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

[Immanuel]

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.

Had they served those very same couples birthday cake on one of their birthdays?

If so, they should not have to worry. IMHO but then I think the basic speed law sucks and so does this aspect of the Public Accommodation laws so what do I matter? I think the judge in the case you cited that stated that a black photographer could refuse service to the KKK ( I support this aspect) but a white photographer (Something is just plain wrong with this) could not refuse service to a black man (and no, I would never consider doing such a thing, but my photography skills suck anyway so I would actually be doing him a favor), must have had his head up his ass, so what do I matter?

Immie

PS Can I be arrested for saying that I think a judge had to have his head up his ass?

 

[JOSweetHeart]

To destroy somebody purely because they hold a convicton you don't share is evil.

I agree. To me, if you do not agree with where another person stands on things, you should just wash your hands of them completely.

Isn't Jesus' all for "forgiveness"?

He is, but I believe that we have to ask him for it because we do not automatically have it. The thing is that as long as a person doesn't think that they are doing anything wrong to begin with, they are not going to think that they have a reason to ask for his forgiveness, therefore they will not get it.

We have ALL sinned.
The 'trick' is to not REPEAT that sinful behavior

Amen to this!

God bless you three always!!!

Holly

 

[Alfalfa]

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

Since SSM is not recognized in Oregon the lesbian couple was not asking for a cake for a wedding, but for a domestic partnership. Since it wasn't a wedding, what was the objection to making the cake?

 

[Immanuel]

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

Since SSM is not recognized in Oregon the lesbian couple was not asking for a cake for a wedding, but for a domestic partnership. Since it wasn't a wedding, what was the objection to making the cake?

What is it with you and semantics? j/k

In answer to your question, I can only say, I don't know, you would have to ask them. I will repeat what I said in my first couple of posts on this subject. I would not have refused them service. So, I can't answer for them.

Personally, I believe the bakery's refusal of service was not Christ like. As I said, Christ would have prepared a table for them, well, I think I edited that out and stated he would have used his carpentry skills for them, but Christ would not have refused this couple service. Having done so, this bakery does not display a Christian attitude. IMHO.

Christ would have built the table first, then he would have set it with a meal for them to join him and the crowd would have gathered around. I can't and won't justify this couple's stance. I will repeat however, that I believe the government is wrong when it imposes a business to cater to individuals they do not want to serve.

Immie

 

[Alfalfa]

If everyone had your attitude Immie there would be need for these kinds of laws. But they are needed.

 

[Immanuel]

If everyone had your attitude Immie there would be need for these kinds of laws. But they are needed.

Hey wait a minute? There would be need for these kinds of laws? Did you miss a word there?

But, I have to tell you, that if everyone were like me, we'd be in a world of hurt but for completely different reasons. We need balance and not the Fox News kind of balance. We need some of both sides... but if we could minimize the damage done by the extremes of both sides we would be a hell of a lot better off.

Immie

 

[Papageorgio]

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?

If you can't comprehend simple English, then take it to your teacher and have them help you.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

Not true as a component of the law. The NM Law, which was the subject of the Photography case requires that the business not discriminate on the services offered based on sexual orientation. Not that they provide some services to everyone, but only a selected range of services to other - but the same services to each.

So let's compare using New Mexico's Supreme Court decision:

Cakes: If the bakery business is offering wedding cakes to heterosexual couples, but is refusing wedding cakes to homosexual couples - then the reason (even as stated by the bakery) for the denial was it was the sexual orientation of the participants. The bakery is not offering the same services based on sexual orientation. It's irrelevant that the bakery might sell them cupcakes for a birthday party or a pie for a retirement party. If the range of serivices is cupcakes, pies, birthday cakes and wedding cakes for heterosexuals but only cupcakes, pies, and birth day cakes for homosexuals - then the services are not the same.

KKK: If a Klan's man comes in an asks for a cake with KKK anti-black writing on it and the bakery says "I won't make the cake because you are white." Then the bakery is in violation of the law because their reason is based on race and they could bring dozens of white customers to testify and it would be irrelevant because they states the reason was race. If the Klansman could prove the baker said it was because they were white then legally they would loose the case. On the other hand if the bakery said they wouldn't make the cake because it was for a Klan rally, then the reason is not based on race, it's because of the Klan's political activities. Since political organizations are not protected under the NM Public Accommodation law they (the bakery) would win.​

Just using NM as the standard for the example because the Bakery case has not been adjudicated yet and so there isn't a ruling to which to refer. In the matter of the NM law we have a standard set by the NM Supreme Court.


>>>>

 

[paperview]

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

Holy crap.

Anyone follow the spectacular fail of the Windbag here?

Read back for some fun (for what he claimed and what I cited):

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7795335-post906.html

And then he links to the NM Photographer in that OP...which was what I cited!

Yikes, and as I suspected, yes, again, you were blown out of the water on that thread.

WorldWatcher did his normal ju jitsu and left you in the dust:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7745404-post134.html

 

[Foxfyre]

And the bottom line remains the same. We are not free if we are forced to go where we do not want to go, to serve those we do not wish to serve, and if we can be destroyed for holding convictions and beliefs that others do not share.

To destroy somebody purely because he or she holds a belief or conviction that others do not share is evil. And it should be a HUGE civil rights violation when it happens.

 

[Gadawg73]

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

Not true as a component of the law. The NM Law, which was the subject of the Photography case requires that the business not discriminate on the services offered based on sexual orientation. Not that they provide some services to everyone, but only a selected range of services to other - but the same services to each.

So let's compare using New Mexico's Supreme Court decision:

Cakes: If the bakery business is offering wedding cakes to heterosexual couples, but is refusing wedding cakes to homosexual couples - then the reason (even as stated by the bakery) for the denial was it was the sexual orientation of the participants. The bakery is not offering the same services based on sexual orientation. It's irrelevant that the bakery might sell them cupcakes for a birthday party or a pie for a retirement party. If the range of serivices is cupcakes, pies, birthday cakes and wedding cakes for heterosexuals but only cupcakes, pies, and birth day cakes for homosexuals - then the services are not the same.

KKK: If a Klan's man comes in an asks for a cake with KKK anti-black writing on it and the bakery says "I won't make the cake because you are white." Then the bakery is in violation of the law because their reason is based on race and they could bring dozens of white customers to testify and it would be irrelevant because they states the reason was race. If the Klansman could prove the baker said it was because they were white then legally they would loose the case. On the other hand if the bakery said they wouldn't make the cake because it was for a Klan rally, then the reason is not based on race, it's because of the Klan's political activities. Since political organizations are not protected under the NM Public Accommodation law they (the bakery) would win.​

Just using NM as the standard for the example because the Bakery case has not been adjudicated yet and so there isn't a ruling to which to refer. In the matter of the NM law we have a standard set by the NM Supreme Court.


>>>>

Explained very well.

 

[WorldWatcher]

And the bottom line remains the same. We are not free if we are forced to go where we do not want to go, to serve those we do not wish to serve, and if we can be destroyed for holding convictions and beliefs that others do not share.

To destroy somebody purely because he or she holds a belief or conviction that others do not share is evil. And it should be a HUGE civil rights violation when it happens.

I agree which is why I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws. Barry Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he felt the provisions intruded into the lives of private persons to do or not do business with whom the please.

I'm not saying there should be "special privileges" for people to discriminate based on a "religion" claim - Public Accommodation laws should be repealed and private businesses allowed to refuse customers for whatever reason they choose. If that race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc - then so be it. Public Accommodation law should only apply to government entities.

Will there be some discrimination? Yep, but that is the price of a smaller government and maximum liberty. Will we ever return to the days of old with widespread institutionalized discrimination in the private sector and even by government? Nope.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Explained very well.

Thank you sir.


>>>>

 

[Katzndogz]

All bakers and other vendors have to do is follow the ruling in the Elane Photography case and they can pick and choose who they want to do business with. Let the gays go pound sand. Take their actions with them.

 

[Foxfyre]

And the bottom line remains the same. We are not free if we are forced to go where we do not want to go, to serve those we do not wish to serve, and if we can be destroyed for holding convictions and beliefs that others do not share.

To destroy somebody purely because he or she holds a belief or conviction that others do not share is evil. And it should be a HUGE civil rights violation when it happens.

I agree which is why I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws. Barry Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he felt the provisions intruded into the lives of private persons to do or not do business with whom the please.

I'm not saying there should be "special privileges" for people to discriminate based on a "religion" claim - Public Accommodation laws should be repealed and private businesses allowed to refuse customers for whatever reason they choose. If the be race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc - then so be it. Public Accommodation law should only apply to government entities.

Will there be some discrimination? Yep, but that is the price of a smaller government and maximum liberty. Will we ever return to the days of old with widespread institutionalized discrimination in the private sector and even by government? Nope.

>>>>

If somebody is so bigoted they won't serve somebody at a lunch counter or sell them a dozen doughnuts, that person isn't going to get much business from anybody other than other bigots and there won't be enough of them to make the business really profitable.

The war against slavery, segregation, and discrimination has been fought and won though, and it is high time we stop fighting it. Until we do, and allow skin color etc. to be of no more consequence than eye color or hair color, racism will continue to be exploited and pepetuated by all sorts of opportunists.

Those businesses who cheerfully and competently serve the public they have will thrive. Those who don't won't.

Who I choose to do business with is my business. And I will choose the friendly shop owner who serves me and my friends with a smile over the shop that would exclude some of my friends.

But nobody should ever be forced or expected to go to a location he or she does not feel comfortable or does not wish to go whether it is because he or she fears for personal safety or because it includes an activity or emphasis that the person simply cannot condone or for any other reason. It does not matter what it is because we all have unalienable right to our own beliefs and convictions and, yes, we all have an unalienable right to our prejudices and biases.

To destroy somebody purely because they hold a belief or conviction you do not share is unAmerican and bigoted and evil. And none of us should ever condone that.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And the bottom line remains the same. We are not free if we are forced to go where we do not want to go, to serve those we do not wish to serve, and if we can be destroyed for holding convictions and beliefs that others do not share.

To destroy somebody purely because he or she holds a belief or conviction that others do not share is evil. And it should be a HUGE civil rights violation when it happens.

I agree which is why I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws. Barry Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he felt the provisions intruded into the lives of private persons to do or not do business with whom the please.

I'm not saying there should be "special privileges" for people to discriminate based on a "religion" claim - Public Accommodation laws should be repealed and private businesses allowed to refuse customers for whatever reason they choose. If the be race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc - then so be it. Public Accommodation law should only apply to government entities.

Will there be some discrimination? Yep, but that is the price of a smaller government and maximum liberty. Will we ever return to the days of old with widespread institutionalized discrimination in the private sector and even by government? Nope.

>>>>

If somebody is so bigoted they won't serve somebody at a lunch counter or sell them a dozen doughnuts, that person isn't going to get much business from anybody other than other bigots and there won't be enough of them to make the business really profitable.

The war against slavery, segregation, and discrimination has been fought and won though, and it is high time we stop fighting it. Until we do, and allow skin color etc. to be of no more consequence than eye color or hair color, racism will continue to be exploited and pepetuated by all sorts of opportunists.

Those businesses who cheerfully and competently serve the public they have will thrive. Those who don't won't.

Who I choose to do business with is my business. And I will choose the friendly shop owner who serves me and my friends with a smile over the shop that would exclude some of my friends.

But nobody should ever be forced or expected to go to a location he or she does not feel comfortable or does not wish to go whether it is because he or she fears for personal safety or because it includes an activity or emphasis that the person simply cannot condone or for any other reason. It does not matter what it is because we all have unalienable right to our own beliefs and convictions and, yes, we all have an unalienable right to our prejudices and biases.

To destroy somebody purely because they hold a belief or conviction you do not share is unAmerican and bigoted and evil. And none of us should ever condone that.

So you're a bigot if you boycott a bigot?

Just like you're a sinner if you bake a cake for a gay couple?

How do you brainwashed Christians even get out of bed without putting your soul in danger of hellfire?

Parochial bigoted belief systems have no place in the modern world.

 

[Katzndogz]

I agree which is why I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws. Barry Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he felt the provisions intruded into the lives of private persons to do or not do business with whom the please.

I'm not saying there should be "special privileges" for people to discriminate based on a "religion" claim - Public Accommodation laws should be repealed and private businesses allowed to refuse customers for whatever reason they choose. If the be race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc - then so be it. Public Accommodation law should only apply to government entities.

Will there be some discrimination? Yep, but that is the price of a smaller government and maximum liberty. Will we ever return to the days of old with widespread institutionalized discrimination in the private sector and even by government? Nope.

>>>>

If somebody is so bigoted they won't serve somebody at a lunch counter or sell them a dozen doughnuts, that person isn't going to get much business from anybody other than other bigots and there won't be enough of them to make the business really profitable.

The war against slavery, segregation, and discrimination has been fought and won though, and it is high time we stop fighting it. Until we do, and allow skin color etc. to be of no more consequence than eye color or hair color, racism will continue to be exploited and pepetuated by all sorts of opportunists.

Those businesses who cheerfully and competently serve the public they have will thrive. Those who don't won't.

Who I choose to do business with is my business. And I will choose the friendly shop owner who serves me and my friends with a smile over the shop that would exclude some of my friends.

But nobody should ever be forced or expected to go to a location he or she does not feel comfortable or does not wish to go whether it is because he or she fears for personal safety or because it includes an activity or emphasis that the person simply cannot condone or for any other reason. It does not matter what it is because we all have unalienable right to our own beliefs and convictions and, yes, we all have an unalienable right to our prejudices and biases.

To destroy somebody purely because they hold a belief or conviction you do not share is unAmerican and bigoted and evil. And none of us should ever condone that.

So you're a bigot if you boycott a bigot?

Just like you're a sinner if you bake a cake for a gay couple?

How do you brainwashed Christians even get out of bed without putting your soul in danger of hellfire?

Parochial bigoted belief systems have no place in the modern world.

You don't get to make that choice. The New Mexico supreme court has held that people have a right to be as bigoted as they want to be and they can still comply with the law.

 

[Dot Com]

I agree which is why I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws. Barry Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he felt the provisions intruded into the lives of private persons to do or not do business with whom the please.

I'm not saying there should be "special privileges" for people to discriminate based on a "religion" claim - Public Accommodation laws should be repealed and private businesses allowed to refuse customers for whatever reason they choose. If the be race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc - then so be it. Public Accommodation law should only apply to government entities.

Will there be some discrimination? Yep, but that is the price of a smaller government and maximum liberty. Will we ever return to the days of old with widespread institutionalized discrimination in the private sector and even by government? Nope.

>>>>

If somebody is so bigoted they won't serve somebody at a lunch counter or sell them a dozen doughnuts, that person isn't going to get much business from anybody other than other bigots and there won't be enough of them to make the business really profitable.

The war against slavery, segregation, and discrimination has been fought and won though, and it is high time we stop fighting it. Until we do, and allow skin color etc. to be of no more consequence than eye color or hair color, racism will continue to be exploited and pepetuated by all sorts of opportunists.

Those businesses who cheerfully and competently serve the public they have will thrive. Those who don't won't.

Who I choose to do business with is my business. And I will choose the friendly shop owner who serves me and my friends with a smile over the shop that would exclude some of my friends.

But nobody should ever be forced or expected to go to a location he or she does not feel comfortable or does not wish to go whether it is because he or she fears for personal safety or because it includes an activity or emphasis that the person simply cannot condone or for any other reason. It does not matter what it is because we all have unalienable right to our own beliefs and convictions and, yes, we all have an unalienable right to our prejudices and biases.

To destroy somebody purely because they hold a belief or conviction you do not share is unAmerican and bigoted and evil. And none of us should ever condone that.

So you're a bigot if you boycott a bigot?

Just like you're a sinner if you bake a cake for a gay couple?

How do you brainwashed Christians even get out of bed without putting your soul in danger of hellfire?

Parochial bigoted belief systems have no place in the modern world.

^ that

 

[Foxfyre]

I agree which is why I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws. Barry Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he felt the provisions intruded into the lives of private persons to do or not do business with whom the please.

I'm not saying there should be "special privileges" for people to discriminate based on a "religion" claim - Public Accommodation laws should be repealed and private businesses allowed to refuse customers for whatever reason they choose. If the be race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc - then so be it. Public Accommodation law should only apply to government entities.

Will there be some discrimination? Yep, but that is the price of a smaller government and maximum liberty. Will we ever return to the days of old with widespread institutionalized discrimination in the private sector and even by government? Nope.

>>>>

If somebody is so bigoted they won't serve somebody at a lunch counter or sell them a dozen doughnuts, that person isn't going to get much business from anybody other than other bigots and there won't be enough of them to make the business really profitable.

The war against slavery, segregation, and discrimination has been fought and won though, and it is high time we stop fighting it. Until we do, and allow skin color etc. to be of no more consequence than eye color or hair color, racism will continue to be exploited and pepetuated by all sorts of opportunists.

Those businesses who cheerfully and competently serve the public they have will thrive. Those who don't won't.

Who I choose to do business with is my business. And I will choose the friendly shop owner who serves me and my friends with a smile over the shop that would exclude some of my friends.

But nobody should ever be forced or expected to go to a location he or she does not feel comfortable or does not wish to go whether it is because he or she fears for personal safety or because it includes an activity or emphasis that the person simply cannot condone or for any other reason. It does not matter what it is because we all have unalienable right to our own beliefs and convictions and, yes, we all have an unalienable right to our prejudices and biases.

To destroy somebody purely because they hold a belief or conviction you do not share is unAmerican and bigoted and evil. And none of us should ever condone that.

So you're a bigot if you boycott a bigot?

Just like you're a sinner if you bake a cake for a gay couple?

How do you brainwashed Christians even get out of bed without putting your soul in danger of hellfire?

Parochial bigoted belief systems have no place in the modern world.

You are as entitled to your beliefs and convictions as the next person and you are perfectly within your moral and legal right to choose what merchants you prefer to patronize for any reason.

You are a bigot if you organize a boycott against somebody you consider bigoted because they hold beliefs or convictions you don't share. You are are far FAR worse bigot than they are because you would harm somebody, hurt somebody, destroy somebody for no other reason than you would enforce your bigotry.

The Founders risked their blood and treasure--all they they had--to give us a country where people are allowed to think and speak and believe as they wish. Honorable men and women understand that. Bigots would destroy people because they don't think or believe as the bigot demands they do.

To intentionally destroy somebody because you don't share their beliefs or convictions is unAmerican, hateful, destructive, and evil.

 

[Dot Com]

There goes Foxy bandying about the term "evil" for the 10th + time