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

[paperview]

You misspelled "upheld the 14th Amendment."

Nothing the right fears more than people being treated equally under the law.

Actually moron, the Court cited Title II of the Civil Rights act as their foundation.

Waaa???

You said: "No, it was the reversal of a law very similar to that which you celebrate."
When asked: Was Brown v Board of Education the Defiance of Segregation by the SCOTUS?

You think the Court cited Title II of the Civil Rights act as their foundation for Brown v Board of Education???

OMG, that's hilarious.BvB was in 1954 - before the CRA of 64. It had nothing to do with Public Accommodation, either.

And she calls *me* a moron.

lol

Now here is something you have never been exposed to before;

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

I know that you have no clue where those words originate - and while the Tea Party supports them, no - the source isn't Tea Parties.

That was tried as it regards to upholding the CRA PA laws.

Heart of Atlanta v US.

Look it up. That silly claim lost - with SCOTUS ruling 9-0 against the dude who claimed him having the accommodate black people was "involuntary servitude."

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Another word you people don't understand, apparently.

I'm beginning to think the whole problem with totalitarians is that they just don't know what the words they use, mean.

Nah, they know just fine what the words mean, they simply think they can intimidate the public to surrender their rights.

Sadly, they have proven correct.

 

[Faun]

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.

Oh, you got us now, yep we JUST made up the sexual sin of homosexuality last month...wait...

The lesbians, whose rights were infringed by Sweet Cakes, were not asking the purveyors to join them in a lesbian threesome. They were there to purchase a wedding cake. Nothing in the Bible prohibits baking a cake for a wedding.

 

[Faun]

"Goal: $150,000
127%"

Lolol...

Click to support Help Sweetcakes by melissa

Great! Now WTF are you bitching about again? Seemed to work out great for your " oppressed" brethren.

Maybe, maybe not. That remains to be seen.

 

[Faun]

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.

Moron, I've already given you an example where a state did exactly what you idiotically think they cannot do. Religion is not a shield from the law. Damn, are you idiots idiotic.

Shut up until you're smart enough to participate in this discussion. And please look up those words you use, you're using them wrong.

You're such an imbecile.

 

[Bush92]

Batshittians 3:42: "Because it was destiny that sweet cakes, Jeebus and 'ghey' would all belong within the same sentence one day in the land of Or, for the holy Spaghetti Monster foresaw it all with his longest noodle."​

Sweet Cakes final order Gresham bakery must pay 135 000 for denying service to same-sex couple OregonLive.com

Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian on Thursday ordered the owners of a former Gresham bakery to pay $135,000 in damages to a lesbian couple for refusing to make them a wedding cake.

Avakian's ruling upheld a preliminary finding earlier this year that the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa had discriminated against the women on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Bakery owners Melissa and Aaron Klein cited their Christian beliefs against same-sex marriage in denying service. The case ignited a long-running skirmish in the nation's culture wars, pitting civil rights advocates against religious freedom proponents who argued business owners should have the right to refuse services for gay and lesbian weddings.

Avakian's final order makes clear that serving potential customers equally trumps the Kleins' religious beliefs. Under Oregon law, businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot turn customers away because of race, sex, disability, age or religion, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said in a news release.

"This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage," Avakian wrote. "It is about a business's refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.

"Within Oregon's public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society. The ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry."

Oregon Bureau of Labor. Appeal. This is not a labor issue so ruling is irrelevant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So, when do the cries of evil, evil, evil ZOG persecution begin?
And when will this all be Obama's fault?
And when does the GoFundMe account go up?
Anyone know how much delicious icing 135 K can buy?

No mudslinging, folks! But you may throw delicious icing.

 

[Bush92]

how many small businesses having to close up shop over this shit will be ENOUGH for these people? don't even think they done. they are just GETTING STARTED

No. The Fag Fascist are only getting started. Another example of liberal tolerance.

 

[Bush92]

So can they refuse to bake a cake for a NAMBLA convention or is that also a gay rights issue?

 

[saveliberty]

Seems to me a bakery does more than bake a wedding cake. Often a business is more of a service than product. They get to know their customer and create a product together. It is about making a profit, but it is also about enjoying your labor too. Forcing people to do things against their will is usually termed slavery.

I have to say it is amazing to me that gay people expect God to bless their sinful union. God is not going to do that. Maybe it does make sense, because they also expect everyone else to join in and accept it too. Being quiet about sin is as far as the public should have a right to expect. Participating is a whole different thing.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

"Goal: $150,000
127%"

Lolol...

Click to support Help Sweetcakes by melissa

Great! Now WTF are you bitching about again? Seemed to work out great for your " oppressed" brethren.

Oh look, another person I don't know who apparently follows me. You fans are creepy.

Follows you?
I think you meant to say, responds to your posts on a public forum.

Stop being so dramatic.

BTW what are you bitching about again?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

What you have here is separation of church and state, unless the state gets enough people to ignore that, then they can cross the line.

Your church is not affected and neither are you unless you assert your faith inappropriately.

 

[ChrisL]

[
Another word you people don't understand, apparently.

I'm beginning to think the whole problem with totalitarians is that they just don't know what the words they use, mean.

Nah, they know just fine what the words mean, they simply think they can intimidate the public to surrender their rights.

Sadly, they have proven correct.

There is no right to discriminate against people. Don't know where you get that from. It is illegal in the State of Oregon.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

Moron, I've already given you an example where a state did exactly what you idiotically think they cannot do. Religion is not a shield from the law. Damn, are you idiots idiotic.

Again. In our country, the state cannot dictate what is, and what isn't sacrilege. And that is not what happened in any state in the US. You really need to look these words up, lol.

 

[ChrisL]

Seems to me a bakery does more than bake a wedding cake. Often a business is more of a service than product. They get to know their customer and create a product together. It is about making a profit, but it is also about enjoying your labor too. Forcing people to do things against their will is usually termed slavery.

I have to say it is amazing to me that gay people expect God to bless their sinful union. God is not going to do that. Maybe it does make sense, because they also expect everyone else to join in and accept it too. Being quiet about sin is as far as the public should have a right to expect. Participating is a whole different thing.

You don't have to be quiet. You can shout from the roof tops, but you cannot deny gay people access to your product.

 

[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.

Another word you people don't understand, apparently.

I'm beginning to think the whole problem with totalitarians is that they just don't know what the words they use, mean.

Really?
Selling goods to people in the business that you built to sell goods to people is involuntary servitude?

Yes, it is, if one is not free to choose one's customers.

The PA laws address why you cannot "choose" your customers in the manner you wish to. Grow up.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Really?
Selling goods to people in the business that you built to sell goods to people is involuntary servitude?

I set up a landscape business to be a creative outlet for myself. It so happens people will pay you for that. Now a bunch of well intentioned people feel compelled to tell me how I can use that creative energy. If I refuse their point of view, I am a hater who should withdraw all my rights to create, speak or associate.

Or not offer your services to the general public. Work off of referrals.

 

[saveliberty]

What you have here is separation of church and state, unless the state gets enough people to ignore that, then they can cross the line.

Your church is not affected and neither are you unless you assert your faith inappropriately.

Which you define secularly and apply it to me and the Church. Normally idiots like you would term that discrimination.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

The baker is forced to work by law for those who the baker does not want to work.

That is involuntary servitude - service against the will of the servant.

Again you are a loyal leftist, you seek the end of liberty.

Take that one to court and see how it works for you.

 

[saveliberty]

Really?
Selling goods to people in the business that you built to sell goods to people is involuntary servitude?

I set up a landscape business to be a creative outlet for myself. It so happens people will pay you for that. Now a bunch of well intentioned people feel compelled to tell me how I can use that creative energy. If I refuse their point of view, I am a hater who should withdraw all my rights to create, speak or associate.

Or not offer your services to the general public. Work off of referrals.

You realize that the government has all sorts of laws you need to comply with regardless right?

 

[ChrisL]

What you have here is separation of church and state, unless the state gets enough people to ignore that, then they can cross the line.

Your church is not affected and neither are you unless you assert your faith inappropriately.

Which you define secularly and apply it to me and the Church. Normally idiots like you would term that discrimination.

Unless you are a religious organization, the Church has nothing to do with how the states make rules and regulations regarding civil rights and anti-discrimination laws. We are a secular country and not a theocracy. Our laws do not reflect your religious beliefs. Our laws treat everyone the same.