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

[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.

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.

Making a cake and providing a service is just business. It's not condoning or participating. You must be an adult to see that though.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Because it forces them to play a part in a gay wedding.

No it doesn't. Wedding cakes are part of the reception, by that time the wedding ceremony is complete.


>>>>

 

[P@triot]

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.

And so then you believe you have the right to force Microsoft to purchase the hardware for their business from Apple and the software to run their business from Google?

After all...Microsoft's refusal to do business with Apple is "discrimination".

 

[P@triot]

Because it forces them to play a part in a gay wedding.

No it doesn't. Wedding cakes are part of the reception, by that time the wedding ceremony is complete.

That is all part of the wedding. Plus - who are you to say that it is part of the reception? Maybe the homosexual couple, instead of kidding, shares a piece of wedding cake at the alter.

Nice try though

 

[rightwinger]

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.

There you have it

There is nothing in the Oregon law on PA that violates the Constitution. If it does, there are plenty of ***-hating conservatives who would be willing to foot the bill to take it to court
Fact is...you lost

 

[Silhouette]

^^ how can someone "lose" a legal contest that is still on appeal and progressing ultimately towards the USSC? Gonna have Ginsburg come out five months in advance of that Hearing too and declare to the world "I think America is ready to suppress the 1st Amendment to favor the cult of LGBT ultimately getting its dogma taught to kids in elementary school with no objections whatsoever allowed..." ?

Making a cake and providing a service is just business. It's not condoning or participating. You must be an adult to see that though.

Then a gay graphic designer making a giant highway billboard sign that says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God" for a Christian customer, against the gay designer's deeply held beliefs, is "providing a service" and "just business". It's not condoning or participating. You must be an adult to see that though...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Because it forces them to play a part in a gay wedding.

No it doesn't. Wedding cakes are part of the reception, by that time the wedding ceremony is complete.

That is all part of the wedding. Plus - who are you to say that it is part of the reception? Maybe the homosexual couple, instead of kidding, shares a piece of wedding cake at the alter.

Nice try though

If they don't want to play a part in a gay wedding, then they must refrain from offering services to play a part in any wedding.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Right, because the SC has already set the precedent that the state can protect the LBGT community with PA laws.

 

[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.

There you have it

There is nothing in the Oregon law on PA that violates the Constitution. If it does, there are plenty of ***-hating conservatives who would be willing to foot the bill to take it to court
Fact is...you lost

Uh-oh....someone is starting to show signs of extreme frustration as he begins to run out of ideas for justifying his illegal and irrational beliefs.

The state law violates the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which ensures the people of their right to exercise their faith.

The fact is - you wouldn't know facts. You're fact-averse. You prefer ideology over reality (as all progressives do). Utopia is easier for your fragile 'lil psyche to handle than reality is. But....at the end of the day....that doesn't change reality. It's still here smacking you in the face day after day.

 

[Silhouette]

If they don't want to play a part in a gay wedding, then they must refrain from offering services to play a part in any wedding.

If a gay graphic designer doesn't want to print a giant highway billboard sign for a Christian customer that says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God" then they must refrain from offering services to print any billboards.

 

[P@triot]

If they don't want to play a part in a gay wedding, then they must refrain from offering services to play a part in any wedding.

If you don't want to verbally support the ostracizing of all homosexuals, you must refrain from any forms of freedom of speech. After all, if you don't want to do everything with with your speech, you can't do anything with your speech. All or nothing. Vintage fascism.

 

[P@triot]

It's too bad (in this particular situations) that conservatives have so much integrity and character - unlike our friends on the left. I think it would be great for conservatives to track down homosexuals in the business world and ask them to do things they vehemently oppose (such as make signs that say "homosexuality is filthy sin that ends in hell" or make a cake that says "all homosexuals should die") and then sue the bejeezus out of them when they refuse. Then make their lives miserable, drive them out of business, and make sure they never get hired again.

You know...just like progressives do to anyone who stands up for their faith.

 

[Dragonlady]

^^ how can someone "lose" a legal contest that is still on appeal and progressing ultimately towards the USSC? Gonna have Ginsburg come out five months in advance of that Hearing too and declare to the world "I think America is ready to suppress the 1st Amendment to favor the cult of LGBT ultimately getting its dogma taught to kids in elementary school with no objections whatsoever allowed..." ?

Making a cake and providing a service is just business. It's not condoning or participating. You must be an adult to see that though.

Then a gay graphic designer making a giant highway billboard sign that says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God" for a Christian customer, against the gay designer's deeply held beliefs, is "providing a service" and "just business". It's not condoning or participating. You must be an adult to see that though...

The creation of a billboard does not involve "public accommodation". Providing bakery services does. If you are advertizing services to the general public, you cannot discriminate against deny service because of sexual orientation. If you don't want to provide services to gays, you cannot open a public business.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ WTF???? You're saying a private gay wedding is "a public service", but advertising clients in a come one, come all shop aren't doing business with the public? You duplicitous, lying scumbag. Guess what sweetie, if your customer is a Christian, you can't discriminate against him either. And that's a guarantee that is expressly addressed in the Constitution, UNLIKE gay sex behaviors. There are no "gay people". There are only people DOING homosexual acts. Keep that in the front of your mind when you read Hively v Ivy Tech (2016 7th circuit federal court of appeals).

Still wondering why, after about a dozen or more posts on the topic, none of the Church of LGBT's acolytes have answered if they think it is proper for a gay graphic designer to be forced under threat of financial or licensing punishment, to print a giant highway billboard sign for a Christian customer, which reads "Homosexuality is a sin unto God"; against the gay designer's deeply held beliefs??

WHY WON'T ANY OF YOU DISCUSS THAT? (As if I didn't know)..

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

Right, because the SC has already set the precedent that the state can protect the LBGT community with PA laws.

You missed the point entirely. They needed the PA laws because it wasn't in the constitution. There isn't anything to prevent them but that isn't the point. Freedom of association and religious freedom is constitutional but political correctness has overridden it. Like they did with abortion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If they don't want to play a part in a gay wedding, then they must refrain from offering services to play a part in any wedding.

If you don't want to verbally support the ostracizing of all homosexuals, you must refrain from any forms of freedom of speech. After all, if you don't want to do everything with with your speech, you can't do anything with your speech. All or nothing. Vintage fascism.

That's the worst attempt at an analogy I've ever seen on this board.

You can't open a business that explicitly discriminates against gays if it's illegal to discriminate against gays.

That's all there is to it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Right, because the SC has already set the precedent that the state can protect the LBGT community with PA laws.

You missed the point entirely. They needed the PA laws because it wasn't in the constitution. There isn't anything to prevent them but that isn't the point. Freedom of association and religious freedom is constitutional but political correctness has overridden it. Like they did with abortion.

There is no protection of fetuses in the Constitution.

 

[Silhouette]

You missed the point entirely. They needed the PA laws because it wasn't in the constitution. There isn't anything to prevent them but that isn't the point. Freedom of association and religious freedom is constitutional but political correctness has overridden it. Like they did with abortion.

then those same PA laws can force a gay graphic designer to print a giant highway billboard sign for a Christian customer that reads "Homosexuality is a sin unto God"; against the gay designer's deeply held beliefs. Or that designer can be fined and have his license revoked.

 

[Dragonlady]

^^ how can someone "lose" a legal contest that is still on appeal and progressing ultimately towards the USSC? Gonna have Ginsburg come out five months in advance of that Hearing too and declare to the world "I think America is ready to suppress the 1st Amendment to favor the cult of LGBT ultimately getting its dogma taught to kids in elementary school with no objections whatsoever allowed..." ?

Making a cake and providing a service is just business. It's not condoning or participating. You must be an adult to see that though.

Then a gay graphic designer making a giant highway billboard sign that says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God" for a Christian customer, against the gay designer's deeply held beliefs, is "providing a service" and "just business". It's not condoning or participating. You must be an adult to see that though...

I would allow the bakers to refrain from serving homosexual sinners, provided they don't serve other sinners - adulterers, liars, thieves, and especially people who are getting married for a second time, which the Bible calls adulterers. Of course choosing to serve only those people who are free of sin, may put them out of business too.

If the only sinners they are refusing to serve are gays, then they aren't standing up for their beliefs, they're discriminating against gays. Which is illegal.

 

[ChrisL]

You missed the point entirely. They needed the PA laws because it wasn't in the constitution. There isn't anything to prevent them but that isn't the point. Freedom of association and religious freedom is constitutional but political correctness has overridden it. Like they did with abortion.

then those same PA laws can force a gay graphic designer to print a giant highway billboard sign for a Christian customer that reads "Homosexuality is a sin unto God"; against the gay designer's deeply held beliefs. Or that designer can be fined and have his license revoked.

That is not the same thing as discriminating against an entire group of people. I hope you are smart enough to understand the difference between hate speech and discrimination.