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

[Silhouette]

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.

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

I would allow a gay graphic designer to refrain from serving Christians with a giant highway billboard sign that reads "homosexuality is a sin unto God", as long as he didn't serve jews or Muslims for any other service, who also have been warned specifically by their God to not promote homosexuality within a culture in any way, shape or form under promise of eternal soul damnation. See, your "hypocrisy clause" works both ways dear..

The real standoff is going to come when a Muslim, armed with a really good legal team, walks into a gay graphic design shop and demands a highway billboard sign that says "Homosexuality is forbidden by Allah". Then the rubber's going to meet the road.. Hey, PA laws are PA laws...right?

 

[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

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.

Unfortunately for you, anonymous message board posters do not get to decide what is constitutional....we have courts for that

So far, doesn't seem you have any courts agreeing with you

 

[Silhouette]

Unfortunately for you, anonymous message board posters do not get to decide what is constitutional....we have courts for that

So far, doesn't seem you have any courts agreeing with you

Might want to read Hively v Ivy Tech (7th circuit 2016) which found that homosexuals aren't covered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act because homosexuality is a behavior and not a static class. Anyone can do homosexual acts and claim they are "gay". So there's no real qualifier or adhesive to your false premise.

Sorry. I know you don't like to talk about Hively v Ivy Tech. You were so hoping it would go the other way. That yet another court would make a fatal legal error by buying your false premise of "behavior = race"...

BTW, how do you think the Brown polygamy family is going to fare once they start citing Obergefell in order to legally marry in all 50 states? What reason will Kennedy find to deny their children the benefits of marriage? Tradition? You know Sotomayor right now is reading their first brief on a lower technicality. But they've professed of course that their ultimate legal goal is legal polygamy marriage in all 50 states. And their sharp attorney will be citing Obergefell..

...you know...now that the Fed is the only one allowed to be in the marriage-approval/denial business? (in violation of the 10th Amendment)..

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

Further evidence of your megalomania. You are not God and are in no position to decide what others' values should be.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

No one said so, there's nothing to prevent states from defining when human life begins. The court never made that determination.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

If a Christian baker is not coerced to bake cakes for homosexuals it is "theocracy?"

You are very confused.

I make no secret of the fact that I am libertarian. We as individuals have the right to associate OR NOT with any person we choose for any reason we choose. No one and no government has the right to force a person to engage in trade with someone they do not want to trade with - we call the act of forcing a person to perform labor against their will "slavery" and most of us recognize that it is abhorrent. Forcing a person to bake a cake against their will is no less abhorrent.

Free people make their own decisions as to who they will or will not engage in trade and commerce with.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

If a Christian baker is not coerced to bake cakes for homosexuals it is "theocracy?"

You are very confused.

I make no secret of the fact that I am libertarian. We as individuals have the right to associate OR NOT with any person we choose for any reason we choose. No one and no government has the right to force a person to engage in trade with someone they do not want to trade with - we call the act of forcing a person to perform labor against their will "slavery" and most of us recognize that it is abhorrent. Forcing a person to bake a cake against their will is no less abhorrent.

Free people make their own decisions as to who they will or will not engage in trade and commerce with.

No you don't. Lol. Since the state is affected by business, they reserve the right to regulate business and enforce those regulations.

 

[mdk]

Might want to read Hively v Ivy Tech (7th circuit 2016) which found that homosexuals aren't covered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act because homosexuality is a behavior and not a static class. Anyone can do homosexual acts and claim they are "gay". So there's no real qualifier or adhesive to your false premise.

Sorry. I know you don't like to talk about Hively v Ivy Tech. You were so hoping it would go the other way. That yet another court would make a fatal legal error by buying your false premise of "behavior = race"

Hively states that sexual orientation is not covered under the wording of sex in the Civil Rights Act. The court did not rule gays were not covered b/c it is a behavior and not a 'static class' as foolishly claim. You never seem to grasp the fact that nobody is bound by your imaginary court findings.

 

[RodISHI]

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.

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

I would allow a gay graphic designer to refrain from serving Christians with a giant highway billboard sign that reads "homosexuality is a sin unto God", as long as he didn't serve jews or Muslims for any other service, who also have been warned specifically by their God to not promote homosexuality within a culture in any way, shape or form under promise of eternal soul damnation. See, your "hypocrisy clause" works both ways dear..

The real standoff is going to come when a Muslim, armed with a really good legal team, walks into a gay graphic design shop and demands a highway billboard sign that says "Homosexuality is forbidden by Allah". Then the rubber's going to meet the road.. Hey, PA laws are PA laws...right?

Dang there would be a huge list if everyone start forcing the religious do's and don'ts of all the different religious sects of Christianity, Judaism, etc..... We would have to have a whole knew set of regulatory agencies to approve or disprove of religious beliefs and tenets. More government employees and so forth. Hell we may as well all go home and let the child like whiners have their way- oops that is what they are shooting for that we all get sick of their whining and give in; f' that keep on keeping on folks and tell the child like whiners "No you cannot have everything the way you want it and force everyone to believe like you do or like you even".

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

It's not a Gay Marriage case either. It's strictly business. A business open to the public in Oregon cannot discriminate against LGBT folks by refusing them the services the business provides.

 

[BlindBoo]

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".

Apple has no protection under any PA laws.

 

[P@triot]

Unfortunately for you, anonymous message board posters do not get to decide what is constitutional....we have courts for that

Interesting way to wave the white flag, winger...

Unfortunately for all of humanity - we have fascist progressives stacking courts with political activists instead of justices. Thankfully for all of humanity, that can be rectified.

 

[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".

Apple has no protection under any PA laws.

So now you're going to proudly discriminate against Apple? After crying about discrimination? Wow....

 

[P@triot]

Apple has no protection under any PA laws.

How can you not love progressive "logic"? Slaves at one time had no protection under the law either. But rational people recognized that oppression and forced labor is wrong. Kind of tragic that you still haven't realized that yet.

 

[P@triot]

We as individuals have the right to associate OR NOT with any person we choose for any reason we choose. No one and no government has the right to force a person to engage in trade with someone they do not want to trade with - we call the act of forcing a person to perform labor against their will "slavery" and most of us recognize that it is abhorrent. Forcing a person to bake a cake against their will is no less abhorrent.

Isn't it tragic that progressives are so weak-minded, their leaders were able to convince them that forcing people to all Nazi goose-step in the exact same direction is ok?

Good God, you'd think this shit was settled in 1776. We declared independence. We told oppression and oppressive leaders to go **** themselves. We are free men, with the God-given right to live our lives free.

These ******* "collective" ideologists are mind-numbing. I guess they started out with parents telling them what to do and they could never quite figure out how to live their lives without another authority figuring taking their place and telling them what to do.

 

[rightwinger]

Unfortunately for you, anonymous message board posters do not get to decide what is constitutional....we have courts for that

So far, doesn't seem you have any courts agreeing with you

Might want to read Hively v Ivy Tech (7th circuit 2016) which found that homosexuals aren't covered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act because homosexuality is a behavior and not a static class. Anyone can do homosexual acts and claim they are "gay". So there's no real qualifier or adhesive to your false premise.

Sorry. I know you don't like to talk about Hively v Ivy Tech. You were so hoping it would go the other way. That yet another court would make a fatal legal error by buying your false premise of "behavior = race"...

BTW, how do you think the Brown polygamy family is going to fare once they start citing Obergefell in order to legally marry in all 50 states? What reason will Kennedy find to deny their children the benefits of marriage? Tradition? You know Sotomayor right now is reading their first brief on a lower technicality. But they've professed of course that their ultimate legal goal is legal polygamy marriage in all 50 states. And their sharp attorney will be citing Obergefell..

...you know...now that the Fed is the only one allowed to be in the marriage-approval/denial business? (in violation of the 10th Amendment)..

Doesn't matter
They are still covered under the 14th amendment

I hope polygamy passes....it is really nobody's business what consenting adults do

 

[Uncensored2008]

No you don't. Lol. Since the state is affected by business, they reserve the right to regulate business and enforce those regulations.

Tyranny is the norm in this world, liberty the exception. Rulers always "reserve the right" to dictate to others. This was once that most rare of things, an actually free nation.

Just say no to tyranny.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

The issue isn't about Freedom of association or Religion. It's strictly business.

 

[P@triot]

The issue isn't about Freedom of association or Religion. It's strictly business.

Sorry chief....you don't get to separate the two. You - like all progressives - desperately want to believe that business is an extension of government. That's why businesses owe people a job. Owe's them a certain wage. Etc. But that's simply not the case. Business is not an extension of government. They are private institutions on private property and are constitutionally permitted to engage in all forms and expressions - including faith.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Unfortunately for you, anonymous message board posters do not get to decide what is constitutional....we have courts for that

So far, doesn't seem you have any courts agreeing with you

Might want to read Hively v Ivy Tech (7th circuit 2016) which found that homosexuals aren't covered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act because homosexuality is a behavior and not a static class. Anyone can do homosexual acts and claim they are "gay". So there's no real qualifier or adhesive to your false premise.

Sorry. I know you don't like to talk about Hively v Ivy Tech. You were so hoping it would go the other way. That yet another court would make a fatal legal error by buying your false premise of "behavior = race"...

BTW, how do you think the Brown polygamy family is going to fare once they start citing Obergefell in order to legally marry in all 50 states? What reason will Kennedy find to deny their children the benefits of marriage? Tradition? You know Sotomayor right now is reading their first brief on a lower technicality. But they've professed of course that their ultimate legal goal is legal polygamy marriage in all 50 states. And their sharp attorney will be citing Obergefell..

...you know...now that the Fed is the only one allowed to be in the marriage-approval/denial business? (in violation of the 10th Amendment)..

Doesn't matter
They are still covered under the 14th amendment

I hope polygamy passes....it is really nobody's business what consenting adults do

No one is preventing same sex couples from marrying. They are looking for the freedom for themselves not to be a part of a same sex marriage event.