Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close shop

[paperview]

Look it up, I made two threads about it since I have been here.

So you can't link it?

How do I know it wasn't blown out of the water, like your other threads?

I already did link it, look it up. If you think you can blow it out of the water, you shouldn't have any problem. After all, you are smarter than I am, and have a thick skin.

Kay. So you won't link it. Fine.

 

[Alfalfa]

But because of ****Free Speech Rights*** -- and that alone, not gov't intervention, they started to allow women golfers. Or didn't you notice?

Yes, I knew. I said "for how many years"?

They should have opened their membership up decades ago. Well actually, membership should never have been closed to women, but not much we can do about that now... by the way, who wants to belong to any club without women anyway?

Immie

I'm with you on that.

Like the priesthood.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So you can't link it?

How do I know it wasn't blown out of the water, like your other threads?

I already did link it, look it up. If you think you can blow it out of the water, you shouldn't have any problem. After all, you are smarter than I am, and have a thick skin.

Kay. So you won't link it. Fine.

I told you, I already did.

At least twice.

 

[daws101]

Yes, I knew. I said "for how many years"?

They should have opened their membership up decades ago. Well actually, membership should never have been closed to women, but not much we can do about that now... by the way, who wants to belong to any club without women anyway?

Immie

I'm with you on that.

Like the priesthood.

or the boy scouts

 

[WorldWatcher]

But in both instances LGBT folks called for boycotts. Interesting is it not? They both had the intent of destroying the said business in question. This bakery was put out of business because nobody is allowed to be politically incorrect in this society.

You do realize that SOCON's frequently call for boycotts of businesses they perceive as "gay friendly" right?

The boycott is not just the tool of the liberals.



>>>>>

Yeah FoxFyre Does that make the SOCONS (you) "evil" as well?

DC,

I'm not a social conservative. I've been a Republican since I first registered to vote in 1978. SoCon's don't have a problem with a big interventionist government and using it to deny equal treatment to gays (i.e. such as laws and amendments barring Civil Marriage).

My solution is much simpler and has two prongs, both of which designed to reduce government interference:

1. Civil Marriage establishes a family relationship between two non-related adults. There are no conditions that apply to law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, adults of different-sexes that also do not apply to same-sex couples. Therefore there is no compelling government interest in denying Civil Marrige based on gender.

2. Public Accommodation laws as they apply to private business usurp the inherent right of property of the private business owner. Therefore Public Accommodation laws should be repealed and private businesses allowed to choose which customers they want sell their goods or services to - with only one narrow exception - emergency medical care in a life threatening conditions. Public Accommodation laws should, of course, still apply wholly to government entities to not discriminate against the public they (we) serve and include (a) services rendered directly, and (b) restrictions on purchasing goods and services from private entities which operate under discriminatory practices.​

Under such conditions you end up with the best of both worlds. SoCon's can't use the government to discriminate and Liberals can't use the government to punish those who feel compelled to discriminate.

(And "Yes", when I say repeal Public Accommodation laws I mean all those based on race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, religion, etc.)



>>>>

 

[paperview]

I already did link it, look it up. If you think you can blow it out of the water, you shouldn't have any problem. After all, you are smarter than I am, and have a thick skin.

Kay. So you won't link it. Fine.

I told you, I already did.

At least twice.

Where? I'm looking and I can't find it.

Look, if you don't want to link it, just say so.

I showed my court case.

You link us up to your where "Public accommodation laws...force[d] them to serve the KKK if they show up. " You announced proudly "I have an actual case to back my position up" <-- Your words.

But now you don't want to show your proof. Figgers.

 

[Alfalfa]

Really? Ever heard of Augusta National Golf Club? No women allowed for how many years?

Immie

You're comparing a private golf club with a public cake baking business?

No, you stated any business that discriminated would go out of business rather quickly. I'm pointing out that you are wrong in that case and in fact in many cases. Actually, most cases. Bigots don't get run out of business, because it is too easy to find customers that agree with them usually silently.

In fact, apparently, even Sweet Cakes by Melissa, those evil Christian bigots are not out of business. They simply relocated and they may even see their business grow because of this.

Immie

Hmmm, no, I said a business (retail) that tried to operate like a private club with members only would be out of business.

 

[Alfalfa]

I haven't seen you deny saying that you are a scum eating slug, does that mean I should assume you are?

Well, if you're calling me a scum eating slug, yes, I deny it.

Now you deny it, why didn't you deny it before?

I did, as soon as I saw it.

 

[paperview]

You're comparing a private golf club with a public cake baking business?

No, you stated any business that discriminated would go out of business rather quickly. I'm pointing out that you are wrong in that case and in fact in many cases. Actually, most cases. Bigots don't get run out of business, because it is too easy to find customers that agree with them usually silently.

In fact, apparently, even Sweet Cakes by Melissa, those evil Christian bigots are not out of business. They simply relocated and they may even see their business grow because of this.

Immie

Hmmm, no, I said a business (retail) that tried to operate like a private club with members only would be out of business.

Sorry to say Immie, he's got you on that.

 

[Immanuel]

Yes, I knew. I said "for how many years"?

They should have opened their membership up decades ago. Well actually, membership should never have been closed to women, but not much we can do about that now... by the way, who wants to belong to any club without women anyway?

Immie

I'm with you on that.

Like the priesthood.

Hey, that was your faith by birth. Mine allows ministers to marry... but then, so far my faith does not allow women to be ministers, which is something I hope they will eventually change.

Of course, I have not joined that particular "club". I hated public speaking in college. The thought of having to do it every Sunday morning turns my stomach.

Immie

 

[Papageorgio]

There is no law against being a bigot or thinking bigoted thoughts. there are however laws about how a public business conducts itself and one of them is that one cannot discriminate against customers on the basis of race, ethnicity, age, gender, religion and yes, sexual orientation.

Go ahead and be the biggest bigot in private you want, but once you start a public business who serves the general public and put those bigotries into action in that business you are breaking the law.

And if you don't like the law change it or move your business to country more to your sentiments...like Russia.

I see you too avoided the question about the black gun shop owner. Why does everyone avoid that question?

I'm honestly not sure I would support the over-turning of public accommodation laws as wrong as I believe they are in extreme cases such as this. I'd like to think that if a bigot owned a restaurant here and refused to sell to blacks, Mexicans and Asians that most of us would refuse to do business with the asshole and send him packing. Sadly, I don't think that would happen.

In the case of the baker and the lesbian couple, we actually have two of those "protected classes" butting heads with each other, religion and sexual orientation. Who is actually doing the discriminating here? I might be able to make the case that it is actually the gay community who are the aggressors here and thus they are the ones guilty of discrimination. I see no reason why the lesbian couple should be favored by the court. The baker was not rude. He simply stated that the couple should find another bakery.

I have actually had a similar thing happen to me between Memphis and Jackson MI because my family was white. We were refused lunch in a sandwich shop in 1989 and told we should go elsewhere. We had been to the gates of Graceland, I was too cheap to actually go in, and drove South into Mississippi. We stopped for lunch. Sat down in a very dark as in the room was not lit, room and waited. After waiting a minute or two a woman's voice hollered from the counter, "can I help you?" It was obvious she was black. We conversed briefly, I stated we would like some lunch and that we were from California. She actually told me we should go somewhere else. She was not rude, but she clearly was not going to serve us. It wasn't until I left and drove a half mile or so that I realized we were the only white people around. I have told myself ever since that she did that for our safety. Now, I wish I could go back and meet her personally again. There is no place in this world for such fear and distrust. Like I said, she wasn't rude, but there was definitely something that brought her to not want to serve a 30ish white man, his wife and two little girls under the age of 5.

It would be so cool to meet her again and get to understand the dynamics of that encounter. Was she protecting us or was she afraid of us?

Too bad we have to fear each other because of the color of our skin!

Immie

I'm guessing no one answered because it or questions like it have been answered over and over. The black gun shop owner does not have the serve the KKK member because KKK members, or bigots, or racists are not a protected class.

Will we get the bacon/Deli question now...again?

So all are not treated equal.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I see you too avoided the question about the black gun shop owner. Why does everyone avoid that question?

I'm honestly not sure I would support the over-turning of public accommodation laws as wrong as I believe they are in extreme cases such as this. I'd like to think that if a bigot owned a restaurant here and refused to sell to blacks, Mexicans and Asians that most of us would refuse to do business with the asshole and send him packing. Sadly, I don't think that would happen.

In the case of the baker and the lesbian couple, we actually have two of those "protected classes" butting heads with each other, religion and sexual orientation. Who is actually doing the discriminating here? I might be able to make the case that it is actually the gay community who are the aggressors here and thus they are the ones guilty of discrimination. I see no reason why the lesbian couple should be favored by the court. The baker was not rude. He simply stated that the couple should find another bakery.

I have actually had a similar thing happen to me between Memphis and Jackson MI because my family was white. We were refused lunch in a sandwich shop in 1989 and told we should go elsewhere. We had been to the gates of Graceland, I was too cheap to actually go in, and drove South into Mississippi. We stopped for lunch. Sat down in a very dark as in the room was not lit, room and waited. After waiting a minute or two a woman's voice hollered from the counter, "can I help you?" It was obvious she was black. We conversed briefly, I stated we would like some lunch and that we were from California. She actually told me we should go somewhere else. She was not rude, but she clearly was not going to serve us. It wasn't until I left and drove a half mile or so that I realized we were the only white people around. I have told myself ever since that she did that for our safety. Now, I wish I could go back and meet her personally again. There is no place in this world for such fear and distrust. Like I said, she wasn't rude, but there was definitely something that brought her to not want to serve a 30ish white man, his wife and two little girls under the age of 5.

It would be so cool to meet her again and get to understand the dynamics of that encounter. Was she protecting us or was she afraid of us?

Too bad we have to fear each other because of the color of our skin!

Immie

I'm guessing no one answered because it or questions like it have been answered over and over. The black gun shop owner does not have the serve the KKK member because KKK members, or bigots, or racists are not a protected class.

Will we get the bacon/Deli question now...again?

You are an idiot, and a bigot, but you think you are smart, so that should help.

Public accommodation laws apply to every business, even those owned by blacks, and force them to serve the KKK if they show up. I have an actual case to back my position up, all you have is your delusional belief that you are smarter than I am.

The emphasized part depends on location. In California the Unruh Act (California Civil Rights Law) as been expanded by the Calififornia Supreme Court to deal with all types of discrimination as it pertains to California Law.

On the other hand the New Mexico Supreme Court said:

" Elane Photography also suggests that enforcing the NMHRA against it would mean that an African-American photographer could not legally refuse to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. This hypothetical suffers from the reality that political views and political group membership, including membership in the Klan, are not protected categories under the NMHRA."​

So in New Mexico, not a black shop owner would not be forced to sell to the KKK.

And yes here is an actual case that backs up that such application varies -->> Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock



Now if you have something from the SCOTUS that shows that Pubic Accommodation laws have to include political organizations - feel free to present a link.


>>>>

 

[Alfalfa]

I see you too avoided the question about the black gun shop owner. Why does everyone avoid that question?

I'm honestly not sure I would support the over-turning of public accommodation laws as wrong as I believe they are in extreme cases such as this. I'd like to think that if a bigot owned a restaurant here and refused to sell to blacks, Mexicans and Asians that most of us would refuse to do business with the asshole and send him packing. Sadly, I don't think that would happen.

In the case of the baker and the lesbian couple, we actually have two of those "protected classes" butting heads with each other, religion and sexual orientation. Who is actually doing the discriminating here? I might be able to make the case that it is actually the gay community who are the aggressors here and thus they are the ones guilty of discrimination. I see no reason why the lesbian couple should be favored by the court. The baker was not rude. He simply stated that the couple should find another bakery.

I have actually had a similar thing happen to me between Memphis and Jackson MI because my family was white. We were refused lunch in a sandwich shop in 1989 and told we should go elsewhere. We had been to the gates of Graceland, I was too cheap to actually go in, and drove South into Mississippi. We stopped for lunch. Sat down in a very dark as in the room was not lit, room and waited. After waiting a minute or two a woman's voice hollered from the counter, "can I help you?" It was obvious she was black. We conversed briefly, I stated we would like some lunch and that we were from California. She actually told me we should go somewhere else. She was not rude, but she clearly was not going to serve us. It wasn't until I left and drove a half mile or so that I realized we were the only white people around. I have told myself ever since that she did that for our safety. Now, I wish I could go back and meet her personally again. There is no place in this world for such fear and distrust. Like I said, she wasn't rude, but there was definitely something that brought her to not want to serve a 30ish white man, his wife and two little girls under the age of 5.

It would be so cool to meet her again and get to understand the dynamics of that encounter. Was she protecting us or was she afraid of us?

Too bad we have to fear each other because of the color of our skin!

Immie

I'm guessing no one answered because it or questions like it have been answered over and over. The black gun shop owner does not have the serve the KKK member because KKK members, or bigots, or racists are not a protected class.

Will we get the bacon/Deli question now...again?

So all are not treated equal.

All what are not treated equal?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I see you too avoided the question about the black gun shop owner. Why does everyone avoid that question?

I'm honestly not sure I would support the over-turning of public accommodation laws as wrong as I believe they are in extreme cases such as this. I'd like to think that if a bigot owned a restaurant here and refused to sell to blacks, Mexicans and Asians that most of us would refuse to do business with the asshole and send him packing. Sadly, I don't think that would happen.

In the case of the baker and the lesbian couple, we actually have two of those "protected classes" butting heads with each other, religion and sexual orientation. Who is actually doing the discriminating here? I might be able to make the case that it is actually the gay community who are the aggressors here and thus they are the ones guilty of discrimination. I see no reason why the lesbian couple should be favored by the court. The baker was not rude. He simply stated that the couple should find another bakery.

I have actually had a similar thing happen to me between Memphis and Jackson MI because my family was white. We were refused lunch in a sandwich shop in 1989 and told we should go elsewhere. We had been to the gates of Graceland, I was too cheap to actually go in, and drove South into Mississippi. We stopped for lunch. Sat down in a very dark as in the room was not lit, room and waited. After waiting a minute or two a woman's voice hollered from the counter, "can I help you?" It was obvious she was black. We conversed briefly, I stated we would like some lunch and that we were from California. She actually told me we should go somewhere else. She was not rude, but she clearly was not going to serve us. It wasn't until I left and drove a half mile or so that I realized we were the only white people around. I have told myself ever since that she did that for our safety. Now, I wish I could go back and meet her personally again. There is no place in this world for such fear and distrust. Like I said, she wasn't rude, but there was definitely something that brought her to not want to serve a 30ish white man, his wife and two little girls under the age of 5.

It would be so cool to meet her again and get to understand the dynamics of that encounter. Was she protecting us or was she afraid of us?

Too bad we have to fear each other because of the color of our skin!

Immie

I'm guessing no one answered because it or questions like it have been answered over and over. The black gun shop owner does not have the serve the KKK member because KKK members, or bigots, or racists are not a protected class.

Will we get the bacon/Deli question now...again?

Race is a protected class and just as the gay community could make the claim that this bakery refused service to gays when according to the bakery it is only for same sex weddings, the KKK can make the case that they are being discriminated against because of their race.

Immie

They can claim anything they want, the problem would be they would have to prove that the business turned them down based on race and not as a political organization (which is not a protected class).

All the shop owner would have to do is start calling white clients to the stand and after the first dozen or so witness with the next 100-200 waiting in the wings to testify, the judge would probably make a summary judgement in the defendants favor.


>>>>

 

[Immanuel]

No, you stated any business that discriminated would go out of business rather quickly. I'm pointing out that you are wrong in that case and in fact in many cases. Actually, most cases. Bigots don't get run out of business, because it is too easy to find customers that agree with them usually silently.

In fact, apparently, even Sweet Cakes by Melissa, those evil Christian bigots are not out of business. They simply relocated and they may even see their business grow because of this.

Immie

Hmmm, no, I said a business (retail) that tried to operate like a private club with members only would be out of business.

Sorry to say Immie, he's got you on that.

Not really, but I don't feel it is necessary to argue semantics here.

You see any business trying to operate like a private club would not be a business open to the public, in fact, it would be a private club so the scenario does not make sense.

Also, there are examples of retail businesses that do in fact operate like private clubs. These would be Sam's Club, Costco and the likes. They are still in business. Anyone remember Gemco?

Now, those examples are stretching things a little bit because I can't think of anyone who cannot buy a membership into Sam's Club or Costco, but I suspect that if some asshole wanted to open up a co-op retail business and not sell to muslims, he could probably do so as a private club and have more than enough customers to keep him in business maybe even have people clamoring at his door begging for membership.

Immie

 

[paperview]

I'm guessing no one answered because it or questions like it have been answered over and over. The black gun shop owner does not have the serve the KKK member because KKK members, or bigots, or racists are not a protected class.

Will we get the bacon/Deli question now...again?

You are an idiot, and a bigot, but you think you are smart, so that should help.

Public accommodation laws apply to every business, even those owned by blacks, and force them to serve the KKK if they show up. I have an actual case to back my position up, all you have is your delusional belief that you are smarter than I am.

The emphasized part depends on location. In California the Unruh Act (California Civil Rights Law) as been expanded by the Calififornia Supreme Court to deal with all types of discrimination as it pertains to California Law.

On the other hand the New Mexico Supreme Court said:

" Elane Photography also suggests that enforcing the NMHRA against it would mean that an African-American photographer could not legally refuse to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. This hypothetical suffers from the reality that political views and political group membership, including membership in the Klan, are not protected categories under the NMHRA."​

So in New Mexico, not a black shop owner would not be forced to sell to the KKK.

And yes here is an actual case that backs up that such application varies -->> Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock



Now if you have something from the SCOTUS that shows that Pubic Accommodation laws have to include political organizations - feel free to present a link.


>>>>

He won't.

You know it.

I know it.

Bob Dole knows it.

 

[Immanuel]

I'm guessing no one answered because it or questions like it have been answered over and over. The black gun shop owner does not have the serve the KKK member because KKK members, or bigots, or racists are not a protected class.

Will we get the bacon/Deli question now...again?

Race is a protected class and just as the gay community could make the claim that this bakery refused service to gays when according to the bakery it is only for same sex weddings, the KKK can make the case that they are being discriminated against because of their race.

Immie

They can claim anything they want, the problem would be they would have to prove that the business turned them down based on race and not as a political organization (which is not a protected class).

All the shop owner would have to do is start calling white clients to the stand and after the first dozen or so witness with the next 100-200 waiting in the wings to testify, the judge would probably make a summary judgement in the defendants favor.


>>>>

True, but all this bakery needs to do is prove that they have served gays and lesbians in the past and I would suspect that if they kept any kind of decent records, they could do so. According to the story, they did not refuse service to gays and lesbians, but they drew the line at same sex weddings, in fact, I believe I read in the Portland Times story I posted that they had served this same couple in the past. They simply drew the line at the wedding.

If that is true and they had served gays and lesbians in the past, they should not have anything to worry about.

Immie

 

[paperview]

Hmmm, no, I said a business (retail) that tried to operate like a private club with members only would be out of business.

Sorry to say Immie, he's got you on that.

Not really, but I don't feel it is necessary to argue semantics here.

You see any business trying to operate like a private club would not be a business open to the public, in fact, it would be a private club so the scenario does not make sense.

Also, there are examples of retail businesses that do in fact operate like private clubs. These would be Sam's Club, Costco and the likes. They are still in business. Anyone remember Gemco?

Now, those examples are stretching things a little bit because I can't think of anyone who cannot buy a membership into Sam's Club or Costco, but I suspect that if some asshole wanted to open up a co-op retail business and not sell to muslims, he could probably do so as a private club and have more than enough customers to keep him in business maybe even have people clamoring at his door begging for membership.

Immie

Costco and Sams Club are not a "private business."

As you recognize clearly, anyone can buy membership.

 

[paperview]

Race is a protected class and just as the gay community could make the claim that this bakery refused service to gays when according to the bakery it is only for same sex weddings, the KKK can make the case that they are being discriminated against because of their race.

Immie

They can claim anything they want, the problem would be they would have to prove that the business turned them down based on race and not as a political organization (which is not a protected class).

All the shop owner would have to do is start calling white clients to the stand and after the first dozen or so witness with the next 100-200 waiting in the wings to testify, the judge would probably make a summary judgement in the defendants favor.


>>>>

True, but all this bakery needs to do is prove that they have served gays and lesbians in the past and I would suspect that if they kept any kind of decent records, they could do so. According to the story, they did not refuse service to gays and lesbians, but they drew the line at same sex weddings, in fact, I believe I read in the Portland Times story I posted that they had served this same couple in the past. They simply drew the line at the wedding.

If that is true and they had served gays and lesbians in the past, they should not have anything to worry about.

Immie

Is there some kind of straight/gay check off box they use when they sell a cupcake or cake? lol

No. They stated clearly, and have to numerous other same sex couples, they do not service those who want cakes for gay weddings.

They denied them on the basis of their orientation. There's no getting around this. That goes against Oregon Law.

They don't like it? Work to change that law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Kay. So you won't link it. Fine.

I told you, I already did.

At least twice.

Where? I'm looking and I can't find it.

Look, if you don't want to link it, just say so.

I showed my court case.

You link us up to your where "Public accommodation laws...force[d] them to serve the KKK if they show up. " You announced proudly "I have an actual case to back my position up" <-- Your words.

But now you don't want to show your proof. Figgers.

Do you know how to use Google?

Let me google that for you