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

[Immanuel]

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.

Actually, she is fighting for the rights that gays "already have". It is those on your side on this site and the homosexual community who threatened and cajoled these people, who are wrong in their interpretation of the Gospel, and their vendors into submission that are striving to remove rights from people they hate.

Immie

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

A classical flame out. Nothing more to discuss here. You just said the very same things those gay groups said to the bakery. Perhaps you will one day be blessed with compassion. Though I doubt it. You wouldn't know the first thing about how to exercise it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

It has to be true. Or his/her argument is turned completely on it's head.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Paper,
I grew up in the deep South in the 1950's and 1960's. The majority of preachers and ministers taugh that segregation was "God's Plan". They told us that was why the black man was in Africa, and we were not (apparantly god did not anticipate ships being invented). Anyway, everything Holly has said about gays is just a word for word rehash of what the Christains taught us about blacks in Georgia. Only the miniority has been changed. i lived in a world of deep bigottry for 26 years, and failed to embrace it. Too bad that Holly does not take a good long look at herself in the miirror.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

And as part of your studies you would have learned that the Supremacy Clause applies when laws conflict no conflict in the realm of Public Accommodation laws exists in this case. There is no Federal law that prohibits states from having Public Accommodation laws. State Public Accommodation laws can be more restrictive then Federal law, a situation that can exist in many many areas.



>>>>

 

[Immanuel]

blah blah blah...if you refuse service to someone due their sexual preference, then expect to be boycotted, called out and exposed as a bigot. Stop your ******* crying and deal with the fact that there are consequences to being a bigot.

Its the american way. Its business.

On a personal note, if I owned a business, I would stay in the MIDDLE on pretty much every issue. Pretty much. I would not scr3eam I am a democrat because I know I would alienate half the potential customers. Thats just good business sense unless my business was political in some way.

Boycotting would have been fine. The boycott went beyond the limits of reasonableness when they started threatening people and intimidating vendors.

Immie

 

[paperview]

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.

Richtbackatacha.

 

[paperview]

Paper,
I grew up in the deep South in the 1950's and 1960's. The majority of preachers and ministers taugh that segregation was "God's Plan". They told us that was why the black man was in Africa, and we were not (apparantly god did not anticipate ships being invented). Anyway, everything Holly has said about gays is just a word for word rehash of what the Christains taught us about blacks in Georgia. Only the miniority has been changed. i lived in a world of deep bigottry for 26 years, and failed to embrace it. Too bad that Holly does not take a good long look at herself in the miirror.

Thank you for sharing your experiences and it's wonderful you grew above it to treat all equally.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

Paper,
I grew up in the deep South in the 1950's and 1960's. The majority of preachers and ministers taugh that segregation was "God's Plan". They told us that was why the black man was in Africa, and we were not (apparantly god did not anticipate ships being invented). Anyway, everything Holly has said about gays is just a word for word rehash of what the Christains taught us about blacks in Georgia. Only the miniority has been changed. i lived in a world of deep bigottry for 26 years, and failed to embrace it. Too bad that Holly does not take a good long look at herself in the miirror.

What do you think would happen if a heterosexual person was refused service at a homosexual bar? Which brings me to another question. If homosexual bars are allowed to exist, why can't heterosexual bakeries exist?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

And as part of your studies you would have learned that the Supremacy Clause applies when laws conflict no conflict in the realm of Public Accommodation laws exists in this case. There is no Federal law that prohibits states from having Public Accommodation laws. State Public Accommodation laws can be more restrictive then Federal law, a situation that can exist in many many areas.



>>>>

Perhaps. Remember Obama has joined with Mexico in suing republican states, regarding laws related to immigration.

I think it "depends" on what the president says is in the perview of the feds. IOW they could claim public accommodation is federal based on the commerce clause.

 

[paperview]

Paper,
I grew up in the deep South in the 1950's and 1960's. The majority of preachers and ministers taugh that segregation was "God's Plan". They told us that was why the black man was in Africa, and we were not (apparantly god did not anticipate ships being invented). Anyway, everything Holly has said about gays is just a word for word rehash of what the Christains taught us about blacks in Georgia. Only the miniority has been changed. i lived in a world of deep bigottry for 26 years, and failed to embrace it. Too bad that Holly does not take a good long look at herself in the miirror.

What do you think would happen if a heterosexual person was refused service at a homosexual bar? Which brings me to another question. If homosexual bars are allowed to exist, why can't heterosexual bakeries exist?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

Oh dear dear.

<just shaking head>

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

And as part of your studies you would have learned that the Supremacy Clause applies when laws conflict no conflict in the realm of Public Accommodation laws exists in this case. There is no Federal law that prohibits states from having Public Accommodation laws. State Public Accommodation laws can be more restrictive then Federal law, a situation that can exist in many many areas.



>>>>

I gather there needs not be any prohibition. The State law itself would still contradict the First Amendment, which is itself Federal in nature. Thus the conflict still stands. I would as a judge rule in favor of the Bakery, because as the public accommodation law in Oregon stands, it prevents freedom of religious expression, which is expressly implied and protected by the First Amendment.

The nature of the expression is the fact the couple refused service based on religious conviction, not on the sole intent to discriminate against anyone. Given what services they offer, somehow they felt that if they had accepted, they would be participating in something morally reprehensible to their faith.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

What do you think would happen if a heterosexual person was refused service at a homosexual bar? Which brings me to another question. If homosexual bars are allowed to exist, why can't heterosexual bakeries exist?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

Oh dear dear.

<just shaking head>

To me, if one side is allowed to play the game, so can another side.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. Two sides are needed for a game to take place anyways.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 we know gay people never lie.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Paper,
I grew up in the deep South in the 1950's and 1960's. The majority of preachers and ministers taugh that segregation was "God's Plan". They told us that was why the black man was in Africa, and we were not (apparantly god did not anticipate ships being invented). Anyway, everything Holly has said about gays is just a word for word rehash of what the Christains taught us about blacks in Georgia. Only the miniority has been changed. i lived in a world of deep bigottry for 26 years, and failed to embrace it. Too bad that Holly does not take a good long look at herself in the miirror.

Thank you for sharing your experiences and it's wonderful you grew above it to treat all equally.

Too bad for both of you that I am a Georgian, in the center of what you would call the "Deep South." What Vandal will try to convince you of is that all of us Christians down here are still bigoted, homophobic and intolerant racists, who cling to our guns and religion. There's a big difference between the Christians of that era and the Christians here today. Both of you will stereotype us no matter how much we've changed. It's pretty pathetic to be quite honest. Sad even.

Perhaps you two need to take long hard looks in mirrors before you start stereotyping people. "Why don't I do it first?" you ask? I'm not the one saying people of faith should be blessed with a gay child. Sicko.

 

[paperview]

And we know christians never lie, right?

Abominations!

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

And as part of your studies you would have learned that the Supremacy Clause applies when laws conflict no conflict in the realm of Public Accommodation laws exists in this case. There is no Federal law that prohibits states from having Public Accommodation laws. State Public Accommodation laws can be more restrictive then Federal law, a situation that can exist in many many areas.

Omg

>>>>

I gather there needs not be any prohibition. The State law itself would still contradict the First Amendment, which is itself Federal in nature. Thus the conflict still stands. I would as a judge rule in favor of the Bakery, because as the public accommodation law in Oregon stands, it prevents freedom of religious expression, which is expressly implied and protected by the First Amendment.

The nature of the expression is the fact the couple refused service based on religious conviction, not on the sole intent to discriminate against anyone. Given what services they offer, somehow they felt that if they had accepted, they would be participating in something morally reprehensible to their faith.

I have given a link to the photography case which sliced and diced the First Amendment.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And as part of your studies you would have learned that the Supremacy Clause applies when laws conflict no conflict in the realm of Public Accommodation laws exists in this case. There is no Federal law that prohibits states from having Public Accommodation laws. State Public Accommodation laws can be more restrictive then Federal law, a situation that can exist in many many areas.





>>>>

I gather there needs not be any prohibition. The State law itself would still contradict the First Amendment, which is itself Federal in nature. Thus the conflict still stands. I would as a judge rule in favor of the Bakery, because as the public accommodation law in Oregon stands, it prevents freedom of religious expression, which is expressly implied and protected by the First Amendment.

The nature of the expression is the fact the couple refused service based on religious conviction, not on the sole intent to discriminate against anyone. Given what services they offer, somehow they felt that if they had accepted, they would be participating in something morally reprehensible to their faith.

I have given a link to the photography case which sliced and diced the First Amendment.

Oh? So in this instance the Constitution really doesn't matter? Thus the death of our great republic is upon us.

 

[rightwinger]

Paper,
I grew up in the deep South in the 1950's and 1960's. The majority of preachers and ministers taugh that segregation was "God's Plan". They told us that was why the black man was in Africa, and we were not (apparantly god did not anticipate ships being invented). Anyway, everything Holly has said about gays is just a word for word rehash of what the Christains taught us about blacks in Georgia. Only the miniority has been changed. i lived in a world of deep bigottry for 26 years, and failed to embrace it. Too bad that Holly does not take a good long look at herself in the miirror.

What do you think would happen if a heterosexual person was refused service at a homosexual bar? Which brings me to another question. If homosexual bars are allowed to exist, why can't heterosexual bakeries exist?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

Nothing prevents a heterosexual from going to a homosexual bar

Gesundheit always

 

[JOSweetHeart]

^^^ Have you ever stopped to wonder why?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. If God had intended for us to go with our own kind, reproduction would not take place between a man and woman only. Woman would not exist at all period if God had intended for us to go with our own kind.