No Cake for You

[Seawytch]

The commerce clause does allow the feds to regulate interstate commerce.

No shit Dick Tracey. Arguing a point not in contention does what for the discussion exactly?

Then what is your problem? The constitutionality of both Federal and local PA laws are not in question. No "tyranny". Don't like them, challenge them in court if you're allowed or go to Congress. What do you give your changes there?

 

[kaz]

The commerce clause does allow the feds to regulate interstate commerce.

No shit Dick Tracey. Arguing a point not in contention does what for the discussion exactly?

Then what is your problem? The constitutionality of both Federal and local PA laws are not in question

I'm not explaining the discussion to you again. Grasping it is on you now.

 

[Seawytch]

The commerce clause does allow the feds to regulate interstate commerce.

No shit Dick Tracey. Arguing a point not in contention does what for the discussion exactly?

Then what is your problem? The constitutionality of both Federal and local PA laws are not in question

I'm not explaining the discussion to you again. Grasping it is on you now.

Right...we're back at "nobody understands Kaz". Good luck with your fight.

 

[kaz]

The commerce clause does allow the feds to regulate interstate commerce.

No shit Dick Tracey. Arguing a point not in contention does what for the discussion exactly?

Then what is your problem? The constitutionality of both Federal and local PA laws are not in question

I'm not explaining the discussion to you again. Grasping it is on you now.

Right...we're back at "nobody understands Kaz". Good luck with your fight.

OK, I'm tired of the emotions. You want to discuss content I'm here. You want to talk about your feelings and sing Kumbaya, I don't give a shit.

 

[Antares]

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.

The radical right are the ones wanting enormous and invasive government forcing certain groups to conform to their religious (sharia) law.

If you do not conform to their very narrow and unconstitutional laws, they will "beat you into the ground so hard you are unable to resist their dogma".

If you could, you people would put cameras in people's bedrooms.

You are really quite ignorant Dudly....so much hatred , how do you function?

 

[Ravi]

Read what I wrote in a response to a later post.

Like most other violations the first is x, the second as a multiple of x and so on

I seriously think Joe actually would like the death penalty for parking tickets.

Ravi and I, who never agree on anything, agreed that 150K for this, a first offense, made no sense.

Nobody gets a parking ticket for being a hater.

again, the idea here is deterence. It's not just to put Melissa's Cakes out of business, which is a good thing, but to let all the other Christian Assholes know that they can't do this, not even once.

Again, I've known gays who've been fired from their jobs for being gay, I've known gays who've been beaten up.

Having to bake a cake you'll receive money for baking after you promised to bake cakes for money - this is not an infringement.

They didn't go out of business because of the fine. The fine hasn't been levied as of yet. Apparently they went out of business because of their sensitivity to the gay.

 

[HenryBHough]

Be patient.

Just days now and some lame-assed liberal activist judge will order them to re-open and smile about their new-found servitude.

 

[Pop23]

Read what I wrote in a response to a later post.

Like most other violations the first is x, the second as a multiple of x and so on

I seriously think Joe actually would like the death penalty for parking tickets.

Ravi and I, who never agree on anything, agreed that 150K for this, a first offense, made no sense.

Nobody gets a parking ticket for being a hater.

again, the idea here is deterence. It's not just to put Melissa's Cakes out of business, which is a good thing, but to let all the other Christian Assholes know that they can't do this, not even once.

Again, I've known gays who've been fired from their jobs for being gay, I've known gays who've been beaten up.

Having to bake a cake you'll receive money for baking after you promised to bake cakes for money - this is not an infringement.

You must also know people that have gotten the death sentence for parking tickets?

Two points.

A small business feels real pain with a fine that escalates if they violate again. 10 cakes at a retail cost could be 2500 to 7500. It hurts the owners but probably not enough to cost innocent employees jobs or pay (I know you could give a shit about them)

Also, you speak of haters. Seriously, your rant was nothing but hate.

Ironic

How about they try not violating the law...and they don't get fined. BTW, they haven't actually gotten fined yet so you're hyperbolically speculating unnecessarily.

You do understand that we agree that the baker, who is in the business of baking, should bake for the general public. Right?

The disagreement is the size of the fine.

A nominal fine for a first offense is quite adequate. A second offense should be x times that amount. I agree

Trying to lay all the bad on one small business is wrong.

 

[Seawytch]

The commerce clause does allow the feds to regulate interstate commerce.

No shit Dick Tracey. Arguing a point not in contention does what for the discussion exactly?

Then what is your problem? The constitutionality of both Federal and local PA laws are not in question

I'm not explaining the discussion to you again. Grasping it is on you now.

Right...we're back at "nobody understands Kaz". Good luck with your fight.

OK, I'm tired of the emotions. You want to discuss content I'm here. You want to talk about your feelings and sing Kumbaya, I don't give a shit.

WorldWatcher

Senior, you've got decidedly Libertarian leanings. Do you have any idea what point Kaz is trying to make?

 

[Silhouette]

Seawytch, you don't need to answer for Kaz...or do you?

 

[Silhouette]

Let's say the baker that was sued to accomodate a gay wedding, went to the same church as a photographer forced to accomodate a gay wedding; and they both went to the same church as the florist and a couple of caterers that were also forced to accomodate gay weddings.
Let's say there's a church in the near future where 30 people have all been sued successfully by gays to accomodate their gay weddings against the individual's faith, and there are only 35 people in the whole church total, including the minister. And like most churches, that one opens its doors wide to any and all of the public to attend...

..Will that mean that a church has been forced to accomodate a homosexual wedding?

 

[WorldWatcher]

WorldWatcher

Senior, you've got decidedly Libertarian leanings. Do you have any idea what point Kaz is trying to make?

Just Chief, I never made senior - telling your Department Head he's an idiot (even if done tactfully) that an airplane with three downing discrepancies is not safe-for-flight for a night flight, isn't career enhancing.


Kaz, IMHO, is trying to say that Federal Public Accommodation laws are not Constitutional under the Federal Constitution. You and he deflected this thread to a LLLLLOOOONNNNGGGG back and forth about the Federal Constitution when in fact the bakers in these cases have had complaints filed against them based on STATE Public Accommodation laws.

Respectfully, you fall into his trap over and over in these types of threads instead of politely declining to engage on that issue and steering the conversation back to the law that is being applied, State law. Disengage on the Federal point and keep it focused on the State law. Such laws being squarely under State authority under the 10th Amendment power of the State to regulate intrastate commerce.

Hope that makes sense.


>>>>

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Let's say the baker that was sued to accomodate a gay wedding, went to the same church as a photographer forced to accomodate a gay wedding; and they both went to the same church as the florist and a couple of caterers that were also forced to accomodate gay weddings.
Let's say there's a church in the near future where 30 people have all been sued successfully by gays to accomodate their gay weddings against the individual's faith, and there are only 35 people in the whole church total, including the minister. And like most churches, that one opens its doors wide to any and all of the public to attend...

..Will that mean that a church has been forced to accomodate a homosexual wedding?

No...

 

[Seawytch]

WorldWatcher

Senior, you've got decidedly Libertarian leanings. Do you have any idea what point Kaz is trying to make?

Just Chief, I never made senior - telling your Department Head he's an idiot (even if done tactfully) that an airplane with three downing discrepancies is not safe-for-flight for a night flight, isn't career enhancing.


Kaz, IMHO, is trying to say that Federal Public Accommodation laws are not Constitutional under the Federal Constitution. You and he deflected this thread to a LLLLLOOOONNNNGGGG back and forth about the Federal Constitution when in fact the bakers in these cases have had complaints filed against them based on STATE Public Accommodation laws.

Respectfully, you fall into his trap over and over in these types of threads instead of politely declining to engage on that issue and steering the conversation back to the law that is being applied, State law. Disengage on the Federal point and keep it focused on the State law. Such laws being squarely under State authority under the 10th Amendment power of the State to regulate intrastate commerce.

Hope that makes sense.


>>>>

Um, I point out the state's rights angle frequently. I'm well aware of the difference.

Kaz DID question the Constitutionality of Federal PA laws and seemingly refuses to accept that they were found to be just that.

 

[HenryBHough]

In time small business will cease to exist. All business will be done by mega-corporations whose legal staff will be larger than their productive staff.

 

[WorldWatcher]

WorldWatcher

Senior, you've got decidedly Libertarian leanings. Do you have any idea what point Kaz is trying to make?

Just Chief, I never made senior - telling your Department Head he's an idiot (even if done tactfully) that an airplane with three downing discrepancies is not safe-for-flight for a night flight, isn't career enhancing.


Kaz, IMHO, is trying to say that Federal Public Accommodation laws are not Constitutional under the Federal Constitution. You and he deflected this thread to a LLLLLOOOONNNNGGGG back and forth about the Federal Constitution when in fact the bakers in these cases have had complaints filed against them based on STATE Public Accommodation laws.

Respectfully, you fall into his trap over and over in these types of threads instead of politely declining to engage on that issue and steering the conversation back to the law that is being applied, State law. Disengage on the Federal point and keep it focused on the State law. Such laws being squarely under State authority under the 10th Amendment power of the State to regulate intrastate commerce.

Hope that makes sense.


>>>>

Um, I point out the state's rights angle frequently. I'm well aware of the difference.

Kaz DID question the Constitutionality of Federal PA laws and seemingly refuses to accept that they were found to be just that.

Instead of playing his game though, you could have said "This case is about State Public Accommodation laws and so Federal PA laws aren't a factor." maintaining focus on the case which is the subject of the discussion. Then offer to join him in a thread on Federal PA laws if he wants to make one.

IIRC Kaz has repeatedly said that State PA laws are Constitutional.

>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

WorldWatcher

Senior, you've got decidedly Libertarian leanings. Do you have any idea what point Kaz is trying to make?

Just Chief, I never made senior - telling your Department Head he's an idiot (even if done tactfully) that an airplane with three downing discrepancies is not safe-for-flight for a night flight, isn't career enhancing.


Kaz, IMHO, is trying to say that Federal Public Accommodation laws are not Constitutional under the Federal Constitution. You and he deflected this thread to a LLLLLOOOONNNNGGGG back and forth about the Federal Constitution when in fact the bakers in these cases have had complaints filed against them based on STATE Public Accommodation laws.

Respectfully, you fall into his trap over and over in these types of threads instead of politely declining to engage on that issue and steering the conversation back to the law that is being applied, State law. Disengage on the Federal point and keep it focused on the State law. Such laws being squarely under State authority under the 10th Amendment power of the State to regulate intrastate commerce.

Hope that makes sense.


>>>>

Um, I point out the state's rights angle frequently. I'm well aware of the difference.

Kaz DID question the Constitutionality of Federal PA laws and seemingly refuses to accept that they were found to be just that.

Instead of playing his game though, you could have said "This case is about State Public Accommodation laws and so Federal PA laws aren't a factor." maintaining focus on the case which is the subject of the discussion. Then offer to join him in a thread on Federal PA laws if he wants to make one.


>>>>

I'm pretty sure I did that as well...and at one point I think he conceded to you that local PA laws are in fact Constitutional...evil and tyrannical but still Constitutional.

But then seemed to argue the opposite later.

 

[Katzndogz]

In time small business will cease to exist. All business will be done by mega-corporations whose legal staff will be larger than their productive staff.

Then there will be no such thing as a special order cake.

 

[Ravi]

In time small business will cease to exist. All business will be done by mega-corporations whose legal staff will be larger than their productive staff.

Then there will be no such thing as a special order cake.

Baloney. You can get them at the grocery store.

 

[Seawytch]

The case was rather open-and-shut. On March 1, 2013, “Stutzman refused to provide to Ingersoll a service she provided to others,” Ekstrom wrote. What she believes about same-sex marriage is immaterial, because the law’s protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation “address conduct, not beliefs.” Agreeing with the plaintiffs and the attorney general, Ekstrom asserted that “no Court has ever held that religiously motivated conduct, expressive or otherwise, trumps state discrimination law in public accommodations.” He also pointed out that Stutzman is not a minister nor is Arlene’s Flowers a religious organization. Likewise, the law does not specifically target her because of her beliefs, but is “neutral and generally applicable” to all people of all beliefs.

Ekstrom agreed that “the State’s compelling interest in combating discrimination in public accommodations is well settled” and is not superseded by an individual’s religious beliefs. As the Supreme Court wrote in the 1982 case United States v. Lee, “When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity. Granting an exemption… operates to impose [the follower’s] religious faith on the [person sought to be protected by the law.]”
​

Religion is Not an Excuse to Defy Anti Discrimination Laws