This is CENTER STAGE where the rule of law prevails. We are a nation of laws, not of men (not of righties or lefties or whatever). As such, the United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. People often disagree about the interpretation of the law and/or how it applies to a particular set of facts. When such a case or controversy exists, it is the duty of our courts to review and resolve the controversy. Some of us may not agree with some judicial decisions, but history has taught us that decisions based on error do not withstand the test of time and reason.
I would like to discuss the important issues of the day using the rule of law. Can you support your position based on the law and reason?
Let's start with the actual decision issued by a state agency in the case involving "Sweetcakes by Melissa". Rather than rely on media accounts or right wing or left wing hysteria, please read the decision yourself and think about it:
In the matter of Klein, dba Sweetcakes by Melissa
If you think the decision is based on legal error, where do you find the error? If the matter is appealed, what legal grounds or precedent will the reviewing court use to reverse the decision?
To be sure, a nation of laws is a nation of righties.
Please explain.
Point one: if marriage is necessary because it gives children a sense of "permanency and commitment," then aren't all the illegitimate births in the US actionable?
I don't understand the relevance of your "point one" above. Marriage is a civil contract that may only be entered, maintained, or dissolved in accordance with state law. As a civil institution, marriage has many, many, many desirable attributes that benefit the marriage partners and their children. However, it is not an offense to forego those benefits and to have a child out of wedlock. The fact that children born out of wedlock are labeled "illegitimate", however, is stigmatizing.
Point two: the bakers refused to bake the cake as soon as they learned it would be for a same-sex wedding. No deception. No bait-and-switch. Nothing underhanded.
The linked decision clearly stated: "This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage. It is about a business's refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal." This case was about discrimination. It was not about fraud.
Point three: the baker didn't call the plaintiff an abomination, as the plaintiff's mother said.
Melissa Klein and her husband hung themselves with their own words. The administrative law judge only considered the credible evidence available in determining the issue of damages for emotional suffering.
Point four: the plaintiff was angry.
Victims of discrimination often are angry and feel enormous pain. That's why they are entitled to damages for emotional suffering under Oregon law.
I stopped reading after that. Hotheads didn't like the baker quoting scripture. Boo-hoo.
It is sad that you quit reading and show so little empathy for victims of discrimination. "Within Oregon's public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society. The ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry ... The denial of these basic freedoms to which all are entitled devalues the human condition of the individual, and in doing so, devalues the humanity of us all."
If a refusal to serve equates to a denial of "accomodations, advantages, facilities and privileges," then indigents may some day put every business out of business.
The public accommodations law does not require businesses to provide free goods and services to indigent people. That's a red-herring you threw in because you didn't want to take the time to read the actual administrative law decision and find out what it was about.
Melissa Klein and her husband can appeal the decision.
