irrelevant.

Providing all products and services to one group while limiting the same products and services to another another group is a clear violation of the law. I've posted the Oregon statutes for you, the law requires full and equal access to goods and services, not a subset of goods and services.

He would not sell the cake they desired to a straight person.

If a different-sex couple came in and selected this cake design from his catalog - he would sell it to them.

If a same-sex couple came in and selected this cake design from his catalog - he would not sell it to them.

There is no difference in the cake, the only customers.

Nor would they write, "Fuck you, nigglers," although I believe that's covered under free speech laws.

Are you saying they would only sell them cupcakes?

Totally different issue.

Your attempted strawman argument fails in view of facts agreed to by the bakers, there was never any discussion of design at the Wedding Cake tasting appointment since service was refused as soon as Mr. Klein understood that the party Ms. Klein invited included 2 brides.


>>>>

The bakery would not sell that same cake to a hetero couple. Why should a gay couple deserve something that would not be sold to a straight couple?

Is it because gay people are special people?

 

[WorldWatcher]

The bakery would not sell that same cake to a hetero couple. Why should a gay couple deserve something that would not be sold to a straight couple?

Is it because gay people are special people?

The cake image is from the Masterpiece Cakeshop catalog of cakes they sell to different-sex couples. Mr. Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop is the Colorado baker that refused to sell a Wedding Cake to a same-sex couple.

So your saying that one of the bakers that refused to sell a Wedding Cake to a same-sex couple wouldn't sell a cake from their Wedding Cake Catalog to a different-sex couple is just beyond weird.


>>>>