State Takes Legal Action to Seize $135K From Bakers Who Refused to Make Cake for Lesbian Couple

[paddymurphy]

What if the baker were an emergency room surgeon in a small hospital in the south, and he refused to operate on a critical patient because he was gay.

Does he have the right to let someone die because it would infringe on his religious rights.

Strawman. But I will go ahead and break it down for you
That would be illegal. FFS, hospitals cant even turn down people with no insurance.

The surgeon is in business and he is being forced to provide his services to gay people, which he doesn't want to do.

He's being forced to provide his services to EVERYONE.

See dopes.

So you are actually going to continue to compare a goddamn cake to surgery?
1. you are comparing life/death to a cake.
2. Hospitals are usually public or owned by many people. And im pretty sure a surgeon wouldn't own an entire goddamn hospital. So that would mean he would be getting told what to do by his EMPLOYER not HIS business.

So, if you are an employee, you have no right to refuse to do something your religion prohibits? Most surgeons are not employees of the hospital. Most are independent contractors who simply have privileges at hospitals; often more than one. So, if a surgeon is an independent contractor, in business for himself, you would be perfectly OK with him exercising the right you says he has, to refuse service to anyone, even if it means someone dies?

 

[TNHarley]

I guess the SC should rule that landlords shouldn't be able to turn down tenants for credit, hygiene or references. Right statists?

 

[bodecea]

What if the baker were an emergency room surgeon in a small hospital in the south, and he refused to operate on a critical patient because he was gay.

Does he have the right to let someone die because it would infringe on his religious rights.

Timely or necessary services are a compelling government interest that merit anti-discrimination rules. A gay couple having to spend 15 minutes finding another baker and feeling bad about it isn't, and it is not worth ruining the baker in question.

Does not have to be a compelling governmental interest. Only a rational one.

Wrong. If you are going to trample on the freedoms of others, it has to be compelling.

Not your call, Marty.

 

[paddymurphy]

What if the baker were an emergency room surgeon in a small hospital in the south, and he refused to operate on a critical patient because he was gay.

Does he have the right to let someone die because it would infringe on his religious rights.

Timely or necessary services are a compelling government interest that merit anti-discrimination rules. A gay couple having to spend 15 minutes finding another baker and feeling bad about it isn't, and it is not worth ruining the baker in question.

Does not have to be a compelling governmental interest. Only a rational one.

Wrong. If you are going to trample on the freedoms of others, it has to be compelling.

Anti -Discrimination laws do not trample on the freedom of others. You seem not to understand that morons have made these same arguments in court many times and always lose.

 

[bodecea]

And how are they practicing their religion by baking a cake?

They are practicing their religion by NOT supporting or participating in a homosexual union or the celebration there of.

A cake baker doesn't participate in a homosexual marriage. They make a cake for a reception.

 

[IsaacNewton]

This is one of the huge problems with religion.

'God', can watch millions die in the gas chambers, but when these bakers get to 'heaven' he is going to go over their resume and say "everything looks absolutely fantastic, you are utterly righteous people and we have been looking for...hang on a sec...uhh, I don't know how...('god' looks at his assistant and whispers, "is this correct?" The assistant nods yes)...did you bake a cake for some gay people?" "Yes we did lord".

"Off to hell with you to burn in horrible torture for all of eternity."

 

[Skylar]

It's not what I want to get away with, that has nothing to do with it. it's about government being able to ruin someone over something as stupid as politely saying they don't want to provide a wedding cake for a gay wedding.

It's also about the fascist cheering squad you belong to, and the fact that your are all miserable, detestable pond scum forgeries of actual human beings.

Learn to be rational. If the law says Serve One, Serve All, do that.

The law used to say blacks had to use separate water fountains. Where was your respect for the law then?

Appeal to authority isn't a position, its a cop out.

An excellent example. Thank you for bringing it up, Marty. People worked long and hard to get such Jim Crow laws repealed or struck down in court. It took a while but they did it. If all they had done was verbally complain about it and not take ACTION, there probably would still be segregation laws like separate drinking fountains. People got off their couches and actually TOOK ACTION.

Again resorting to the "you don't do X, so shut up" line of retort. its getting old.

Marty. When have I EVER told you to shut up?

A persecution complex is part of the judge dredd routine.

 

[paddymurphy]

I am pro free will and liberty too. Nobody forces you to open a public accommodation business. No one is telling how to conduct your personal life or how to feel, but yes, there are going to be rules and regulations whenever you open a business.

This is the same argument that was used against anti-discrimination laws against black people way back when, such as interracial marriages, and serving black people at certain businesses. The only difference? The discrimination now against our gay citizens is based upon personal sexual habits rather than skin color. It failed then and fails now.

I agree with the top. Im not saying these people didn't break the law, I am saying it shouldn't be a law in the first place. In fact, if you gave me a couple hours I could probably gather some good information to explain how it is also unconstitutional. Because, frankly, there is no possible way that it is.
People should be able to refuse service to anyone they feel they don't want to sell their product to. People have a right to feel uncomfortable, a right to personal opinion, a right to the company they OWN and a right to be an asshole.

"if you gave me a couple hours I could probably gather some good information to explain how it is also unconstitutional" So, you think, in those couple of hours, you would be able to secure an Amendment to the constitution that would make public accommodation laws no longer constitutional. That is what you would have to do since these laws have been around for decades and have been challenged in the past without any success.

No Mr intelligence(lol) I could prove how anti discrimination laws are unconstitutional. ESPECIALLY invoking fascism like this into private businesses

How could you prove that they are not constitutional when the Supreme Court has held, repeatedly, that they are ?

Off the top of my head the 13th amendment and the founding documents and property rights.

Better to have tried to use what is inside your head. The 13 Amendment banned slavery. No being allowed to discriminate in who your perform services for, for which you get paid, is not slavery. Maybe to a dumbass like you, but not to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. "Property rights"? Bet you have no clue what that means.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I guess the SC should rule that landlords shouldn't be able to turn down tenants for credit, hygiene or references. Right statists?

That's roughly the same as the guy was naked, so we didn't serve him. That usually holds up in court but not the guy was gay.

 

[paddymurphy]

I guess the SC should rule that landlords shouldn't be able to turn down tenants for credit, hygiene or references. Right statists?

No, they can turn them down for all three. All three are based on an individual; not based on a judgment of an entire group. How stupid do you have be to not understand that?

 

[TNHarley]

What if the baker were an emergency room surgeon in a small hospital in the south, and he refused to operate on a critical patient because he was gay.

Does he have the right to let someone die because it would infringe on his religious rights.

Strawman. But I will go ahead and break it down for you
That would be illegal. FFS, hospitals cant even turn down people with no insurance.

The surgeon is in business and he is being forced to provide his services to gay people, which he doesn't want to do.

He's being forced to provide his services to EVERYONE.

See dopes.

So you are actually going to continue to compare a goddamn cake to surgery?
1. you are comparing life/death to a cake.
2. Hospitals are usually public or owned by many people. And im pretty sure a surgeon wouldn't own an entire goddamn hospital. So that would mean he would be getting told what to do by his EMPLOYER not HIS business.

So, if you are an employee, you have no right to refuse to do something your religion prohibits? Most surgeons are not employees of the hospital. Most are independent contractors who simply have privileges at hospitals; often more than one. So, if a surgeon is an independent contractor, in business for himself, you would be perfectly OK with him exercising the right you says he has, to refuse service to anyone, even if it means someone dies?

You have a right to get fired or quit. Just like kim davis should have quit or be impeached.
You are right about them being independent contractors..
Doctors have the right to turn down patients for personal beliefs. Vasectomies, tubal ligation etc..

 

[paddymurphy]

What if the baker were an emergency room surgeon in a small hospital in the south, and he refused to operate on a critical patient because he was gay.

Does he have the right to let someone die because it would infringe on his religious rights.

Strawman. But I will go ahead and break it down for you
That would be illegal. FFS, hospitals cant even turn down people with no insurance.

The surgeon is in business and he is being forced to provide his services to gay people, which he doesn't want to do.

He's being forced to provide his services to EVERYONE.

See dopes.

Most of the morons posting here are just dying to post, "Yes, let the F*****s die"

Who has said that dumbfuck? You are nothing but a big ball of emotional statism.

Give it time.

 

[bodecea]

I guess the SC should rule that landlords shouldn't be able to turn down tenants for credit, hygiene or references. Right statists?

Those are not PA issues. You know that too.

 

[paddymurphy]

PA laws were never meant to cover things like a baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

The were in Oregon.

The legislature specifically included sexual orientation as a characteristic of the customer which cannot be used as a basis for refusing service.


>>>>

Again, the law is wrong. It has to be balanced against a compelling government interest vs. the rights of those providing a service.

According to YOU, it is wrong. As a matter of well established legal precedent, it is not.

 

[paddymurphy]

What if the baker were an emergency room surgeon in a small hospital in the south, and he refused to operate on a critical patient because he was gay.

Does he have the right to let someone die because it would infringe on his religious rights.

Strawman. But I will go ahead and break it down for you
That would be illegal. FFS, hospitals cant even turn down people with no insurance.

The surgeon is in business and he is being forced to provide his services to gay people, which he doesn't want to do.

He's being forced to provide his services to EVERYONE.

See dopes.

So you are actually going to continue to compare a goddamn cake to surgery?
1. you are comparing life/death to a cake.
2. Hospitals are usually public or owned by many people. And im pretty sure a surgeon wouldn't own an entire goddamn hospital. So that would mean he would be getting told what to do by his EMPLOYER not HIS business.

So, if you are an employee, you have no right to refuse to do something your religion prohibits? Most surgeons are not employees of the hospital. Most are independent contractors who simply have privileges at hospitals; often more than one. So, if a surgeon is an independent contractor, in business for himself, you would be perfectly OK with him exercising the right you says he has, to refuse service to anyone, even if it means someone dies?

You have a right to get fired or quit. Just like kim davis should have quit or be impeached.
You are right about them being independent contractors..
Doctors have the right to turn down patients for personal beliefs. Vasectomies, tubal ligation etc..

We are, once again, not talking about individuals. We are talking about refusing service to an entire group of people. If a baker does not want to bake a cake in the shape of a penis, they have that right, even if those requesting are gay.

 

[paddymurphy]

PA laws were never meant to cover things like a baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

The were in Oregon.

The legislature specifically included sexual orientation as a characteristic of the customer which cannot be used as a basis for refusing service.


>>>>

Again, the law is wrong. It has to be balanced against a compelling government interest vs. the rights of those providing a service.

Again, the validity of the law isn't predicated on your personal opinion. Or your belief that the reason isn't 'compelling'.

We've been through this, Marty. Your personal opinion isn't a legal standard. Your argument is predicated on the assumption that it is. None of us accept it as such.

Ergo......you've got nothing.

And all you have is running to the law, and saying the law is the law is the law is the law is the law ad nauseum.

You do realize, don't you, that we are talking about a case decided on the basis of Oregon law? Since were are talking about the law, what is wrong with citing to the law?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Strawman. But I will go ahead and break it down for you
That would be illegal. FFS, hospitals cant even turn down people with no insurance.

The surgeon is in business and he is being forced to provide his services to gay people, which he doesn't want to do.

He's being forced to provide his services to EVERYONE.

See dopes.

So you are actually going to continue to compare a goddamn cake to surgery?
1. you are comparing life/death to a cake.
2. Hospitals are usually public or owned by many people. And im pretty sure a surgeon wouldn't own an entire goddamn hospital. So that would mean he would be getting told what to do by his EMPLOYER not HIS business.

So, if you are an employee, you have no right to refuse to do something your religion prohibits? Most surgeons are not employees of the hospital. Most are independent contractors who simply have privileges at hospitals; often more than one. So, if a surgeon is an independent contractor, in business for himself, you would be perfectly OK with him exercising the right you says he has, to refuse service to anyone, even if it means someone dies?

You have a right to get fired or quit. Just like kim davis should have quit or be impeached.
You are right about them being independent contractors..
Doctors have the right to turn down patients for personal beliefs. Vasectomies, tubal ligation etc..

We are, once again, not talking about individuals. We are talking about refusing service to an entire group of people. If a baker does not want to bake a cake in the shape of a penis, they have that right, even if those requesting are gay.

That would be fine unless they bake penis cakes, but not for gay men. It's not complicated, kiddos...

 

[Iceweasel]

Anti -Discrimination laws do not trample on the freedom of others. You seem not to understand that morons have made these same arguments in court many times and always lose.

You guys are deliberately misrepresenting the issue. Homosexuality was never included as a protected class until recently in some cities/states. They added it because there's no Constitutional basis for it. Duh.

 

[easyt65]

Let's look at the quibbling: First of all....no baker "works" a wedding. In fact, wedding cakes themselves are not at weddings....they are at wedding receptions....the party AFTER the wedding. You would maybe get more respect to your "cause" if you didn't keep trying to slide away from the facts into some fantasy that sounds more outrageous.

OK, 'Slick Willey', I will engage in your 'definition of 'IS'' argument. Obviously in their minds supplying one of their products for the reception is still supporting a practice that violates their religious beliefs.

It is THEIR religious beliefs, not YOURS, not ATHEISTS', not OBAMA's - it's THEIRS. You don't get to dictate YOUR views onto them and what they believe. You don't get a say in how they exercise their beliefs. This is exactly why we have the Constitutional protection for Freedom of Religion and the right to exercise that religion. Yet for all the cheap TALK about how TOLERANT they are and how RESPECTFUL Liberals (and ISIS) want, they want WHAT they want WHEN they want it, and to hell with whatever stands in their way of getting it. Disrespecting someone's faith, trampling their rights...no problem.

People of faith, unlike the GOP Leadership, just don't roll over and surrender, forsaking their religions beliefs and values just because a liberal (or terrorist) tells them to do so just to benefit them. 'You' want to punish them for their religious beliefs, because that is what this is about, not that some gay couple didn't get a cake because there were more than enough other bakeries willing to cater their event. This bakery did not want to cater the event because of their religious beliefs, these two selfish disrespectful Libs didn't like that, and they wanted to PUNISH them and FORCE them to comply. That's it! The government was all too willing to step in and give them this ridiculously exorbitant punitive fine 'to teach them a lesson' and not let them get away with the exercising of their faith-based conviction!

You believe otherwise - got it. That's why, thank God for now, it's still legal (no longer acceptable, though, according to Libs) to agree to disagree.

 

[TNHarley]

I agree with the top. Im not saying these people didn't break the law, I am saying it shouldn't be a law in the first place. In fact, if you gave me a couple hours I could probably gather some good information to explain how it is also unconstitutional. Because, frankly, there is no possible way that it is.
People should be able to refuse service to anyone they feel they don't want to sell their product to. People have a right to feel uncomfortable, a right to personal opinion, a right to the company they OWN and a right to be an asshole.

"if you gave me a couple hours I could probably gather some good information to explain how it is also unconstitutional" So, you think, in those couple of hours, you would be able to secure an Amendment to the constitution that would make public accommodation laws no longer constitutional. That is what you would have to do since these laws have been around for decades and have been challenged in the past without any success.

No Mr intelligence(lol) I could prove how anti discrimination laws are unconstitutional. ESPECIALLY invoking fascism like this into private businesses

How could you prove that they are not constitutional when the Supreme Court has held, repeatedly, that they are ?

Off the top of my head the 13th amendment and the founding documents and property rights.

Better to have tried to use what is inside your head. The 13 Amendment banned slavery. No being allowed to discriminate in who your perform services for, for which you get paid, is not slavery. Maybe to a dumbass like you, but not to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. "Property rights"? Bet you have no clue what that means.

involuntary servitude dumbfuck. By way of compulsory force.