No Cake for You

[Siete]

The left are the new morality police, and they will use any government force available to either force you to accept their morals, or beat you into the ground so hard you are unable to resist their dogma.

FF to abortion ..

 

[Care4all]

If your sole purpose is to destroy a business instead of giving them business, then you are taking place in militant activism. You are purposefully targeting someone in order to expose and destroy them because of a difference in beliefs. You have crossed the line from holding a mere opinion to using that opinion to inflict damage on other individuals. I'm sorry, but I don't believe for one moment those two ladies had any intention of buying a cake. The law is clear, but the intent was not commercial. Those two women, in fact, were repeat customers there and knowing full well the beliefs of the proprietor(s). But suddenly out of the blue they ask them to bake a cake for a same sex wedding. To me, that is the definition of "ulterior motive."

Every business owner has their own beliefs, their own convictions, and suddenly they have to sacrifice them just to run a business in compliance with the law, and yes, sacrifices must be made. But here's the catch: that's wrong. There is something woefully wrong. Yes, the law is important, and rules are rules; don't misunderstand me here.

But if you have to sacrifice something sacred to you in order to succeed in business and appease the rule of law, then this is justice run amok. I agree, business is business, and money is money and rightly so; but as someone who admires the law, the law also isn't perfect. There are good laws, and not so well thought out ones. Though, until the law changes, people must obey it. To be succinct, however, obedience should not come at the price of your own morals and convictions.

Call me a homophobe, a bigot, ignorant, stupid, misguided or whatever you like, but that is my observation on this topic. I don't hate gay people, but I don't like the ones who would force other people to accept their lifestyle. I mean, if the act of forcing your religious beliefs on others is wrong, just imagine how they feel when the same is done to them! Behavior like such is only self serving and only widens the chasm between supporters and opposition. It breeds more hatred than understanding. If respect and acceptance is the goal, then one must strive to show it also. The double edged sword sitting next to me would agree.



No Icing on the Cake for Christian Business Owners Who Refused to Bake for Lesbian Couple

I find it ironic, that you are blaming this couple that went to their local and used by them bakery for their wedding cake, and accuse them of setting this up to hurt the bakery financially...

While the Christian man who PURPOSELY WENT TO BAKERIES asking them to label a cake with GOD HATES FAGS on it....so that HE COULD SUE THEM AND HURT THEM FINANCIALLY.....

YOU are mum on. Yet YOU twist the facts and try to blame these regular customers of the Bakery of doing something that this oh so holy Christian man ACTUALLY DID.

shame on you!

In a press release issued today, Truth Wins Out asserted, “There is indeed a nuanced difference between a bakery's refusal to make a cake for a wedding because the customers are gay and a refusal to participate in hate speech at a customer's behest, hate speech which does not have anything to do with a person's religious beliefs. We are one hundred percent certain that if a normal Christian customer called any of Shoebat's targeted bakeries and asked for a cake for their Sunday School class, each and every one of them would respond joyfully and promptly.

“However, Truth Wins Out wants bakeries around the nation, especially those owned or operated by LGBT people, to be aware that their establishments may be targeted next by young Shoebat or any number of other anti-gay people who find this idea clever. Normal people do not call bakeries asking for God Hates Fags cakes, so if your establishment receives that call, please be aware that the caller does not want a cake at all, but to make a bizarre political statement that plays into fantasies of victimhood at the hands of the 'homosexual agenda.'”
Man Suing Colorado Bakery Is Christian Academy Cofounder Advocate.com

 

[NYcarbineer]

But if you have to sacrifice something sacred to you in order to succeed in business and appease the rule of law, then this is justice run amok

In contrast to whom? Conservatives?

lol

Do you see conservatives recently trying to pass any of the crap you idiots try to enforce on a daily basis? Face it, you are the Moral Majority of the 21st century, the only difference is you don't have bibles in your hand and you use the government instead of pitchforks.

Yes. A constitutional amendment to ban all abortion. A constitutional amendment to outlaw same sex marriage.

A small tiny percentage want both of those. Most would accept the issues being settled by the States via legislative action. And at least they use the amendment process, which would require 2/3 of each house of the legislature, and 3/4 of the states to pass.

And both of those are in response to overreach by activist supreme courts, which created "rights" out of thin fucking air. Your side uses judges (un-elected ones usually) and hope you get ones that agree with your politics and have a fuzzy concept of constitutionality.

A tiny percentage of conservatives want them? Then how do they make their way into the GOP platform every time?

Yep, they are there. A little "meat" for the base. However they again support using the amendment process, which means those views would have to be so prevalent that supermajorities at the federal and state level would have to agree to it.

On the other hand your side uses courts to get what you want, and middle of the night legislative sessions (The NY SAFE act atrocity).

The Courts are constitutionally authorized to function as they do.

 

[martybegan]

The left are the new morality police, and they will use any government force available to either force you to accept their morals, or beat you into the ground so hard you are unable to resist their dogma.

FF to abortion ..

Any conservative push on Abortion is either to allow the States to decide on it, or at worst to push for a federal amendment on banning it. For an amendment to work so many people would have to be in support of it that I doubt we will see it in our lifetime.

 

[martybegan]

But if you have to sacrifice something sacred to you in order to succeed in business and appease the rule of law, then this is justice run amok

Do you see conservatives recently trying to pass any of the crap you idiots try to enforce on a daily basis? Face it, you are the Moral Majority of the 21st century, the only difference is you don't have bibles in your hand and you use the government instead of pitchforks.

Yes. A constitutional amendment to ban all abortion. A constitutional amendment to outlaw same sex marriage.

A small tiny percentage want both of those. Most would accept the issues being settled by the States via legislative action. And at least they use the amendment process, which would require 2/3 of each house of the legislature, and 3/4 of the states to pass.

And both of those are in response to overreach by activist supreme courts, which created "rights" out of thin fucking air. Your side uses judges (un-elected ones usually) and hope you get ones that agree with your politics and have a fuzzy concept of constitutionality.

A tiny percentage of conservatives want them? Then how do they make their way into the GOP platform every time?

Yep, they are there. A little "meat" for the base. However they again support using the amendment process, which means those views would have to be so prevalent that supermajorities at the federal and state level would have to agree to it.

On the other hand your side uses courts to get what you want, and middle of the night legislative sessions (The NY SAFE act atrocity).

The Courts are constitutionally authorized to function as they do.

They haven't been operating consistently constitutionally in a long time.

And in any event the republican platform goes with the PROPER method of taking the court out of the equation on both counts, gay marriage AND abortion, i.e. a constitutional amendment.

Would I support either amendment? Fuck no, but they are respecting the process, and as you can tell from my posts if you take off your partisan blinders, I'm all about the process.

 

[martybegan]

If your sole purpose is to destroy a business instead of giving them business, then you are taking place in militant activism. You are purposefully targeting someone in order to expose and destroy them because of a difference in beliefs. You have crossed the line from holding a mere opinion to using that opinion to inflict damage on other individuals. I'm sorry, but I don't believe for one moment those two ladies had any intention of buying a cake. The law is clear, but the intent was not commercial. Those two women, in fact, were repeat customers there and knowing full well the beliefs of the proprietor(s). But suddenly out of the blue they ask them to bake a cake for a same sex wedding. To me, that is the definition of "ulterior motive."

Every business owner has their own beliefs, their own convictions, and suddenly they have to sacrifice them just to run a business in compliance with the law, and yes, sacrifices must be made. But here's the catch: that's wrong. There is something woefully wrong. Yes, the law is important, and rules are rules; don't misunderstand me here.

But if you have to sacrifice something sacred to you in order to succeed in business and appease the rule of law, then this is justice run amok. I agree, business is business, and money is money and rightly so; but as someone who admires the law, the law also isn't perfect. There are good laws, and not so well thought out ones. Though, until the law changes, people must obey it. To be succinct, however, obedience should not come at the price of your own morals and convictions.

Call me a homophobe, a bigot, ignorant, stupid, misguided or whatever you like, but that is my observation on this topic. I don't hate gay people, but I don't like the ones who would force other people to accept their lifestyle. I mean, if the act of forcing your religious beliefs on others is wrong, just imagine how they feel when the same is done to them! Behavior like such is only self serving and only widens the chasm between supporters and opposition. It breeds more hatred than understanding. If respect and acceptance is the goal, then one must strive to show it also. The double edged sword sitting next to me would agree.



No Icing on the Cake for Christian Business Owners Who Refused to Bake for Lesbian Couple

I find it ironic, that you are blaming this couple that went to their local and used by them bakery for their wedding cake, and accuse them of setting this up to hurt the bakery financially...

While the Christian man who PURPOSELY WENT TO BAKERIES asking them to label a cake with GOD HATES FAGS on it....so that HE COULD SUE THEM AND HURT THEM FINANCIALLY.....

YOU are mum on. Yet YOU twist the facts and try to blame these regular customers of the Bakery of doing something that this oh so holy Christian man ACTUALLY DID.

shame on you!

In a press release issued today, Truth Wins Out asserted, “There is indeed a nuanced difference between a bakery's refusal to make a cake for a wedding because the customers are gay and a refusal to participate in hate speech at a customer's behest, hate speech which does not have anything to do with a person's religious beliefs. We are one hundred percent certain that if a normal Christian customer called any of Shoebat's targeted bakeries and asked for a cake for their Sunday School class, each and every one of them would respond joyfully and promptly.

“However, Truth Wins Out wants bakeries around the nation, especially those owned or operated by LGBT people, to be aware that their establishments may be targeted next by young Shoebat or any number of other anti-gay people who find this idea clever. Normal people do not call bakeries asking for God Hates Fags cakes, so if your establishment receives that call, please be aware that the caller does not want a cake at all, but to make a bizarre political statement that plays into fantasies of victimhood at the hands of the 'homosexual agenda.'”
Man Suing Colorado Bakery Is Christian Academy Cofounder Advocate.com

He's a jackass as well, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[Care4all]

If your sole purpose is to destroy a business instead of giving them business, then you are taking place in militant activism. You are purposefully targeting someone in order to expose and destroy them because of a difference in beliefs. You have crossed the line from holding a mere opinion to using that opinion to inflict damage on other individuals. I'm sorry, but I don't believe for one moment those two ladies had any intention of buying a cake. The law is clear, but the intent was not commercial. Those two women, in fact, were repeat customers there and knowing full well the beliefs of the proprietor(s). But suddenly out of the blue they ask them to bake a cake for a same sex wedding. To me, that is the definition of "ulterior motive."

Every business owner has their own beliefs, their own convictions, and suddenly they have to sacrifice them just to run a business in compliance with the law, and yes, sacrifices must be made. But here's the catch: that's wrong. There is something woefully wrong. Yes, the law is important, and rules are rules; don't misunderstand me here.

But if you have to sacrifice something sacred to you in order to succeed in business and appease the rule of law, then this is justice run amok. I agree, business is business, and money is money and rightly so; but as someone who admires the law, the law also isn't perfect. There are good laws, and not so well thought out ones. Though, until the law changes, people must obey it. To be succinct, however, obedience should not come at the price of your own morals and convictions.

Call me a homophobe, a bigot, ignorant, stupid, misguided or whatever you like, but that is my observation on this topic. I don't hate gay people, but I don't like the ones who would force other people to accept their lifestyle. I mean, if the act of forcing your religious beliefs on others is wrong, just imagine how they feel when the same is done to them! Behavior like such is only self serving and only widens the chasm between supporters and opposition. It breeds more hatred than understanding. If respect and acceptance is the goal, then one must strive to show it also. The double edged sword sitting next to me would agree.



No Icing on the Cake for Christian Business Owners Who Refused to Bake for Lesbian Couple

I find it ironic, that you are blaming this couple that went to their local and used by them bakery for their wedding cake, and accuse them of setting this up to hurt the bakery financially...

While the Christian man who PURPOSELY WENT TO BAKERIES asking them to label a cake with GOD HATES FAGS on it....so that HE COULD SUE THEM AND HURT THEM FINANCIALLY.....

YOU are mum on. Yet YOU twist the facts and try to blame these regular customers of the Bakery of doing something that this oh so holy Christian man ACTUALLY DID.

shame on you!

In a press release issued today, Truth Wins Out asserted, “There is indeed a nuanced difference between a bakery's refusal to make a cake for a wedding because the customers are gay and a refusal to participate in hate speech at a customer's behest, hate speech which does not have anything to do with a person's religious beliefs. We are one hundred percent certain that if a normal Christian customer called any of Shoebat's targeted bakeries and asked for a cake for their Sunday School class, each and every one of them would respond joyfully and promptly.

“However, Truth Wins Out wants bakeries around the nation, especially those owned or operated by LGBT people, to be aware that their establishments may be targeted next by young Shoebat or any number of other anti-gay people who find this idea clever. Normal people do not call bakeries asking for God Hates Fags cakes, so if your establishment receives that call, please be aware that the caller does not want a cake at all, but to make a bizarre political statement that plays into fantasies of victimhood at the hands of the 'homosexual agenda.'”
Man Suing Colorado Bakery Is Christian Academy Cofounder Advocate.com

He's a jackass as well, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

This gay couple did NOT set the Bakery up, they went to their regular Baker for their wedding cake and the bakery refused to even bake the cake...

But with this supposed Christian man, HE SPECIFICALLY called bakers to see if they would deny him, SO THAT HE COULD SUE THEM.... he did precisely what Templar is falsely accusing this gay couple of doing....

And the cases are NOT in any way similar....the bakery agreed to make the Christian Man's cake, just offered him the icing needed to put the HATE SPEECH on to the cake itself....

Baking the cake was not denied to the Christian man, but the HATE SPEECH that he wanted the Bakery to write, was denied.....the Baker, assured everyone that she would love to have her bakeries get a big order from a Christian prayer group for a cake or cupcakes and would gladly serve them....

So this man is asking this bakery to put HATE SPEECH on a cake....he was NOT denied due to his religion....or his color of skin, or for his sexual preference or gender, or age....

 

[martybegan]

If your sole purpose is to destroy a business instead of giving them business, then you are taking place in militant activism. You are purposefully targeting someone in order to expose and destroy them because of a difference in beliefs. You have crossed the line from holding a mere opinion to using that opinion to inflict damage on other individuals. I'm sorry, but I don't believe for one moment those two ladies had any intention of buying a cake. The law is clear, but the intent was not commercial. Those two women, in fact, were repeat customers there and knowing full well the beliefs of the proprietor(s). But suddenly out of the blue they ask them to bake a cake for a same sex wedding. To me, that is the definition of "ulterior motive."

Every business owner has their own beliefs, their own convictions, and suddenly they have to sacrifice them just to run a business in compliance with the law, and yes, sacrifices must be made. But here's the catch: that's wrong. There is something woefully wrong. Yes, the law is important, and rules are rules; don't misunderstand me here.

But if you have to sacrifice something sacred to you in order to succeed in business and appease the rule of law, then this is justice run amok. I agree, business is business, and money is money and rightly so; but as someone who admires the law, the law also isn't perfect. There are good laws, and not so well thought out ones. Though, until the law changes, people must obey it. To be succinct, however, obedience should not come at the price of your own morals and convictions.

Call me a homophobe, a bigot, ignorant, stupid, misguided or whatever you like, but that is my observation on this topic. I don't hate gay people, but I don't like the ones who would force other people to accept their lifestyle. I mean, if the act of forcing your religious beliefs on others is wrong, just imagine how they feel when the same is done to them! Behavior like such is only self serving and only widens the chasm between supporters and opposition. It breeds more hatred than understanding. If respect and acceptance is the goal, then one must strive to show it also. The double edged sword sitting next to me would agree.



No Icing on the Cake for Christian Business Owners Who Refused to Bake for Lesbian Couple

I find it ironic, that you are blaming this couple that went to their local and used by them bakery for their wedding cake, and accuse them of setting this up to hurt the bakery financially...

While the Christian man who PURPOSELY WENT TO BAKERIES asking them to label a cake with GOD HATES FAGS on it....so that HE COULD SUE THEM AND HURT THEM FINANCIALLY.....

YOU are mum on. Yet YOU twist the facts and try to blame these regular customers of the Bakery of doing something that this oh so holy Christian man ACTUALLY DID.

shame on you!

In a press release issued today, Truth Wins Out asserted, “There is indeed a nuanced difference between a bakery's refusal to make a cake for a wedding because the customers are gay and a refusal to participate in hate speech at a customer's behest, hate speech which does not have anything to do with a person's religious beliefs. We are one hundred percent certain that if a normal Christian customer called any of Shoebat's targeted bakeries and asked for a cake for their Sunday School class, each and every one of them would respond joyfully and promptly.

“However, Truth Wins Out wants bakeries around the nation, especially those owned or operated by LGBT people, to be aware that their establishments may be targeted next by young Shoebat or any number of other anti-gay people who find this idea clever. Normal people do not call bakeries asking for God Hates Fags cakes, so if your establishment receives that call, please be aware that the caller does not want a cake at all, but to make a bizarre political statement that plays into fantasies of victimhood at the hands of the 'homosexual agenda.'”
Man Suing Colorado Bakery Is Christian Academy Cofounder Advocate.com

He's a jackass as well, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

This gay couple did NOT set the Bakery up, they went to their regular Baker for their wedding cake and the bakery refused to even bake the cake...

But with this supposed Christian man, HE SPECIFICALLY called bakers to see if they would deny him, SO THAT HE COULD SUE THEM.... he did precisely what Templar is falsely accusing this gay couple of doing....

And the cases are NOT in any way similar....the bakery agreed to make the Christian Man's cake, just offered him the icing needed to put the HATE SPEECH on to the cake itself....

Baking the cake was not denied to the Christian man, but the HATE SPEECH that he wanted the Bakery to write, was denied.....the Baker, assured everyone that she would love to have her bakeries get a big order from a Christian prayer group for a cake or cupcakes and would gladly serve them....

So this man is asking this bakery to put HATE SPEECH on a cake....he was NOT denied due to his religion....

So basically one person's butthurt is more actionable than another persons butthurt. Where is the equal protection in that?

And Christian Identity is a Religion, a despicable one, but a Religion. The government doesn't get to say what is a Religion or isn't, unless it has to do with tax exempt statuses.

If examples like this are needed to show the pettyness of PA litigation over something as stupid as a wedding cake, well, then that is what is going to have to happen.

 

[Ravi]

The left are the new morality police, and they will use any government force available to either force you to accept their morals, or beat you into the ground so hard you are unable to resist their dogma.

FF to abortion ..

Any conservative push on Abortion is either to allow the States to decide on it, or at worst to push for a federal amendment on banning it. For an amendment to work so many people would have to be in support of it that I doubt we will see it in our lifetime.

But this gay wedding cake thing is based on a state's law. You appear to not support it and it is mystifying if you believe states have the right to set the rules.

 

[martybegan]

The left are the new morality police, and they will use any government force available to either force you to accept their morals, or beat you into the ground so hard you are unable to resist their dogma.

FF to abortion ..

Any conservative push on Abortion is either to allow the States to decide on it, or at worst to push for a federal amendment on banning it. For an amendment to work so many people would have to be in support of it that I doubt we will see it in our lifetime.

But this gay wedding cake thing is based on a state's law. You appear to not support it and it is mystifying if you believe states have the right to set the rules.

Saying the law is dumb isn't saying they can't make or pass the law. And if the 1st is indeed incorporated to the States, denying them the ability to refuse service for religious reasons is preventing "free exercise thereof" and is thus unconstitutional.

You keep using state rights as some boogeyman, but they have always have been subject to the federal constitution.

 

[HenryBHough]

The test will come when a normal American demands a Vegan baker whip up a batch of pork pies for a bar mitzvah.

 

[Ravi]

The left are the new morality police, and they will use any government force available to either force you to accept their morals, or beat you into the ground so hard you are unable to resist their dogma.

FF to abortion ..

Any conservative push on Abortion is either to allow the States to decide on it, or at worst to push for a federal amendment on banning it. For an amendment to work so many people would have to be in support of it that I doubt we will see it in our lifetime.

But this gay wedding cake thing is based on a state's law. You appear to not support it and it is mystifying if you believe states have the right to set the rules.

Saying the law is dumb isn't saying they can't make or pass the law. And if the 1st is indeed incorporated to the States, denying them the ability to refuse service for religious reasons is preventing "free exercise thereof" and is thus unconstitutional.

You keep using state rights as some boogeyman, but they have always have been subject to the federal constitution.

The bakery isn't a church.

Not sure about your boogeyman argument. A state cannot violate a federally granted right.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If you are a repeat customer, who else would you go to for your wedding cake?

What an idiotic OP.

Sorry, but if they were repeat customers, they knew the religious leanings of the owners before they decided to take them out. What an idiotic response.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If your sole purpose is to destroy a business instead of giving them business, then you are taking place in militant activism. You are purposefully targeting someone in order to expose and destroy them because of a difference in beliefs. You have crossed the line from holding a mere opinion to using that opinion to inflict damage on other individuals. I'm sorry, but I don't believe for one moment those two ladies had any intention of buying a cake. The law is clear, but the intent was not commercial. Those two women, in fact, were repeat customers there and knowing full well the beliefs of the proprietor(s). But suddenly out of the blue they ask them to bake a cake for a same sex wedding. To me, that is the definition of "ulterior motive."

Every business owner has their own beliefs, their own convictions, and suddenly they have to sacrifice them just to run a business in compliance with the law, and yes, sacrifices must be made. But here's the catch: that's wrong. There is something woefully wrong. Yes, the law is important, and rules are rules; don't misunderstand me here.

But if you have to sacrifice something sacred to you in order to succeed in business and appease the rule of law, then this is justice run amok. I agree, business is business, and money is money and rightly so; but as someone who admires the law, the law also isn't perfect. There are good laws, and not so well thought out ones. Though, until the law changes, people must obey it. To be succinct, however, obedience should not come at the price of your own morals and convictions.

Call me a homophobe, a bigot, ignorant, stupid, misguided or whatever you like, but that is my observation on this topic. I don't hate gay people, but I don't like the ones who would force other people to accept their lifestyle. I mean, if the act of forcing your religious beliefs on others is wrong, just imagine how they feel when the same is done to them! Behavior like such is only self serving and only widens the chasm between supporters and opposition. It breeds more hatred than understanding. If respect and acceptance is the goal, then one must strive to show it also. The double edged sword sitting next to me would agree.



No Icing on the Cake for Christian Business Owners Who Refused to Bake for Lesbian Couple

This was already settled in the Hobby Lobby decision, a closely held company can not be required to violate their religious beliefs.

Then look for the couple to appeal the ruling, based on that ruling. That is a trump card.

 

[Seawytch]

The power of the boycott is the only economic weapon the downtrodden have at their disposal. And it has historically proven to be very, very effective.

You want to be a discriminatory asshole? Go ahead, and let the invisible hand decide your fate.

No one is destroying your business but yourself. No windows get broken, just your bank account when people stop buying your stuff.

I have no issues with boycotts or people deciding not to do business with people they don't like. My concern is when government is used as the mechanism for this.

Yeah...like they have been since 1964.

Now it's tyranny!

 

[Seawytch]

The test will come when a normal American demands a Vegan baker whip up a batch of pork pies for a bar mitzvah.

Why do you people always make the same bad analogy? No business is being asked to provide a product or service they don't already provide. The correct analogy:

It would be like selling a cookie to a Christian and refusing to sell the same exact cookie to a Jew.

 

[OKTexas]

If your sole purpose is to destroy a business instead of giving them business, then you are taking place in militant activism. You are purposefully targeting someone in order to expose and destroy them because of a difference in beliefs. You have crossed the line from holding a mere opinion to using that opinion to inflict damage on other individuals. I'm sorry, but I don't believe for one moment those two ladies had any intention of buying a cake. The law is clear, but the intent was not commercial. Those two women, in fact, were repeat customers there and knowing full well the beliefs of the proprietor(s). But suddenly out of the blue they ask them to bake a cake for a same sex wedding. To me, that is the definition of "ulterior motive."

Every business owner has their own beliefs, their own convictions, and suddenly they have to sacrifice them just to run a business in compliance with the law, and yes, sacrifices must be made. But here's the catch: that's wrong. There is something woefully wrong. Yes, the law is important, and rules are rules; don't misunderstand me here.

But if you have to sacrifice something sacred to you in order to succeed in business and appease the rule of law, then this is justice run amok. I agree, business is business, and money is money and rightly so; but as someone who admires the law, the law also isn't perfect. There are good laws, and not so well thought out ones. Though, until the law changes, people must obey it. To be succinct, however, obedience should not come at the price of your own morals and convictions.

Call me a homophobe, a bigot, ignorant, stupid, misguided or whatever you like, but that is my observation on this topic. I don't hate gay people, but I don't like the ones who would force other people to accept their lifestyle. I mean, if the act of forcing your religious beliefs on others is wrong, just imagine how they feel when the same is done to them! Behavior like such is only self serving and only widens the chasm between supporters and opposition. It breeds more hatred than understanding. If respect and acceptance is the goal, then one must strive to show it also. The double edged sword sitting next to me would agree.



No Icing on the Cake for Christian Business Owners Who Refused to Bake for Lesbian Couple

This was already settled in the Hobby Lobby decision, a closely held company can not be required to violate their religious beliefs.

Then look for the couple to appeal the ruling, based on that ruling. That is a trump card.

I would be happy to send them money to help with that appeal.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Chew on this:

Under Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. ___ (2014), the Supreme Court essentially allowed closely held corporations (or companies who have 50% of its stock value held between 5 or fewer individuals (directly or indirectly) in the previous tax year) to exempt themselves from federal laws they deem to be an affront to their religious beliefs. Sweet Cakes falls under that category according to IRS regulations, and as such, in my opinion, this opens up the State of Oregon/US government to a countersuit. Under the RFRA it states also, “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”

As I interpret it, a law of general applicability (which Oregon's Equality Act falls under) is a [religiously] neutral law which applies all individuals in a state, or the United States as a whole. As far as the RFRA goes, some Federal laws are exempt from oversight under that act and purview of the First Amendment, as per the Supreme Court. I must also assume that state laws which expound on existing Federal laws are also covered under the RFRA as well.

If I interpret the Burwell ruling correctly, Sweet Cakes could have (using Burwell as precedent) exempted themselves Oregon's Equality Act of 2007 pertaining to sexual orientation because it (as they claim) violated their religious beliefs, that would also allow them to file an appeal with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries over their ruling ordering them to pay $150,000 for discrimination under Oregon's Equality Act.

The language of the of Burwell ruling stated that for-profit corporations (like Sweet Cakes) are considered persons under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It also allows for those closely held for profit corporations to assert RFRA to protect the religious liberties of the owner(s). Also, the government must justify its regulations under strict scrutiny; that is to say, the government must demonstrate that its regulations are the least restrictive way to further a compelling governmental interest. There may be parts of a law that meet that requirement, and then there are parts that do not. This leads me to believe that Sweet Cakes had a legal right to exempt themselves from part of a law they saw violated their religious beliefs.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Chew on this:

Under Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. ___ (2014), the Supreme Court essentially allowed closely held corporations (or companies who have 50% of its stock value is held between 5 or fewer individuals (directly or indirectly) in the previous tax year) to exempt themselves from federal laws they deem to be an affront to their religious beliefs. Sweet Cakes falls under that category according to IRS regulations, and as such, in my opinion, this opens up the State of Oregon/US government to a countersuit. Under the RFRA it states also, “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”

As I interpret it, a law of general applicability (which Oregon's Equality Act falls under) is a [religiously] neutral law which applies all individuals in a state, or the United States as a whole. As far as the RFRA goes, some Federal laws are exempt from oversight under that act and purview of the First Amendment, as per the Supreme Court. I must also assume that state laws which expound on existing Federal laws are also covered under the RFRA as well.

If I interpret the Burwell ruling correctly, Sweet Cakes could have (using Burwell as precedent) exempted themselves Oregon's Equality Act of 2007 pertaining to sexual orientation because it (as they claim) violated their religious beliefs, that would also allow them to file an appeal with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries over their ruling ordering them to pay $150,000 for discrimination under Oregon's Equality Act.

The language of the of Burwell ruling stated that for-profit corporations (like Sweet Cakes) are considered persons under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It also allows for those closely held for profit corporations to assert RFRA to protect the religious liberties of the owner(s). Also, the government must justify its regulations under strict scrutiny; that is to say, the government must demonstrate that its regulations are the least restrictive way to further a compelling governmental interest. That leads me to believe that Sweet Cakes had a legal right to exempt themselves from a law they saw violated their religious beliefs.

Involuntary female circumcision is a religious practice.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The test will come when a normal American demands a Vegan baker whip up a batch of pork pies for a bar mitzvah.

Why would a baker have to sell a product they don't sell?