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

[P@triot]

Such stupidity and ignorance.

Right? And yet progressives continue with this ignorant oppression. People are free to make their own choices and they don't owe anyone a damn thing. The government has no right to turn anyone away as we are all citizens and all tax payers (well - in theory anyway...in reality only 52% of us pay federal taxes) but a private entity on private property has every right to turn anyone away.

 

[ChrisL]

If you are going to open a business that serves the public, then be aware, the public includes people you may not agree with.

Microsoft serves the public. The sell their Windows O/S in retail stores across the nation (such as Best Buy, etc.). Does that mean the government has the right and the power to force them into a lucrative business contracts with their competitors like Apple and Google? Should they be forced to purchase their hardware from Apple and some of their software from Google?

That's completely different than a public accommodation business refusing to serve a portion of the public based on discriminatory reasons.

How? How is that even remotely different?!? Explain it. You can't just yell "that's different" and then run away if you want anyone to seriously consider your views.

I already did explain it. It's pretty simple. If you open a business that serves the PUBLIC, then you have agreed to serve the public, which includes homosexuals.

 

[ChrisL]

Such stupidity and ignorance.

Right? And yet progressives continue with this ignorant oppression. People are free to make their own choices and they don't owe anyone a damn thing. The government has no right to turn anyone away as we are all citizens and all tax payers (well - in theory anyway...in reality only 52% of us pay federal taxes) but a private entity on private property has every right to turn anyone away.

Oppression? It sounds like you are the one doing the oppressing and throwing a tantrum because you cannot oppress homosexuals anymore.

 

[rightwinger]

I'm still trying to figure out WHY they are so opposed to baking a cake for a homosexual wedding? It's just business. I don't understand how you can treat other people like that either.

Agree...it does seem rather petty for a peripheral service

And frankly - if I was a baker, I would make the cake. Why lose out on the business?

But that's not the issue. The issue is that it violates their faith. And the government has no right to make them violate their faith. The government simply does not have the authority to tell private people on private property that they must enter into business transactions.

The government has no right to force an individual to violate their faith......a business is a different matter

Want to bet? Show me where in the Constitution it grants to government the power over private institutions on private property. And don't even come at me with that weak ass "Commerce Clause" argument because the Commerce Clause applies to foreign commerce (as it clearly states) and matters of interstate commerce (as it clearly states). When a citizen of Oregon attempts to buy a cake from a bakery in Oregon, that is neither "foreign" nor "interstate". So? How about chief? What are going to make up now?

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

This law is covered under Oregon state law. It is therefore a function of the tenth amendment....the one conservatives hold so dear

 

[Pop23]

Made far easier because the arguments are now set in stone by the courts.

It will take far less time now thanks to gays.

You might as well thank interracial marriage.....they laid the legal groundwork

But Loving left in the biological reasoning of "one man to one woman"

See the compelling state reason why family members were denied. Hmmmm Einstein?

Or has no one taught you the birds and the bees?

Quote the "left in the biological reasoning" from Loving.

"One man to one woman". There is only one biological process that can be accomplished by that coupling of biological units that can't be accomplished by same sex.

Care to hazard a guess what that might be?

No fair, it's a trick question. Honestly, it's like they pound square pegs into round holes and ask who says it's wrong?

It's what happens when laws are modified through other than legislative process

 

[BlindBoo]

I'm still trying to figure out WHY they are so opposed to baking a cake for a homosexual wedding? It's just business. I don't understand how you can treat other people like that either.

Agree...it does seem rather petty for a peripheral service

And frankly - if I was a baker, I would make the cake. Why lose out on the business?

But that's not the issue. The issue is that it violates their faith. And the government has no right to make them violate their faith. The government simply does not have the authority to tell private people on private property that they must enter into business transactions.

The government has no right to force an individual to violate their faith......a business is a different matter

Want to bet? Show me where in the Constitution it grants to government the power over private institutions on private property. And don't even come at me with that weak ass "Commerce Clause" argument because the Commerce Clause applies to foreign commerce (as it clearly states) and matters of interstate commerce (as it clearly states). When a citizen of Oregon attempts to buy a cake from a bakery in Oregon, that is neither "foreign" nor "interstate". So? How about chief? What are going to make up now?

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

Oregon was the State that passed the PA law that included protection for the LGBT community. This is a States Rights issue.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And their "original meaning under common law"...? (anyone here remember PA laws being part of common law? )

One thing about you troll, you're dumb as a stump.

Hospitality law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Iceweasel]

I'm still trying to figure out WHY they are so opposed to baking a cake for a homosexual wedding? It's just business. I don't understand how you can treat other people like that either.

Agree...it does seem rather petty for a peripheral service

And frankly - if I was a baker, I would make the cake. Why lose out on the business?

But that's not the issue. The issue is that it violates their faith. And the government has no right to make them violate their faith. The government simply does not have the authority to tell private people on private property that they must enter into business transactions.

The government has no right to force an individual to violate their faith......a business is a different matter

Want to bet? Show me where in the Constitution it grants to government the power over private institutions on private property. And don't even come at me with that weak ass "Commerce Clause" argument because the Commerce Clause applies to foreign commerce (as it clearly states) and matters of interstate commerce (as it clearly states). When a citizen of Oregon attempts to buy a cake from a bakery in Oregon, that is neither "foreign" nor "interstate". So? How about chief? What are going to make up now?

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

Oregon was the State that passed the PA law that included protection for the LGBT community. This is a States Rights issue.

...because it isn't a constitutional one.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oregon was the State that passed the PA law that included protection for the LGBT community. This is a States Rights issue.

That's what you democrats said about keeping your slaves, too.

 

[P@triot]

I already did explain it. It's pretty simple. If you open a business that serves the PUBLIC, then you have agreed to serve the public, which includes homosexuals.

Then Microsoft can be forced to purchase their hardware from Apple and software from Google! If you can force a business that "serves the public" into business transactions then you can force a business to help their competitors with large contracts. This is a special kind of stupid that any reasonable person would reject.

 

[P@triot]

This law is covered under Oregon state law. It is therefore a function of the tenth amendment....the one conservatives hold so dear

I wouldn't expect a progressive to grasp this - but the 10th Amendment does not empower the states to violate the U.S. Constitution. My 1st Amendment rights are immune from state legislation. The Supremacy Clause establishes as much.

Any other angles you'd like to try? If nothing else, at least people are learning about the U.S. Constitution from your far-fetched attempts to justify fascism.

 

[ChrisL]

Who thinks that they will go to hell for baking a cake and providing a service to homosexuals?

If the person is an otherwise good person, do you think they will go to hell because of their sexual preference?

Isn't judgment supposed to be left to your God? If a person is a homosexual and marries a homosexual, that is their OWN free will. Providing them with a cake for their wedding isn't going to affect or change anything.

This whole thing is beyond ridiculous.

 

[P@triot]

Such stupidity and ignorance.

Right? And yet progressives continue with this ignorant oppression. People are free to make their own choices and they don't owe anyone a damn thing. The government has no right to turn anyone away as we are all citizens and all tax payers (well - in theory anyway...in reality only 52% of us pay federal taxes) but a private entity on private property has every right to turn anyone away.

Oppression? It sounds like you are the one doing the oppressing and throwing a tantrum because you cannot oppress homosexuals anymore.

Forcing people to do something is oppression. If someone doesn't bake a cake for a homosexual, that is not oppressing them.

And I've already stated for the record that I would gladly bake the cake for the revenue. So your personal attacks out of the frustration that you cannot defend your irrational position is nonsense.

 

[Uncensored2008]

A baker has no idea what goes on behind closed doors....nor is it any of his business

Then why are lesbians compelled to come in announcing it?

In fact, why do they need to SPECIFICALLY target a Christian baker when 3 others were within 5 miles?

Ah yes, the left's war on civil rights....

1. They didn't come in and "announce" it the baker asked who was getting married.

2. They didn't "SPECIFICALLY target" the Christian baker, the bakery had provided the cake a couple of years earlier for the mother (around 2011) and they came across the baker at a bridal show in Portland in late 2013 and expressed a desire to have them make the wedding cake. Due to both the previous cake purchase and bridal show event the emailed for an appointment.


http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet Cakes FO.pdf


>>>>

So? They are too frail to take no for an answer? Most of us learn that by the time we are 5.

I was responding to the idea that they waltzed in and "announced" it and that they specifically targeted the bakery. Who knew the insidious bastards would purchase a wedding cake for their mother 2 years prior as part of their diabolical plan to target this bakery and then getting and invite from one of the owners during a bridal show.

Personally I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws. There is something wrong when a religious baker can refuse service based on the customers being gay but a gay business owner cannot refuse service because of the customers religion. In once case its illegal in about 21 states, on the other it's illegal in all 50 states. Wanna bet which is which?



>>>>

The (insanely biased) BOLS complaint makes it clear that they DID specifically target Sweet Cakes. They had seen them at a baking competition. Since Sweet Cakes adorned their shop with Christian imagery, there is no doubt that the couple knew exactly what the shop was. The case was pursued specifically to test 1st amendment protection of freedom of religion. The anti-liberty left prevailed in this case.

 

[P@triot]

Who thinks that they will go to hell for baking a cake and providing a service to homosexuals?

You would have to ask them that question. I can only speculate. I suspect they are simply trying to follow God's word.

If the person is an otherwise good person, do you think they will go to hell because of their sexual preference?

I'm honestly not sure about this one. I've thought quite a bit about it. Here is my best guess. And it is only a guess. I do not profess to speak on God's behalf or even remotely know what He wants communicated on this issue: I believe that God makes everyone. So my best guess regarding homosexuals is that it is a test. Jesus said "deny yourself, pick up the cross, and follow me". My guess is that God made some people homosexual as a test of their worthiness. Will they deny themselves, pick up the cross, and follow him to prove they are worthy?

As far as will they go to heaven - it is my understanding that anyone who accepts Jesus Chris as their lord and savior and repents of their sins will be forgiven. God has endless mercy. Endless. So I suspect they will. But again - that's just my guess. I do not profess to speak for God.

Isn't judgment supposed to be left to your God? If a person is a homosexual and marries a homosexual, that is their OWN free will. Providing them with a cake for their wedding isn't going to affect or change anything. This whole thing is beyond ridiculous.

Yes. And it isn't "judgement" to say "no thank you - this violates my faith". That isn't judgement at all. That's another false narrative born out of a desperate attempt to justify an irrational opinion that it should be ok for the federal government to force everyone into a belief or action.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Who thinks that they will go to hell for baking a cake and providing a service to homosexuals?

If the person is an otherwise good person, do you think they will go to hell because of their sexual preference?

Isn't judgment supposed to be left to your God? If a person is a homosexual and marries a homosexual, that is their OWN free will. Providing them with a cake for their wedding isn't going to affect or change anything.

This whole thing is beyond ridiculous.

It makes no difference.

In a free country, people have a right to live according to their religious beliefs, provided those beliefs do not cause actual harm to others (causation tort). Whether you agree with the religious principles of others has no bearing on the fact that our constitution protects the inherent right of others to follow the religion of their choice.

 

[P@triot]

Oregon was the State that passed the PA law that included protection for the LGBT community. This is a States Rights issue.

No it's not. Gay marriage is a states rights issue. Violating the U.S. Constitution is not permitted. The Supremacy Clause protects my 1st Amendment rights against any state law.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Who thinks that they will go to hell for baking a cake and providing a service to homosexuals?

If the person is an otherwise good person, do you think they will go to hell because of their sexual preference?

Isn't judgment supposed to be left to your God? If a person is a homosexual and marries a homosexual, that is their OWN free will. Providing them with a cake for their wedding isn't going to affect or change anything.

This whole thing is beyond ridiculous.

You have the two issues confused. It's no one's business whether someone will go to hell because of their sexual preference. That's not what concerns the bakers. The bakers believe that they will go to hell if they condone or participate in a same sex marriage. This is a judgment that they are making for themselves.

If someone believes they will go to hell if they eat pork, should they be force fed pork just because the idea is ridiculous and it won't change anything anyway.

We have an intolerable situation in which believers are being forced to violate their deeply held beliefs just so someone's feelings aren't hurt.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ But it is people's business as protectors of children, that they now no longer have either a mother or father for life as a term of a lifelong binding contract revision..

This law is covered under Oregon state law. It is therefore a function of the tenth amendment....the one conservatives hold so dear

I wouldn't expect a progressive to grasp this - but the 10th Amendment does not empower the states to violate the U.S. Constitution. My 1st Amendment rights are immune from state legislation. The Supremacy Clause establishes as much.

Any other angles you'd like to try? If nothing else, at least people are learning about the U.S. Constitution from your far-fetched attempts to justify fascism.

Correct. Any citizen, including Judge Moore of Alabama, may act in direct violation of any state law that attempts to strip them of their Constitutional rights.


Applying the 10th in the opposite direction, it would've been nice if Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy, Sotomayor and Kagan all read the 10th Amendment when they decided that states no longer had the right to define marriage within their boundaries. Any of them. Ever, from 2015 on..

 

[ChrisL]

Who thinks that they will go to hell for baking a cake and providing a service to homosexuals?

If the person is an otherwise good person, do you think they will go to hell because of their sexual preference?

Isn't judgment supposed to be left to your God? If a person is a homosexual and marries a homosexual, that is their OWN free will. Providing them with a cake for their wedding isn't going to affect or change anything.

This whole thing is beyond ridiculous.

It makes no difference.

In a free country, people have a right to live according to their religious beliefs, provided those beliefs do not cause actual harm to others (causation tort). Whether you agree with the religious principles of others has no bearing on the fact that our constitution protects the inherent right of others to follow the religion of their choice.

Right, you have a right to live your personal life any way you want as long as you aren't harming anyone. When it comes to business, you have to follow the laws in your respective state. You cannot open a business that serves the public and then refuse to serve a specific portion of the public because of your religious beliefs. Otherwise, we would be a theocracy.