Bakery Owners Refuse to Pay Gay Extortionists

[Ernie S.]

A court never ordered it. A commission did

Your point? An authorized commission has the same powers as a court.

No, it doesn't, or at least it shouldn't.

Your side loves tyranny when it punishes people you disagree with.

So it's not tyranny when you guys do it?

Please show me where I have advocated any form of "tyranny"

In 120 Years Republicans Only Cry Tyranny When the Black President Uses Executive Orders
In 120 Years Republicans Only Cry Tyranny When the Black President Uses Executive Orders
The hypocritical outrage over an African American President issuing executive orders was swift and absurd from Republicans within minutes of the President’s State of the Union, and there were accusations that the President is shredding the Constitution and circumventing Congress, but what Congress? Do Republicans mean the Congress that cannot do its Constitutional job and work for the general welfare of the people, or do they mean congressional Republicans shredding the Constitution by passing a preponderance of biblical laws targeting women for being women and gays for expecting protections guaranteed in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment

Proof US House Republican Tyranny | Video | C-SPAN.org


if you support any of the issues in these 2 articles you support tyranny.

His white half is a tin pot tyrant too.

 

[paddymurphy]

Good for them!!

The owners of an Oregon bakery are refusing to pay $135,000 in state-ordered damages to a same-sex couple who were denied service.

Melissa and Aaron Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, cited religious beliefs when they refused to bake a wedding cake for Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer more than two years ago.

The couple were awarded the damages in July by Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian for emotional suffering, saying the owners had violated the women’s civil rights by discriminating on the basis of their sexual orientation. They were also slapped with a gag order that prohibited them from speaking publicly about their refusal to participate in or bake wedding cakes for same-sex marriages.

Oregon bakery owners refuse to pay damages in gay wedding cake case
​

so they'll be held in contempt and interest will keep accruing. gee, that'll show 'em

And interest can accrue till hell freezes over. It's a civil case so no jail for them is possible. They can continue to thumb their noses forever. Their credit will be shit, but if they pay cash for everything they can ignore it forever.

Yes, they can. That they would go to such lengths to demonstrate their Un-Christian intolerance is really sad.

Christians are supposed to be intolerant of sin.

Liberals rush in to vilify civil disobedience in 3...2...1...

Oh they can civily disobey all they want. What happens next? Are you saying that Oregon's PA law is unjust?

I don't know what happens next. Yes, I think it is unjust to force people to violate their strongly held religious beliefs.

so a muslim can go to work in a non-kosher, non-halal butcher shop and refuse to serve pork? or go to work for an airline and try to force the airline not to serve me liquor on my flight?

You are talking about businesses requirement for employment, not the government forcing a business owner.

A Muslim can OWN a non-kosher, non-halal butcher shop and refuse to serve pork. If they own the plane, they can certainly refuse to serve you liquor. These people OWN the bakery.

Eating a cake is sinful?

 

[Anathema]

What have you don't to get them repealed in YOUR state?

Actually I've been in discussion with two Statw lawmakers about correction to public accommodation laws and hate crime/discrimination statutea. It's ginna be a major uphill climb in the Communistwealth of Taxachusetts.

 

[paddymurphy]

What have you don't to get them repealed in YOUR state?

Actually I've been in discussion with two Statw lawmakers about correction to public accommodation laws and hate crime/discrimination statutea. It's ginna be a major uphill climb in the Communistwealth of Taxachusetts.

Move.

 

[Anathema]

Move.

Ive been working on that too. Unfortunately all 50 states have PA laws and the places I would leave the country for don't want Americans because people like you have poisoned our reputation in places like that.

 

[bodecea]

Oh they can civily disobey all they want. What happens next? Are you saying that Oregon's PA law is unjust?

Yes.

Did you feel the same way when years before Oregon used the same PA law to fine a business over 300K for refusing to serve a Christian couple?

To be honest, I never heard of that.
Actually I would have supported their right to refuse service on religious grounds. Sometimes what is right, feels wrong.
The First Amendment makes it clear that the government should place no limits on anyone's right to practice their religion.
If, for the sake of argument, a Muslim owned business refused service to a Christian based on some tenet of his faith, I would stand behind him.

Kind of like the quote mis-attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Actually, nothing a Christian believes would cause them to refuse service.....so your hypothetical doesn't fit.

But, if the Christians went to a Muslim butcher and demanded 50 lbs of pulled-pork....that's different.

Not knowing anything about the case, I'm somewhat baffled why anyone would refuse service to a Christian myself. Perhaps we will get a link.

Let me provide you with it since you asked nicely:

Bend dentist fined nearly $348,000 for required Scientology-based training, BOLI announces

 

[martybegan]

A court never ordered it. A commission did

Your point? An authorized commission has the same powers as a court.

No, it doesn't, or at least it shouldn't.

Your side loves tyranny when it punishes people you disagree with.

So it's not tyranny when you guys do it?

Please show me where I have advocated any form of "tyranny"

In 120 Years Republicans Only Cry Tyranny When the Black President Uses Executive Orders
In 120 Years Republicans Only Cry Tyranny When the Black President Uses Executive Orders
The hypocritical outrage over an African American President issuing executive orders was swift and absurd from Republicans within minutes of the President’s State of the Union, and there were accusations that the President is shredding the Constitution and circumventing Congress, but what Congress? Do Republicans mean the Congress that cannot do its Constitutional job and work for the general welfare of the people, or do they mean congressional Republicans shredding the Constitution by passing a preponderance of biblical laws targeting women for being women and gays for expecting protections guaranteed in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment

Proof US House Republican Tyranny | Video | C-SPAN.org


if you support any of the issues in these 2 articles you support tyranny.

A court never ordered it. A commission did

Your point? An authorized commission has the same powers as a court.

No, it doesn't, or at least it shouldn't.

Your side loves tyranny when it punishes people you disagree with.

So it's not tyranny when you guys do it?

Please show me where I have advocated any form of "tyranny"

In 120 Years Republicans Only Cry Tyranny When the Black President Uses Executive Orders
In 120 Years Republicans Only Cry Tyranny When the Black President Uses Executive Orders
The hypocritical outrage over an African American President issuing executive orders was swift and absurd from Republicans within minutes of the President’s State of the Union, and there were accusations that the President is shredding the Constitution and circumventing Congress, but what Congress? Do Republicans mean the Congress that cannot do its Constitutional job and work for the general welfare of the people, or do they mean congressional Republicans shredding the Constitution by passing a preponderance of biblical laws targeting women for being women and gays for expecting protections guaranteed in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment

Proof US House Republican Tyranny | Video | C-SPAN.org


if you support any of the issues in these 2 articles you support tyranny.

The first article is nothing but a liberal rant. And considering your first one is crap, I'm not wasting my time on the 2nd.

How about you actually type your positions instead of copypasting someone else's??

 

[martybegan]

So you would force a Catholic store to sell a Jesus figure to a Satanist who would perform a profane ritual on it, and tells the store's owner he/she would be doing it?

How would the store owner know they were selling an icon to a satanist?

The Satanist would tell them. At that point, would you force the Store owner to sell the figurine?

Why would a satanist tell them.
Unlike evangelicals and other religious nutsacks.
Satanists and sane religious people don't feel the need to broadcast their beliefs.
A more realistic scenario might make your argument appear reasonable.

Answer the question without dodging please. In THIS scenario, should the store owner be forced to sell the figurine?

Yes or no will suffice.

it's not accurate or realistic scenario.
in the form it in no answer is possible.
in other words it's a rigged question..

Yes or no. Can the state force the person to sell the statue or not?

 

[bodecea]

The fascist "gag order" is political overreach at its worst.

Did you feel the same way when years before Oregon used the same PA law to fine a business over 300K for refusing to serve a Christian couple?

I do. I believe any business should refuse to be enslaved.

And your protests? Where are they? What did you do to show your outrage when that happened?

I am not a Democrat. I do not hit the streets wearing body paint and jock strap and a Guy Fawkes mask, banging pots together and taking dumps on police cars.

Subtlety is a virtue, after all.

How do we know you don't? You could be lying.

 

[bodecea]

hi marty. I don't think its silly for a business to be forced not to discriminate. but no one was forcing the bakers to write "I love gay people". they had to bake a cake. that's what was silly about the proposed counter-example.

it's using a neutron bomb to kill a gnat.

PA laws were designed to fight pervasive widespread discrimination that took a whole class of people and made them 2nd class citizens. It wasn't designed to punish people for hurting other people's feelings, and what we have here is nothing but that.

i don't think people who lived through jim crow would agree with you, marty. embarrassing people and forcing them out of your business does the same thing as it did back in the day.

if you go into a service business you can't refuse to serve people for discriminatory reasons. in fact, i'd apply the same standards as i would apply to employment discrimination ..... .you can refuse to serve someone for any reason or no reason but not for a discriminatory/illegal reason.[/QUOTE]

Not specifically address to me, but I think this is a great argument.

I certainly don't want to hurt anyone's feelings...which is the reason I am often reluctant to enter these discussions.

But there has to be an accommodation where all sides rights are protected.

This is really something new, and if you have an analogous situation, I'd love to hear it.

One groups rights are pitted equally against another groups rights.

And this isn't Loving v. Virginia...that Homosexual unions are a sin before God has been spelled out with utmost clarity in the Bible for almost 2,000 years. Cor 6:9 and Gal 5:19.

Coupled with Thes 5:21-22 "But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil." and 1 Tim 5:22 "Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure."

The question is, how to accommodate both parties.[/QUOTE]
Who cares about the bible in civil law........or rather why do you want to force people to care about what your bible says in reference to civil law?

 

[Missourian]

Eating a cake is sinful?

To be sure, I've eaten some truly sinful cake.

In seriousness, this is a special case, like the photographer and the caterer. They must be involved in the actual wedding.

If you are just asking for a cake, you're going to pick it up, set it up, put the two little men or women on it...I have no issue with that.

But if the Christian photographer, or baker or caterer doesn't wish to be involved in an actual wedding that he or she believes is abomination before God...I can't see how that is anything but a clear cut case for religious freedom.

 

[bodecea]

Yes.

Did you feel the same way when years before Oregon used the same PA law to fine a business over 300K for refusing to serve a Christian couple?

To be honest, I never heard of that.
Actually I would have supported their right to refuse service on religious grounds. Sometimes what is right, feels wrong.
The First Amendment makes it clear that the government should place no limits on anyone's right to practice their religion.
If, for the sake of argument, a Muslim owned business refused service to a Christian based on some tenet of his faith, I would stand behind him.

Kind of like the quote mis-attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Actually, nothing a Christian believes would cause them to refuse service.....so your hypothetical doesn't fit.

But, if the Christians went to a Muslim butcher and demanded 50 lbs of pulled-pork....that's different.

IF the Muslim butcher had pork in the first place but refused to serve them because they were Christian you would be right.

BUT.....please don't insult our intelligence by using as an example a business that doesn't sell a certain product in the first place being forced to sell that product. It isn't the same......so stop pretending we would fall for that.

I'm not pretending anything. As I told you, I have never heard of the case you referred to. A link might help.

Bend dentist fined nearly $348,000 for required Scientology-based training, BOLI announces

 

[bodecea]

What have you don't to get them repealed in YOUR state?

Actually I've been in discussion with two Statw lawmakers about correction to public accommodation laws and hate crime/discrimination statutea. It's ginna be a major uphill climb in the Communistwealth of Taxachusetts.

Well. Look at you!

 

[daws101]

Your point? An authorized commission has the same powers as a court.

No, it doesn't, or at least it shouldn't.

Your side loves tyranny when it punishes people you disagree with.

So it's not tyranny when you guys do it?

Please show me where I have advocated any form of "tyranny"

In 120 Years Republicans Only Cry Tyranny When the Black President Uses Executive Orders
In 120 Years Republicans Only Cry Tyranny When the Black President Uses Executive Orders
The hypocritical outrage over an African American President issuing executive orders was swift and absurd from Republicans within minutes of the President’s State of the Union, and there were accusations that the President is shredding the Constitution and circumventing Congress, but what Congress? Do Republicans mean the Congress that cannot do its Constitutional job and work for the general welfare of the people, or do they mean congressional Republicans shredding the Constitution by passing a preponderance of biblical laws targeting women for being women and gays for expecting protections guaranteed in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment

Proof US House Republican Tyranny | Video | C-SPAN.org


if you support any of the issues in these 2 articles you support tyranny.

His white half is a tin pot tyrant too.

best you could do? ...thought so.

 

[Missourian]

Who cares about the bible in civil law........or rather why do you want to force people to care about what your bible says in reference to civil law?

The First Amendment. Religious freedom.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble​

 

[Zander]

Good for them!!

The owners of an Oregon bakery are refusing to pay $135,000 in state-ordered damages to a same-sex couple who were denied service.

Melissa and Aaron Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, cited religious beliefs when they refused to bake a wedding cake for Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer more than two years ago.

The couple were awarded the damages in July by Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian for emotional suffering, saying the owners had violated the women’s civil rights by discriminating on the basis of their sexual orientation. They were also slapped with a gag order that prohibited them from speaking publicly about their refusal to participate in or bake wedding cakes for same-sex marriages.

Oregon bakery owners refuse to pay damages in gay wedding cake case
​

so they'll be held in contempt and interest will keep accruing. gee, that'll show 'em

Maybe, maybe not. They are planning on fighting this in court. Personally, I have no issue with same sex marriage. But I do have a problem with the excessive fine and the fascist "gag order" in this case.

I also have a problem with a potentially serious conflict of interest that exists.

The Daily Signal has exclusively learned that the government agency responsible for enforcing Oregon’s anti-discrimination law appears to be working closely with a powerful gay rights advocacy group in its case against Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa.

Communications between the agency, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, and the LGBT organization, Basic Rights Oregon, raise questions about potential bias in the state’s decision to charge the Kleins with discrimination for refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.

In April, a judge for the agency recommended the Kleins be fined $135,000.

Communications obtained through a public records request show employees of the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries—which pursued the case against the Kleins—participating in phone calls, texting, and attending meetings with Basic Rights Oregon, the largest LGBT advocacy group in the state.

Emails Raise Questions About Bias in Sweet Cakes Ruling
​

How is the fine "excessive" when a Christian couple in Oregon got over 100K more for the same kind of business discrimination.

Both fines were excessive. Did the commission issue a "gag order" in the other case too?

They issued no gag order in this case.

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

Page 43.

 

[Ernie S.]

Yes.

Did you feel the same way when years before Oregon used the same PA law to fine a business over 300K for refusing to serve a Christian couple?

To be honest, I never heard of that.
Actually I would have supported their right to refuse service on religious grounds. Sometimes what is right, feels wrong.
The First Amendment makes it clear that the government should place no limits on anyone's right to practice their religion.
If, for the sake of argument, a Muslim owned business refused service to a Christian based on some tenet of his faith, I would stand behind him.

Kind of like the quote mis-attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Actually, nothing a Christian believes would cause them to refuse service.....so your hypothetical doesn't fit.

But, if the Christians went to a Muslim butcher and demanded 50 lbs of pulled-pork....that's different.

Not knowing anything about the case, I'm somewhat baffled why anyone would refuse service to a Christian myself. Perhaps we will get a link.

Let me provide you with it since you asked nicely:

Bend dentist fined nearly $348,000 for required Scientology-based training, BOLI announces

I agree with the decision up to a point. My problem with it is that this woman was an employee. She was employed subject to rules placed by her employer. As an employer, myself, I'm conflicted.

 

[daws101]

Your point? An authorized commission has the same powers as a court.

No, it doesn't, or at least it shouldn't.

Your side loves tyranny when it punishes people you disagree with.

So it's not tyranny when you guys do it?

Please show me where I have advocated any form of "tyranny"

In 120 Years Republicans Only Cry Tyranny When the Black President Uses Executive Orders
In 120 Years Republicans Only Cry Tyranny When the Black President Uses Executive Orders
The hypocritical outrage over an African American President issuing executive orders was swift and absurd from Republicans within minutes of the President’s State of the Union, and there were accusations that the President is shredding the Constitution and circumventing Congress, but what Congress? Do Republicans mean the Congress that cannot do its Constitutional job and work for the general welfare of the people, or do they mean congressional Republicans shredding the Constitution by passing a preponderance of biblical laws targeting women for being women and gays for expecting protections guaranteed in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment

Proof US House Republican Tyranny | Video | C-SPAN.org


if you support any of the issues in these 2 articles you support tyranny.

Your point? An authorized commission has the same powers as a court.

No, it doesn't, or at least it shouldn't.

Your side loves tyranny when it punishes people you disagree with.

So it's not tyranny when you guys do it?

Please show me where I have advocated any form of "tyranny"

In 120 Years Republicans Only Cry Tyranny When the Black President Uses Executive Orders
In 120 Years Republicans Only Cry Tyranny When the Black President Uses Executive Orders
The hypocritical outrage over an African American President issuing executive orders was swift and absurd from Republicans within minutes of the President’s State of the Union, and there were accusations that the President is shredding the Constitution and circumventing Congress, but what Congress? Do Republicans mean the Congress that cannot do its Constitutional job and work for the general welfare of the people, or do they mean congressional Republicans shredding the Constitution by passing a preponderance of biblical laws targeting women for being women and gays for expecting protections guaranteed in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment

Proof US House Republican Tyranny | Video | C-SPAN.org


if you support any of the issues in these 2 articles you support tyranny.

The first article is nothing but a liberal rant. And considering your first one is crap, I'm not wasting my time on the 2nd.

How about you actually type your positions instead of copypasting someone else's??

that is my opinion .
why repeat myself? epic fail ....

 

[daws101]

How would the store owner know they were selling an icon to a satanist?

The Satanist would tell them. At that point, would you force the Store owner to sell the figurine?

Why would a satanist tell them.
Unlike evangelicals and other religious nutsacks.
Satanists and sane religious people don't feel the need to broadcast their beliefs.
A more realistic scenario might make your argument appear reasonable.

Answer the question without dodging please. In THIS scenario, should the store owner be forced to sell the figurine?

Yes or no will suffice.

it's not accurate or realistic scenario.
in the form it in no answer is possible.
in other words it's a rigged question..

Yes or no. Can the state force the person to sell the statue or not?

it's not accurate or realistic scenario.
in the form it in no answer is possible

 

[Zander]

Did you feel the same way when years before Oregon used the same PA law to fine a business over 300K for refusing to serve a Christian couple?

To be honest, I never heard of that.
Actually I would have supported their right to refuse service on religious grounds. Sometimes what is right, feels wrong.
The First Amendment makes it clear that the government should place no limits on anyone's right to practice their religion.
If, for the sake of argument, a Muslim owned business refused service to a Christian based on some tenet of his faith, I would stand behind him.

Kind of like the quote mis-attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Actually, nothing a Christian believes would cause them to refuse service.....so your hypothetical doesn't fit.

But, if the Christians went to a Muslim butcher and demanded 50 lbs of pulled-pork....that's different.

IF the Muslim butcher had pork in the first place but refused to serve them because they were Christian you would be right.

BUT.....please don't insult our intelligence by using as an example a business that doesn't sell a certain product in the first place being forced to sell that product. It isn't the same......so stop pretending we would fall for that.

I'm not pretending anything. As I told you, I have never heard of the case you referred to. A link might help.

Bend dentist fined nearly $348,000 for required Scientology-based training, BOLI announces

Another case of excessive government overreach.