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

[TemplarKormac]

Better contact the American Family Association, and the One Million Moms Campaign, and about 20 other 'Christian' organizations that work to promote boycotts of things they find offensive and want to remove and/or put out of business.

Boycotts are part of America ferchissakes. Our revolution STARTED with a boycott.

Free Speech is wrong now?

They do boycotts, they don't put people out of business in such an aggressive manner as what these gay rights folks did. In fact, they want to hurt the business, not put it out of business. They don't send such putrid emails to the ones who offensed them.

And our revolution began with the destruction of property, not a boycott. Google the Boston Tea Party.

Hey you big ole student of history you!

"Led by vocal orators such as James Otis and Patrick Henry, the colonists began a massive boycott of British goods causing colonial imports to fall from £2,250,000 in 1764, to £1,944,000 in 1765. In several colonies new protest groups, known as the "Sons of Liberty" formed."

American Revolution Causes - Causes of the American Revolution - Revolutionary War Causes

Read the title again my edumacated friend.

Causes is plural, not singular. From your link:

"On May 10, 1773, Parliament passed the Tea Act with the goal of aiding the struggling British East India Company. Prior to the passage of the law, the company had been required to sell its tea through London where it was taxed and duties assessed. Under the new legislation, the company would be permitted to sell tea directly to the colonies without the additional cost. As a result, tea prices in America would be reduced, with only the Townshend tea duty assessed. Aware that this was an attempt by Parliament to break the colonial boycott of British goods, groups such as the Sons of Liberty, spoke out against the act.

Across the colonies, British tea was boycotted and attempts were made to produce tea locally. In Boston, the situation climaxed in late November 1773, when three ships carrying East India Company tea arrived in the port. Rallying the populace, the members of the Sons of Liberty dressed as Native Americans and boarded the ships on the night of December 16. Carefully avoiding damaging other property, the "raiders" tossed 342 chests of tea into Boston Harbor. A direct affront to British authority, the "Boston Tea Party" forced Parliament to take action against the colonies."

Yeah. I have you beat in the history department. The formation of the group and the boycotting were precursors. The actual destruction of goods and property was the last straw.

Next.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Hell, Christains have been boycotting Disney off and on for decades, ever since they started designating certain days as special days at the Disney Parks for gays.

 

[Zona]

Organizing campaigns to destroy a person's livelihood for no better reason than the person holds a belief or conviction that you don't agree with may not be illegal. But it sure as hell is wrong. It is unAmerican. And it is evil.

And a pox on anybody's house who condones it.

Better contact the American Family Association, and the One Million Moms Campaign, and about 20 other 'Christian' organizations that work to promote boycotts of things they find offensive and want to remove and/or put out of business.

Boycotts are part of America ferchissakes. Our revolution STARTED with a boycott.

Free Speech is wrong now?

They do boycotts, they don't put people out of business in such an aggressive manner as what these gay rights folks did. In fact, they want to hurt the business, not put it out of business. They don't send such putrid emails to the ones who offensed them.

And our revolution began with the destruction of property, not a boycott. Google the Boston Tea Party.

So what you are saying is those mean ol tough gays made them close shop?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Better contact the American Family Association, and the One Million Moms Campaign, and about 20 other 'Christian' organizations that work to promote boycotts of things they find offensive and want to remove and/or put out of business.

Boycotts are part of America ferchissakes. Our revolution STARTED with a boycott.

Free Speech is wrong now?

They do boycotts, they don't put people out of business in such an aggressive manner as what these gay rights folks did. In fact, they want to hurt the business, not put it out of business. They don't send such putrid emails to the ones who offensed them.

And our revolution began with the destruction of property, not a boycott. Google the Boston Tea Party.

So what you are saying is those mean ol tough gays made them close shop?

The gay mafia came out and threatened the bakers with hair drying guns....

 

[Zona]

Hell, Christains have been boycotting Disney off and on for decades, ever since they started designating certain days as special days at the Disney Parks for gays.

Mean ol christians...

 

[Zona]

They do boycotts, they don't put people out of business in such an aggressive manner as what these gay rights folks did. In fact, they want to hurt the business, not put it out of business. They don't send such putrid emails to the ones who offensed them.

And our revolution began with the destruction of property, not a boycott. Google the Boston Tea Party.

So what you are saying is those mean ol tough gays made them close shop?

The gay mafia came out and threatened the bakers with hair drying guns....

 

[WorldWatcher]

Wasn't it federal law as well? I suppose of Obama's boys won't prosecute...

No, federal Public Accommodation law does not list sexual orientation.



>>>>

Then WHAT ON EARTH have we been discussing all this time?! If Federal Public Accommodation Law does not list sexual orientation, the bakery was well within their rights. Federal Law trumps state law. Period.

The complaint was not filed under any Federal law, the complaint was filed under the Oregon State Statute that deals with Public Accommodation.

The Oregon State Statute does not conflict with Federal law. It lists additional areas where discrimination is illegal in the State. Federal law is silent on discrimination based on sexual orientation and therefore the Supremacy Clause is not active. Oregon is permitted to enact more restrictive laws under powers granted by the 10th Amendment, they cannot write laws that are more lax - which Oregon didn't do.


>>>>

 

[paperview]

They do boycotts, they don't put people out of business in such an aggressive manner as what these gay rights folks did. In fact, they want to hurt the business, not put it out of business. They don't send such putrid emails to the ones who offensed them.

And our revolution began with the destruction of property, not a boycott. Google the Boston Tea Party.

Hey you big ole student of history you!

"Led by vocal orators such as James Otis and Patrick Henry, the colonists began a massive boycott of British goods causing colonial imports to fall from £2,250,000 in 1764, to £1,944,000 in 1765. In several colonies new protest groups, known as the "Sons of Liberty" formed."

American Revolution Causes - Causes of the American Revolution - Revolutionary War Causes

Read the title again my edumacated friend.

Causes is plural, not singular. From your link:

"On May 10, 1773, Parliament passed the Tea Act with the goal of aiding the struggling British East India Company. Prior to the passage of the law, the company had been required to sell its tea through London where it was taxed and duties assessed. Under the new legislation, the company would be permitted to sell tea directly to the colonies without the additional cost. As a result, tea prices in America would be reduced, with only the Townshend tea duty assessed. Aware that this was an attempt by Parliament to break the colonial boycott of British goods, groups such as the Sons of Liberty, spoke out against the act.

Across the colonies, British tea was boycotted and attempts were made to produce tea locally. In Boston, the situation climaxed in late November 1773, when three ships carrying East India Company tea arrived in the port. Rallying the populace, the members of the Sons of Liberty dressed as Native Americans and boarded the ships on the night of December 16. Carefully avoiding damaging other property, the "raiders" tossed 342 chests of tea into Boston Harbor. A direct affront to British authority, the "Boston Tea Party" forced Parliament to take action against the colonies."

Yeah. I have you beat in the history department. The formation of the group and the boycotting were precursors. The actual destruction of goods and property was the last straw.

Next.

It STARTED with the Stamp Act, you dunce.

I've made my living in the field of history for several decades now.

Try again Mr. Magoo.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No, federal Public Accommodation law does not list sexual orientation.



>>>>

Then WHAT ON EARTH have we been discussing all this time?! If Federal Public Accommodation Law does not list sexual orientation, the bakery was well within their rights. Federal Law trumps state law. Period.

The complaint was not filed under any Federal law, the complaint was filed under the Oregon State Statute that deals with Public Accommodation.

The Oregon State Statute does not conflict with Federal law. It lists additional areas where discrimination is illegal in the State. Federal law is silent on discrimination based on sexual orientation and therefore the Supremacy Clause is not active. Oregon is permitted to enact more restrictive laws under powers granted by the 10th Amendment, they cannot write laws that are more lax - which Oregon didn't do.


>>>>

The conflict is in that one allows for sexual orientation while the other does not. I see a direct conflict. Right there. Since most state laws are crafted based off of federal precedent, I do think the Supremacy Clause is in effect here. That couple can go over the State of Oregon and say they were well within their rights as it pertained to Federal Law.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Hell, Christains have been boycotting Disney off and on for decades, ever since they started designating certain days as special days at the Disney Parks for gays.

Disney does not conduct "Gay Days". They neither organize or endorse the event. The events are organized by external groups that simply organize a date.

As an example, Busch Garden's Williamsburg is just up the road. If my computer club organizes and get's other computer clubs to organize the 1st Saturday in Sepetember we will all meet at Busch Garden's and we will all wear T-Shirts with "Nerd Day" on them. That isn't an event organized by Busch Gardens.


>>>>

 

[Luddly Neddite]

How 'bout the Million Mother Bigots who got all bent about that filthy pig wanting to have sex with the human in the geico commercial?

Never mind that there were really only 20-30 of those sex-starved old biddies, the issue is basically the same - consumers speaking their minds.

Well rw bigots?

Should you be able to act like assholes over cartoon pigs while denying Americans the right to make their opinions known?

Is there even one rw bigot with the gumption to admit they want the Constitution amended to read "equal rights to some"?

Hypocrites.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Hey you big ole student of history you!

"Led by vocal orators such as James Otis and Patrick Henry, the colonists began a massive boycott of British goods causing colonial imports to fall from £2,250,000 in 1764, to £1,944,000 in 1765. In several colonies new protest groups, known as the "Sons of Liberty" formed."

American Revolution Causes - Causes of the American Revolution - Revolutionary War Causes

Read the title again my edumacated friend.

Causes is plural, not singular. From your link:

"On May 10, 1773, Parliament passed the Tea Act with the goal of aiding the struggling British East India Company. Prior to the passage of the law, the company had been required to sell its tea through London where it was taxed and duties assessed. Under the new legislation, the company would be permitted to sell tea directly to the colonies without the additional cost. As a result, tea prices in America would be reduced, with only the Townshend tea duty assessed. Aware that this was an attempt by Parliament to break the colonial boycott of British goods, groups such as the Sons of Liberty, spoke out against the act.

Across the colonies, British tea was boycotted and attempts were made to produce tea locally. In Boston, the situation climaxed in late November 1773, when three ships carrying East India Company tea arrived in the port. Rallying the populace, the members of the Sons of Liberty dressed as Native Americans and boarded the ships on the night of December 16. Carefully avoiding damaging other property, the "raiders" tossed 342 chests of tea into Boston Harbor. A direct affront to British authority, the "Boston Tea Party" forced Parliament to take action against the colonies."

Yeah. I have you beat in the history department. The formation of the group and the boycotting were precursors. The actual destruction of goods and property was the last straw.

Next.

It STARTED with the Stamp Act, you dunce.

I've made my living in the field of history for several decades now.

Try again Mr. Magoo.

Nope. It was the action of destruction, not the enaction of a bill in British Parliament. A direct show of rebellion in the face of authority is what triggered it. The destruction of the tea is what forced the crown to act.

Don't lie to me either, you are far from an expert of history. Right off the bat you misapplied the link you gave me, so that tells me you are a selective history aficionado, not an actual student of history.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Then WHAT ON EARTH have we been discussing all this time?! If Federal Public Accommodation Law does not list sexual orientation, the bakery was well within their rights. Federal Law trumps state law. Period.

The complaint was not filed under any Federal law, the complaint was filed under the Oregon State Statute that deals with Public Accommodation.

The Oregon State Statute does not conflict with Federal law. It lists additional areas where discrimination is illegal in the State. Federal law is silent on discrimination based on sexual orientation and therefore the Supremacy Clause is not active. Oregon is permitted to enact more restrictive laws under powers granted by the 10th Amendment, they cannot write laws that are more lax - which Oregon didn't do.


>>>>

The conflict is in that one allows for sexual orientation while the other does not. I see a direct conflict. Right there. Since most state laws are crafted based off of federal precedent, I do think the Supremacy Clause is in effect here. That couple can go over the State of Oregon and say they were well within their rights as it pertained to Federal Law.

In Federal court you would be right.

But the case isn't in Federal court, it's in State court where the Oregon law applies.


>>>>

 

[Vandalshandle]

Hey you big ole student of history you!

"Led by vocal orators such as James Otis and Patrick Henry, the colonists began a massive boycott of British goods causing colonial imports to fall from £2,250,000 in 1764, to £1,944,000 in 1765. In several colonies new protest groups, known as the "Sons of Liberty" formed."

American Revolution Causes - Causes of the American Revolution - Revolutionary War Causes

Read the title again my edumacated friend.

Causes is plural, not singular. From your link:

"On May 10, 1773, Parliament passed the Tea Act with the goal of aiding the struggling British East India Company. Prior to the passage of the law, the company had been required to sell its tea through London where it was taxed and duties assessed. Under the new legislation, the company would be permitted to sell tea directly to the colonies without the additional cost. As a result, tea prices in America would be reduced, with only the Townshend tea duty assessed. Aware that this was an attempt by Parliament to break the colonial boycott of British goods, groups such as the Sons of Liberty, spoke out against the act.

Across the colonies, British tea was boycotted and attempts were made to produce tea locally. In Boston, the situation climaxed in late November 1773, when three ships carrying East India Company tea arrived in the port. Rallying the populace, the members of the Sons of Liberty dressed as Native Americans and boarded the ships on the night of December 16. Carefully avoiding damaging other property, the "raiders" tossed 342 chests of tea into Boston Harbor. A direct affront to British authority, the "Boston Tea Party" forced Parliament to take action against the colonies."

Yeah. I have you beat in the history department. The formation of the group and the boycotting were precursors. The actual destruction of goods and property was the last straw.

Next.

It STARTED with the Stamp Act, you dunce.

I've made my living in the field of history for several decades now.

Try again Mr. Magoo.

I was going to mention that, too, Paper, but considered the source of the post, and just decided to move on.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

Sounds like a threat to me!

Its not a threat. Its a heads up. The more that this kind of thing happens, the less likely that the homosexual people will get what it is that they want. Why should they get what they want when all that they care about is themselves anyways? Selfishness will get a person absolutely no where.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

You're not seeing the obvious here.

First, its not a matter of choosing to give them rights that they already have. They are US citizens and these phony christians don't get to decide which Americans get "equal" rights.

Second, demanding the rights you were born to is not "selfish". It is their right.

Third, you are obviously another phony christian. If you were the real thing and if you were a real American, you would be fighting for the rights that gays already have.

You keep typing that really phony "god bless you" when, in fact, that's not what you're doing. See, you can't simultaneously be a hate-filled bigot AND a child of god.

Another thing that you seem to not see is the fact that the bakery people have the right to refuse service to anyone that they want to.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. Oh and if I hated anyone, I would be another one of them people that you see on the news that is guilty of blowing in half those that I hate.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The complaint was not filed under any Federal law, the complaint was filed under the Oregon State Statute that deals with Public Accommodation.

The Oregon State Statute does not conflict with Federal law. It lists additional areas where discrimination is illegal in the State. Federal law is silent on discrimination based on sexual orientation and therefore the Supremacy Clause is not active. Oregon is permitted to enact more restrictive laws under powers granted by the 10th Amendment, they cannot write laws that are more lax - which Oregon didn't do.


>>>>

The conflict is in that one allows for sexual orientation while the other does not. I see a direct conflict. Right there. Since most state laws are crafted based off of federal precedent, I do think the Supremacy Clause is in effect here. That couple can go over the State of Oregon and say they were well within their rights as it pertained to Federal Law.

In Federal court you would be right.

But the case isn't in Federal court, it's in State court where the Oregon law applies.


>>>>

But the Bakery is not only subject to State Law, but Federal Law as well. That presents a conflict in this regard. In my studies of the justice system, I learned that Federal Law will trump State Law in any matter of law or crime brought before the courts.

 

[Vandalshandle]

"Holly

P.S. Oh and if I hated anyone, I would be another one of them people that you see on the news that is guilty of blowing in half those that I hate. "

Well, I guess the less said about that, the better....

 

[TemplarKormac]

"Holly

P.S. Oh and if I hated anyone, I would be another one of them people that you see on the news that is guilty of blowing in half those that I hate. "

Well, I guess the less said about that, the better....

Well, I guess the less you troll, the better.

 

[paperview]

Karma has a way of coming around and some of the Jesusy folk on this thread and those saying such nasty things about gays and lesbians will one day find themselves blessed...with a gay child.

Life has a way of shaking up bigots.

 

[Papageorgio]

That he called them "abominations" is in the original complaint filed with the state. That is an official legal form signed under penalty of perjury.

I'm sure calling the lesbians liars is pretty tame, considering some of the things they have been called, so you go right ahead and say they perjured themselves.

People you've never heard, seen, met or know a smidgeon about, other than one went with her mother to arrange to create a cake for her Civil ceremony -- and did not get past "it's for two women" and were told NO -- and knowing the law, decided to file a complaint -- that is ALL you know.

And you said you don't doubt what they said in the claim is true. You have no idea whether the statement was true or not. Yet, you choose to believe them based on your prejudice and bias.