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

[bodecea]

Ours had.

link?

Same Sex Marriage Over Time

1970
Baker v. Nelson
Jack Baker and James McConnell applied for a marriage license.

You can't use the front end of the current argument as "precedent".

You want to say that gay marriage never existed, which isn't true, but it doesn't matter either way. As a society grows up in expands the rights of minorities to make them more equal to everyone else. That is all that has been done here. Slaves got rights. Women got rights. Children got rights. Now gays have rights. It's progress and without it nothing changes which is not a good thing even if change bugs you.

There are objective tests that prove a black is a black

There are objective tests that prove a woman is a woman

There are objective tests that prove a child is a child.

What is the objective test that prove an individual's sexuality?

What is the objective test that prove(s) that someone is really a set religion?

 

[Pop23]

link?

Same Sex Marriage Over Time

1970
Baker v. Nelson
Jack Baker and James McConnell applied for a marriage license.

You can't use the front end of the current argument as "precedent".

You want to say that gay marriage never existed, which isn't true, but it doesn't matter either way. As a society grows up in expands the rights of minorities to make them more equal to everyone else. That is all that has been done here. Slaves got rights. Women got rights. Children got rights. Now gays have rights. It's progress and without it nothing changes which is not a good thing even if change bugs you.

There are objective tests that prove a black is a black

There are objective tests that prove a woman is a woman

There are objective tests that prove a child is a child.

What is the objective test that prove an individual's sexuality?

Not really. There are people who look female but have male genetics. Race is hit and miss thing. A child with the mind of an adult might be small but we just had a nine-year-old head off to college so what are they, and who you have sex with doesn't matter. Two heterosexual women have just as much right to marry as two heterosexual men or a man and a woman of any sexuality. Marriage doesn't require that the couple will or even can procreate. Natural reproduction is not the basis of our laws here, equality and liberty are. If two adults can legally do something then any two adults can legally do something. That is the gay marriage ruling in a nutshell.

Deflect away:

If a black claims he was discriminated based on his race, the defendant has a right to require proof of race.

I can go on through the list if you like.

In this case, it has been established that two hetrosexual men could walk into the bakery, claim to be gay, be refused a same sex wedding cake and the baker CAN BE SUED FOR DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

is this a joke?

 

[Pop23]

link?

Same Sex Marriage Over Time

1970
Baker v. Nelson
Jack Baker and James McConnell applied for a marriage license.

You can't use the front end of the current argument as "precedent".

You want to say that gay marriage never existed, which isn't true, but it doesn't matter either way. As a society grows up in expands the rights of minorities to make them more equal to everyone else. That is all that has been done here. Slaves got rights. Women got rights. Children got rights. Now gays have rights. It's progress and without it nothing changes which is not a good thing even if change bugs you.

There are objective tests that prove a black is a black

There are objective tests that prove a woman is a woman

There are objective tests that prove a child is a child.

What is the objective test that prove an individual's sexuality?

What is the objective test that prove(s) that someone is really a set religion?

Set? Religion is protected by the BILL OF RIGHTS.

 

[dblack]

What is the objective test that prove(s) that someone is really a set religion?

That's exactly the problem with handing out 'special rights to special people'. If government is going to give special rights to religious people, it first has to determine what constitutes a legitimate religion. The power of government to officially endorse specific religions, and dismiss others, is exactly what the First Amendment was designed to avoid.

 

[Frank'sRules]

Same Sex Marriage Over Time

1970
Baker v. Nelson
Jack Baker and James McConnell applied for a marriage license.

You can't use the front end of the current argument as "precedent".

You want to say that gay marriage never existed, which isn't true, but it doesn't matter either way. As a society grows up in expands the rights of minorities to make them more equal to everyone else. That is all that has been done here. Slaves got rights. Women got rights. Children got rights. Now gays have rights. It's progress and without it nothing changes which is not a good thing even if change bugs you.

There are objective tests that prove a black is a black

There are objective tests that prove a woman is a woman

There are objective tests that prove a child is a child.

What is the objective test that prove an individual's sexuality?

What is the objective test that prove(s) that someone is really a set religion?

Set? Religion is protected by the BILL OF RIGHTS.

Yes, it is. And who rules what is in and what is out? The Supreme Court.

Witch burning? Out. After school prayer clubs? In. So sayth the Supreme Court.

And what of equality before the law, unconstitutional laws? Also the responsibility of the Supreme Court.

 

[dblack]

Set? Religion is protected by the BILL OF RIGHTS.

Which religions?

 

[Frank'sRules]

What is the objective test that prove(s) that someone is really a set religion?

That's exactly the problem with handing out 'special rights to special people'. If government is going to give special rights to religious people, it first has to determine what constitutes a legitimate religion. The power of government to officially endorse specific religions, and dismiss others, is exactly what the First Amendment was designed to avoid.

Equality before the law isn't a special right, it's the same right that others are often denied like the gays once were when it came to getting a marriage license issued by the state.

 

[Frank'sRules]

Same Sex Marriage Over Time

1970
Baker v. Nelson
Jack Baker and James McConnell applied for a marriage license.

You can't use the front end of the current argument as "precedent".

You want to say that gay marriage never existed, which isn't true, but it doesn't matter either way. As a society grows up in expands the rights of minorities to make them more equal to everyone else. That is all that has been done here. Slaves got rights. Women got rights. Children got rights. Now gays have rights. It's progress and without it nothing changes which is not a good thing even if change bugs you.

There are objective tests that prove a black is a black

There are objective tests that prove a woman is a woman

There are objective tests that prove a child is a child.

What is the objective test that prove an individual's sexuality?

Not really. There are people who look female but have male genetics. Race is hit and miss thing. A child with the mind of an adult might be small but we just had a nine-year-old head off to college so what are they, and who you have sex with doesn't matter. Two heterosexual women have just as much right to marry as two heterosexual men or a man and a woman of any sexuality. Marriage doesn't require that the couple will or even can procreate. Natural reproduction is not the basis of our laws here, equality and liberty are. If two adults can legally do something then any two adults can legally do something. That is the gay marriage ruling in a nutshell.

Deflect away:

If a black claims he was discriminated based on his race, the defendant has a right to require proof of race.

I can go on through the list if you like.

In this case, it has been established that two hetrosexual men could walk into the bakery, claim to be gay, be refused a same sex wedding cake and the baker CAN BE SUED FOR DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

is this a joke?

Their claim would be they are two men getting married, not two men who both like to have sex with men. To prove your contention they'd have to say we are both gay but we are marrying two women so we want two cakes and then be told they couldn't have them because they are gay.

And if a person claims they were discriminated against because of race they don't have to prove their race, it means they were discriminated against because of their skin color. We call one gay and one race but really it's gender and color.

 

[dblack]

What is the objective test that prove(s) that someone is really a set religion?

That's exactly the problem with handing out 'special rights to special people'. If government is going to give special rights to religious people, it first has to determine what constitutes a legitimate religion. The power of government to officially endorse specific religions, and dismiss others, is exactly what the First Amendment was designed to avoid.

Equality before the law isn't a special right, it's the same right that others are often denied like the gays once were when it came to getting a marriage license issued by the state.

Agreed. But we're talking about PA provisions, and they aren't about equality before the law. They subvert equal rights by targeting special classes of bigotry for suppression.

 

[Frank'sRules]

What is the objective test that prove(s) that someone is really a set religion?

That's exactly the problem with handing out 'special rights to special people'. If government is going to give special rights to religious people, it first has to determine what constitutes a legitimate religion. The power of government to officially endorse specific religions, and dismiss others, is exactly what the First Amendment was designed to avoid.

Equality before the law isn't a special right, it's the same right that others are often denied like the gays once were when it came to getting a marriage license issued by the state.

Agreed. But we're talking about PA provisions, and they aren't about equality before the law. They subvert equal rights by targeting special classes of bigotry for suppression.

PA provisions say if you are buying then we are selling. That's the end of it. No one gets "special" rights, they get equality in transactions. Gay gas money is equal to straight and black and Asian gas money. If we have it, you can buy it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Your argument is that the couple was discriminated because of their sexuality.

I've demonstrated time and time again that he did not.

That is false, Klein admits it was because of their sexuality and even quoted Leviticus and that they were an abomination.

You can think you have shown whatever you want, but when the business owner himself shows that it was about their sexuality - well you have no air in that tire.

1. You can't prove he's refused gay wedding cakes. Prove that every single wedding cake he made only went to heterosexual couples. What is the test you will give these couples, who bought he cakes, that they are/were not gay?

Don't have to. It was proved in court that he refused this couple.

What is the test you will administer to all these couples that they are/ were not straight.

There is no test.

I can give you objecting testing guidelines to prove all others listed as a federally protected class not specifically listed in the BILL OF RIGHTS.

Psst - this case isn't about Federal Public Accommodation laws, it's under Oregon State Public Accommodation laws which specifically list sex and sexual orientation as protected classes.

I've demonstrated that a heterosexual same sex couple could walk in and SIMPLY CLAIM TO BE GAY, and SUE THE BAKER FOR REFUSAL TO BAKE THE CAKE......... Based on sexual orientation????????? Which sexuality are the filing suit under?

1. It doesn't matter what they customers sexual orientation is, what matters is the action of the business owner and why he choose to discriminate.

2. I've shown where he would still have been in violation of the law if to people came in said "We are heterosexual but we're getting married and want to purchase a wedding cake". The baker, if he refused service based on the sex of the couple would still have violated the law. (Assuming that wedding cakes for mixed sex couples is something provide.)


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

There are objective tests that prove a black is a black

There are objective tests that prove a woman is a woman

There are objective tests that prove a child is a child.

What is the objective test that prove an individual's sexuality?

What is the objective test for religion under the Oregon Public Accommodation law?


>>>>

 

[Pop23]

What is the objective test that prove(s) that someone is really a set religion?

That's exactly the problem with handing out 'special rights to special people'. If government is going to give special rights to religious people, it first has to determine what constitutes a legitimate religion. The power of government to officially endorse specific religions, and dismiss others, is exactly what the First Amendment was designed to avoid.

Religion is a belief, protected under the bill of rights.

But nice try.

 

[bodecea]

Same Sex Marriage Over Time

1970
Baker v. Nelson
Jack Baker and James McConnell applied for a marriage license.

You can't use the front end of the current argument as "precedent".

You want to say that gay marriage never existed, which isn't true, but it doesn't matter either way. As a society grows up in expands the rights of minorities to make them more equal to everyone else. That is all that has been done here. Slaves got rights. Women got rights. Children got rights. Now gays have rights. It's progress and without it nothing changes which is not a good thing even if change bugs you.

There are objective tests that prove a black is a black

There are objective tests that prove a woman is a woman

There are objective tests that prove a child is a child.

What is the objective test that prove an individual's sexuality?

Not really. There are people who look female but have male genetics. Race is hit and miss thing. A child with the mind of an adult might be small but we just had a nine-year-old head off to college so what are they, and who you have sex with doesn't matter. Two heterosexual women have just as much right to marry as two heterosexual men or a man and a woman of any sexuality. Marriage doesn't require that the couple will or even can procreate. Natural reproduction is not the basis of our laws here, equality and liberty are. If two adults can legally do something then any two adults can legally do something. That is the gay marriage ruling in a nutshell.

Deflect away:

If a black claims he was discriminated based on his race, the defendant has a right to require proof of race.

I can go on through the list if you like.

In this case, it has been established that two hetrosexual men could walk into the bakery, claim to be gay, be refused a same sex wedding cake and the baker CAN BE SUED FOR DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

is this a joke?

What objective test is there to prove that someone is a true practicer of a religion?

 

[bodecea]

What is the objective test that prove(s) that someone is really a set religion?

That's exactly the problem with handing out 'special rights to special people'. If government is going to give special rights to religious people, it first has to determine what constitutes a legitimate religion. The power of government to officially endorse specific religions, and dismiss others, is exactly what the First Amendment was designed to avoid.

Religion is a belief, protected under the bill of rights.

But nice try.

How do we know that someone is really a practicer of a religion and not just faking it to get some kind of special rights?

 

[Pop23]

There are objective tests that prove a black is a black

There are objective tests that prove a woman is a woman

There are objective tests that prove a child is a child.

What is the objective test that prove an individual's sexuality?

What is the objective test for religion under the Oregon Public Accommodation law?


>>>>

There ya go again, clipping the context of the discussion again. You do realize I answered a different poster, right? My answer was specifically to his post.

But, just to play along. A persons religion is based on belief. Are you saying that a persons sexuality is based on a belief? Please be so good as to expound on this.

I don't see it, especially since you said that two heterosexual males can simply claim to be gay and sue the baker based on the laws prohibition on discrimination based on sexual orientation.

You've never answered though? Which orientation would they sue under?

 

[Pop23]

What is the objective test that prove(s) that someone is really a set religion?

That's exactly the problem with handing out 'special rights to special people'. If government is going to give special rights to religious people, it first has to determine what constitutes a legitimate religion. The power of government to officially endorse specific religions, and dismiss others, is exactly what the First Amendment was designed to avoid.

Religion is a belief, protected under the bill of rights.

But nice try.

How do we know that someone is really a practicer of a religion and not just faking it to get some kind of special rights?

Sue em?

 

[bodecea]

What is the objective test that prove(s) that someone is really a set religion?

That's exactly the problem with handing out 'special rights to special people'. If government is going to give special rights to religious people, it first has to determine what constitutes a legitimate religion. The power of government to officially endorse specific religions, and dismiss others, is exactly what the First Amendment was designed to avoid.

Religion is a belief, protected under the bill of rights.

But nice try.

How do we know that someone is really a practicer of a religion and not just faking it to get some kind of special rights?

Sue em?

How'd that turn out? Check with WorldWatcher on that one. He actually knows the case way more than you even pretend to.

 

[dblack]

What is the objective test that prove(s) that someone is really a set religion?

That's exactly the problem with handing out 'special rights to special people'. If government is going to give special rights to religious people, it first has to determine what constitutes a legitimate religion. The power of government to officially endorse specific religions, and dismiss others, is exactly what the First Amendment was designed to avoid.

Religion is a belief, protected under the bill of rights.

But nice try.

What is it you suppose I'm trying to do?

Our current practice of using the First Amendment to grant special protections to religious beliefs actually undermines religious freedom because it requires government to determine which religious beliefs are legitimate and which aren't.

 

[dblack]

What is the objective test that prove(s) that someone is really a set religion?

That's exactly the problem with handing out 'special rights to special people'. If government is going to give special rights to religious people, it first has to determine what constitutes a legitimate religion. The power of government to officially endorse specific religions, and dismiss others, is exactly what the First Amendment was designed to avoid.

Equality before the law isn't a special right, it's the same right that others are often denied like the gays once were when it came to getting a marriage license issued by the state.

Agreed. But we're talking about PA provisions, and they aren't about equality before the law. They subvert equal rights by targeting special classes of bigotry for suppression.

PA provisions say if you are buying then we are selling. That's the end of it. No one gets "special" rights, they get equality in transactions. Gay gas money is equal to straight and black and Asian gas money. If we have it, you can buy it.

Not at all. There are only a very few forms of bigotry that are targeted for suppression. Everything else gets a pass. Nothing equal about it.