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

[The Rabbi]

They are comin to shut you down for violating the law.
Tha'ts been the argument from P1 on this thread: The bakers violated the law and ought to pay for it. But citizens selling pot in CO are violating the law too and somehow that's fine.
The hypocrisy is disgusting.

No one is shutting anyone down. They were fined for their actions. The bakers were not the victims. They were the perps.

Like Rosa Parks, right?

Yeah that's exactly the same thing.

It is. She stood up for her rights and got arrested. The bakers stood up for their rights and were fined. No difference.

I suppose there is a superficial similarity.

Rosa Parks stood against undeniable discrimination. Your slights are supposed and self inflicted.

LOL! From denying any similarity to admitting to it. You're improving.
Now, try again: Denial of 1A rights is denial of 1A rights. See how that works?

 

[koshergrl]

Have some cake, Statist:

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.

Practicing your religion and owning a commercial business that serves the public are two different things. When you own a commercial business, you are required to keep to the state and national laws governing commerical business. Period. It is completely separate from your personal religious beliefs.

No, it's not.

That was easy.

According to the law, the law of the land and of the majority, your commercial business is subject to the law. Your personal beliefs are something else, something completely separate. Yes they are.

Your simple minded response is exceptionally unimpressive.

Not according to the majority. Remember? The majority wouldn't pass the laws. So you Nazis bypassed the majority and by a vote of ONE forced this bad, un-Constitutional law upon the rest of the country.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Practicing your religion and owning a commercial business that serves the public are two different things. When you own a commercial business, you are required to keep to the state and national laws governing commerical business. Period. It is completely separate from your personal religious beliefs.

No, it's not.

That was easy.

According to the law, the law of the land and of the majority, your commercial business is subject to the law. Your personal beliefs are something else, something completely separate. Yes they are.

Your simple minded response is exceptionally unimpressive.

Segregation was the law of the land. Commercial businesses were subjected to it. Yet courageous individuals protested against unfair laws and they were changed. This is no different.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

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

If I quit shopping at Winn Dixie and switch to Publix, I have "harmed" Winn Dixie. "Harm" is not the proper criteria for deciding whether actions should be legal.

 

[westwall]

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.

Discrimination is not a religious practice.
You have freedom of speech. In some cases your speech has consequences.

Ahhhh, but the Christians get skewered there. Paul counseled Christians to have little dealings with those not of the faith. In fact, he pretty much preached a doctrine of socialism within Christian communities. The Amish Mennonites et al. all have some commercial dealings, but unlike the bakers, their goods are not tied to any specific "religious rite."

That's one reason I have difficulty summoning sympathy for the bakers. I knew a Christian family years ago that employed every adult (and some kids) in a commercial printing business. Can't the Christians find an avocation that does not require them to discriminate in order to not offend their oh-so-precious beliefs of who others can marry?

Or simply act like an adult and a professional

Amazing that Christians of this hateful, bigoted sort have completely forgotten the history of the masons..... and why they were formed.... and how they functioned.

Just amazing.

For we they to know the history, they would know that Christians have been doing business with "unbelievers" of practically all stripes for a good 1800 years now. But all of a sudden, gay people are suddenly too icky for those upstanding Christians to even touch.

Funny that.

The Christians on this thread, well many of them, are almost as stupid and worthless as the fake Rabbi, who is no Rabbi, much less a Jew.

Dude, if you want to talk about hateful bigots then you had best distance yourself from guno. Lately he's descended into the use of NAZI terminology such as "subhumans" when describing those he dislikes. He traveled even further down the NAZI road when he openly wondered what should be "done with them" in future times.

He's a fucking loon.

 

[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.

Discrimination is not a religious practice.
You have freedom of speech. In some cases your speech has consequences.

Ahhhh, but the Christians get skewered there. Paul counseled Christians to have little dealings with those not of the faith. In fact, he pretty much preached a doctrine of socialism within Christian communities. The Amish Mennonites et al. all have some commercial dealings, but unlike the bakers, their goods are not tied to any specific "religious rite."

That's one reason I have difficulty summoning sympathy for the bakers. I knew a Christian family years ago that employed every adult (and some kids) in a commercial printing business. Can't the Christians find an avocation that does not require them to discriminate in order to not offend their oh-so-precious beliefs of who others can marry?

Or simply act like an adult and a professional

Amazing that Christians of this hateful, bigoted sort have completely forgotten the history of the masons..... and why they were formed.... and how they functioned.

Just amazing.

For we they to know the history, they would know that Christians have been doing business with "unbelievers" of practically all stripes for a good 1800 years now. But all of a sudden, gay people are suddenly too icky for those upstanding Christians to even touch.

Funny that.

The Christians on this thread, well many of them, are almost as stupid and worthless as the fake Rabbi, who is no Rabbi, much less a Jew.

Dude, if you want to talk about hateful bigots then you had best distance yourself from guno. Lately he's descended into the use of NAZI terminology such as "subhumans" when describing those he dislikes. He traveled even further down the NAZI road when he openly wondered what should be "done with them" in future times.

He's a fucking loon.

He's just Statist's type then.

 

[westwall]

Discrimination is not a religious practice.
You have freedom of speech. In some cases your speech has consequences.

Ahhhh, but the Christians get skewered there. Paul counseled Christians to have little dealings with those not of the faith. In fact, he pretty much preached a doctrine of socialism within Christian communities. The Amish Mennonites et al. all have some commercial dealings, but unlike the bakers, their goods are not tied to any specific "religious rite."

That's one reason I have difficulty summoning sympathy for the bakers. I knew a Christian family years ago that employed every adult (and some kids) in a commercial printing business. Can't the Christians find an avocation that does not require them to discriminate in order to not offend their oh-so-precious beliefs of who others can marry?

Or simply act like an adult and a professional

Amazing that Christians of this hateful, bigoted sort have completely forgotten the history of the masons..... and why they were formed.... and how they functioned.

Just amazing.

For we they to know the history, they would know that Christians have been doing business with "unbelievers" of practically all stripes for a good 1800 years now. But all of a sudden, gay people are suddenly too icky for those upstanding Christians to even touch.

Funny that.

The Christians on this thread, well many of them, are almost as stupid and worthless as the fake Rabbi, who is no Rabbi, much less a Jew.

Dude, if you want to talk about hateful bigots then you had best distance yourself from guno. Lately he's descended into the use of NAZI terminology such as "subhumans" when describing those he dislikes. He traveled even further down the NAZI road when he openly wondered what should be "done with them" in future times.

He's a fucking loon.

He's just Statist's type then.

Stat has never advocated for the forced imprisonment and murder of christians as guno has.

 

[paperview]

... "Harm" is not the proper criteria for deciding whether actions should be legal.

I swear to dawg, the dumbing down of America has reached it's zenith.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

No. The PA ( public accommodation) laws ensure that businesses that are open to the public actually serve the public. All of the public.

What a fool.

Well, Einstein. They exist in some places because there's NO Constitutional basis for them. It's all about ramming agendas down people's throats and denying their religious views. Which IS supposed to be protected.

 

[Faun]

Have some cake, Statist:

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.

Practicing your religion and owning a commercial business that serves the public are two different things. When you own a commercial business, you are required to keep to the state and national laws governing commerical business. Period. It is completely separate from your personal religious beliefs.

No, it's not.

That was easy.

According to the law, the law of the land and of the majority, your commercial business is subject to the law. Your personal beliefs are something else, something completely separate. Yes they are.

Your simple minded response is exceptionally unimpressive.

Not according to the majority. Remember? The majority wouldn't pass the laws. So you Nazis bypassed the majority and by a vote of ONE forced this bad, un-Constitutional law upon the rest of the country.

Just how fucking nuts are you? The majority wouldn't pass the laws?? Same-sex marriage was already legal in 3/4ths of the states.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

Practicing your religion and owning a commercial business that serves the public are two different things. When you own a commercial business, you are required to keep to the state and national laws governing commerical business. Period. It is completely separate from your personal religious beliefs.

No, it's not.

That was easy.

According to the law, the law of the land and of the majority, your commercial business is subject to the law. Your personal beliefs are something else, something completely separate. Yes they are.

Your simple minded response is exceptionally unimpressive.

Which portion of the Constitution says business have to accommodate all relationships? Local or state laws might say that so that makes you partially correct. But those unConstitutional laws need to be thrown out.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The new gaystapo flag:

Yes, when all else fails, go full Godwin.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Ahhhh, but the Christians get skewered there. Paul counseled Christians to have little dealings with those not of the faith. In fact, he pretty much preached a doctrine of socialism within Christian communities. The Amish Mennonites et al. all have some commercial dealings, but unlike the bakers, their goods are not tied to any specific "religious rite."

That's one reason I have difficulty summoning sympathy for the bakers. I knew a Christian family years ago that employed every adult (and some kids) in a commercial printing business. Can't the Christians find an avocation that does not require them to discriminate in order to not offend their oh-so-precious beliefs of who others can marry?

Or simply act like an adult and a professional

Amazing that Christians of this hateful, bigoted sort have completely forgotten the history of the masons..... and why they were formed.... and how they functioned.

Just amazing.

For we they to know the history, they would know that Christians have been doing business with "unbelievers" of practically all stripes for a good 1800 years now. But all of a sudden, gay people are suddenly too icky for those upstanding Christians to even touch.

Funny that.

The Christians on this thread, well many of them, are almost as stupid and worthless as the fake Rabbi, who is no Rabbi, much less a Jew.

Dude, if you want to talk about hateful bigots then you had best distance yourself from guno. Lately he's descended into the use of NAZI terminology such as "subhumans" when describing those he dislikes. He traveled even further down the NAZI road when he openly wondered what should be "done with them" in future times.

He's a fucking loon.

He's just Statist's type then.

Stat has never advocated for the forced imprisonment and murder of christians as guno has.

And I never, ever would.

I am pointing out how utterly ridiculous it is to take one case of a bigoted Baker couple and use it as a cause celebre for the idea that Christians, who are a HYPERMAJORITY of the USA, are being persecuted.

And then, some batshit crazy people like Kosherthingy actually think that connecting the Hakenkreuz (Swastika) with gay people is somehow a good idea.

Wow.

 

[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.

If I quit shopping at Winn Dixie and switch to Publix, I have "harmed" Winn Dixie. "Harm" is not the proper criteria for deciding whether actions should be legal.

And the retarded offers their tripe... Moron .... this isn't about where you shop -- it's about where you're banned from shopping due to illegal discrimination.

That you think being "harmed" is not legally actionable speaks volumes towards your G-d given mental handicap.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

Discrimination is not a religious practice.
You have freedom of speech. In some cases your speech has consequences.

Ahhhh, but the Christians get skewered there. Paul counseled Christians to have little dealings with those not of the faith. In fact, he pretty much preached a doctrine of socialism within Christian communities. The Amish Mennonites et al. all have some commercial dealings, but unlike the bakers, their goods are not tied to any specific "religious rite."

That's one reason I have difficulty summoning sympathy for the bakers. I knew a Christian family years ago that employed every adult (and some kids) in a commercial printing business. Can't the Christians find an avocation that does not require them to discriminate in order to not offend their oh-so-precious beliefs of who others can marry?

Or simply act like an adult and a professional

Amazing that Christians of this hateful, bigoted sort have completely forgotten the history of the masons..... and why they were formed.... and how they functioned.

Just amazing.

For we they to know the history, they would know that Christians have been doing business with "unbelievers" of practically all stripes for a good 1800 years now. But all of a sudden, gay people are suddenly too icky for those upstanding Christians to even touch.

Funny that.

The Christians on this thread, well many of them, are almost as stupid and worthless as the fake Rabbi, who is no Rabbi, much less a Jew.

Dude, if you want to talk about hateful bigots then you had best distance yourself from guno. Lately he's descended into the use of NAZI terminology such as "subhumans" when describing those he dislikes. He traveled even further down the NAZI road when he openly wondered what should be "done with them" in future times.

He's a fucking loon.

I concur with you on that point. No one is a "subhuman".

 

[Statistikhengst]

Have some cake, Statist:

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.

Practicing your religion and owning a commercial business that serves the public are two different things. When you own a commercial business, you are required to keep to the state and national laws governing commerical business. Period. It is completely separate from your personal religious beliefs.

No, it's not.

That was easy.

According to the law, the law of the land and of the majority, your commercial business is subject to the law. Your personal beliefs are something else, something completely separate. Yes they are.

Your simple minded response is exceptionally unimpressive.

Not according to the majority. Remember? The majority wouldn't pass the laws. So you Nazis bypassed the majority and by a vote of ONE forced this bad, un-Constitutional law upon the rest of the country.

Nice butthurt! But not based in reality.

You see, nazis do not sit at Justices in the Supreme Court.

 

[Faun]

... "Harm" is not the proper criteria for deciding whether actions should be legal.

I swear to dawg, the dumbing down of America has reached it's zenith.

Can you believe that?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Okay, here's where I'm going to call Shenanigans on you.

First and foremost, I asked "Which VERSE OF THE GOSPELS" revoked the Mosaic Dietary Laws.

Because the epistle of the Hebrews was not written by Jesus and it is doubtful that it was even written by Paul.

By the end of the first century there was not a consensus over the author’s identity. Clement of Rome, Barnabas, the Apostle Paul, and other names were proposed. Others later suggested Luke the Evangelist, Apollos and Priscilla as possible authors.[11]

Though no author is named, the original King James Version of the Bible titled the work "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews". However, the KJV's attribution to Paul was only a guess, and not a very good one according to the majority of recent scholarship.[5] Its vastly different style, different theological focus, different spiritual experience—all are believed to make Paul's authorship of Hebrews increasingly indefensible. At present, neither modern scholarship nor church teaching ascribes Hebrews to Paul.


Where did JESUS himself say, "Yeah, that stuff my Dad said about the Shrimp, that's totally not valid anymore."

Furthermore, let's look at what that verse actually says...

8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Okay, then He really doesn't say anything specific about any specific laws.

Now, if you want to go to the Gospel.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished” (Matthew 5:17-18).

wow. That sounds pretty clear to me. Sounds to me the ban on Shrimp Eating is just as Iron-Clad as the rules on Slavery, Witch-Burning and Homosexuality.

The only difference is, "Christians" claim those rules (except for the ones on the gays) are no longer binding, even though nothing in the bible overturns any of them.

Not Jesus.
Not Paul
Not some guy pretending to be Paul.

You and your little friend are getting annoying, you two don't understand the Bible, neither of you knew the difference between Covenants and Testaments, you don't know what moral, ceremonial and Mosaic laws are and you're posting crap I have no intention of wading through. I take neither of you serious because you failed out of the gate, learn what you profess to know and then comment.

You obviously know neither the 613 mosaic laws, 7 of which are noahidic. And nowhere does a covenant supplant a law. As a matter of fact, most covenants enshrined the law even further. Poor you.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

You're not embarassed that a Roman Catholic knows the Torah better than you do? Because what you write is total crap, on a par with "mitzvoteem."

Only, that is bullshit, fake fucking Rabbi. Fake fucking racist bullshit Rabbi.

You are no Jew. You are a faker, a poseur. Nothing more. You are a mote.

Thanks for admitting you dont know what you're talking about. The fact is The Roman Catholic lady knows more about the Bible than you do, fake poseur Jew.

Quite incorrect, as you always are.

Try again, fake Rabbi.

 

[Faun]

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.

Practicing your religion and owning a commercial business that serves the public are two different things. When you own a commercial business, you are required to keep to the state and national laws governing commerical business. Period. It is completely separate from your personal religious beliefs.

No, it's not.

That was easy.

According to the law, the law of the land and of the majority, your commercial business is subject to the law. Your personal beliefs are something else, something completely separate. Yes they are.

Your simple minded response is exceptionally unimpressive.

Which portion of the Constitution says business have to accommodate all relationships? Local or state laws might say that so that makes you partially correct. But those unConstitutional laws need to be thrown out.

So now Conservatives are against states' rights?? That sure is convenient. Not very consistent; but certainly convenient.

 

[JoeB131]

That would require an actual contract. Having a sign "we bake wedding cakes" is not a contract or a promise. If they decide AFTER the contract is signed to back out, then there is harm, and damages can result.

But not $135k in damages unless we are talking about a $135k cake.

Or a $135K message that Homophobes aren't welcome.

Here's the thing. Bigot Melissa is going ot come out okay. She's enjoying her time in the limelight as "Bigot of the Week" and getting money for it.

But the $135K pricetag will get all the other bigots in line, and therefore serves its purpose.