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

[Faun]

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.

So PA made a law which violates the 1st Amendment, and you defend it.

What a tool.

Your opinion is noted; and if it does violate the First Amendment, the owner of Sweet Cakes can get the law overturned.

 

[koshergrl]

The "Go Fuck Yourselves"

"christian"

is trying to tell us about

How biblical she is.

[emoji38]

Jesus told me: You're going to hell, haughty lady.

GFY....ignored

Ahhh, more fine christian behavior. What a shining example you are.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Oh look, Statist has arrived to complete the Idiot Trifecta.

 

[koshergrl]

The "Go Fuck Yourselves"

"christian"

is trying to tell us about

How biblical she is.

[emoji38]

Jesus told me: You're going to hell, haughty lady.

GFY....ignored

Ahhh, more fine christian behavior. What a shining example you are.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

So now you dictate what constitutes "fine Christian behavior" as well?

No. You don't.

 

[boedicca]

Lol. This is hilarious. Sorry, you don't get special privileges to discriminate because you are a religious person. You just don't.

I see your point, the Constitution is silent regarding protection of religion...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nobody is restricting your right to practice your religion. You are free to attend any church and be any religion you choose. What you cannot do is apply your prejudices to your business practices because the law does not recognize your religion in this case. It recognizes the civil rights of people. The only way your argument makes sense is if we were a theocracy.

That is a steaming pile of sophistry.

Forcing someone to violate his religious beliefs is the same as violating his ability to practice his religion.

Period.

Not baking a cake for a gay couple may hurt their feelings, but it doesn't prevent them from getting married. But to you loons, tolerance (i.e., leaving you alone to do your thing) is not enough. You insist that others participate, which infringes their rights.

 

[koshergrl]

Lol. This is hilarious. Sorry, you don't get special privileges to discriminate because you are a religious person. You just don't.

I see your point, the Constitution is silent regarding protection of religion...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nobody is restricting your right to practice your religion. You are free to attend any church and be any religion you choose. What you cannot do is apply your prejudices to your business practices because the law does not recognize your religion in this case. It recognizes the civil rights of people. The only way your argument makes sense is if we were a theocracy.

That is a steaming pile of sophistry.

Forcing someone to violate his religious beliefs is the same as violating his ability to practice his religion.

Period.

Not baking a cake for a gay couple may hurt their feelings, but it doesn't prevent them from getting married. But to you loons, tolerance (i.e., leaving you alone to do your thing) is not enough. You insist that others participate, which infringes their rights.

What they are doing is demanding that Christians recant their faith, or be fined into penury, and lose their businesses. Which is exactly what the Spanish Inquisition was all about.and Nazism..and Marxism.....the state inspecting the faith of people and then punishing them if they don't worship according to what the state dictates is proper. Whether that means adhering to a state-sanctioned faith, or rejecting your own...it's all the same.

Only they're so fucking stupid and illiterate they don't see it.

 

[saveliberty]

Religious beliefs are NOT just for Sunday at Church. A person lives it all day everyday. We hate sin, but not the sinner. Asking me to participate in it violates my rights.

 

[Misty]

And as liberals crow with pride about this they miss the fact that these people are being denied two constitutional rights.

Freedom to practice religion and freedom of speech.

Good job. Idiots.

Nope, neither one of those things are denied. You are free to speak your mind and you are free to practice your religion in any way you choose. You, however, cannot deny access to your product to specific groups of people because then you are breaking the law.

Lol. This is hilarious. Sorry, you don't get special privileges to discriminate because you are a religious person. You just don't.

you are correct about businesses. The federal law doesn't mention sexual orientation but some state laws do. Colorado and Oregon being 2 of those states. However churches and schools still can refuse service.

 

[boedicca]

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.

So PA made a law which violates the 1st Amendment, and you defend it.

What a tool.

Your opinion is noted; and if it does violate the First Amendment, the owner of Sweet Cakes can get the law overturned.

Oh. Good luck with that. Private individuals have no power over the Progressive State Apparatus, as you all are so happy to chortle over.

Just wait until it is aimed at your last remnant of freedom. Because that is where this trend line is headed, bub.

 

[ChrisL]

And as liberals crow with pride about this they miss the fact that these people are being denied two constitutional rights.

Freedom to practice religion and freedom of speech.

Good job. Idiots.

Nope, neither one of those things are denied. You are free to speak your mind and you are free to practice your religion in any way you choose. You, however, cannot deny access to your product to specific groups of people because then you are breaking the law.

Lol. This is hilarious. Sorry, you don't get special privileges to discriminate because you are a religious person. You just don't.

you are correct about businesses. The federal law doesn't mention sexual orientation but some state laws do. Colorado and Oregon being 2 of those states. However churches and schools still can refuse service.

Right, as religious organizations. However, only certain "businesses" fall under that category. A bakery is not one of them.

 

[Faun]

And as liberals crow with pride about this they miss the fact that these people are being denied two constitutional rights.

Freedom to practice religion and freedom of speech.

Good job. Idiots.

No, they are still free to practice their religion.

But if they refuse to commit sacrilege, they lose their business.

"...governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. — That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

They were not forced to commit sacrilege. Your hallucinations are not reality. Though I'm certain they feel real to you.

Like your idiocy that you can and will break the law -- you're not. You're an idiot.

 

[ChrisL]

Lol. This is hilarious. Sorry, you don't get special privileges to discriminate because you are a religious person. You just don't.

I see your point, the Constitution is silent regarding protection of religion...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nobody is restricting your right to practice your religion. You are free to attend any church and be any religion you choose. What you cannot do is apply your prejudices to your business practices because the law does not recognize your religion in this case. It recognizes the civil rights of people. The only way your argument makes sense is if we were a theocracy.

That is a steaming pile of sophistry.

Forcing someone to violate his religious beliefs is the same as violating his ability to practice his religion.

Period.

Not baking a cake for a gay couple may hurt their feelings, but it doesn't prevent them from getting married. But to you loons, tolerance (i.e., leaving you alone to do your thing) is not enough. You insist that others participate, which infringes their rights.

Don't get upset with me. I don't even live in Oregon.

 

[ChrisL]

I'm just telling you how the law works is all. If you find that offensive, sorry.

 

[boedicca]

Lol. This is hilarious. Sorry, you don't get special privileges to discriminate because you are a religious person. You just don't.

I see your point, the Constitution is silent regarding protection of religion...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nobody is restricting your right to practice your religion. You are free to attend any church and be any religion you choose. What you cannot do is apply your prejudices to your business practices because the law does not recognize your religion in this case. It recognizes the civil rights of people. The only way your argument makes sense is if we were a theocracy.

That is a steaming pile of sophistry.

Forcing someone to violate his religious beliefs is the same as violating his ability to practice his religion.

Period.

Not baking a cake for a gay couple may hurt their feelings, but it doesn't prevent them from getting married. But to you loons, tolerance (i.e., leaving you alone to do your thing) is not enough. You insist that others participate, which infringes their rights.

What they are doing is demanding that Christians recant their faith, or be fined into penury, and lose their businesses. Which is exactly what the Spanish Inquisition was all about.and Nazism..and Marxism.....the state inspecting the faith of people and then punishing them if they don't worship according to what the state dictates is proper. Whether that means adhering to a state-sanctioned faith, or rejecting your own...it's all the same.

Only they're so fucking stupid and illiterate they don't see it.

Social Justice Snowflakes are today's Totalitarian Shock Troops.

 

[Faun]

Where does the Bible state, thou shalt not bake a cake for thine woman who lieth with another woman?

Well if I need a strawman baked, I know who to look up.

Translation: Sweet Cakes was not asked to violate their religious beliefs by baking a cake.

 

[koshergrl]

And as liberals crow with pride about this they miss the fact that these people are being denied two constitutional rights.

Freedom to practice religion and freedom of speech.

Good job. Idiots.

No, they are still free to practice their religion.

But if they refuse to commit sacrilege, they lose their business.

"...governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. — That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

They were not forced to commit sacrilege. Your hallucinations are not reality. Though I'm certain they feel real to you.

Like your idiocy that you can and will break the law -- you're not. You're an idiot.

No, they were PUNISHED for REFUSING to participate in sacrilege.

Again. Look these words up. I'm tired of dumbing it down for you. I don't think I can dumb it down any more.

And for everybody else..see, this is their problem. faun knows he doesn't know these words, and he is so retarded he doesn't even look them up out of curiosity. He isn't even smart enough to come back with the definition after LOOKING IT UP and apply it correctly. He just continues blindly with this idiocy. I mean, it's obvious he has no idea what constitutes a sacrament, or sacrilege. And he's so stupid he doesn't even look it up. I can't say it enough times, what a fucking retard.

 

[koshergrl]

Where does the Bible state, thou shalt not bake a cake for thine woman who lieth with another woman?

Well if I need a strawman baked, I know who to look up.

Translation: Sweet Cakes was not asked to violate their religious beliefs by baking a cake.

No, they penalized for failing to participate in sacrilege on demand.

Which is, of course, against the law.

 

[ChrisL]

Look, the laws are clear. If you want to open a business in Oregon, I suggest you be familiar with the laws. You cannot discriminate against a person because he or she is gay, black, disabled, a man, a woman. That is just the way it is. Your personal religious beliefs do not apply to the State of Oregon regarding business practice. Otherwise, a person could do all kinds of things claiming it is his or her "religious duty."

 

[Faun]

"...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Tell that to Jim Tranmer, who is was sentenced to 35 years in jail despite his pleas on religious freedoms.

 

[boedicca]

Where does the Bible state, thou shalt not bake a cake for thine woman who lieth with another woman?

Well if I need a strawman baked, I know who to look up.

Translation: Sweet Cakes was not asked to violate their religious beliefs by baking a cake.

Translation: you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Faun]

Lol. This is hilarious. Sorry, you don't get special privileges to discriminate because you are a religious person. You just don't.

I see your point, the Constitution is silent regarding protection of religion...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nobody is restricting your right to practice your religion. You are free to attend any church and be any religion you choose. What you cannot do is apply your prejudices to your business practices because the law does not recognize your religion in this case. It recognizes the civil rights of people. The only way your argument makes sense is if we were a theocracy.

That is a steaming pile of sophistry.

Forcing someone to violate his religious beliefs is the same as violating his ability to practice his religion.

Period.

Not baking a cake for a gay couple may hurt their feelings, but it doesn't prevent them from getting married. But to you loons, tolerance (i.e., leaving you alone to do your thing) is not enough. You insist that others participate, which infringes their rights.

Baking a cake does not infringe on anyone's religious beliefs.