The dreaded gay-wedding-cake saga ends: bakers must pay 135 K

[Seawytch]

Bull

When you apply for your business license, he agree to abide by all laws and regulations governing the operation of the business.

When you open the door to your business, you are inviting the public into your business. All of the public.

It is your business, but in order for you to get your license, you have to promise not to discriminate and if you break that promise, there are consequences.

It's not discrimination.The activist judges are wrong and the law is unconstitutional.

You're an imbecile. The law is clear and was clearly violated. If the law is unconstitutional, then the Kleins' should challenge it all the way to the Supreme Court and have it ruled unconstitutional. This is their chance.

The law is bad, the queers are fascists, and it is being challenged.

Apparently according to the Nazi Bible- Nazi Christians don't have to obey the law.

But according to actual Bible- Christians are supposed to follow the law.

Not when the law comes into conflict with their faith. Sorry. You didn't know that, and that explains why you are so inerringly stupid when it comes to your attacks on Christians.

Meanwhile:

"In a statement released Wednesday through the couple's lawyers, Melissa Klein said:
"We are humbled and thankful for the generosity and support of the American public. The amount shows that Americans all over this country are acting on their beliefs and loudly saying that they do not agree with a government that punishes people for their religious beliefs."

Sweet Cakes by Melissa raises record amount of cash on crowdfunding site OregonLive.com

So you're okay with Muslims ignoring laws that conflict with THEIR faith?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Bull

When you apply for your business license, he agree to abide by all laws and regulations governing the operation of the business.

When you open the door to your business, you are inviting the public into your business. All of the public.

It is your business, but in order for you to get your license, you have to promise not to discriminate and if you break that promise, there are consequences.

It's not discrimination.The activist judges are wrong and the law is unconstitutional.

You're an imbecile. The law is clear and was clearly violated. If the law is unconstitutional, then the Kleins' should challenge it all the way to the Supreme Court and have it ruled unconstitutional. This is their chance.

The law is bad, the queers are fascists, and it is being challenged.

Apparently according to the Nazi Bible- Nazi Christians don't have to obey the law.

But according to actual Bible- Christians are supposed to follow the law.

Not when the law comes into conflict with their faith. Sorry. You didn't know that, and that explains why you are so inerringly stupid when it comes to your attacks on Christians.

Meanwhile:

"In a statement released Wednesday through the couple's lawyers, Melissa Klein said:
"We are humbled and thankful for the generosity and support of the American public. The amount shows that Americans all over this country are acting on their beliefs and loudly saying that they do not agree with a government that punishes people for their religious beliefs."

Sweet Cakes by Melissa raises record amount of cash on crowdfunding site OregonLive.com

I'm sure the Bowman-Cryer's are will appreciate the people that refused to bake a cake who instead paid for the entire wedding and their honeymoon.


>>>>

 

[koshergrl]

BullIt's not discrimination.The activist judges are wrong and the law is unconstitutional.

You're an imbecile. The law is clear and was clearly violated. If the law is unconstitutional, then the Kleins' should challenge it all the way to the Supreme Court and have it ruled unconstitutional. This is their chance.

The law is bad, the queers are fascists, and it is being challenged.

Apparently according to the Nazi Bible- Nazi Christians don't have to obey the law.

But according to actual Bible- Christians are supposed to follow the law.

Not when the law comes into conflict with their faith. Sorry. You didn't know that, and that explains why you are so inerringly stupid when it comes to your attacks on Christians.

Meanwhile:

"In a statement released Wednesday through the couple's lawyers, Melissa Klein said:
"We are humbled and thankful for the generosity and support of the American public. The amount shows that Americans all over this country are acting on their beliefs and loudly saying that they do not agree with a government that punishes people for their religious beliefs."

Sweet Cakes by Melissa raises record amount of cash on crowdfunding site OregonLive.com

I'm sure the Bowman-Cryer's are will appreciate the people that refused to bake a cake who instead paid for the entire wedding and their honeymoon.


>>>>

The Bowman-Cryer's haven't gotten a dime so far.

But Sweet Cakes is doing great business.

 

[Seawytch]

You're an imbecile. The law is clear and was clearly violated. If the law is unconstitutional, then the Kleins' should challenge it all the way to the Supreme Court and have it ruled unconstitutional. This is their chance.

The law is bad, the queers are fascists, and it is being challenged.

Apparently according to the Nazi Bible- Nazi Christians don't have to obey the law.

But according to actual Bible- Christians are supposed to follow the law.

Not when the law comes into conflict with their faith. Sorry. You didn't know that, and that explains why you are so inerringly stupid when it comes to your attacks on Christians.

Meanwhile:

"In a statement released Wednesday through the couple's lawyers, Melissa Klein said:
"We are humbled and thankful for the generosity and support of the American public. The amount shows that Americans all over this country are acting on their beliefs and loudly saying that they do not agree with a government that punishes people for their religious beliefs."

Sweet Cakes by Melissa raises record amount of cash on crowdfunding site OregonLive.com

I'm sure the Bowman-Cryer's are will appreciate the people that refused to bake a cake who instead paid for the entire wedding and their honeymoon.


>>>>

The Bowman-Cryer's haven't gotten a dime so far.

But Sweet Cakes is doing great business.

Not if they continue to break the law...and they will eventually have to pay.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You're an imbecile. The law is clear and was clearly violated. If the law is unconstitutional, then the Kleins' should challenge it all the way to the Supreme Court and have it ruled unconstitutional. This is their chance.

The law is bad, the queers are fascists, and it is being challenged.

Apparently according to the Nazi Bible- Nazi Christians don't have to obey the law.

But according to actual Bible- Christians are supposed to follow the law.

Not when the law comes into conflict with their faith. Sorry. You didn't know that, and that explains why you are so inerringly stupid when it comes to your attacks on Christians.

Meanwhile:

"In a statement released Wednesday through the couple's lawyers, Melissa Klein said:
"We are humbled and thankful for the generosity and support of the American public. The amount shows that Americans all over this country are acting on their beliefs and loudly saying that they do not agree with a government that punishes people for their religious beliefs."

Sweet Cakes by Melissa raises record amount of cash on crowdfunding site OregonLive.com

I'm sure the Bowman-Cryer's are will appreciate the people that refused to bake a cake who instead paid for the entire wedding and their honeymoon.


>>>>

The Bowman-Cryer's haven't gotten a dime so far.

But Sweet Cakes is doing great business.

Thank you for the correct, it should say - "will likely pay"...

The bakery is booming?

Are we talking about the same place? You know that Sweetcakes by Melissa had to close their storefront because business dropped off. It is operating out of their house now.

Getting a large crowdfunding check doesn't mean that the bakery business is booming.


>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

Bull

When you apply for your business license, he agree to abide by all laws and regulations governing the operation of the business.

When you open the door to your business, you are inviting the public into your business. All of the public.

It is your business, but in order for you to get your license, you have to promise not to discriminate and if you break that promise, there are consequences.

It's not discrimination.The activist judges are wrong and the law is unconstitutional.

You're an imbecile. The law is clear and was clearly violated. If the law is unconstitutional, then the Kleins' should challenge it all the way to the Supreme Court and have it ruled unconstitutional. This is their chance.

The law is bad, the queers are fascists, and it is being challenged.

Apparently according to the Nazi Bible- Nazi Christians don't have to obey the law.

But according to actual Bible- Christians are supposed to follow the law.

Not when the law comes into conflict with their faith. Sorry. You didn't know that, and that explains why you are so inerringly stupid when it comes to your attacks on Christians.

Maybe in your Nazi Bible- but in the New Testament Paul is very clear- God is the one who give authority to the authorities- and Christians who oppose the authorities are opposing what God has done


Romans 13Contemporary English Version (CEV)
Obey Rulers
13 Obey the rulers who have authority over you. Only God can give authority to anyone, and he puts these rulers in their places of power.
2 People who oppose the authorities are opposing what God has done, and they will be punished.
3 Rulers are a threat to evil people, not to good people. There is no need to be afraid of the authorities. Just do right, and they will praise you for it.
4 After all, they are God’s servants, and it is their duty to help you.

If you do something wrong, you ought to be afraid, because these rulers have the right to punish you. They are God’s servants who punish criminals to show how angry God is. 5 But you should obey the rulers because you know it is the right thing to do, and not just because of God’s anger.

 

[koshergrl]

The law is bad, the queers are fascists, and it is being challenged.

Apparently according to the Nazi Bible- Nazi Christians don't have to obey the law.

But according to actual Bible- Christians are supposed to follow the law.

Not when the law comes into conflict with their faith. Sorry. You didn't know that, and that explains why you are so inerringly stupid when it comes to your attacks on Christians.

Meanwhile:

"In a statement released Wednesday through the couple's lawyers, Melissa Klein said:
"We are humbled and thankful for the generosity and support of the American public. The amount shows that Americans all over this country are acting on their beliefs and loudly saying that they do not agree with a government that punishes people for their religious beliefs."

Sweet Cakes by Melissa raises record amount of cash on crowdfunding site OregonLive.com

I'm sure the Bowman-Cryer's are will appreciate the people that refused to bake a cake who instead paid for the entire wedding and their honeymoon.


>>>>

The Bowman-Cryer's haven't gotten a dime so far.

But Sweet Cakes is doing great business.

Thank you for the correct, it should say - "will likely pay"...

The bakery is booming?

Are we talking about the same place? You know that Sweetcakes by Melissa had to close their storefront because business dropped off. It is operating out of their house now.

Getting a large crowdfunding check doesn't mean that the bakery business is booming.


>>>>

Well they're doing a cake for me

 

[Faun]

You're an imbecile. The law is clear and was clearly violated. If the law is unconstitutional, then the Kleins' should challenge it all the way to the Supreme Court and have it ruled unconstitutional. This is their chance.

The law is bad, the queers are fascists, and it is being challenged.

Apparently according to the Nazi Bible- Nazi Christians don't have to obey the law.

But according to actual Bible- Christians are supposed to follow the law.

Not when the law comes into conflict with their faith. Sorry. You didn't know that, and that explains why you are so inerringly stupid when it comes to your attacks on Christians.

Meanwhile:

"In a statement released Wednesday through the couple's lawyers, Melissa Klein said:
"We are humbled and thankful for the generosity and support of the American public. The amount shows that Americans all over this country are acting on their beliefs and loudly saying that they do not agree with a government that punishes people for their religious beliefs."

Sweet Cakes by Melissa raises record amount of cash on crowdfunding site OregonLive.com

I'm sure the Bowman-Cryer's are will appreciate the people that refused to bake a cake who instead paid for the entire wedding and their honeymoon.


>>>>

The Bowman-Cryer's haven't gotten a dime so far.

But Sweet Cakes is doing great business.

You're as delusional as they come. You truly believe if you wish for something, then it's true. In reality, the Kleins' have closed their business and the only baking they're doing these days are for family and friends. You know, what you call "doing great business."

Sweet Cakes by Melissa breaks record on crowdfunding site

Aaron Klein said he has no plans to stop the Continue to Give campaign and there is no end date set.

"The future is unknown," said Klein, who hasn't been working at his job as a garbage collector since he injured his arm. "I don't know what taxes are owed on this."

Melissa Klein is also out of work, except for baking for family and friends.​

Neither one is working and they're living off of others. That's what idiotgirl calls, "doing great business."

 

[dblack]

You certainly gave the impression, when you said "try a stunt", which implies they are doing it for some other motive.

The "stunt" is discriminating against others and demanding the right to do so by hiding behind their religion.

So is being intolerant of others belief systems, and trying to force them to violate it.

You don't have the "right" to be being served by me. It's my business, not yours.

When you apply for your business license, he agree to abide by all laws and regulations governing the operation of the business.

The question is what those laws should be. In particular, whether operating a business requires the sacrifice of basic human rights.

When you open the door to your business, you are inviting the public into your business. All of the public.

This is the claim of PA laws. And it's what is being disputed.

It is your business, but in order for you to get your license, you have to promise not to discriminate and if you break that promise, there are consequences.

Yes, but is that justified? You're just repeating the requirements of laws in question.

What are YOU doing to get rid of Title II of the CRA? What money have you donated, petition you've signed, organization you supported. Anything?

Nothing I care to discuss here. We're debating the validity of the law, not bragging about activist cred. Do you have an argument to make, or not?

 

[koshergrl]

BullIt's not discrimination.The activist judges are wrong and the law is unconstitutional.

You're an imbecile. The law is clear and was clearly violated. If the law is unconstitutional, then the Kleins' should challenge it all the way to the Supreme Court and have it ruled unconstitutional. This is their chance.

The law is bad, the queers are fascists, and it is being challenged.

Apparently according to the Nazi Bible- Nazi Christians don't have to obey the law.

But according to actual Bible- Christians are supposed to follow the law.

Not when the law comes into conflict with their faith. Sorry. You didn't know that, and that explains why you are so inerringly stupid when it comes to your attacks on Christians.

Maybe in your Nazi Bible- but in the New Testament Paul is very clear- God is the one who give authority to the authorities- and Christians who oppose the authorities are opposing what God has done


Romans 13Contemporary English Version (CEV)
Obey Rulers
13 Obey the rulers who have authority over you. Only God can give authority to anyone, and he puts these rulers in their places of power.
2 People who oppose the authorities are opposing what God has done, and they will be punished.
3 Rulers are a threat to evil people, not to good people. There is no need to be afraid of the authorities. Just do right, and they will praise you for it.
4 After all, they are God’s servants, and it is their duty to help you.

If you do something wrong, you ought to be afraid, because these rulers have the right to punish you. They are God’s servants who punish criminals to show how angry God is. 5 But you should obey the rulers because you know it is the right thing to do, and not just because of God’s anger.

Acts 5:29 - Then Peter and the [other] apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

 

[Seawytch]

The "stunt" is discriminating against others and demanding the right to do so by hiding behind their religion.

So is being intolerant of others belief systems, and trying to force them to violate it.

You don't have the "right" to be being served by me. It's my business, not yours.

When you apply for your business license, he agree to abide by all laws and regulations governing the operation of the business.

The question is what those laws should be. In particular, whether operating a business requires the sacrifice of basic human rights.

When you open the door to your business, you are inviting the public into your business. All of the public.

This is the claim of PA laws. And it's what is being disputed.

It is your business, but in order for you to get your license, you have to promise not to discriminate and if you break that promise, there are consequences.

Yes, but is that justified? You're just repeating the requirements of laws in question.

What are YOU doing to get rid of Title II of the CRA? What money have you donated, petition you've signed, organization you supported. Anything?

Nothing I care to discuss here. We're debating the validity of the law, not bragging about activist cred. Do you have an argument to make, or not?

By all means "discuss" until you're blue. Won't get PA laws changed. "Activism" will.

 

[dblack]

So is being intolerant of others belief systems, and trying to force them to violate it.

You don't have the "right" to be being served by me. It's my business, not yours.

When you apply for your business license, he agree to abide by all laws and regulations governing the operation of the business.

The question is what those laws should be. In particular, whether operating a business requires the sacrifice of basic human rights.

When you open the door to your business, you are inviting the public into your business. All of the public.

This is the claim of PA laws. And it's what is being disputed.

It is your business, but in order for you to get your license, you have to promise not to discriminate and if you break that promise, there are consequences.

Yes, but is that justified? You're just repeating the requirements of laws in question.

What are YOU doing to get rid of Title II of the CRA? What money have you donated, petition you've signed, organization you supported. Anything?

Nothing I care to discuss here. We're debating the validity of the law, not bragging about activist cred. Do you have an argument to make, or not?

By all means "discuss" until you're blue. Won't get PA laws changed. "Activism" will.

Ok!

 

[JoeB131]

The Bowman-Cryer's haven't gotten a dime so far.

But Sweet Cakes is doing great business.

Not really. they've already had to close up their storefront and their google plus and Yelp pages are catastrophes

 

[emilynghiem]

Including the baker? Isn't the baker simply having their " feelings hurt" by making the cake?

No, the baker is placed in involuntary servitude.

You are a leftist, thus dedicated to the eradication of civil rights, so the act of placing enemies of the party in defacto slavery pleases you.

Defacto slavery? Involuntary servitude?
I think if you offer your services to the public then your servitude is quite voluntary.

???? Dear Hutch Starskey

* So if camera operators agree to provide filming services to the public,
if a porn director seeks to hire them to shoot hard core porn,
they cannot turn down that work? They have to do whatever someone offers to hire them to film?
Really?

* If your publishing house prints magazines, then if someone hires you to publish porn, you HAVE to print it?
You cannot turn it anyone down because you are a business open to the public?

* If a maid offers to clean houses,
then if your house is filled with dirty condoms and dog feces,
that maid HAS to do the work if you offer to hire those services?
And cannot turn you down for any reason?
Since these house cleaning services are offered to the public?

What happened to common sense and courtesy? Where does it end?
And if it only applies to gay/lesbian discrimination, isn't that special rights?

 

[Carla_Danger]

Including the baker? Isn't the baker simply having their " feelings hurt" by making the cake?

No, the baker is placed in involuntary servitude.

You are a leftist, thus dedicated to the eradication of civil rights, so the act of placing enemies of the party in defacto slavery pleases you.

Defacto slavery? Involuntary servitude?
I think if you offer your services to the public then your servitude is quite voluntary.

???? Dear Hutch Starskey

* So if camera operators agree to provide filming services to the public,
if a porn director seeks to hire them to shoot hard core porn,
they cannot turn down that work? They have to do whatever someone offers to hire them to film?
Really?

* If your publishing house prints magazines, then if someone hires you to publish porn, you HAVE to print it?
You cannot turn it anyone down because you are a business open to the public?

* If a maid offers to clean houses,
then if your house is filled with dirty condoms and dog feces,
that maid HAS to do the work if you offer to hire those services?
And cannot turn you down for any reason?
Since these house cleaning services are offered to the public?

What happened to common sense and courtesy? Where does it end?
And if it only applies to gay/lesbian discrimination, isn't that special rights?

This has got to be the most irrational argument I've read so far. How do you even address such stupidity?

 

[dblack]

Including the baker? Isn't the baker simply having their " feelings hurt" by making the cake?

No, the baker is placed in involuntary servitude.

You are a leftist, thus dedicated to the eradication of civil rights, so the act of placing enemies of the party in defacto slavery pleases you.

Defacto slavery? Involuntary servitude?
I think if you offer your services to the public then your servitude is quite voluntary.

???? Dear Hutch Starskey

* So if camera operators agree to provide filming services to the public,
if a porn director seeks to hire them to shoot hard core porn,
they cannot turn down that work? They have to do whatever someone offers to hire them to film?
Really?

* If your publishing house prints magazines, then if someone hires you to publish porn, you HAVE to print it?
You cannot turn it anyone down because you are a business open to the public?

* If a maid offers to clean houses,
then if your house is filled with dirty condoms and dog feces,
that maid HAS to do the work if you offer to hire those services?
And cannot turn you down for any reason?
Since these house cleaning services are offered to the public?

What happened to common sense and courtesy? Where does it end?
And if it only applies to gay/lesbian discrimination, isn't that special rights?

This has got to be the most irrational argument I've read so far. How do you even address such stupidity?

Apparently you don't.

 

[emilynghiem]

Gays aren't discriminated against in Oregon. They've been welcomed and included..hence the problem.

Sweet Cakes, which was in Oregon, discriminated against gays.

Wrong. They simply opted not to participate in sacrilege. The state can't force them to participate in sacrilege, nor can they tell them what does, and what doesn't, constitute sacrilege.

Haven't you heard of separation of church and state, statist?

No, of course you haven't, lol.

What sacrilege? There is nothing in the Bible prohibiting baking a wedding cake. You fundi's are fucking insane.

Gads you people are so easy. That's what being stupid gets you, I suppose.

Again. You don't dictate what is, and what isn't, sacrilege. Nor does the state.

Sure they do. If animal sacrifice is sacrilege in my religion, I don't get to randomly slit the throats of stray cats do I?

You have that backwards.

This case is like saying the clients are trying to hire someone to do something to cats against the beliefs of the business owners, they are saying it is against their religion and declining the business,
so the clients sue and end up harassing the business owners for their beliefs.

I get your point though.
You are trying to say what if the religious tradition is against state laws.
So it does appear the state is enforcing something interfering with religious freedom.

But you are comparing religious traditions that are "arbitrary" and can be altered
versus religious beliefs that are inherent and cannot be changed. The inherent belief in male/female marriage
is NOT the same as the ceremonial belief in using animals or the feathers/eggs of endangered eagles, etc.

These are NOT on the same level of law, and cannot be compared.

That is like trying to compare laws on highways that are "arbitrary" and can be negotiated
vs. laws on whether the federal govt can establish right to health care or right to marriage
which are FUNDAMENTAL political BELIEFS and not the same as deciding on funding for a highway.

I see we really need to establish a Constitutional agreement
on what constitutes a political belief, so we categorize the differences and don't try
to apply the wrong rules or approach to the wrong situation.

They dynamics of the conflicts, representation of beliefs, and solutions are different
for issues of political beliefs than for other options or opinions on law and rulings.

 

[emilynghiem]

Including the baker? Isn't the baker simply having their " feelings hurt" by making the cake?

No, the baker is placed in involuntary servitude.

You are a leftist, thus dedicated to the eradication of civil rights, so the act of placing enemies of the party in defacto slavery pleases you.

Defacto slavery? Involuntary servitude?
I think if you offer your services to the public then your servitude is quite voluntary.

???? Dear Hutch Starskey

* So if camera operators agree to provide filming services to the public,
if a porn director seeks to hire them to shoot hard core porn,
they cannot turn down that work? They have to do whatever someone offers to hire them to film?
Really?

* If your publishing house prints magazines, then if someone hires you to publish porn, you HAVE to print it?
You cannot turn it anyone down because you are a business open to the public?

* If a maid offers to clean houses,
then if your house is filled with dirty condoms and dog feces,
that maid HAS to do the work if you offer to hire those services?
And cannot turn you down for any reason?
Since these house cleaning services are offered to the public?

What happened to common sense and courtesy? Where does it end?
And if it only applies to gay/lesbian discrimination, isn't that special rights?

This has got to be the most irrational argument I've read so far. How do you even address such stupidity?

Hi Carla_Danger
A. I understand nobody wants to go around having discrimination disguised under some religious excuse.
I understand nobody want the religious argument abused to break the law, similar to claiming "conscientious objection" in order to dodge the draft. Or claiming to be acting as a religious nonprofit to evade taxes.

B. However, in these cases where there are EQUAL beliefs that are pro gay as anti gay,
these groups should STAY AWAY FROM EACH OTHER to avoid mutual imposition.

If we had Hindus and Muslims with conflicting beliefs on beef and pork, they'd be advised don't go into each other's restaurants and raise some dispute in order to invoke a lawsuit for discrimination. If you know you have different beliefs you can STAY AWAY to avoid what you KNOW are conflicting BELIEFS.

What is causing this problem is legislating or ruling through govt for one side or the other.
That is NOT NEUTRAL and thus causes a sense of discrimination for the side excluded, denied or punished.

If we agree to keep govt, laws, rulings and public policy NEUTRAL
then NEITHER side would feel discriminated against.

This is like Forcing the issue, then complaining about the discrimination it causes.
Well, duh! Why force the issue to begin with??? That's what makes no sense here.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Including the baker? Isn't the baker simply having their " feelings hurt" by making the cake?

No, the baker is placed in involuntary servitude.

You are a leftist, thus dedicated to the eradication of civil rights, so the act of placing enemies of the party in defacto slavery pleases you.

Defacto slavery? Involuntary servitude?
I think if you offer your services to the public then your servitude is quite voluntary.

???? Dear Hutch Starskey

* So if camera operators agree to provide filming services to the public,
if a porn director seeks to hire them to shoot hard core porn,
they cannot turn down that work? They have to do whatever someone offers to hire them to film?
Really?

* If your publishing house prints magazines, then if someone hires you to publish porn, you HAVE to print it?
You cannot turn it anyone down because you are a business open to the public?

* If a maid offers to clean houses,
then if your house is filled with dirty condoms and dog feces,
that maid HAS to do the work if you offer to hire those services?
And cannot turn you down for any reason?
Since these house cleaning services are offered to the public?

What happened to common sense and courtesy? Where does it end?
And if it only applies to gay/lesbian discrimination, isn't that special rights?

This has got to be the most irrational argument I've read so far. How do you even address such stupidity?

Hi Carla_Danger
A. I understand nobody wants to go around having discrimination disguised under some religious excuse.
I understand nobody want the religious argument abused to break the law, similar to claiming "conscientious objection" in order to dodge the draft. Or claiming to be acting as a religious nonprofit to evade taxes.

B. However, in these cases where there are EQUAL beliefs that are pro gay as anti gay,
these groups should STAY AWAY FROM EACH OTHER to avoid mutual imposition.

If we had Hindus and Muslims with conflicting beliefs on beef and pork, they'd be advised don't go into each other's restaurants and raise some dispute in order to invoke a lawsuit for discrimination. If you know you have different beliefs you can STAY AWAY to avoid what you KNOW are conflicting BELIEFS.

What is causing this problem is legislating or ruling through govt for one side or the other.
That is NOT NEUTRAL and thus causes a sense of discrimination for the side excluded, denied or punished.

If we agree to keep govt, laws, rulings and public policy NEUTRAL
then NEITHER side would feel discriminated against.

This is like Forcing the issue, then complaining about the discrimination it causes.
Well, duh! Why force the issue to begin with??? That's what makes no sense here.

Do you really want to go back to the days where businesses put up signs saying "No Blacks Allowed?"

Your simplistic views are that of a 12 year old.

I suggest you get familiar with our laws.

http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet Cakes FO.pdf

 

[emilynghiem]

Do you really want to go back to the days where businesses put up signs saying "No Blacks Allowed?"

Your simplistic views are that of a 12 year old.

I suggest you get familiar with our laws.

View attachment 44802

http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet Cakes FO.pdf

Nope, Carla_Danger
Race/Blacks are NOT the same as Orientation/Gays

* Race is proven to be genetic. Homosexuality remains faith-based,
thus any laws that govt makes involve faith-based beliefs. Both the
beliefs for homosexuality as natural or against homosexuality as unnatural'
are EQUALLY faith-based, thus govt cannot pass laws favoring one belief over another
without violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments on equal protection
of people regardless of religions and creeds.

Race is NOT faith based but scientifically established.

* Studies on twins and homosexuality show that they have the same orientation at a 47-53% rate
NOT 100% so it is not purely genetic The higher than 50% correlation indicates
there may be tendency that is inherited genetically, but this isn't 100% manifested
and can change either by environment, personal choice or other factors that make it closer to 50% chance of the same orientation in twins.

Race is shown scientifically to be determined by birth and genetics. 100% not 50%!!

* People have changed orientation by going through counseling and healing.
People who have been heterosexual have come out as homosexual or bisexual.
People with homosexual attractions and history have returned to heterosexual.
People with transgender personalities have come out, either way, some keeping
their gender that matches their physical body and some coming out as the opposite.

However with Race, this does not change when people go through spiritual healing.
People remain what they are by birth, unlike with orientation that has been shown to change.

And as studies have cited, is not 100% consistent with genetics as Race is.

The two cannot be compared, sorry!

F A I L Race 100% genetic <not equal to> Orientation with 50% chance of corresponding genetically