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

[Faun]

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.

Being forced to bake a cake which violates one's religious beliefs is an infringement.

If baking a cake infringes on one's religious belief, then you would be able to show me where the Bible says baking a cake is an abomination, You can't because no such religious infringement exists.

Even if we did play dumb, since that's the only way you know how to play....show me where in the Constitution it says that homos can force people to participate in their 'ceremonies'? And in the meantime...you don't have to agree with my religion before I am allowed to practice it. Nor do you get to dictate what is, or is not, a sacrament. I know you've admitted you don't understand what sacrament or sacrilege mean....but for the rest of us who do, it needs to be said.

Trust me, you're not playing.

 

[boedicca]

When Jesus fed the multitude with the miracle of the loaves and fishes,

I wonder if he had his disciples screen the crowd for gays?

No fish sandwich for you!!!!!!!!

lol, fake Christianity is so lame.

I doubt Jesus was handing out loaves and fishes at a gay wedding.

Just sayin'.

 

[ChrisL]

So basically, people want to discriminate against a certain segment of the population (for whatever stupid reason), and then when the people fight back to be treated as equals, they claim it is religious persecution. Talk about an ad hom. You poor little victims you.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Muslim taxi driver ordered to pay lesbian couple 10k for telling them to stop kissing - The Express Tribune

That's not for refusing service. In fact they decided to not pay the driver.

He's being actually fined for their hurt feelings.

Do you think restaurants in the south should still have the freedom to refuse service to blacks?

The 1964 Civil Rights Act already prohibited discrimination by valid Public Accomodations such as restaurants, hotels, transportation, and entertainment venues. The rationale is that the inconvenience of being denied real time service, i.e. a meal, was important enough to qualify as equal protection.

Other retail businesses do not fall into this category. There is no urgent imperative to have a wedding cake Right This Minute. The public policy in this instance should be 1st Amendment protections. There is no right to not have one's feelings hurt.

Bingo.

The State of Oregon disagrees.

And since this is a Staytes Raaaaaaaaaahts issue...



I bet that cons are so upset that they cannot pin this directly on Obama....

 

[boedicca]

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.

Being forced to bake a cake which violates one's religious beliefs is an infringement.

If baking a cake infringes on one's religious belief, then you would be able to show me where the Bible says baking a cake is an abomination, You can't because no such religious infringement exists.

Even if we did play dumb, since that's the only way you know how to play....show me where in the Constitution it says that homos can force people to participate in their 'ceremonies'? And in the meantime...you don't have to agree with my religion before I am allowed to practice it. Nor do you get to dictate what is, or is not, a sacrament. I know you've admitted you don't understand what sacrament or sacrilege mean....but for the rest of us who do, it needs to be said.

Let's look at the bigger issue:

Where does it say in The Constitution that one private party can force another private party to do something against his will?

 

[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.

A woman having sex with a woman is sin, asking a third party to participate in celebrating that sin is a violation of the third party's rights.

They weren't asking them to celebrate them having sex either.

Of course they were. Though I doubt you know what the definition of marriage is....it has to do with two being joined as one. How do you suppose that takes place..or do you not know the definition of 'joined', either?

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

Outstanding case of butthurt without borders!!!


Brava, Kosherthingy, brava!!!

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Faith is important to former President Jimmy Carter, and he writes about it extensively in his new memoir A Full Life: Reflections at Ninety. But his religious beliefs don't keep him from supporting every American's right to marry the person they love ... (Huffington Post)

 

[bendog]

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

Being forced to bake a cake which violates one's religious beliefs is an infringement.

If baking a cake infringes on one's religious belief, then you would be able to show me where the Bible says baking a cake is an abomination, You can't because no such religious infringement exists.

Being forced to bake a cake to celebrate something the Bible forbids is a violation of the religious beliefs of those whose religious beliefs are based on such a reading of the Bible.

The fact that you can't admit this just proves what a hack you are.

I'm not a PA fan, but you are not honestly addressing what the law forbids. The Christian baker is not punished for not baking the cake. He's punished for not selling the cake. Once he enters into private commerce he must comply with all constitutional laws, and there's no argument that PA laws are unconstitutional. That issue is settled, whether we like it or not.

So, imo, the argument against the PA law is, imo, that the gay plaintiffs were never really denied a cake because there are lots of bakers. Rather, the issue was the gay plaintiffs used the law to force the gay baker to bow to their demand to validate their union the same way they'd validate a straight union. Do we want the law to judge which party is the bigger boor?

Exactly. Everyone is supposed to have equal access to the product. The law does not recognize religious beliefs as a basis for laws when it comes to operating a business, as it should be.

Well, the gay couple had plenty of access to cakes even if the Christian baker wouldn't sell one to the gay couple. And as a result the gay baker goes out of biz and owes 135K. I submit, the penalty far exceeded any offense, and the gay couple's motivation was not achieving equal access to cakes, but rather punish the baker for choosing to base his business decision on a belief that their marriage was not a good as a hetro marriage. So, I'm pretty sure both parties are boors, but I'm a little hard pressed to find the gay baker is the bigger jerk than the gays.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

Outstanding case of butthurt without borders!!!


Brava, Kosherthingy, brava!!!

Bunch of fruit cakes, if you ask me. Good Geebus, they are just delusional old church ladies. I am so thankful our laws aren't based on their religious views.

 

[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.

Outstanding case of butthurt without borders!!!


Brava, Kosherthingy, brava!!!

So if the law is always right, it was right when you took it up the butt when sodomy was illegal...right, statist? That makes you a criminal.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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...

Nothing in Torah lists homosexuality as a sin. There are exactly 2 out of 613 commandments that prohibit two specific homosexual acts, but the actual state of being is not prohibited. And Jesus never even once spoke to the issue in your New Testament.

So, actually, yeah, your Christifundies really did kind of make up a sin in the last years....

 

[ChrisL]

Being forced to bake a cake which violates one's religious beliefs is an infringement.

If baking a cake infringes on one's religious belief, then you would be able to show me where the Bible says baking a cake is an abomination, You can't because no such religious infringement exists.

Being forced to bake a cake to celebrate something the Bible forbids is a violation of the religious beliefs of those whose religious beliefs are based on such a reading of the Bible.

The fact that you can't admit this just proves what a hack you are.

I'm not a PA fan, but you are not honestly addressing what the law forbids. The Christian baker is not punished for not baking the cake. He's punished for not selling the cake. Once he enters into private commerce he must comply with all constitutional laws, and there's no argument that PA laws are unconstitutional. That issue is settled, whether we like it or not.

So, imo, the argument against the PA law is, imo, that the gay plaintiffs were never really denied a cake because there are lots of bakers. Rather, the issue was the gay plaintiffs used the law to force the gay baker to bow to their demand to validate their union the same way they'd validate a straight union. Do we want the law to judge which party is the bigger boor?

Exactly. Everyone is supposed to have equal access to the product. The law does not recognize religious beliefs as a basis for laws when it comes to operating a business, as it should be.

Well, the gay couple had plenty of access to cakes even if the Christian baker wouldn't sell one to the gay couple. And as a result the gay baker goes out of biz and owes 135K. I submit, the penalty far exceeded any offense, and the gay couple's motivation was not achieving equal access to cakes, but rather punish the baker for choosing to base his business decision on a belief that their marriage was not a good as a hetro marriage. So, I'm pretty sure both parties are boors, but I'm a little hard pressed to find the gay baker is the bigger jerk than the gays.

Point is, if you deny them access, you are discriminating against them and breaking the law. I agree that the amount awarded is pretty high, but that is probably because of the blatant disregard for the law exhibited by this couple.

 

[bendog]

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

Being forced to bake a cake which violates one's religious beliefs is an infringement.

If baking a cake infringes on one's religious belief, then you would be able to show me where the Bible says baking a cake is an abomination, You can't because no such religious infringement exists.

Being forced to bake a cake to celebrate something the Bible forbids is a violation of the religious beliefs of those whose religious beliefs are based on such a reading of the Bible.

The fact that you can't admit this just proves what a hack you are.

I'm not a PA fan, but you are not honestly addressing what the law forbids. The Christian baker is not punished for not baking the cake. He's punished for not selling the cake. Once he enters into private commerce he must comply with all constitutional laws, and there's no argument that PA laws are unconstitutional. That issue is settled, whether we like it or not.

So, imo, the argument against the PA law is, imo, that the gay plaintiffs were never really denied a cake because there are lots of bakers. Rather, the issue was the gay plaintiffs used the law to force the gay baker to bow to their demand to validate their union the same way they'd validate a straight union. Do we want the law to judge which party is the bigger boor?

B'loney. A baker can't sell something unless he makes it, or somebody working for him makes it.

I want the law to ensure Equal Protection, not to pit One Identity Group against Another.

The only way to ensure that is to guarantee an individual's Right To Be Left Alone.

Positive Rights violate this concept - which is why the Founders specified only Negative Rights.

But EP always pits "one identity group against another." Lester Maddux was merely one actor of those who refused to sell fried chicken to blacks.

 

[Statistikhengst]

"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?

Oh, I see you have met Kosherthingy. My condolences.

 

[ChrisL]

As this law is applicable to everyone equally who opens a business in the State of Oregon, there is nothing "discriminatory" about the law towards Christians. Of course, they will continue to feel as if everyone is out to get them and that they are being persecuted because their religious beliefs are not reflected in our laws.

 

[bendog]

If baking a cake infringes on one's religious belief, then you would be able to show me where the Bible says baking a cake is an abomination, You can't because no such religious infringement exists.

Being forced to bake a cake to celebrate something the Bible forbids is a violation of the religious beliefs of those whose religious beliefs are based on such a reading of the Bible.

The fact that you can't admit this just proves what a hack you are.

I'm not a PA fan, but you are not honestly addressing what the law forbids. The Christian baker is not punished for not baking the cake. He's punished for not selling the cake. Once he enters into private commerce he must comply with all constitutional laws, and there's no argument that PA laws are unconstitutional. That issue is settled, whether we like it or not.

So, imo, the argument against the PA law is, imo, that the gay plaintiffs were never really denied a cake because there are lots of bakers. Rather, the issue was the gay plaintiffs used the law to force the gay baker to bow to their demand to validate their union the same way they'd validate a straight union. Do we want the law to judge which party is the bigger boor?

Exactly. Everyone is supposed to have equal access to the product. The law does not recognize religious beliefs as a basis for laws when it comes to operating a business, as it should be.

Well, the gay couple had plenty of access to cakes even if the Christian baker wouldn't sell one to the gay couple. And as a result the gay baker goes out of biz and owes 135K. I submit, the penalty far exceeded any offense, and the gay couple's motivation was not achieving equal access to cakes, but rather punish the baker for choosing to base his business decision on a belief that their marriage was not a good as a hetro marriage. So, I'm pretty sure both parties are boors, but I'm a little hard pressed to find the gay baker is the bigger jerk than the gays.

Point is, if you deny them access, you are discriminating against them and breaking the law. I agree that the amount awarded is pretty high, but that is probably because of the blatant disregard for the law exhibited by this couple.

The Christian baker broke the law, no argument. But, I gotta say, I'm pretty much in favor of decriminalizing drug use, and I have lots less sympathy for druggies getting raped in prison that I have for the Christian baker.

 

[Statistikhengst]

These laws damage you and your business in what way?

It restricts my right to express my beliefs through my vocation. It is like you think people are robots during work hours and their life starts after the work day. It is repression and slavery.

 

[ChrisL]

Being forced to bake a cake to celebrate something the Bible forbids is a violation of the religious beliefs of those whose religious beliefs are based on such a reading of the Bible.

The fact that you can't admit this just proves what a hack you are.

I'm not a PA fan, but you are not honestly addressing what the law forbids. The Christian baker is not punished for not baking the cake. He's punished for not selling the cake. Once he enters into private commerce he must comply with all constitutional laws, and there's no argument that PA laws are unconstitutional. That issue is settled, whether we like it or not.

So, imo, the argument against the PA law is, imo, that the gay plaintiffs were never really denied a cake because there are lots of bakers. Rather, the issue was the gay plaintiffs used the law to force the gay baker to bow to their demand to validate their union the same way they'd validate a straight union. Do we want the law to judge which party is the bigger boor?

Exactly. Everyone is supposed to have equal access to the product. The law does not recognize religious beliefs as a basis for laws when it comes to operating a business, as it should be.

Well, the gay couple had plenty of access to cakes even if the Christian baker wouldn't sell one to the gay couple. And as a result the gay baker goes out of biz and owes 135K. I submit, the penalty far exceeded any offense, and the gay couple's motivation was not achieving equal access to cakes, but rather punish the baker for choosing to base his business decision on a belief that their marriage was not a good as a hetro marriage. So, I'm pretty sure both parties are boors, but I'm a little hard pressed to find the gay baker is the bigger jerk than the gays.

Point is, if you deny them access, you are discriminating against them and breaking the law. I agree that the amount awarded is pretty high, but that is probably because of the blatant disregard for the law exhibited by this couple.

The Christian baker broke the law, no argument. But, I gotta say, I'm pretty much in favor of decriminalizing drug use, and I have lots less sympathy for druggies getting raped in prison that I have for the Christian baker.

I don't really have much sympathy for either. I don't really like people who would call other human beings "evil" and an "abomination" because of what they do in their sex lives. I don't roll that way, you know?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

This means Chinese restaurants have to make lasagna.

No, pastahead.

It doesn't.

Why are some cons so stoopid when it comes to using basic logic?

The answer to your question is in the fourth word of the last sentence you wrote....

Neither one of you dupes could respond with analysis. Troll bin.