Bakers fined for not working homosexual "wedding" continue fighting for their freedoms

[martybegan]

Harm is harm. Harm is not hurt feelings.

Says who? Oh yeah, I forgot. Says you. You alone get to be the arbiter. That's ******* sick. You want to be master of us all.

No no no...remember...just his opinion, right?

Yes it is. If you can;t handle that, get off message boards, or go to an echo chamber like DU.

 

[martybegan]

So..why are so many advocating Special Rights for this bakery?

Why are so many saying one groups butthurt is more equal than another group's butthurt?

Why does this bakery get special rights? How about an answer.....

What's so special about it? Why does your butt hurt outweigh theirs?

They get to have a business license and get to ignore the state laws they are supposed to abide by. So...why do they get the special rights to ignore what all other businesses have to follow?

The law when applied like this is being wrongly applied to hurt feelings instead of actual harm.

 

[martybegan]

It has to be handled on a case by case basis. Where is the actual harm? If there is harm, then it has to be taken into account.

A good example is a travel hotel that also hosts weddings. I would say the hotel should not be able to deny a room overnight for anyone, as forcing them to find another hotel at that moment is an actual harm. However, if the hotel doesn't want to host a gay wedding due to religious reasons, it should be able to do so as long as it doesn't book the wedding first than change its mind later.

There is a difference between point of service transactions, needed transactions, time sensitive transactions, and contracted transactions.

So a town has two hotels

One has a renowned wedding facility, excellent chefs, first rate accommodations and a beautiful view of the water at sunset

The other is on the interstate and is next to a truck stop

No harm as long as another hotel is available. What is wrong with a gay couple expecting the best for their wedding? Why should they have to settle for less?

Why would they want to be served by people that detest their way of life?

and I had my wedding 5 towns over from where I live, it's called cars.

Why have a wedding next to a truck stop? Why not expect the best
We saw the accommodations offered to blacks as an alternative. Outhouses instead of flush toilets. Water pump instead of running water. Eating in back of a kitchen instead of the dining room

We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone

Considering gays have a sizable presence in the wedding industry, your analogy about 2nd class services fails on its merit.

You are the one going all argumentum ad abusrdum, not me. You are the one going all or nothing.

You are the one that feels the need to force your views on others using the government gun barrel.

Gays may have a sizeable presence in our major cities

But in rural Jesusland, they are still outcasts. It is easy for any ***-hater to invoke the bible as an excuse for not serving gays while they have no reservations about participating in a wedding of a pregnant bride marrying her cousin.

History is full of people not happy with their present situation moving. Its only in modern times that moving is considered something for the well off, instead of the destitute or unhappy trying to make a new life for themselves. It's actually what made the US what it is today.

and do you think forcing a baker to bake a cake for their wedding, or forcing a photographer to film their wedding is going to magically remove that animosity.

No, all it does is satisfy your need for vengeance on people you don't like, and it lets you accomplish it without getting your hands dirty.

"Oh, not "I" didn't do anything, GOVERNMENT did it"

 

[martybegan]

So a town has two hotels

One has a renowned wedding facility, excellent chefs, first rate accommodations and a beautiful view of the water at sunset

The other is on the interstate and is next to a truck stop

No harm as long as another hotel is available. What is wrong with a gay couple expecting the best for their wedding? Why should they have to settle for less?

Why would they want to be served by people that detest their way of life?

and I had my wedding 5 towns over from where I live, it's called cars.

Why have a wedding next to a truck stop? Why not expect the best
We saw the accommodations offered to blacks as an alternative. Outhouses instead of flush toilets. Water pump instead of running water. Eating in back of a kitchen instead of the dining room

We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone

Considering gays have a sizable presence in the wedding industry, your analogy about 2nd class services fails on its merit.

You are the one going all argumentum ad abusrdum, not me. You are the one going all or nothing.

You are the one that feels the need to force your views on others using the government gun barrel.

Gays may have a sizeable presence in our major cities

But in rural Jesusland, they are still outcasts. It is easy for any ***-hater to invoke the bible as an excuse for not serving gays while they have no reservations about participating in a wedding of a pregnant bride marrying her cousin.

Jesus... do you lie awake at night dreaming up this drivel?

it's cute when they try to justify their intolerance as tolerance.

 

[bodecea]

Harm is harm. Harm is not hurt feelings.

Says who? Oh yeah, I forgot. Says you. You alone get to be the arbiter. That's ******* sick. You want to be master of us all.

No no no...remember...just his opinion, right?

Yes it is. If you can;t handle that, get off message boards, or go to an echo chamber like DU.

 

[bodecea]

So..why are so many advocating Special Rights for this bakery?

Why are so many saying one groups butthurt is more equal than another group's butthurt?

Why does this bakery get special rights? How about an answer.....

What's so special about it? Why does your butt hurt outweigh theirs?

They get to have a business license and get to ignore the state laws they are supposed to abide by. So...why do they get the special rights to ignore what all other businesses have to follow?

The law when applied like this is being wrongly applied to hurt feelings instead of actual harm.

 

[Silhouette]

So...again...why do these bakers deserve special rights that no one else with an Oregon business license gets?

Oh, I imagine that if a homosexual graphic designer wanted the right to refuse to make a highway billboard sign for a major interstate that says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God", he'd have that right in a nanosecond.

 

[martybegan]

Harm is harm. Harm is not hurt feelings.

Says who? Oh yeah, I forgot. Says you. You alone get to be the arbiter. That's ******* sick. You want to be master of us all.

No no no...remember...just his opinion, right?

Yes it is. If you can;t handle that, get off message boards, or go to an echo chamber like DU.

View attachment 90764

I never stated otherwise. You idiots are the ones who keep going with the "High and Mighty Marty" crap.

its a cop out used by lazy people like you when you don't feel like arguing a point anymore.

Next I guess you are going with the "law is the law" and "judges know better than you" lines of weaseling out of a conversation.

 

[martybegan]

Why are so many saying one groups butthurt is more equal than another group's butthurt?

Why does this bakery get special rights? How about an answer.....

What's so special about it? Why does your butt hurt outweigh theirs?

They get to have a business license and get to ignore the state laws they are supposed to abide by. So...why do they get the special rights to ignore what all other businesses have to follow?

The law when applied like this is being wrongly applied to hurt feelings instead of actual harm.

View attachment 90766

You really are out of ideas, aren't you?

 

[SwimExpert]

Harm is harm. Harm is not hurt feelings.

Says who? Oh yeah, I forgot. Says you. You alone get to be the arbiter. That's ******* sick. You want to be master of us all.

Harm is harm. Harm is not hurt feelings.

Says who? Oh yeah, I forgot. Says you. You alone get to be the arbiter. That's ******* sick. You want to be master of us all.

I'm voicing my opinion, nothing more or less. You seem to be one of those people who only think your own opinions are valid.

You are positing your opinion as the basis you expect to guide constitutional application. Whenever a constitutional question arises, the judges will all have to come ask Marty.

If you don't want to hear opinions you disagree with, then get the hell of message boards. or go to echo chambers like DU.

Seriously, when people like you go with the "he knows better than the experts, all hail X" line of debate, it means you have run out of actual counters and things to say.

You're melting down, Marty. You're free to express your opinion. But what you are arguing is that your personal opinion should be the what guides the law. Instead of a system of law that operates on objective principles, you want the subjectivity of your own personal assessment of what does or does not constitute harm in given situations to be the principles upon which our laws rely. That is an argument which will be rejected every single time. If you can't handle having your bullshit "opinions" torn apart to shreds, then get the off message boards.

 

[Silhouette]

You're melting down, Marty. You're free to express your opinion. But what you are arguing is that your personal opinion should be the what guides the law. Instead of a system of law that operates on objective principles, you want the subjectivity of your own personal assessment of what does or does not constitute harm in given situations to be the principles upon which our laws rely. That is an argument which will be rejected every single time. If you can't handle having your bullshit "opinions" torn apart to shreds, then get the off message boards.

Objective. You mean like forcing a gay graphic designer to print a highway billboard sign for a major interstate that says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God"?

Or forcing a Muslim baker to bake a cake for a "gay wedding"?

You need to get clear on what "objective" means in law when taken to its extreme degree when suppressing the 1st Amendment.

 

[Dana7360]

"So the court must determine: Has Oregon, for example, compelled Catholics to sculpt totems for Wiccan rituals? Feminists to photograph fraternity initiations? Pro-life filmmakers to video abortions?" the brief asks. "It has not, and that ends the case."

THAT is spot on.

No it's not spot on.

I'm not a lawyer and I can shred that to pieces in a matter of minutes.

Catholics don't sculpt totem poles, no one has asked them to. Christians don't sculpt totem poles for theirs or anyone else's religion so if a pagan asked one to make a pole for them, the catholic isn't discriminating. They aren't making totem poles for anyone else either. Plus that's not what the catholic church does. They're religion and saving souls.

Fraternity initiations are private. Only those who are members of that fraternity can attend. No one else. If the fraternity did allow anyone else to attend and photograph it but not a feminist they would be discriminating. Just as with the totem poles, they aren't discriminating against someone.

A medical procedure is a private situation. The constitution guarantees everyone privacy. Plus we have specific medical privacy laws that give us further privacy with our medical records and all medical procedures. Plus, no perfect stranger to the woman has ever asked to video the procedure so if some anti choice crazy person actually had the nerve to do such a thing, being refused isn't discriminating since everyone else doesn't video it either.

Each of those cases has nothing to do with a business. Churches aren't a business. A private fraternity isn't a business. A private person having a medical procedure isn't a business. None of those people are selling anything to the public for money so none of those situations could ever apply.

But it seems that you and the lawyer who wrote that really aren't that bright.

 

[Silhouette]

Dana needs to read post #551 And remember Dana, the right to the 1st Amendment doesn't end when a person walks down the steps of the church or mosque or synagogue....or even the gay bathhouse worship center either for that matter I suppose...The right to freedom of expression and religion continues with the individual no matter where they are or what they are doing; including business.

Catholic obstetricians can't be forced to perform abortions. Muslims to prepare raw pork at their deli. And so on.

 

[rightwinger]

Gays may have a sizeable presence in our major cities

But in rural Jesusland, they are still outcasts. It is easy for any ***-hater to invoke the bible as an excuse for not serving gays while they have no reservations about participating in a wedding of a pregnant bride marrying her cousin.

You speak about "gays" as if they are a cult. And so they are. Just so the reader is familiar with the term "*** hater"....it's one most often used by gays themselves to drum up sympathy for the "oppression" they feel from the courts...er...I mean people in Bible country. It's also synonymous with "anyone who has reasonable objections to the Church of LGBT."

I despise the term "homophobic"...it is so benign and hides the degree of hate behind it
There is no better description of the bible thumping bigots than "***-hater"

 

[martybegan]

Harm is harm. Harm is not hurt feelings.

Says who? Oh yeah, I forgot. Says you. You alone get to be the arbiter. That's ******* sick. You want to be master of us all.

Harm is harm. Harm is not hurt feelings.

Says who? Oh yeah, I forgot. Says you. You alone get to be the arbiter. That's ******* sick. You want to be master of us all.

I'm voicing my opinion, nothing more or less. You seem to be one of those people who only think your own opinions are valid.

You are positing your opinion as the basis you expect to guide constitutional application. Whenever a constitutional question arises, the judges will all have to come ask Marty.

If you don't want to hear opinions you disagree with, then get the hell of message boards. or go to echo chambers like DU.

Seriously, when people like you go with the "he knows better than the experts, all hail X" line of debate, it means you have run out of actual counters and things to say.

You're melting down, Marty. You're free to express your opinion. But what you are arguing is that your personal opinion should be the what guides the law. Instead of a system of law that operates on objective principles, you want the subjectivity of your own personal assessment of what does or does not constitute harm in given situations to be the principles upon which our laws rely. That is an argument which will be rejected every single time. If you can't handle having your bullshit "opinions" torn apart to shreds, then get the off message boards.

That's how any implementation of a law is applied. its what the courts are actually there for. its what the SC does when it decides how to restrict a right, or how to allow a law to impact people. So when Scalia looked at the case in Heller, he decided that the right to keep arms outweighed the desire of the local government to "protect" people by denying handgun ownership.

All I am doing is applying my view to the situation, to the balance between the rights of people to practice their religion, their right to act on their own conscience, to the right of others to engage in commerce. my view is the government can only intervene when it has a compelling interest to, and there is actual harm done to one of the parties. your view is commerce trumps all, and outweighs any rights the people have to refuse to take part in something they want no part of.

And what you are doing is not shredding my opinions, what you are doing is arguing the mechanics of the opinion, which just means you are done arguing the point itself.

I guess you have gotten lazy countering the "Jebus says so people", and can't handle the argument from a libertarian perspective that ignores the morality question, and argues the freedom of choice angle.

 

[rightwinger]

So a town has two hotels

One has a renowned wedding facility, excellent chefs, first rate accommodations and a beautiful view of the water at sunset

The other is on the interstate and is next to a truck stop

No harm as long as another hotel is available. What is wrong with a gay couple expecting the best for their wedding? Why should they have to settle for less?

Why would they want to be served by people that detest their way of life?

and I had my wedding 5 towns over from where I live, it's called cars.

Why have a wedding next to a truck stop? Why not expect the best
We saw the accommodations offered to blacks as an alternative. Outhouses instead of flush toilets. Water pump instead of running water. Eating in back of a kitchen instead of the dining room

We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone

Considering gays have a sizable presence in the wedding industry, your analogy about 2nd class services fails on its merit.

You are the one going all argumentum ad abusrdum, not me. You are the one going all or nothing.

You are the one that feels the need to force your views on others using the government gun barrel.

Gays may have a sizeable presence in our major cities

But in rural Jesusland, they are still outcasts. It is easy for any ***-hater to invoke the bible as an excuse for not serving gays while they have no reservations about participating in a wedding of a pregnant bride marrying her cousin.

Jesus... do you lie awake at night dreaming up this drivel?

Hits you where you live doesn't it Jethro?

 

[Silhouette]

I despise the term "homophobic"...it is so benign and hides the degree of hate behind it
There is no better description of the bible thumping bigots than "***-hater"

Oh you poor poor thing. Someone disagrees with you so "you're hated!" ...Quick! Give his church of LGBT anything they want in courts! STAT! We don't want a cult to experience a single setback in their organized push to completely dominate society and stamp out the rights of Christians!!

The sympathy ship has sailed when Obergefell passed you dumbass. Try something new because crying wolf is now falling on deaf ears..

 

[rightwinger]

So...again...why do these bakers deserve special rights that no one else with an Oregon business license gets?

Why doesn't any other business in Oregon get to say...I object to weddings between Jews and Christians so they can take their business elsewhere

 

[SwimExpert]

You're melting down, Marty. You're free to express your opinion. But what you are arguing is that your personal opinion should be the what guides the law. Instead of a system of law that operates on objective principles, you want the subjectivity of your own personal assessment of what does or does not constitute harm in given situations to be the principles upon which our laws rely. That is an argument which will be rejected every single time. If you can't handle having your bullshit "opinions" torn apart to shreds, then get the off message boards.

Objective. You mean like forcing a gay graphic designer to print a highway billboard sign for a major interstate that says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God"?

Or forcing a Muslim baker to bake a cake for a "gay wedding"?

You need to get clear on what "objective" means in law when taken to its extreme degree when suppressing the 1st Amendment.

Uh, no. I am opposed to forcing people to provide service. I believe that people should be allowed to refuse service.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ Yep. And a gay graphic designer would agree with you if he was asked to print a highway billboard sign that read "Homosexuality is a sin unto God"...