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

[bodecea]

When are they going to start persecuting muslim bakers?

What muslim bakers have broken a PA law? Got an example for us?

 

[TNHarley]

When are they going to start persecuting muslim bakers?

When they disobey the law...

muslim baker refusing cake service to gays - Bing

So, nail them, if it's the real deal. Sting operations don't count...

I don't think she should be punished so would I?

 

[paddymurphy]

When are they going to start persecuting muslim bakers?

When they disobey the law...

muslim baker refusing cake service to gays - Bing

Kind of hard to sue in a state where the laws does not make discrimination against gay people illegal. I am assuming you did not know that this little right wing experiment took place where such discrimination is perfectly legal.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

When are they going to start persecuting muslim bakers?

When they disobey the law...

muslim baker refusing cake service to gays - Bing

So, nail them, if it's the real deal. Sting operations don't count...

I don't think she should be punished so would I?

Do the crime, do the time, pay the fine. Keep your faith where it belongs, which isn't in a place of business.

 

[TNHarley]

When are they going to start persecuting muslim bakers?

What muslim bakers have broken a PA law? Got an example for us?

I posted a link

 

[paddymurphy]

Clear, but laughably wrong. The "law" not only requires compliance, it provides for damages that serve the dual purpose of compensation and deterrence.

I'm not arguing with either of those points.

The point is that the "offended" party has to choose to say something.

They can choose to have the "offender" punished, or they can choose not to.

That's it.
.

So...your objection is that the couple actually exercised their right under the law to complain to the authorities.

What they do is up to them, I really don't care enough about this to object.

What I'm curious about is what the goal is. If it's to punish, that their call (although it's not what I would do).

If their goal is to improve relations between gays and those have some kind of problem with them, well, that's obviously not the goal.
.

The punishment was not the couple's call.

Oh, so all they wanted was the bakers to get a real stern talking-to, huh?

Come on. Look at all the happiness with the fine here. Not a chance.
.

Initially, that were not seeking damages. After the bakery published their names and contact information and the "values voters" began harassing them, they probably changed their tune.

 

[paddymurphy]

When are they going to start persecuting muslim bakers?

When they disobey the law...

muslim baker refusing cake service to gays - Bing

So, nail them, if it's the real deal. Sting operations don't count...

I don't think she should be punished so would I?

Well, you couldn't because you were not discriminated against. Unless, of course, you are gay and tried to get a cake there.

 

[TNHarley]

When are they going to start persecuting muslim bakers?

When they disobey the law...

muslim baker refusing cake service to gays - Bing

Kind of hard to sue in a state where the laws does not make discrimination against gay people illegal. I am assuming you did not know that this little right wing experiment took place where such discrimination is perfectly legal.

I didn't know that. Thanks!

 

[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.

There are no "protected" classes identified in the constitution. Nothing in the constitution would prohibit discrimination by private actors. All PA laws were enacted because the constitution does not apply to private interactions. Your point?

Wrong.


Home / Federal Employment and Labor Laws / US Constitution - 5th and 14th Amendments
US Constitution - 5th and 14th Amendments

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution limit the power of the federal and state governments to discriminate. The private sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution.

The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly prohibits states from violating an individual's rights of due process and equal protection. Equal protection limits the State and Federal governments' power to discriminate in their employment practices by treating employees, former employees, or job applicants unequally because of membership in a group, like a race, religion or sex. Due process protection requires that employees have a fair procedural process before they are terminated if the termination is related to a "liberty," like the right to free speech, or a property interest.

 

[Seawytch]

When are they going to start persecuting muslim bakers?

What muslim bakers have broken a PA law? Got an example for us?

I posted a link

What state did it happen in and what are the laws in that state?

 

[TNHarley]

I'm gonna ask again...why do anti gay bigots believe they should get exemptions from PA laws we don't give racist bigots?

Just to clarify, I fully support gay marriage and gay EQUALITY. I just don't support AD laws. That isn't EQUALITY

I'm not asking about marriage, I'm asking about Public Accommodation laws. Why do anti gay bigots believe they should get exemptions from Public Accommodation laws we don't give racist bigots?

If I had to guess, they wouldn't want either. Well, I am just speaking for me. I at least try to stay consistent lol

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

There are no "protected" classes identified in the constitution. Nothing in the constitution would prohibit discrimination by private actors. All PA laws were enacted because the constitution does not apply to private interactions. Your point?

Wrong.


Home / Federal Employment and Labor Laws / US Constitution - 5th and 14th Amendments
US Constitution - 5th and 14th Amendments

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution limit the power of the federal and state governments to discriminate. The private sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution.

The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly prohibits states from violating an individual's rights of due process and equal protection. Equal protection limits the State and Federal governments' power to discriminate in their employment practices by treating employees, former employees, or job applicants unequally because of membership in a group, like a race, religion or sex. Due process protection requires that employees have a fair procedural process before they are terminated if the termination is related to a "liberty," like the right to free speech, or a property interest.

You really ought to try to comment on topics you have a clue about. Your cut and paste says exactly what I said. The constitution only" limits the State and Federal governments' power to discriminate in their employment practices..." It has nothing to do with private actors.

 

[Seawytch]

I'm gonna ask again...why do anti gay bigots believe they should get exemptions from PA laws we don't give racist bigots?

Just to clarify, I fully support gay marriage and gay EQUALITY. I just don't support AD laws. That isn't EQUALITY

I'm not asking about marriage, I'm asking about Public Accommodation laws. Why do anti gay bigots believe they should get exemptions from Public Accommodation laws we don't give racist bigots?

If I had to guess, they wouldn't want either. Well, I am just speaking for me. I at least try to stay consistent lol

Sorry, didn't translate. Racist bigots had the same reasons anti gay ones do. They don't get religious exemptions

 

[paddymurphy]

So...your objection is that the couple actually exercised their right under the law to complain to the authorities.

What they do is up to them, I really don't care enough about this to object.

What I'm curious about is what the goal is. If it's to punish, that their call (although it's not what I would do).

If their goal is to improve relations between gays and those have some kind of problem with them, well, that's obviously not the goal.
.

The goal is kind of obvious. To deter people from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. The few number of cases like this would indicate it is meeting that goal.

I've said all along this is about intimidation (or the euphemism "deterrence"), it's not about changing hearts and minds and giving people their space.

So we don't really have a disagreement.
.

Kind of like laws that make speeding an offense are about intimidating speeders or zoning laws are about intimidating property owners and food safety laws are about intimidating food producers. Is it surprising to you that people who violate the law are punished?

Ugh, now you're going obtuse.

Never mind.
.

All laws are meant to deter conduct that society, through their elected officials, believe to be wrong. Your comment that deterrence is akin to intimidation is kind of stupid when you consider that all laws are intended to deter.

 

[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.

There are no "protected" classes identified in the constitution. Nothing in the constitution would prohibit discrimination by private actors. All PA laws were enacted because the constitution does not apply to private interactions. Your point?

Wrong.


Home / Federal Employment and Labor Laws / US Constitution - 5th and 14th Amendments
US Constitution - 5th and 14th Amendments

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution limit the power of the federal and state governments to discriminate. The private sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution.

The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly prohibits states from violating an individual's rights of due process and equal protection. Equal protection limits the State and Federal governments' power to discriminate in their employment practices by treating employees, former employees, or job applicants unequally because of membership in a group, like a race, religion or sex. Due process protection requires that employees have a fair procedural process before they are terminated if the termination is related to a "liberty," like the right to free speech, or a property interest.

You really ought to try to comment on topics you have a clue about. Your cut and paste says exactly what I said. The constitution only" limits the State and Federal governments' power to discriminate in their employment practices..." It has nothing to do with private actors.

You really need to quit hammering your finger up your ass thinking you're accomplishing something. I said all along the PA laws were added because there was no Constitutional protection. Get some air, shitstain.

 

[Iceweasel]

All laws are meant to deter conduct that society, through their elected officials, believe to be wrong. Your comment that deterrence is akin to intimidation is kind of stupid when you consider that all laws are intended to deter.

Like voting laws deter people from voting? You are a gas bag and a half. LOL

 

[Mac1958]

What they do is up to them, I really don't care enough about this to object.

What I'm curious about is what the goal is. If it's to punish, that their call (although it's not what I would do).

If their goal is to improve relations between gays and those have some kind of problem with them, well, that's obviously not the goal.
.

The goal is kind of obvious. To deter people from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. The few number of cases like this would indicate it is meeting that goal.

I've said all along this is about intimidation (or the euphemism "deterrence"), it's not about changing hearts and minds and giving people their space.

So we don't really have a disagreement.
.

Kind of like laws that make speeding an offense are about intimidating speeders or zoning laws are about intimidating property owners and food safety laws are about intimidating food producers. Is it surprising to you that people who violate the law are punished?

Ugh, now you're going obtuse.

Never mind.
.

All laws are meant to deter conduct that society, through their elected officials, believe to be wrong. Your comment that deterrence is akin to intimidation is kind of stupid when you consider that all laws are intended to deter.

Great, then there is no reason to continue this.
.

 

[bodecea]

When are they going to start persecuting muslim bakers?

When they disobey the law...

muslim baker refusing cake service to gays - Bing

Guess what? Those happened in Michigan. Guess what? Michigan doesn't have sexual orientation in their PA law.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

There are no "protected" classes identified in the constitution. Nothing in the constitution would prohibit discrimination by private actors. All PA laws were enacted because the constitution does not apply to private interactions. Your point?

Wrong.


Home / Federal Employment and Labor Laws / US Constitution - 5th and 14th Amendments
US Constitution - 5th and 14th Amendments

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution limit the power of the federal and state governments to discriminate. The private sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution.

The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly prohibits states from violating an individual's rights of due process and equal protection. Equal protection limits the State and Federal governments' power to discriminate in their employment practices by treating employees, former employees, or job applicants unequally because of membership in a group, like a race, religion or sex. Due process protection requires that employees have a fair procedural process before they are terminated if the termination is related to a "liberty," like the right to free speech, or a property interest.

You really ought to try to comment on topics you have a clue about. Your cut and paste says exactly what I said. The constitution only" limits the State and Federal governments' power to discriminate in their employment practices..." It has nothing to do with private actors.

You really need to quit hammering your finger up your ass thinking you're accomplishing something. I said all along the PA laws were added because there was no Constitutional protection. Get some air, shitstain.

"I said all along the PA laws were added because there was no Constitutional protection." No, dumb fuck, you did not. You said that there was no "constitutional basis' for anti-discrimination laws. ANd, when I posted this:
"There are no "protected" classes identified in the constitution. Nothing in the constitution would prohibit discrimination by private actors. All PA laws were enacted because the constitution does not apply to private interactions. Your point?"

Your reply was "Wrong" and you proceeded to cut and paste about how the fifth Amendment bans discrimination by governments.

With every post my estimation of your IQ drops a couple of points. Pretty soon, you will be under 0

 

[paddymurphy]

The goal is kind of obvious. To deter people from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. The few number of cases like this would indicate it is meeting that goal.

I've said all along this is about intimidation (or the euphemism "deterrence"), it's not about changing hearts and minds and giving people their space.

So we don't really have a disagreement.
.

Kind of like laws that make speeding an offense are about intimidating speeders or zoning laws are about intimidating property owners and food safety laws are about intimidating food producers. Is it surprising to you that people who violate the law are punished?

Ugh, now you're going obtuse.

Never mind.
.

All laws are meant to deter conduct that society, through their elected officials, believe to be wrong. Your comment that deterrence is akin to intimidation is kind of stupid when you consider that all laws are intended to deter.

Great, then there is no reason to continue this.
.

Unless you need to have this explained to you again? Maybe you will get it the third time.