Christian bakers who refused to make cake for homosexual "wedding" break gag order

[Syriusly]

Agreed. The Judicial can't add things to the Constitution.

In this case, like others, it didn't need to. The concept of Equality was already there, which is a shame for your kind.

Your argument fails because in your twisted world a man can marry his goat because he wants equal rights. Matters not what the goat wants.

Another Conservative unclear on the concept of consent.

Maybe the goat wants it.

You find a goat that can tell me that she loves you and wants to have sex with you- and I will consider whether that constitutes consent.

 

[JoeMoma]

I do think the fine charged against the bakers was excessive.

 

[JoeMoma]

Agreed. The Judicial can't add things to the Constitution.

In this case, like others, it didn't need to. The concept of Equality was already there, which is a shame for your kind.

Your argument fails because in your twisted world a man can marry his goat because he wants equal rights. Matters not what the goat wants.

Another Conservative unclear on the concept of consent.

Maybe the goat wants it.

You find a goat that can tell me that she loves you and wants to have sex with you- and I will consider whether that constitutes consent.

I will leave that to the hypothetical man.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

And same sex marriage is protected by the 14 th amendment

Why weren't gays married since the beginning of our Republic? The Founders never intend ended for it, so using the 14th as an excuse will be overturned by a rational Court.

And the founders never consider corporations to be people either.

And they are not people. Just another example of the stupidity of the SCOTUS that will get fixed.

The Citizen's United ruling did not declare a corporation was a person. Liberals tell that lie to make people think the Court declare them a person - which is absurd but wins over converts of the low information voters.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

I hope the judge orders them to do community service and ban them from creating a rw panhandling acct (gofundme)

Persecution comes naturally with you liberals

It's you and most others on the right who wish to deny gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law, a right defended by liberals.

Bigotry and intolerance toward gay Americans manifests mostly on the right.

Nonsense. We support the right of gay men to marry. The opposite sex.

That was cute when Folks like yourself said you supported a black man marrying another black woman and a white woman marrying a black man all to show your weren't racial bigots when you said you didn't support interracial
Marriage. Keep being in the wrong side of history we enjoy beating you like a penata haha

It'a very cute to seethe anti gay bigots in full volume along with the trump led racists.

Straw man argument. Blacks are nothing like gays except the one in the Hello Kitty getup Jm Bowie posted. lol

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Agreed. The Judicial can't add things to the Constitution.

In this case, like others, it didn't need to. The concept of Equality was already there, which is a shame for your kind.

Your argument fails because in your twisted world a man can marry his goat because he wants equal rights. Matters not what the goat wants.

Another Conservative unclear on the concept of consent.

Maybe the goat wants it.

You find a goat that can tell me that she loves you and wants to have sex with you- and I will consider whether that constitutes consent.

Q
The goat doesn't have to consent. They have no rights, but the gay owner does. Looks like they can add another letter to their name: LGBTQIAPZ

 

[jillian]

Christian Bakers Who Refused to Make Cake for Same-Sex Wedding Speak Out

Of course the "tolerant left" (an oxymoron I know) is threatening them still. I am glad to see they would still do the same thing again.

you mean the bigoted pretend christians

 

[jillian]

In this case, like others, it didn't need to. The concept of Equality was already there, which is a shame for your kind.

Your argument fails because in your twisted world a man can marry his goat because he wants equal rights. Matters not what the goat wants.

Another Conservative unclear on the concept of consent.

Maybe the goat wants it.

You find a goat that can tell me that she loves you and wants to have sex with you- and I will consider whether that constitutes consent.

Q
The goat doesn't have to consent. They have no rights, but the gay owner does. Looks like they can add another letter to their name: LGBTQIAPZ

is there some type of actual thought in there?

 

[bodecea]

I do think the fine charged against the bakers was excessive.

Less that what was charged to a Dentist for breaking the same law, discriminating against a christian.

 

[bodecea]

In this case, like others, it didn't need to. The concept of Equality was already there, which is a shame for your kind.

Your argument fails because in your twisted world a man can marry his goat because he wants equal rights. Matters not what the goat wants.

Another Conservative unclear on the concept of consent.

Maybe the goat wants it.

You find a goat that can tell me that she loves you and wants to have sex with you- and I will consider whether that constitutes consent.

Q
The goat doesn't have to consent. They have no rights, but the gay owner does. Looks like they can add another letter to their name: LGBTQIAPZ

So, it's not about consent to you. Scary.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

And who says the 1st amendment is being violated by applying general laws to Christians?

You do. Citing you. And much like your insistence that you alone define what marriage is, there's no need for an amendment because you disagree. Contrary to your personal beliefs, Christianity doesn't trump all civil law.

See how that works?

A custom decorated cake is an artistic expression. The First Amendment quite directly protects an artists right to make such an expression,and equally to refuse to make such an expression if he does not agree with the expression that someone wants him to make.

Using the force of law to compel an artist to create an expression in support of a celebration of something that is evil, and in which that artist wants no part, is a direct violation of that artist's First Amendment rights.

The same would be equally true if we were talking about an artist that did not want to create a work in support of a Ku Klux Klan event, of a Westboro Baptist Church “God Hates Fags!” event, or anything else that violated his own moral and ethical values. Your right to hold a particular belief, to express this belief, and to celebrate this belief, does not include a right to force someone else who disagrees to participate in an expression or celebration of this belief.

 

[Inevitable]

I do think the fine charged against the bakers was excessive.

The original fine wasn't that large. But they defiantly decided to keep breaking the law. That is multiple fines coupled with failure to pay fees.

Not sure what the original fine was.

 

[Skylar]

And who says the 1st amendment is being violated by applying general laws to Christians?

You do. Citing you. And much like your insistence that you alone define what marriage is, there's no need for an amendment because you disagree. Contrary to your personal beliefs, Christianity doesn't trump all civil law.

See how that works?

A custom decorated cake is an artistic expression. The First Amendment quite directly protects an artists right to make such an expression,and equally to refuse to make such an expression if he does not agree with the expression that someone wants him to make.

Says you, citing you. The courts have never found this to be true. With the law recognizing it as an act of *commerce*, which is subject to minimum standards of conduct by State law and its unquestioned authority over intrastate commerce. With PA laws tested constitutionally by the Supreme Court and found to be in accordance with all constitutional requirements. And the USSC rejecting every request for cert on these faux 'religious freedom' cases.

Again, Bob.....you keep citing yourself as the definitive authority on the constitution, the 1st amendment, the meaning of words, legal terms and the meaning of marriage.

But you're none of these things. Its just you citing yourself. And you're nobody.

So I ask again, what violation of the 1st amendment? Recognizing of course that you citing yourself is meaningless jibber jabber.

 

[Inevitable]

And who says the 1st amendment is being violated by applying general laws to Christians?

You do. Citing you. And much like your insistence that you alone define what marriage is, there's no need for an amendment because you disagree. Contrary to your personal beliefs, Christianity doesn't trump all civil law.

See how that works?

A custom decorated cake is an artistic expression. The First Amendment quite directly protects an artists right to make such an expression,and equally to refuse to make such an expression if he does not agree with the expression that someone wants him to make.

Using the force of law to compel an artist to create an expression in support of a celebration of something that is evil, and in which that artist wants no part, is a direct violation of that artist's First Amendment rights.

The same would be equally true if we were talking about an artist that did not want to create a work in support of a Ku Klux Klan event, of a Westboro Baptist Church “God Hates Fags!” event, or anything else that violated his own moral and ethical values. Your right to hold a particular belief, to express this belief, and to celebrate this belief, does not include a right to force someone else who disagrees to participate in an expression or celebration of this belief.

This isn't about religion. It's about accommodation laws.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Its the same laws that apply to everyone else. Being Christian doesn't exempt you from State PA laws. Nor have they ever. Your conception of religion trumping all civil law is pseudo-legal nonsense.

Worse, you're clearly not thinking it through. As if Christians can ignore any civil law, then so can Muslims. WIth Sharia supreme over US civil law as surely as you insist Christian dogma is.

States do not have the authority to make laws which overtly violate the Constitution, or which violate the rights of the people that the Constitution affirms and protects.

You have no credibility in speaking of the rule of law, and of the obligation of Christians or anyone else to obey the law, in defending policies which are, themselves, blatant violations of the Constitution, which is this nation's highest law.

And since the bible doesn't even mention same sex marriage, nor cites wedding cakes for same sex marriages as any kind of sin......Muslims can just make up any justification they want to ignore any law.

The Bible is quite clear enough about homosexuality being evil, and unacceptable before God. It is also clear about the obligation of believers to avoid participating in or supporting sin.

 

[Skylar]

Its the same laws that apply to everyone else. Being Christian doesn't exempt you from State PA laws. Nor have they ever. Your conception of religion trumping all civil law is pseudo-legal nonsense.

Worse, you're clearly not thinking it through. As if Christians can ignore any civil law, then so can Muslims. WIth Sharia supreme over US civil law as surely as you insist Christian dogma is.

States do not have the authority to make laws which overtly violate the Constitution, or which violate the rights of the people that the Constitution affirms and protects.

And who says that there is a constitutional violation?

Not the courts. Not the law. Not the State of Oregon. Not the Civil Rights Division of the Bureau of Labor and Industries of the State of Oregon which oversaw this entire case. Not the State Supreme Court of Oregon. Not the Federal judiciary. Not the Supreme Court which has rejected every request for cert on these issues.

There's you......citing you. Which is meaningless.

What else have you got?

You have no credibility in speaking of the rule of law, and of the obligation of Christians or anyone else to obey the law, in defending policies which are, themselves, blatant violations of the Constitution, which is this nation's highest law.

Circular reasoning. As your evidence and your conclusion are the same thing. You assume a constitutional violation. And then use your assumption of a constitutional violation as your evidence.

Try again. This time without the absurd pseudo-legal fallacies.

 

[Inevitable]

Its the same laws that apply to everyone else. Being Christian doesn't exempt you from State PA laws. Nor have they ever. Your conception of religion trumping all civil law is pseudo-legal nonsense.

Worse, you're clearly not thinking it through. As if Christians can ignore any civil law, then so can Muslims. WIth Sharia supreme over US civil law as surely as you insist Christian dogma is.

States do not have the authority to make laws which overtly violate the Constitution, or which violate the rights of the people that the Constitution affirms and protects.

You have no credibility in speaking of the rule of law, and of the obligation of Christians or anyone else to obey the law, in defending policies which are, themselves, blatant violations of the Constitution, which is this nation's highest law.

And since the bible doesn't even mention same sex marriage, nor cites wedding cakes for same sex marriages as any kind of sin......Muslims can just make up any justification they want to ignore any law.

The Bible is quite clear enough about homosexuality being evil, and unacceptable before God. It is also clear about the obligation of believers to avoid participating in or supporting sin.

The law in Oregon did not violate the constitution.

Further the bible says nothing about homosexuality.

 

[JoeMoma]

I do think the fine charged against the bakers was excessive.

The original fine wasn't that large. But they defiantly decided to keep breaking the law. That is multiple fines coupled with failure to pay fees.

Not sure what the original fine was.

Perhaps they should had paid the original fine. But I guess they would have seen that as caving.

 

[JoeMoma]

And who says the 1st amendment is being violated by applying general laws to Christians?

You do. Citing you. And much like your insistence that you alone define what marriage is, there's no need for an amendment because you disagree. Contrary to your personal beliefs, Christianity doesn't trump all civil law.

See how that works?

A custom decorated cake is an artistic expression. The First Amendment quite directly protects an artists right to make such an expression,and equally to refuse to make such an expression if he does not agree with the expression that someone wants him to make.

Using the force of law to compel an artist to create an expression in support of a celebration of something that is evil, and in which that artist wants no part, is a direct violation of that artist's First Amendment rights.

The same would be equally true if we were talking about an artist that did not want to create a work in support of a Ku Klux Klan event, of a Westboro Baptist Church “God Hates Fags!” event, or anything else that violated his own moral and ethical values. Your right to hold a particular belief, to express this belief, and to celebrate this belief, does not include a right to force someone else who disagrees to participate in an expression or celebration of this belief.

This isn't about religion. It's about accommodation laws.

Its about both. The thing is to find some common sense middle ground. For example, a gay baker should not have to fill an order for a cake decorated with "Fags go to hell". A Christian baker that believes gay marriage is a sin should not have to decorate a wedding cake with two grooms or two brides.
That being said, if the baker is willing to make a wedding cake for a straight wedding, I see no reason why the baker shouldn't be willing make the same cake for a gay wedding.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Agreed. The Judicial can't add things to the Constitution.

They're not supposed to redefine the English language either, but there they go anyway.

Have you read George Orwell's 1984? You should read the appendix in the back, where he defines and describes “Newspeak”. If you understand the point of what he describes there, I think you'll see that the modern wrong-wing movement is trying to do almost exactly what he described.