Oregon imposes gag order on Christian bakers in gay wedding case

[Flopper]

of course they are not 'required' to provide toppers....just as they should not be 'required' to bake wedding cakes for gays...

gays once wanted tolerance and they got it.....now they want complete acceptance and approval and conjoining....this steps on the beliefs and practices of others...

You are mistaken. In some places if you are a baker that bakes wedding cakes, you must sell the same cake to a gay couple that you just sold to a straight couple.

In all 50 states a gay person MUST serve a Christian.

In about 20 states, that's true, state laws protect gays and lesbian for denial

I'm saying if the shopkeeper is in business to serve the public he should serve the public. When he put's that open for business sign up, he should not be able to pick his customers based on race, sex, ethnic origins, or sexual preference.

The shopkeeper is in business to serve whomever he wants to server. Your theory that you get to determine who he serves only shows that you are statist to the bone. Why shouldn't he be able to pick his customers based on any criteria he chooses?

First of all it's illegal. The 1964 Civil Rights act makes it illegal to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Additionally it's against federal law to discriminate against those with disabilities. In 20 states and a number of municipalities, it's illegal to discriminate based sexual preference.

From a philosophical point, people should only be judged on their actions, not on any immutable characteristics. To pre-judge someone is bad and unfair. Denial of services creates a system of 2nd class citizens where people are judged not by their individual actions but by perceptions based on stereotypes and personal prejudices. Class discrimination is just plain wrong.

The problem is really with the idea that government should have any say in how we judge each other in the context of voluntary interactions. People have different values, and that's ok. As long as they're not hurting anyone else, they shouldn't be compelled to serve others against their will.

But it is hurting someone. If you go to the best baker in town for your wedding cake and you are refused service, you have to settle for second best. If there are only two really professional wedding photographers in your town and you're turned down, then you settle for seconds. If you walk into a restaurant, you may be asked to leave or you may be denied a room at the only hotel with a vacancy because they don't take gay couples. Regardless of the fact that you may be a law abiding citizen who does more for the community than most people, you are treated as a second citizen. That's not right or fair.

And this is the debate we should be having. I think it's high time we flatly rejected the idea that not helping someone is the equivalent of harming them. I any case, it's not the kind of harm we need government to protect us from. This invites government to get involved in every single interaction we have with other people. In my view, as long as those interactions are voluntary, and no coercion or fraud is involved, government has no business intervening.

Using that criteria, a doctor or a private hospital could refuse to treat a Jew or Muslim, Blacks could be turned away from restaurants and hotels, facilities for the disable in businesses would be optional, women could be denied credit, jobs, and entrance to private schools because of their sex.

I think you don't comprehend what it means to be denied services of businesses, educational and job opportunities for no other reason than your race, religion, or your sex.

The only way to guarantee that all of our citizens have equal opportunities in the country is for government to be involve.

 

[PostmodernProph]

why would you need a real wedding cake at a pretend wedding?......

It's not a pretend wedding. Same-sex couple really do get Civilly Married in this country and have been starting with the first state in 2004.


>>>>

so you pretend......

Not a "pretend", they are in fact legally valid Civil Marriages.


>>>>

you just keep on pretending that.......it will make you feel better.....just like when you pretend killing unborn children isn't really killing children.........

See, that's the thing though...we KNOW our marriages are legal and in all 50 states now. You pretending that gays aren't civilly married is to make YOU feel better, but it is you who is pretending.

???.....yes.....the pretend marriages are legal now.....did anyone say they weren't?......

 

[Carla_Danger]

The law is the law, like it or not...

Fascinating they still didn't break it. The politician himself says WHY he claims they broke it which is completely wrong of what both the normal cake makers have said and the mentally ill carpet munchers said happened.

They are welcome to take that as well to court but truthfully, after having to pay up, they need to learn to follow the laws for now.

They won't be paying up and They are appealing this hopefully all way to supreme court

And they will lose. The SC has already rejected such things, even before last week. Bake the cake, or be put out of business...

And somehow you retards still spew that nobody is being forced to participate in a gay wedding. If you don't it will only cost you 135k to opt out. Because that seems like a fair price to pay for your religious beliefs right?

If you want to practice your religion instead of serve the public, open a damn church.

 

[Carla_Danger]

It's not a pretend wedding. Same-sex couple really do get Civilly Married in this country and have been starting with the first state in 2004.


>>>>

so you pretend......

Not a "pretend", they are in fact legally valid Civil Marriages.


>>>>

you just keep on pretending that.......it will make you feel better.....just like when you pretend killing unborn children isn't really killing children.........

See, that's the thing though...we KNOW our marriages are legal and in all 50 states now. You pretending that gays aren't civilly married is to make YOU feel better, but it is you who is pretending.

???.....yes.....the pretend marriages are legal now.....did anyone say they weren't?......

If it's legal, it's not pretend.

 

[dblack]

But it is hurting someone. If you go to the best baker in town for your wedding cake and you are refused service, you have to settle for second best. If there are only two really professional wedding photographers in your town and you're turned down, then you settle for seconds. If you walk into a restaurant, you may be asked to leave or you may be denied a room at the only hotel with a vacancy because they don't take gay couples. Regardless of the fact that you may be a law abiding citizen who does more for the community than most people, you are treated as a second citizen. That's not right or fair.

And this is the debate we should be having. I think it's high time we flatly rejected the idea that not helping someone is the equivalent of harming them. I any case, it's not the kind of harm we need government to protect us from. This invites government to get involved in every single interaction we have with other people. In my view, as long as those interactions are voluntary, and no coercion or fraud is involved, government has no business intervening.

Using that criteria, a doctor or a private hospital could refuse to treat a Jew or Muslim, Blacks could be turned away from restaurants and hotels, facilities for the disable in businesses would be optional, women could be denied credit, jobs, and entrance to private schools because of their sex.

That's true. It does allow for the possibility of these things happening. But it doesn't require that we put up with it as a society. It merely prohibits coercion as a solution.

I think you don't comprehend what it means to be denied services of businesses, educational and job opportunities for no other reason than your race, religion, or your sex.

I think I do. And I'm not in dismissing it. I'm just saying that government isn't the proper tool to solve these kinds of social problems.

The only way to guarantee that all of our citizens have equal opportunities in the country is for government to be involve.

Maybe, depending on how broadly you define equal opportunity. If that's the case, I'd suggest that such an extreme conception of equal opportunity isn't worth the loss of personal freedom it entails.

 

[NYcarbineer]

But it is hurting someone. If you go to the best baker in town for your wedding cake and you are refused service, you have to settle for second best. If there are only two really professional wedding photographers in your town and you're turned down, then you settle for seconds. If you walk into a restaurant, you may be asked to leave or you may be denied a room at the only hotel with a vacancy because they don't take gay couples. Regardless of the fact that you may be a law abiding citizen who does more for the community than most people, you are treated as a second citizen. That's not right or fair.

And this is the debate we should be having. I think it's high time we flatly rejected the idea that not helping someone is the equivalent of harming them. I any case, it's not the kind of harm we need government to protect us from. This invites government to get involved in every single interaction we have with other people. In my view, as long as those interactions are voluntary, and no coercion or fraud is involved, government has no business intervening.

Using that criteria, a doctor or a private hospital could refuse to treat a Jew or Muslim, Blacks could be turned away from restaurants and hotels, facilities for the disable in businesses would be optional, women could be denied credit, jobs, and entrance to private schools because of their sex.

That's true. It does allow for the possibility of these things happening. But it doesn't require that we put up with it as a society. It merely prohibits coercion as a solution.

I think you don't comprehend what it means to be denied services of businesses, educational and job opportunities for no other reason than your race, religion, or your sex.

I think I do. And I'm not in dismissing it. I'm just saying that government isn't the proper tool to solve these kinds of social problems.

The only way to guarantee that all of our citizens have equal opportunities in the country is for government to be involve.

Maybe, depending on how broadly you define equal opportunity. If that's the case, I'd suggest that such an extreme conception of equal opportunity isn't worth the loss of personal freedom it entails.

You're insane.

 

[PostmodernProph]

If it's legal, it's not pretend.

that's what your pretending, that legal equals real......

 

[Carla_Danger]

If it's legal, it's not pretend.

that's what your pretending, that legal equals real......

I think Sweet Cakes bakery has learned a thing or two about pretend laws and real ones. lol

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Fascinating they still didn't break it. The politician himself says WHY he claims they broke it which is completely wrong of what both the normal cake makers have said and the mentally ill carpet munchers said happened.

They are welcome to take that as well to court but truthfully, after having to pay up, they need to learn to follow the laws for now.

They won't be paying up and They are appealing this hopefully all way to supreme court

And they will lose. The SC has already rejected such things, even before last week. Bake the cake, or be put out of business...

And somehow you retards still spew that nobody is being forced to participate in a gay wedding. If you don't it will only cost you 135k to opt out. Because that seems like a fair price to pay for your religious beliefs right?

If you want to practice your religion instead of serve the public, open a damn church.

If you want to flaunt your homosexuality do it in a bath house. But you would never say that would you? Selective outrage at it's ugliest.

 

[Flopper]

But it is hurting someone. If you go to the best baker in town for your wedding cake and you are refused service, you have to settle for second best. If there are only two really professional wedding photographers in your town and you're turned down, then you settle for seconds. If you walk into a restaurant, you may be asked to leave or you may be denied a room at the only hotel with a vacancy because they don't take gay couples. Regardless of the fact that you may be a law abiding citizen who does more for the community than most people, you are treated as a second citizen. That's not right or fair.

And this is the debate we should be having. I think it's high time we flatly rejected the idea that not helping someone is the equivalent of harming them. I any case, it's not the kind of harm we need government to protect us from. This invites government to get involved in every single interaction we have with other people. In my view, as long as those interactions are voluntary, and no coercion or fraud is involved, government has no business intervening.

Using that criteria, a doctor or a private hospital could refuse to treat a Jew or Muslim, Blacks could be turned away from restaurants and hotels, facilities for the disable in businesses would be optional, women could be denied credit, jobs, and entrance to private schools because of their sex.

That's true. It does allow for the possibility of these things happening. But it doesn't require that we put up with it as a society. It merely prohibits coercion as a solution.

I think you don't comprehend what it means to be denied services of businesses, educational and job opportunities for no other reason than your race, religion, or your sex.

I think I do. And I'm not in dismissing it. I'm just saying that government isn't the proper tool to solve these kinds of social problems.

The only way to guarantee that all of our citizens have equal opportunities in the country is for government to be involve.

Maybe, depending on how broadly you define equal opportunity. If that's the case, I'd suggest that such an extreme conception of equal opportunity isn't worth the loss of personal freedom it entails.

Either way there is a loss of freedom, a businessman losses the right to choose his customers or customers loss their right to access goods and services they need. Which is greater loss?

 

[dblack]

But it is hurting someone. If you go to the best baker in town for your wedding cake and you are refused service, you have to settle for second best. If there are only two really professional wedding photographers in your town and you're turned down, then you settle for seconds. If you walk into a restaurant, you may be asked to leave or you may be denied a room at the only hotel with a vacancy because they don't take gay couples. Regardless of the fact that you may be a law abiding citizen who does more for the community than most people, you are treated as a second citizen. That's not right or fair.

And this is the debate we should be having. I think it's high time we flatly rejected the idea that not helping someone is the equivalent of harming them. I any case, it's not the kind of harm we need government to protect us from. This invites government to get involved in every single interaction we have with other people. In my view, as long as those interactions are voluntary, and no coercion or fraud is involved, government has no business intervening.

Using that criteria, a doctor or a private hospital could refuse to treat a Jew or Muslim, Blacks could be turned away from restaurants and hotels, facilities for the disable in businesses would be optional, women could be denied credit, jobs, and entrance to private schools because of their sex.

That's true. It does allow for the possibility of these things happening. But it doesn't require that we put up with it as a society. It merely prohibits coercion as a solution.

I think you don't comprehend what it means to be denied services of businesses, educational and job opportunities for no other reason than your race, religion, or your sex.

I think I do. And I'm not in dismissing it. I'm just saying that government isn't the proper tool to solve these kinds of social problems.

The only way to guarantee that all of our citizens have equal opportunities in the country is for government to be involve.

Maybe, depending on how broadly you define equal opportunity. If that's the case, I'd suggest that such an extreme conception of equal opportunity isn't worth the loss of personal freedom it entails.

Either way there is a loss of freedom, a businessman losses the right to choose his customers or customers loss their right to access goods and services they need. Which is greater loss?

Well the latter is not a right (freedom), but rather the power to force others to serve against their will. This is precisely why it's so important to understand the difference between individual rights and group privilege.

 

[koshergrl]

What the bigots refuse to acknowledge is that the gays were not turned away. The bakers refused to PARTICIPATE IN an activity they found sacrilegious, i.e., a fake wedding. They served the homos in the store, they just weren't interested in engaging in sacrilegious celebrations off site. The gays were asking for them to create something specifically to celebrate a rite that they found an affront to God. If the homos had just come and gotten a plain sheet cake and taken it to their wedding, it would have been just fine.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

What the bigots refuse to acknowledge is that the gays were not turned away. The bakers refused to PARTICIPATE IN an activity they found sacrilegious, i.e., a fake wedding. They served the homos in the store, they just weren't interested in engaging in sacrilegious celebrations off site. The gays were asking for them to create something specifically to celebrate a rite that they found an affront to God. If the homos had just come and gotten a plain sheet cake and taken it to their wedding, it would have been just fine.

I see the bakers are refusing to pay the fine.

 

[bendog]

But it is hurting someone. If you go to the best baker in town for your wedding cake and you are refused service, you have to settle for second best. If there are only two really professional wedding photographers in your town and you're turned down, then you settle for seconds. If you walk into a restaurant, you may be asked to leave or you may be denied a room at the only hotel with a vacancy because they don't take gay couples. Regardless of the fact that you may be a law abiding citizen who does more for the community than most people, you are treated as a second citizen. That's not right or fair.

And this is the debate we should be having. I think it's high time we flatly rejected the idea that not helping someone is the equivalent of harming them. I any case, it's not the kind of harm we need government to protect us from. This invites government to get involved in every single interaction we have with other people. In my view, as long as those interactions are voluntary, and no coercion or fraud is involved, government has no business intervening.

Using that criteria, a doctor or a private hospital could refuse to treat a Jew or Muslim, Blacks could be turned away from restaurants and hotels, facilities for the disable in businesses would be optional, women could be denied credit, jobs, and entrance to private schools because of their sex.

That's true. It does allow for the possibility of these things happening. But it doesn't require that we put up with it as a society. It merely prohibits coercion as a solution.

I think you don't comprehend what it means to be denied services of businesses, educational and job opportunities for no other reason than your race, religion, or your sex.

I think I do. And I'm not in dismissing it. I'm just saying that government isn't the proper tool to solve these kinds of social problems.

The only way to guarantee that all of our citizens have equal opportunities in the country is for government to be involve.

Maybe, depending on how broadly you define equal opportunity. If that's the case, I'd suggest that such an extreme conception of equal opportunity isn't worth the loss of personal freedom it entails.

Either way there is a loss of freedom, a businessman losses the right to choose his customers or customers loss their right to access goods and services they need. Which is greater loss?

Well the latter is not a right (freedom), but rather the power to force others to serve against their will. This is precisely why it's so important to understand the difference between individual rights and group privilege.

I understand what you're saying but both are freedoms, and there is a constitutional conflict. There is an individual right to enter, or not enter, a contract with another person (or corporation.) But, there is also an individual right to prevent the govt from treating me any differently from you ... unless there's a good reason for the disparity.

PA laws are premised on a notion that the bakers would not be in any position to market their cakes without govt - e.g. water, sewer, roads for the flower ..... so the gays should be able to reach out and touch the bakers despite the contract clause of the BOR.

Personally, I think that's taking equal protection wayyyyy farther than it was ever intended to go.

 

[koshergrl]

What the bigots refuse to acknowledge is that the gays were not turned away. The bakers refused to PARTICIPATE IN an activity they found sacrilegious, i.e., a fake wedding. They served the homos in the store, they just weren't interested in engaging in sacrilegious celebrations off site. The gays were asking for them to create something specifically to celebrate a rite that they found an affront to God. If the homos had just come and gotten a plain sheet cake and taken it to their wedding, it would have been just fine.

I see the bakers are refusing to pay the fine.

Yes they're appealing. As is right..but they shouldn't be put through this in the first place. It's insane.

 

[Flopper]

But it is hurting someone. If you go to the best baker in town for your wedding cake and you are refused service, you have to settle for second best. If there are only two really professional wedding photographers in your town and you're turned down, then you settle for seconds. If you walk into a restaurant, you may be asked to leave or you may be denied a room at the only hotel with a vacancy because they don't take gay couples. Regardless of the fact that you may be a law abiding citizen who does more for the community than most people, you are treated as a second citizen. That's not right or fair.

And this is the debate we should be having. I think it's high time we flatly rejected the idea that not helping someone is the equivalent of harming them. I any case, it's not the kind of harm we need government to protect us from. This invites government to get involved in every single interaction we have with other people. In my view, as long as those interactions are voluntary, and no coercion or fraud is involved, government has no business intervening.

Using that criteria, a doctor or a private hospital could refuse to treat a Jew or Muslim, Blacks could be turned away from restaurants and hotels, facilities for the disable in businesses would be optional, women could be denied credit, jobs, and entrance to private schools because of their sex.

That's true. It does allow for the possibility of these things happening. But it doesn't require that we put up with it as a society. It merely prohibits coercion as a solution.

I think you don't comprehend what it means to be denied services of businesses, educational and job opportunities for no other reason than your race, religion, or your sex.

I think I do. And I'm not in dismissing it. I'm just saying that government isn't the proper tool to solve these kinds of social problems.

The only way to guarantee that all of our citizens have equal opportunities in the country is for government to be involve.

Maybe, depending on how broadly you define equal opportunity. If that's the case, I'd suggest that such an extreme conception of equal opportunity isn't worth the loss of personal freedom it entails.

Either way there is a loss of freedom, a businessman losses the right to choose his customers or customers loss their right to access goods and services they need. Which is greater loss?

Well the latter is not a right (freedom), but rather the power to force others to serve against their will. This is precisely why it's so important to understand the difference between individual rights and group privilege.

Neither is the former.

 

[dblack]

And this is the debate we should be having. I think it's high time we flatly rejected the idea that not helping someone is the equivalent of harming them. I any case, it's not the kind of harm we need government to protect us from. This invites government to get involved in every single interaction we have with other people. In my view, as long as those interactions are voluntary, and no coercion or fraud is involved, government has no business intervening.

Using that criteria, a doctor or a private hospital could refuse to treat a Jew or Muslim, Blacks could be turned away from restaurants and hotels, facilities for the disable in businesses would be optional, women could be denied credit, jobs, and entrance to private schools because of their sex.

That's true. It does allow for the possibility of these things happening. But it doesn't require that we put up with it as a society. It merely prohibits coercion as a solution.

I think you don't comprehend what it means to be denied services of businesses, educational and job opportunities for no other reason than your race, religion, or your sex.

I think I do. And I'm not in dismissing it. I'm just saying that government isn't the proper tool to solve these kinds of social problems.

The only way to guarantee that all of our citizens have equal opportunities in the country is for government to be involve.

Maybe, depending on how broadly you define equal opportunity. If that's the case, I'd suggest that such an extreme conception of equal opportunity isn't worth the loss of personal freedom it entails.

Either way there is a loss of freedom, a businessman losses the right to choose his customers or customers loss their right to access goods and services they need. Which is greater loss?

Well the latter is not a right (freedom), but rather the power to force others to serve against their will. This is precisely why it's so important to understand the difference between individual rights and group privilege.

Neither is the former.

You don't see the difference in character between the two? The right to discriminate essentially boils down to the right to abstain. To have the freedom to say "no thanks" to any transaction you find against your interests. That's distinctly different that a supposed "right" to be served by others.

 

[Flopper]

Using that criteria, a doctor or a private hospital could refuse to treat a Jew or Muslim, Blacks could be turned away from restaurants and hotels, facilities for the disable in businesses would be optional, women could be denied credit, jobs, and entrance to private schools because of their sex.

That's true. It does allow for the possibility of these things happening. But it doesn't require that we put up with it as a society. It merely prohibits coercion as a solution.

I think you don't comprehend what it means to be denied services of businesses, educational and job opportunities for no other reason than your race, religion, or your sex.

I think I do. And I'm not in dismissing it. I'm just saying that government isn't the proper tool to solve these kinds of social problems.

The only way to guarantee that all of our citizens have equal opportunities in the country is for government to be involve.

Maybe, depending on how broadly you define equal opportunity. If that's the case, I'd suggest that such an extreme conception of equal opportunity isn't worth the loss of personal freedom it entails.

Either way there is a loss of freedom, a businessman losses the right to choose his customers or customers loss their right to access goods and services they need. Which is greater loss?

Well the latter is not a right (freedom), but rather the power to force others to serve against their will. This is precisely why it's so important to understand the difference between individual rights and group privilege.

Neither is the former.

You don't see the difference in character between the two? The right to discriminate essentially boils down to the right to abstain. To have the freedom to say "no thanks" to any transaction you find against your interests. That's distinctly different that a supposed "right" to be served by others.

So using your logic, a doctor or medical facility should be able to turn away a Jew or a Muslim who needs care because it would go against his religious beliefs. A hotel owner should be able turn away blacks or Latinos because he doesn't like them. An employer should be able to bypass hiring an unwed mother because it violates his principals. A business should be able to say no to installing facilities for the disabled because it cut into his profits.

 

[Kosh]

That's true. It does allow for the possibility of these things happening. But it doesn't require that we put up with it as a society. It merely prohibits coercion as a solution.

I think I do. And I'm not in dismissing it. I'm just saying that government isn't the proper tool to solve these kinds of social problems.

Maybe, depending on how broadly you define equal opportunity. If that's the case, I'd suggest that such an extreme conception of equal opportunity isn't worth the loss of personal freedom it entails.

Either way there is a loss of freedom, a businessman losses the right to choose his customers or customers loss their right to access goods and services they need. Which is greater loss?

Well the latter is not a right (freedom), but rather the power to force others to serve against their will. This is precisely why it's so important to understand the difference between individual rights and group privilege.

Neither is the former.

You don't see the difference in character between the two? The right to discriminate essentially boils down to the right to abstain. To have the freedom to say "no thanks" to any transaction you find against your interests. That's distinctly different that a supposed "right" to be served by others.

So using your logic, a doctor or medical facility should be able to turn away a Jew or a Muslim who needs care because it would go against his religious beliefs. A hotel owner should be able turn away blacks or Latinos because he doesn't like them. An employer should be able to bypass hiring an unwed mother because it violates his principals. A business should be able to say no to installing facilities for the disabled because it cut into his profits.

And the far left once again used horrid analogies to make another reference to their debunked religious beliefs.

A business can turn down anyone it chooses, but many on the far left will claim racism or bigotry instead looking at the facts.

 

[bendog]

Either way there is a loss of freedom, a businessman losses the right to choose his customers or customers loss their right to access goods and services they need. Which is greater loss?

Well the latter is not a right (freedom), but rather the power to force others to serve against their will. This is precisely why it's so important to understand the difference between individual rights and group privilege.

Neither is the former.

You don't see the difference in character between the two? The right to discriminate essentially boils down to the right to abstain. To have the freedom to say "no thanks" to any transaction you find against your interests. That's distinctly different that a supposed "right" to be served by others.

So using your logic, a doctor or medical facility should be able to turn away a Jew or a Muslim who needs care because it would go against his religious beliefs. A hotel owner should be able turn away blacks or Latinos because he doesn't like them. An employer should be able to bypass hiring an unwed mother because it violates his principals. A business should be able to say no to installing facilities for the disabled because it cut into his profits.

And the far left once again used horrid analogies to make another reference to their debunked religious beliefs.

A business can turn down anyone it chooses, but many on the far left will claim racism or bigotry instead looking at the facts.

Not far fetched. PA laws originally encompassed religions and racial private discrimination. If you want to argue against PA laws applying to gays, either you have to be for them not applying to races and religions, or you think there's a reason to apply them to race and religion but not orientation.

It's a simple either or distinction. My opinion is simply that GLBT folks are winning in marketplace of ideas. People are learning that discrimination against them makes no sense, and the bakers are azzhats. So, the infringement on the right to contract is not necessary to protect the GLBT folks from discrimination. But, people disagree with me, and that's fine.