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

[bodecea]

Where did I say that sexual orientation was a race? Oh, that's right, I didn't. What is the same is the discrimination faced by interracial couples wanting to marry and gays wanting to marry. The similarity between the two are actually in the bigots that oppose them, not the groups themselves.

We did not allow bakers, photographers or candlestick makers to discriminate against interracial couples even thought they found their relationships sinful, abhorrent, disgusting, etc. Why should anti gay bigots get to discriminate where racist bigots did not?

So, you're saying people can make a choice as to what race they are? Do tell...

She thinks homosexuality is a race. Anything that applies to race should apply to homosexuals. Except that they didn't want blacks marrying whites because the races would be mixed. She's too stupid to understand that like genders don't reproduce.

No, I don't. I never once said that being gay was like being a race. I said the discrimination suffered by interracial couples was exactly the same as the discrimination suffered by gay couples.

Can you tell the difference between quotes about interracial marriage and gay marriage?

Bet You Can’t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes

You did it again. You are brainwashed and live in denial.

We all are to a certain degree.

Civil marriage, once rational because there was a biological reason for it, has little basis to exist anymore.

Once the two opposite units were removed (a man and a woman), the reasoning for any limits as to who or how many may participate in these partnerships went out the window.

No marriage law that exists has sexual contact as a requirement.

Prior to Obergfell, there was a clear assumption of such, after, no such assumption exists.

It is now simply a financial arrangement (see Windsor), that groups and family members are, for some undisclosed reason, excluded from.

Perplexing.

So...work to get rid of civil marriage. Good luck with that.....

 

[WorldWatcher]

1. The 7th Circuit federal court of appeals just found in Hively v Ivy Tech (2016), that the 1964 Civil Rights Act does not apply to homosexuals...

Which is irrelevant since the bakers violated State law and not the Civil Rights act.


>>>>

 

[bodecea]

Racist bigots who feel it's a sin to serve an interracial couple either serve the couple or go out of business.

Yeah...if it's because people reject their approach to business (i.e. not serving homosexuals). It should be because the government overstepped their autority.

It is because "the people reject their approach to business" (i.e. not serving gays, interracial couples, Muslims) "The government" are representatives of the people. Title II of the Civil Rights act was "the people" deciding that discrimination in Public Accommodation based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was against the law. Local public accommodation laws are "the people" deciding that discrimination in Public Accommodation for things like veteran status and sexual orientation was against the law.

Instead of going after local laws, state's right defender, go after the grandaddy, Title II of the Civil Rights Act if you want to be able to discriminate in business.

The "people" don't decide anything. They sure as hell didn't decide to legalize gay marriage. Even radically left-wing California rejected gay marriage (remember Prop 8?). The most liberal state in the world reject gay marriage. The people had spoken. And then 9 unelected activists decided they wanted to play dictator and decide for 330 million Americans how to live their lives.

The problem is - like all progressives - you can't accept the will of the people. You want to force your unhinged views and beliefs on all of society. Instead of just living your life as you see fit and leaving me alone to live my life as I see fit.

When did the people vote for straight marriage?


Anyways, if you don't like civil marriage laws because of legalized gay marriage....get rid of them for everyone. THAT is equality.

(Oh, did I mention that religious marriage for gays has been around for at least 20 years?,,,so, getting rid of civil marriage all together will not get rid of the gays marrying)

 

[WorldWatcher]

The "people" don't decide anything. They sure as hell didn't decide to legalize gay marriage. Even radically left-wing California rejected gay marriage (remember Prop 8?). The most liberal state in the world reject gay marriage. The people had spoken. And then 9 unelected activists decided they wanted to play dictator and decide for 330 million Americans how to live their lives.

The problem is - like all progressives - you can't accept the will of the people. You want to force your unhinged views and beliefs on all of society. Instead of just living your life as you see fit and leaving me alone to live my life as I see fit.

Sure they did. Same-sex civil marriage was passed both the legislatures of many states and by ballot vote in multiplke states (IIRC 4) prior to the Obergefel decision.


>>>>

 

[P@triot]

In private business as per free-market capitalism the government should not compel you to serve anybody. It is unconstitutional in my opinion. Screw the Commerce Clause in Art I Sec. 8 and modern Courts interpretation.

Public Accommodation laws in the case of the bakers exist at the State level which is management of intra-state commerce. Don't you like the 10th Amendment?

That's the idiotic equivalent of saying New York's gun ban exists at the state level - don't you like the 10th Amendment?

Of course. I love the 10th Amendment. But not when it is utilized by bat-shit crazy progressive Dumbocrats to do something illegal - like take away my rights. I have a right to carry a gun and bat-shit crazy progressives can't outlaw that at the state level and then cry "10th Amendment". It doesn't work that way. The 10th Amendment is not a blank check to strip the American people of all of their rights and freedoms. Epic fail. Incredibly stupid. Fantastically desperate. Would you lie to try again chief?

Besides....you national socialists hate the 10th Amendment. You want everyone in the entire country to nazi goose-step in the exact same direction. Don't cry 10th Amendment when you get desperate after you've spent your lives denouncing the 10th Amendment.

 

[P@triot]

Anyways, if you don't like civil marriage laws because of legalized gay marriage....get rid of them for everyone. THAT is equality.

(Oh, did I mention that religious marriage for gays has been around for at least 20 years?,,,so, getting rid of civil marriage all together will not get rid of the gays marrying)

I have zero problem with gay marriage. The issue is forcing the government to redefine marriage and then recognize it. If a homosexual can find a church (or even if they want to do their own ceremony sans a church) - go for it! I'm all for it. The issue is forcing the government of the people to recognize it against the will of the people.

 

[bodecea]

Anyways, if you don't like civil marriage laws because of legalized gay marriage....get rid of them for everyone. THAT is equality.

(Oh, did I mention that religious marriage for gays has been around for at least 20 years?,,,so, getting rid of civil marriage all together will not get rid of the gays marrying)

I have zero problem with gay marriage. The issue is forcing the government to redefine marriage and then recognize it. If a homosexual can find a church (or even if they want to do their own ceremony sans a church) - go for it! I'm all for it. The issue is forcing the government of the people to recognize it against the will of the people.

You mean the "will of people you agree with"....if the majority of the People didn't want gay marriage to be legal, a Constitutional amendment would be in the works right now. Where is that amendment?

 

[P@triot]

The "people" don't decide anything. They sure as hell didn't decide to legalize gay marriage. Even radically left-wing California rejected gay marriage (remember Prop 8?). The most liberal state in the world reject gay marriage. The people had spoken. And then 9 unelected activists decided they wanted to play dictator and decide for 330 million Americans how to live their lives.

The problem is - like all progressives - you can't accept the will of the people. You want to force your unhinged views and beliefs on all of society. Instead of just living your life as you see fit and leaving me alone to live my life as I see fit.

Sure they did. Same-sex civil marriage was passed both the legislatures of many states and by ballot vote in multiplke states (IIRC 4) prior to the Obergefel decision.

Yeah....and in those rare cases it was perfectly fine. I've never once complained that Vermont legalized gay marriage years ago. That was the choice of the people of that state. That is how it is supposed to work. Meanwhile, the people of California rejected gay marriage. What happened? 5 unelected political activists shoved it down their throats against their will (I said 9 earlier but that's not really fair since 4 did actually uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution).

 

[Silhouette]

1. The 7th Circuit federal court of appeals just found in Hively v Ivy Tech (2016), that the 1964 Civil Rights Act does not apply to homosexuals...

Which is irrelevant since the bakers violated State law and not the Civil Rights act.


>>>>

Yes but state law is saying homosexuals are a protected class; when they are not. A behavior cannot be a protected class. That's what the 7th circuit found. It's akin to Oregon ordering its citizens to do aerobics every morning or be fined or otherwise punished.

Again, what does Oregon do with a gay graphic designer who refuses to print a huge highway billboard sign for a Christian customer that says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God"? Fine him? Revoke his license for acting on his deeply held beliefs?

 

[P@triot]

Anyways, if you don't like civil marriage laws because of legalized gay marriage....get rid of them for everyone. THAT is equality.

(Oh, did I mention that religious marriage for gays has been around for at least 20 years?,,,so, getting rid of civil marriage all together will not get rid of the gays marrying)

I have zero problem with gay marriage. The issue is forcing the government to redefine marriage and then recognize it. If a homosexual can find a church (or even if they want to do their own ceremony sans a church) - go for it! I'm all for it. The issue is forcing the government of the people to recognize it against the will of the people.

You mean the "will of people you agree with"....if the majority of the People didn't want gay marriage to be legal, a Constitutional amendment would be in the works right now. Where is that amendment?

Why would the people take the time for an Amendment when the Constitution already covers this and yet unhinged bat-shit crazy progressives ignore it and violate the highest law of the land?

Obergfell was a major violation of the U.S. Constitution. What good would it do to redundantly legislate what already exists and is ignored?

 

[P@triot]

....if the majority of the People didn't want gay marriage to be legal...

What do you mean "if"? Aside from the polls which shows the American people overwhelmingly reject it, all one has to do is look at Proposition 8 in California. When the most liberal state in the union votes down gay marriage, it's pretty clear that American people reject it.

What - have you really convinced yourself in your mind that the people of Utah, Texas, and Florida are supporting it while Californians aren't?

 

[WorldWatcher]

That's the idiotic equivalent of saying New York's gun ban exists at the state level - don't you like the 10th Amendment?

Of course. I love the 10th Amendment. But not when it is utilized by bat-shit crazy progressive Dumbocrats to do something illegal - like take away my rights. I have a right to carry a gun and bat-shit crazy progressives can't outlaw that at the state level and then cry "10th Amendment". It doesn't work that way. The 10th Amendment is not a blank check to strip the American people of all of their rights and freedoms. Epic fail. Incredibly stupid. Fantastically desperate. Would you lie to try again chief?

Besides....you national socialists hate the 10th Amendment. You want everyone in the entire country to nazi goose-step in the exact same direction. Don't cry 10th Amendment when you get desperate after you've spent your lives denouncing the 10th Amendment.

"you national socialist..." WTF?

I'm a Republican and support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws as applied to private businesses. If a Christian baker doesn't want to serve gays? I'm fine with that. If a Gay baker doesn't want to serve a hell-fire and brimstone preacher because of his religion? I'm fine with that. If a racists doesn't want to seat an interracial couple in his restaurant? I'm fine with that.

Public Accommodation laws should ONLY apply to government entities pertaining to their services to the public and the ability of those government entities to contract services or purchase goods from businesses with known discriminatory practices.

I have corrected those the incorrectly think that this is an issue because of federal anti-discrimination law, it's not - the law is a state law.


>>>>

 

[Pop23]

So, you're saying people can make a choice as to what race they are? Do tell...

She thinks homosexuality is a race. Anything that applies to race should apply to homosexuals. Except that they didn't want blacks marrying whites because the races would be mixed. She's too stupid to understand that like genders don't reproduce.

No, I don't. I never once said that being gay was like being a race. I said the discrimination suffered by interracial couples was exactly the same as the discrimination suffered by gay couples.

Can you tell the difference between quotes about interracial marriage and gay marriage?

Bet You Can’t Tell The Difference Between These Actual Anti-Interracial And Anti-Gay Marriage Quotes

You did it again. You are brainwashed and live in denial.

We all are to a certain degree.

Civil marriage, once rational because there was a biological reason for it, has little basis to exist anymore.

Once the two opposite units were removed (a man and a woman), the reasoning for any limits as to who or how many may participate in these partnerships went out the window.

No marriage law that exists has sexual contact as a requirement.

Prior to Obergfell, there was a clear assumption of such, after, no such assumption exists.

It is now simply a financial arrangement (see Windsor), that groups and family members are, for some undisclosed reason, excluded from.

Perplexing.

So...work to get rid of civil marriage. Good luck with that.....

You started it, it's bound to happen.

 

[WorldWatcher]

/

Yes but state law is saying homosexuals are a protected class;

This is true.

when they are not.

This is false. Sexual Orientation is a protected class under the law of Oregon and (IIRC) about 20 other states.

A behavior cannot be a protected class.

Sure it can, religion is a behavior and it is protected in the same law. The Constitution protects GOVERNMENT discrimination based on religion and has no impact on private discrimination. Oregon law recognizes religion as a behavior that protects against discrimination based on behavior.

The same law that protects sexual orientation and religion (both behaviors under your view) protects "martial status" which is also a behavior.

That's what the 7th circuit found.

The 7th Circuit didn't find jack-shit about the Oregon Public Accommodation law. It said the employment section of the 1964 Civil Rights act didn't include sexual orientation. The Oregon law does cover sexual orientation because it specifically cites sexual orienation (along with religion and marital status) as protected classes.


It's akin to Oregon ordering its citizens to do aerobics every morning or be fined or otherwise punished.

Again, what does Oregon do with a gay graphic designer who refuses to print a huge highway billboard sign for a Christian customer that says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God"? Fine him? Revoke his license for acting on his deeply held beliefs?

You'd have to ask Oregon. Two different issues. In the baker case they refused to sell them ANY wedding cake (even if one from their portfolio) with no changes. No messages, no writing, no offensive statements.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

....if the majority of the People didn't want gay marriage to be legal...

What do you mean "if"? Aside from the polls which shows the American people overwhelmingly reject it, all one has to do is look at Proposition 8 in California. When the most liberal state in the union votes down gay marriage, it's pretty clear that American people reject it.

What - have you really convinced yourself in your mind that the people of Utah, Texas, and Florida are supporting it while Californians aren't?

I know. It's as if they tell a lie long enough, it "becomes true!!".

Only, it doesn't. Browns have filed their brief to have polygamy cite Obergefell eventually to force all 50 states to allow it too. I suppose now the LGBT will tell us that "most people are in favor of polygamy marriage!!". There's more bullshit coming out of their mouths than in all the holding pens in Spain...

 

[Bush92]

No it is not "as you see fit". Rastafarians don't get to practice their religion"as they see fit". You can practice your religion within the confines of the law.

The U.S. Constitution is the law my dear and it supercedes any and all other laws (the Supremacy Clause establishes as much). It says I have a right to practice my religion as I see fit (so long as I do not violate your rights in the process). The U.S. Constitution does not grant you rights to my labor. This isn't complicated.

The Constitution is interpreted by the Courts. If liberals have seats on federal court...liberty is fucked.

 

[P@triot]

Public Accommodation laws should ONLY apply to government entities...

Well we agree 100% on that... A private business on private property has the right (by the U.S. Constitution) to engage or not engage in business transactions with anyone they choose to.

 

[Silhouette]

Public Accommodation laws should ONLY apply to government entities...

Well we agree 100% on that... A private business on private property has the right (by the U.S. Constitution) to engage or not engage in business transactions with anyone they choose to.

Worldy is only saying that because he doesn't want a gay graphic designer to be forced to go against his deeply held beliefs and be made to print, under threat of financial or licensing duress, a huge highway billboard sign for a Christian customer that says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God"
......then all of a sudden "PA laws just don't make sense anymore!"...

 

[Pop23]

/

Yes but state law is saying homosexuals are a protected class;

This is true.

when they are not.

This is false. Sexual Orientation is a protected class under the law of Oregon and (IIRC) about 20 other states.

A behavior cannot be a protected class.

Sure it can, religion is a behavior and it is protected in the same law. The Constitution protects GOVERNMENT discrimination based on religion and has no impact on private discrimination. Oregon law recognizes religion as a behavior that protects against discrimination based on behavior.

The same law that protects sexual orientation and religion (both behaviors under your view) protects "martial status" which is also a behavior.

That's what the 7th circuit found.

The 7th Circuit didn't find jack-shit about the Oregon Public Accommodation law. It said the employment section of the 1964 Civil Rights act didn't include sexual orientation. The Oregon law does cover sexual orientation because it specifically cites sexual orienation (along with religion and marital status) as protected classes.


It's akin to Oregon ordering its citizens to do aerobics every morning or be fined or otherwise punished.

Again, what does Oregon do with a gay graphic designer who refuses to print a huge highway billboard sign for a Christian customer that says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God"? Fine him? Revoke his license for acting on his deeply held beliefs?

You'd have to ask Oregon. Two different issues. In the baker case they refused to sell them ANY wedding cake (even if one from their portfolio) with no changes. No messages, no writing, no offensive statements.



>>>>

Religion is not a group. And is protected in the constitution

 

[Pop23]

....if the majority of the People didn't want gay marriage to be legal...

What do you mean "if"? Aside from the polls which shows the American people overwhelmingly reject it, all one has to do is look at Proposition 8 in California. When the most liberal state in the union votes down gay marriage, it's pretty clear that American people reject it.

What - have you really convinced yourself in your mind that the people of Utah, Texas, and Florida are supporting it while Californians aren't?

I know. It's as if they tell a lie long enough, it "becomes true!!".

Only, it doesn't. Browns have filed their brief to have polygamy cite Obergefell eventually to force all 50 states to allow it too. I suppose now the LGBT will tell us that "most people are in favor of polygamy marriage!!". There's more bullshit coming out of their mouths than in all the holding pens in Spain...

True, and the Browns have a winning argument since no marriage law explains why this partnership excludes more than two or excludes family members. No other legal partnership does, and when Obergfell excluded the requirement "one man to one woman", the other exclusions have no rational legal basis.