No Cake for You

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The bakers also knew they were violating state law.

 

[Seawytch]

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. 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.

Alito cites racial discrimination in his opinion. But Justice Anthony Kennedy, in a concurrence, cabins the court’s ruling even further, making clear that the majority isn’t rewriting RFRA (or the First Amendment) to protect anti-gay discrimination. Kennedy denies that the opinion is a startling “breadth and sweep,” noting that this case could easily be “distinguish[ed] ... from many others in which it is more difficult” to strike a balance between legal regulations and “an alleged statutory right of free exercise.” While religious liberty may permit employers to exercise their own beliefs to a point, “neither may that same exercise unduly restrict … employees in protecting their own interests.” Translation: This case is about birth control and nothing more—and as a general rule, employees still have a compelling interest in most laws that protect their rights.

The Hobby Lobby ruling is good for gays and doesn rsquo t allow discrimination.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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...

Of course they did. These two women knew full well they were gay, they were fully prepared to take them out should they have refused to bake them a cake. It was premeditated. Having been repeat customers there, it only stands to reason that the lesbian couple knew of the religious beliefs of the owners.

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.....

What goes around comes around, miss. The gay people started this war, now they have to fight it.

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....

But the bakery is obligated to do as the customer asks if the customer has the money to pay for it. Your logic is flawed. If it applies to the Christian bakery, it applies to the gay one as well. Sorry.

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....

See the previous response.

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....

He was discriminated against based on his creed. Yep, I'm pretty sure that's covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Actually, the state law expounded on the federal one. Since it is based on a federal law *GASP* any court rulings that apply to the federal law apply to the state law.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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...

Of course they did. These two women knew full well they were gay, they were fully prepared to take them out should they have refused to bake them a cake. It was premeditated. Having been repeat customers there, it only stands to reason that the lesbian couple knew of the religious beliefs of the owners.

You're making a lot of assumptions. I don't know the religious beliefs of the people in the stores that I frequent every day. Is that something that you keep track of?

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.....

What goes around comes around, miss. The gay people started this war, now they have to fight it.

The fact that you think it's a "war" says a lot more about you than it does about "the gays".

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....

But the bakery is obligated to do as the customer asks if the customer has the money to pay for it. Your logic is flawed. If it applies to the Christian bakery, it applies to the gay one as well. Sorry.

No, a bakery is not "obligated" to do as a customer asks. Where do you get this shit from?

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....

See the previous response.

The "previous response" is nonsense.

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....

He was discriminated against based on his creed. Yep, I'm pretty sure that's covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

There's nothing more amusing to me than people who try to claim that they're being persecuted because they can't discriminate against gay people anymore.

 

[koshergrl]

Denying queers Christian-baked wedding cakes is not "discrimination".

Though forcing Christians to bake wedding cakes for queers might be a civil rights violation. Possibly a human rights violation....depending on how severely one opts to "punish" the Christians who refuse to be enslaved to the queers.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Denying queers Christian-baked wedding cakes is not "discrimination".

Though forcing Christians to bake wedding cakes for queers might be a civil rights violation. Possibly a human rights violation....depending on how severely one opts to "punish" the Christians who refuse to be enslaved to the queers.

Case in point. KG comes through with the "persecution" meme.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You're making a lot of assumptions. I don't know the religious beliefs of the people in the stores that I frequent every day. Is that something that you keep track of?

My point exactly. And I'm speaking from the owner's perspective, not the customers.

The fact that you think it's a "war" says a lot more about you than it does about "the gays".

The fact you resorted to a genetic argument says more about you that it does your argument. Oops.

The "previous response" is nonsense.

That's it? Surely you can do better than "nonsense."

There's nothing more amusing to me than people who try to claim that they're being persecuted because they can't discriminate against gay people anymore.

There's nothing more amusing to me than people who think that a law can be used to protect only one class of people while being used to punish the other. We call that elitism and/or a double standard.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Denying queers Christian-baked wedding cakes is not "discrimination".

Though forcing Christians to bake wedding cakes for queers might be a civil rights violation. Possibly a human rights violation....depending on how severely one opts to "punish" the Christians who refuse to be enslaved to the queers.

Case in point. KG comes through with the "persecution" meme.

With all due respect, Doc, isn't what you're doing right now trolling?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Amazingly the RWnuts want to party like it's 1963.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You're making a lot of assumptions. I don't know the religious beliefs of the people in the stores that I frequent every day. Is that something that you keep track of?

My point exactly. And I'm speaking from the owner's perspective, not the customers.

The fact that you think it's a "war" says a lot more about you than it does about "the gays".

The fact you resorted to a genetic argument says more about you that it does your argument. Oops.

The "previous response" is nonsense.

That's it? Surely you can do better than "nonsense."

There's nothing more amusing to me than people who try to claim that they're being persecuted because they can't discriminate against gay people anymore.

There's nothing more amusing to me than people who think that a law can be used to protect only one class of people while being used to punish the other. We call that elitism.

The fact that you think not discriminating on the basis of orientation is a "punishment" is kinda my whole point.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Denying queers Christian-baked wedding cakes is not "discrimination".

Though forcing Christians to bake wedding cakes for queers might be a civil rights violation. Possibly a human rights violation....depending on how severely one opts to "punish" the Christians who refuse to be enslaved to the queers.

Case in point. KG comes through with the "persecution" meme.

With all due respect, Doc, isn't what you're doing trolling?

Nope.

 

[koshergrl]

Denying queers Christian-baked wedding cakes is not "discrimination".

Though forcing Christians to bake wedding cakes for queers might be a civil rights violation. Possibly a human rights violation....depending on how severely one opts to "punish" the Christians who refuse to be enslaved to the queers.

Case in point. KG comes through with the "persecution" meme.

I know, it sucks to have your queer persecution meme squished all to hell by reality.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're making a lot of assumptions. I don't know the religious beliefs of the people in the stores that I frequent every day. Is that something that you keep track of?

My point exactly. And I'm speaking from the owner's perspective, not the customers.

The fact that you think it's a "war" says a lot more about you than it does about "the gays".

The fact you resorted to a genetic argument says more about you that it does your argument. Oops.

The "previous response" is nonsense.

That's it? Surely you can do better than "nonsense."

There's nothing more amusing to me than people who try to claim that they're being persecuted because they can't discriminate against gay people anymore.

There's nothing more amusing to me than people who think that a law can be used to protect only one class of people while being used to punish the other. We call that elitism and/or a double standard.

The 2nd amendment is constitutional law that protects one class, gun owners, while being used to punish those who oppose gun rights.

Are you saying that's an injustice?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Denying queers Christian-baked wedding cakes is not "discrimination".

Though forcing Christians to bake wedding cakes for queers might be a civil rights violation. Possibly a human rights violation....depending on how severely one opts to "punish" the Christians who refuse to be enslaved to the queers.

Case in point. KG comes through with the "persecution" meme.

I know, it sucks to have your queer persecution meme squished all to hell by reality.

The mere fact that we can get you to call them queers proves where the bigots are on this issue.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You're making a lot of assumptions. I don't know the religious beliefs of the people in the stores that I frequent every day. Is that something that you keep track of?

My point exactly. And I'm speaking from the owner's perspective, not the customers.

The fact that you think it's a "war" says a lot more about you than it does about "the gays".

The fact you resorted to a genetic argument says more about you that it does your argument. Oops.

The "previous response" is nonsense.

That's it? Surely you can do better than "nonsense."

There's nothing more amusing to me than people who try to claim that they're being persecuted because they can't discriminate against gay people anymore.

There's nothing more amusing to me than people who think that a law can be used to protect only one class of people while being used to punish the other. We call that elitism and/or a double standard.

The fact that you think not discriminating on the basis of orientation is a "punishment" is kinda my whole point.

The fact that you think it is okay to use a law to subvert religious belief is my whole point also. So, it seems we've reached an impasse.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Denying queers Christian-baked wedding cakes is not "discrimination".

Though forcing Christians to bake wedding cakes for queers might be a civil rights violation. Possibly a human rights violation....depending on how severely one opts to "punish" the Christians who refuse to be enslaved to the queers.

Case in point. KG comes through with the "persecution" meme.

With all due respect, Doc, isn't what you're doing trolling?

Nope.

Care to expound on that, sir? You hurled a genetic argument at me, and then referred to one of my points as 'nonsense' without putting any effort into rebutting it. That came off as trolling to me. Fine, whatever.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're making a lot of assumptions. I don't know the religious beliefs of the people in the stores that I frequent every day. Is that something that you keep track of?

My point exactly. And I'm speaking from the owner's perspective, not the customers.

The fact that you think it's a "war" says a lot more about you than it does about "the gays".

The fact you resorted to a genetic argument says more about you that it does your argument. Oops.

The "previous response" is nonsense.

That's it? Surely you can do better than "nonsense."

There's nothing more amusing to me than people who try to claim that they're being persecuted because they can't discriminate against gay people anymore.

There's nothing more amusing to me than people who think that a law can be used to protect only one class of people while being used to punish the other. We call that elitism and/or a double standard.

The fact that you think not discriminating on the basis of orientation is a "punishment" is kinda my whole point.

The fact that you think it is okay to use a law to subvert religious belief is my whole point also. So, it seems we've reached an impasse.

Religious practices aren't exempt from the law. Are you nuts?

 

[Ravi]

Denying queers Christian-baked wedding cakes is not "discrimination".

Though forcing Christians to bake wedding cakes for queers might be a civil rights violation. Possibly a human rights violation....depending on how severely one opts to "punish" the Christians who refuse to be enslaved to the queers.

Christian baked. Lol, no. Are they operating like a Christian bakery? Why no, they are not.

 

[Ravi]

Amazingly the RWnuts want to party like it's 1963.

Did you mean 1863?