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

[koshergrl]

 

[ChrisL]

Look, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that because I support equal rights and privileges for all American citizens, that I am an Obama supporter. You couldn't BE more wrong. I am not a liberal. I am more a libertarian.

If you wre libertarian you wouldn't support the government telling private bisinesses who the must serve.

You're more of a liberal than a libertarian. The later believe in freedom, not in having government make life fair.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Wait a minute! Isn't it your side who is complaining that it isn't fair that you can't discriminate? Oh yes, I think so. You people have been whining for a week now because, OMG, you have to serve the gays!!! The horror. You poor little thingies.

Do muslim owned businesses have to serve gays? When will a muslim business be fined for refusing service to gays?

the problem is the hypocrisy of PC. we can offend Christians, whites, males; but we can't offend gays, muslims, blacks, hispanics, etc.

Of course they do! They also have to follow their local and state laws regarding business practice.

Who says that? I offend all people all the time.

Just not to their face, you prefer to let government do your dirty work.

Oh really? Thanks for letting me know about me. Lol.

 

[ChrisL]

But starting a business is subject to the laws and regulations of the jurisdiction it falls under. And those laws and regulations cannot be ignored due to one's particular religious belief.

Actually why not? Government has to show a compelling interest when they deny any right to someone, and free exercise of a religion is a right.

How about Halal meat? If a government agency decides to ban halal slaughter, doesn't the religious rights of the Muslims in question override the government desire to regulate, unless a compelling interest is found?

The compelling interest you seek is that they are infringing upon the Civil rights of others. In the case of Sweet Cakes, they infringed upon the civil rights of the lesbians by discriminating against them due to their sexual orientation. Imagine, if that were permissible, all bakeries could refuse selling wedding cakes to Muslims. Or to any group, for that matter.

Compelling interest requires an actual harm, not hurt feelings.

If it were "all" bakeries that would be an actual harm, considering the limited scope of the number of bakeries that refuse service in these cases, there is no real harm, and thus no compelling interest that overrides a person's freedom of exercise.

The baker is the one with the actual harm, they have to perform an act against their will simply because of someone's hurt feelings. since the force is on the side against them, the harm is on them, not on the gay couple in this case.

If that were true, then discrimination against blacks would be legal. Discrimination is not legal. And according to Oregon state law, the lesbian couple was harmed.

Blacks used to be harmed because the discrimination was systemic and government mandated. Nowadays the amount of places that would restrict blacks from using them is probably about the same as the number that don't want to work gay weddings, minuscule, and not even coming close to causing harm.

After being a member of this forum, I am skeptical. I used to think racism and gay-haters were rare and the minority, but not anymore. I see what a problem it really is in our society, especially from the older generation who are out of date and out of touch.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You are not forced to open a business that accommodates to the public. If you do open a business, you agree to the terms and conditions set by your respective state. That is NOT involuntary servitude. This is hyperbole.

Well, there you go. If you want civil rights, just never engage in commerce.

 

[koshergrl]

Actually why not? Government has to show a compelling interest when they deny any right to someone, and free exercise of a religion is a right.

How about Halal meat? If a government agency decides to ban halal slaughter, doesn't the religious rights of the Muslims in question override the government desire to regulate, unless a compelling interest is found?

The compelling interest you seek is that they are infringing upon the Civil rights of others. In the case of Sweet Cakes, they infringed upon the civil rights of the lesbians by discriminating against them due to their sexual orientation. Imagine, if that were permissible, all bakeries could refuse selling wedding cakes to Muslims. Or to any group, for that matter.

Compelling interest requires an actual harm, not hurt feelings.

If it were "all" bakeries that would be an actual harm, considering the limited scope of the number of bakeries that refuse service in these cases, there is no real harm, and thus no compelling interest that overrides a person's freedom of exercise.

The baker is the one with the actual harm, they have to perform an act against their will simply because of someone's hurt feelings. since the force is on the side against them, the harm is on them, not on the gay couple in this case.

If that were true, then discrimination against blacks would be legal. Discrimination is not legal. And according to Oregon state law, the lesbian couple was harmed.

Blacks used to be harmed because the discrimination was systemic and government mandated. Nowadays the amount of places that would restrict blacks from using them is probably about the same as the number that don't want to work gay weddings, minuscule, and not even coming close to causing harm.

After being a member of this forum, I am skeptical. I used to think racism and gay-haters were rare and the minority, but not anymore. I see what a problem it really is in our society, especially from the older generation who are out of date and out of touch.

I see it in the younger generation, who don't know what words mean, are abysmally educated, has no concept of history, and are habitual liars as well as racists.

Go figure.

 

[Faun]

The compelling interest you seek is that they are infringing upon the Civil rights of others. In the case of Sweet Cakes, they infringed upon the civil rights of the lesbians by discriminating against them due to their sexual orientation. Imagine, if that were permissible, all bakeries could refuse selling wedding cakes to Muslims. Or to any group, for that matter.

Bullshit. They didn't infringe upon anybody's rights. They opted out of participating in sacrilege. They provided a list of bakers who would happily serve the customer.

They broke the law by discriminating against them. Neither a wedding nor baking a cake for one is sacreligious.

The state doesn't dictate to me what is sacrilegious. It doesn't and never has had that authority. So fuck off and die, authoritarian scumbag.

For a piece of shit like you? I will do neither. Still, nothing in the Bible indicates baking a cake for a wedding is sacreligious. If you think for a second you get to trump U.S. law by making up religious beliefs that do not exist in the Bible, like Sweet Cakes, you're sadly mistaken.

As I said, you don't dictate what is sacrilegious to anyone. And neither does the state. And bad law is trumped all the time. As is good law. In fact, that's sort of what happened here. Fuck the law, when the law is illegal.

Not true. You can't just break the law and cite some made up religious belief as a defense. I recall a church in Miami trying that idiocy as a defense for smoking weed. That turned out even worse for them than it did for Sweet Cakes.

 

[koshergrl]

Bullshit. They didn't infringe upon anybody's rights. They opted out of participating in sacrilege. They provided a list of bakers who would happily serve the customer.

They broke the law by discriminating against them. Neither a wedding nor baking a cake for one is sacreligious.

The state doesn't dictate to me what is sacrilegious. It doesn't and never has had that authority. So fuck off and die, authoritarian scumbag.

For a piece of shit like you? I will do neither. Still, nothing in the Bible indicates baking a cake for a wedding is sacreligious. If you think for a second you get to trump U.S. law by making up religious beliefs that do not exist in the Bible, like Sweet Cakes, you're sadly mistaken.

As I said, you don't dictate what is sacrilegious to anyone. And neither does the state. And bad law is trumped all the time. As is good law. In fact, that's sort of what happened here. Fuck the law, when the law is illegal.

Not true. You can't just break the law and cite some made up religious belief as a defense. I recall a church in Miami trying that idiocy as a defense for smoking weed. That turned out even worse for them than it did for Sweet Cakes.

The law itself is in violation of the law.

And watch us. Believe me, we can and will break the law. Just like you and your homo friends did every time you took it up the butt before sodomy became the (fake) law of the land.

 

[Faun]

The compelling interest you seek is that they are infringing upon the Civil rights of others. In the case of Sweet Cakes, they infringed upon the civil rights of the lesbians by discriminating against them due to their sexual orientation. Imagine, if that were permissible, all bakeries could refuse selling wedding cakes to Muslims. Or to any group, for that matter.

Compelling interest requires an actual harm, not hurt feelings.

If it were "all" bakeries that would be an actual harm, considering the limited scope of the number of bakeries that refuse service in these cases, there is no real harm, and thus no compelling interest that overrides a person's freedom of exercise.

The baker is the one with the actual harm, they have to perform an act against their will simply because of someone's hurt feelings. since the force is on the side against them, the harm is on them, not on the gay couple in this case.

If that were true, then discrimination against blacks would be legal. Discrimination is not legal. And according to Oregon state law, the lesbian couple was harmed.

Blacks used to be harmed because the discrimination was systemic and government mandated. Nowadays the amount of places that would restrict blacks from using them is probably about the same as the number that don't want to work gay weddings, minuscule, and not even coming close to causing harm.

Any blacks being discriminated against are harmed, regardless if it is "miniscule." Same with gays in Oregon.

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.

 

[koshergrl]

Compelling interest requires an actual harm, not hurt feelings.

If it were "all" bakeries that would be an actual harm, considering the limited scope of the number of bakeries that refuse service in these cases, there is no real harm, and thus no compelling interest that overrides a person's freedom of exercise.

The baker is the one with the actual harm, they have to perform an act against their will simply because of someone's hurt feelings. since the force is on the side against them, the harm is on them, not on the gay couple in this case.

If that were true, then discrimination against blacks would be legal. Discrimination is not legal. And according to Oregon state law, the lesbian couple was harmed.

Blacks used to be harmed because the discrimination was systemic and government mandated. Nowadays the amount of places that would restrict blacks from using them is probably about the same as the number that don't want to work gay weddings, minuscule, and not even coming close to causing harm.

Any blacks being discriminated against are harmed, regardless if it is "miniscule." Same with gays in Oregon.

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.

 

[Faun]

They broke the law by discriminating against them. Neither a wedding nor baking a cake for one is sacreligious.

The state doesn't dictate to me what is sacrilegious. It doesn't and never has had that authority. So fuck off and die, authoritarian scumbag.

For a piece of shit like you? I will do neither. Still, nothing in the Bible indicates baking a cake for a wedding is sacreligious. If you think for a second you get to trump U.S. law by making up religious beliefs that do not exist in the Bible, like Sweet Cakes, you're sadly mistaken.

As I said, you don't dictate what is sacrilegious to anyone. And neither does the state. And bad law is trumped all the time. As is good law. In fact, that's sort of what happened here. Fuck the law, when the law is illegal.

Not true. You can't just break the law and cite some made up religious belief as a defense. I recall a church in Miami trying that idiocy as a defense for smoking weed. That turned out even worse for them than it did for Sweet Cakes.

The law itself is in violation of the law.

And watch us. Believe me, we can and will break the law. Just like you and your homo friends did every time you took it up the butt before sodomy became the (fake) law of the land.

I'm watching, but I don't see anyone else breaking that law. Looks like y'all learned your lesson.

 

[koshergrl]

The state doesn't dictate to me what is sacrilegious. It doesn't and never has had that authority. So fuck off and die, authoritarian scumbag.

For a piece of shit like you? I will do neither. Still, nothing in the Bible indicates baking a cake for a wedding is sacreligious. If you think for a second you get to trump U.S. law by making up religious beliefs that do not exist in the Bible, like Sweet Cakes, you're sadly mistaken.

As I said, you don't dictate what is sacrilegious to anyone. And neither does the state. And bad law is trumped all the time. As is good law. In fact, that's sort of what happened here. Fuck the law, when the law is illegal.

Not true. You can't just break the law and cite some made up religious belief as a defense. I recall a church in Miami trying that idiocy as a defense for smoking weed. That turned out even worse for them than it did for Sweet Cakes.

The law itself is in violation of the law.

And watch us. Believe me, we can and will break the law. Just like you and your homo friends did every time you took it up the butt before sodomy became the (fake) law of the land.

I'm watching, but I don't see anyone else breaking that law. Looks like y'all learned your lesson.

Of course you don't see it. That's because we're smarter than you are, punkin.

Click to support Help Sweetcakes by melissa

 

[Faun]

If that were true, then discrimination against blacks would be legal. Discrimination is not legal. And according to Oregon state law, the lesbian couple was harmed.

Blacks used to be harmed because the discrimination was systemic and government mandated. Nowadays the amount of places that would restrict blacks from using them is probably about the same as the number that don't want to work gay weddings, minuscule, and not even coming close to causing harm.

Any blacks being discriminated against are harmed, regardless if it is "miniscule." Same with gays in Oregon.

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.

 

[Faun]

For a piece of shit like you? I will do neither. Still, nothing in the Bible indicates baking a cake for a wedding is sacreligious. If you think for a second you get to trump U.S. law by making up religious beliefs that do not exist in the Bible, like Sweet Cakes, you're sadly mistaken.

As I said, you don't dictate what is sacrilegious to anyone. And neither does the state. And bad law is trumped all the time. As is good law. In fact, that's sort of what happened here. Fuck the law, when the law is illegal.

Not true. You can't just break the law and cite some made up religious belief as a defense. I recall a church in Miami trying that idiocy as a defense for smoking weed. That turned out even worse for them than it did for Sweet Cakes.

The law itself is in violation of the law.

And watch us. Believe me, we can and will break the law. Just like you and your homo friends did every time you took it up the butt before sodomy became the (fake) law of the land.

I'm watching, but I don't see anyone else breaking that law. Looks like y'all learned your lesson.

Of course you don't see it. That's because we're smarter than you are, punkin.

 

[koshergrl]

"Goal: $150,000
127%"

Lolol...

Click to support Help Sweetcakes by melissa

 

[Faun]

"Goal: $150,000
127%"

Lolol...

Click to support Help Sweetcakes by melissa

Imbecile.... you said you guys were gonna "break the law."

Paying their fine is not "breaking the law."

 

[SassyIrishLass]

"Goal: $150,000
127%"

Lolol...

Click to support Help Sweetcakes by melissa

That is separate from the $109,000 they got from GoFundMe before GoFundMe went all stupid and stopped the campaign.

 

[koshergrl]

Blacks used to be harmed because the discrimination was systemic and government mandated. Nowadays the amount of places that would restrict blacks from using them is probably about the same as the number that don't want to work gay weddings, minuscule, and not even coming close to causing harm.

Any blacks being discriminated against are harmed, regardless if it is "miniscule." Same with gays in Oregon.

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.

 

[koshergrl]

"Goal: $150,000
127%"

Lolol...

Click to support Help Sweetcakes by melissa

Imbecile.... you said you guys were gonna "break the law."

Paying their fine is not "breaking the law."

Who said it was?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

 

[Seawytch]

Any blacks being discriminated against are harmed, regardless if it is "miniscule." Same with gays in Oregon.

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?