Oregon Bakers: You get to pay 135,000 for being radical religious morons, Judge so orders!

[WorldWatcher]

Really
' Then why did they have to pay $135,000?

The Kliens (Sweetcakes case) paid $135,000 in fines which is currently held in escrow pending final litigation. They paid the amount to be held in escrow so that they didn't accrue additional fines and late fees for late payment.


>>>>

 

[BULLDOG]

They said they serve gays. They have the right to be served, just like everyone else. A hetero couple has no right to demand he make some cake he doesn't offer, whether it's against his religion or not. Neither do dykes.

Both the Oregon (Sweetcakes) and Colorado (Masterpiece) Public Accommodation laws require "full and equal" access to goods and services offerred, not a subset of goods and services.

The fact that they would be willing to sell other products isn't relevant to their refusal to sell Wedding Cakes when Wedding Cakes are a normal part of their business model.


>>>>

Everyone...homos, heteros, and other...had equal access to all goods offered. They don't make gay wedding cakes for heteros, either.

Did they make straight wedding cakes?

 

[Aba Incieni]

They said they serve gays. They have the right to be served, just like everyone else. A hetero couple has no right to demand he make some cake he doesn't offer, whether it's against his religion or not. Neither do dykes.

Both the Oregon (Sweetcakes) and Colorado (Masterpiece) Public Accommodation laws require "full and equal" access to goods and services offerred, not a subset of goods and services.

The fact that they would be willing to sell other products isn't relevant to their refusal to sell Wedding Cakes when Wedding Cakes are a normal part of their business model.


>>>>

Everyone...homos, heteros, and other...had equal access to all goods offered. They don't make gay wedding cakes for heteros, either.

Did they make straight wedding cakes?

They won't bake gay cakes for heteros, either.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So, you should support the Constitution over a 'law' that forces people to provide goods or services.


key word; FORCE

Why should they force businesses to follow health laws now, eh?

Health laws do not conflict with their religion.

Health laws, in this context, also fulfill a genuine, legitimate purpose, of sufficient importance to override any “right” that anyone might claim to sell food that is unsanitary and unsafe. Forcing an artist to produce a work celebrating a sick homosexual mockery of a wedding serves no such purpose, and violates that artist's own moral and religious right not to be drawn into something that he knows is morally wrong.

 

[BULLDOG]

They said they serve gays. They have the right to be served, just like everyone else. A hetero couple has no right to demand he make some cake he doesn't offer, whether it's against his religion or not. Neither do dykes.

Both the Oregon (Sweetcakes) and Colorado (Masterpiece) Public Accommodation laws require "full and equal" access to goods and services offerred, not a subset of goods and services.

The fact that they would be willing to sell other products isn't relevant to their refusal to sell Wedding Cakes when Wedding Cakes are a normal part of their business model.


>>>>

Everyone...homos, heteros, and other...had equal access to all goods offered. They don't make gay wedding cakes for heteros, either.

Did they make straight wedding cakes?

They won't bake gay cakes for heteros, either.

Did they make straight wedding cakes?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Everyone...homos, heteros, and other...had equal access to all goods offered. They don't make gay wedding cakes for heteros, either.

There is no difference in the production of a Wedding Cake for same-sex or different-sex couples. The ingredients and process are the same - the only difference is the customers.

That's like saying Piggie Park BBQ make white BBQ and black BBQ and their is a difference in the BBQ. (BTW - Piggie Park Enterprises lost their Public Accommodation case when they claimed it was against their religion to service black people.)

>>>>

 

[BULLDOG]

So, you should support the Constitution over a 'law' that forces people to provide goods or services.


key word; FORCE

Why should they force businesses to follow health laws now, eh?

Health laws do not conflict with their religion.

Health laws, in this context, also fulfill a genuine, legitimate purpose, of sufficient importance to override any “right” that anyone might claim to sell food that is unsanitary and unsafe. Forcing an artist to produce a work celebrating a sick homosexual mockery of a wedding serves no such purpose, and violates that artist's own moral and religious right not to be drawn into something that he knows is morally wrong.

The bakery never advertised art, and the artist claim never appeared until after the suit was filed.

 

[Windparadox]

The Kliens (Sweetcakes case) paid $135,000 in fines which is currently held in escrow pending final litigation. They paid the amount to be held in escrow so that they didn't accrue additional fines and late fees for late payment.>>>>

`
`
That's a good idea but as they are going to pursue this further, their legal costs go up. Win. lose or draw, this is going to cost them.

 

[Aba Incieni]

So, you should support the Constitution over a 'law' that forces people to provide goods or services.


key word; FORCE

Why should they force businesses to follow health laws now, eh?

Health laws do not conflict with their religion.

Health laws, in this context, also fulfill a genuine, legitimate purpose, of sufficient importance to override any “right” that anyone might claim to sell food that is unsanitary and unsafe. Forcing an artist to produce a work celebrating a sick homosexual mockery of a wedding serves no such purpose, and violates that artist's own moral and religious right not to be drawn into something that he knows is morally wrong.

The alternative is to force people to produce that which they have no desire to produce, plus they find it morally appalling. Well done.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Everyone...homos, heteros, and other...had equal access to all goods offered. They don't make gay wedding cakes for heteros, either.

There is no difference in the production of a Wedding Cake for same-sex or different-sex couples. The ingredients and process are the same - the only difference is the customers.

That's like saying Piggie Park BBQ make white BBQ and black BBQ and their is a difference in the BBQ. (BTW - Piggie Park Enterprises lost their Public Accommodation case when they claimed it was against their religion to service black people.)

>>>>

They don't offer that product. To anyone.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Best thing to have done is just pull their business license.....but Oregon followed the law as written just as they did in the case about the dentist who discriminated against his christian employee and was fined TWICE as much as this couple.

The First Amendment is the law, and as part of the Constitution, it is a higher law than any state-level legislation or even federal legislation.

Oregon broke the law, by enacting and enforcing lesser laws that violate the Klein's rights which are explicitly affirmed and protected under the First Amendment.

It is funny when those of you on the left wrong pay empty lip service to the rule of law, in overt defense and advocacy of abject lawlessness and corruption. This aspect of LIbEral behavior is almost straight out of Orwell, reminiscent of his infamous “War is Peace!” triplet.

 

[Aba Incieni]

They said they serve gays. They have the right to be served, just like everyone else. A hetero couple has no right to demand he make some cake he doesn't offer, whether it's against his religion or not. Neither do dykes.

Both the Oregon (Sweetcakes) and Colorado (Masterpiece) Public Accommodation laws require "full and equal" access to goods and services offerred, not a subset of goods and services.

The fact that they would be willing to sell other products isn't relevant to their refusal to sell Wedding Cakes when Wedding Cakes are a normal part of their business model.


>>>>

Everyone...homos, heteros, and other...had equal access to all goods offered. They don't make gay wedding cakes for heteros, either.

Did they make straight wedding cakes?

They won't bake gay cakes for heteros, either.

Did they make straight wedding cakes?

They made wedding cakes. They offered the dykes anything they produce for everyone, including them.

 

[rightwinger]

They said they serve gays. They have the right to be served, just like everyone else. A hetero couple has no right to demand he make some cake he doesn't offer, whether it's against his religion or not. Neither do dykes.

Both the Oregon (Sweetcakes) and Colorado (Masterpiece) Public Accommodation laws require "full and equal" access to goods and services offerred, not a subset of goods and services.

The fact that they would be willing to sell other products isn't relevant to their refusal to sell Wedding Cakes when Wedding Cakes are a normal part of their business model.


>>>>

Everyone...homos, heteros, and other...had equal access to all goods offered. They don't make gay wedding cakes for heteros, either.

They refused to sell a wedding cake that was to be used in a gay wedding

 

[Aba Incieni]

They said they serve gays. They have the right to be served, just like everyone else. A hetero couple has no right to demand he make some cake he doesn't offer, whether it's against his religion or not. Neither do dykes.

Both the Oregon (Sweetcakes) and Colorado (Masterpiece) Public Accommodation laws require "full and equal" access to goods and services offerred, not a subset of goods and services.

The fact that they would be willing to sell other products isn't relevant to their refusal to sell Wedding Cakes when Wedding Cakes are a normal part of their business model.


>>>>

Everyone...homos, heteros, and other...had equal access to all goods offered. They don't make gay wedding cakes for heteros, either.

They refused to sell a wedding cake that was to be used in a gay wedding

They serve gays, they don't produce gay wedding cakes. Force them?

 

[bodecea]

not sure why people cheer when the Constitution is ignored.

leftist, hating America since fdr

The constitution wasn’t ignored. Thus the ruling.

So judges always get it right? Plessey V Fergueson disagrees with that position.

And Plessy V Ferguson was eventually overruled with a new ruling after people put in the time and effort to PROVE that "separate but equal" was not. What have you got to make Civil Rights laws/PA laws unConstitutional even tho they've already been ruled Constitutional?

 

[bodecea]

OK. Do you have anything to add to that?

Regarding the unresolved court case? It's unresolved.

I see another head banging collision between those who believe in moral objections to federal immigration and marijuana laws.

You?

I'm sure there are threads on those subjects. Use the search function to find them

This is one. It's regarding the moral refusal to follow federal law.

Should you be able to refuse a woman from buying gas if your religion says she shouldn't drive? What if the religion opposed interracial marriages, or even mixing of races as they eat? At what point does your religion over ride the law?

Yes. Yes. Always.

Fascinating....so if your so-called religion says you don't have to follow safety/health laws with your business, you should still be granted a business license?

 

[BULLDOG]

Both the Oregon (Sweetcakes) and Colorado (Masterpiece) Public Accommodation laws require "full and equal" access to goods and services offerred, not a subset of goods and services.

The fact that they would be willing to sell other products isn't relevant to their refusal to sell Wedding Cakes when Wedding Cakes are a normal part of their business model.


>>>>

Everyone...homos, heteros, and other...had equal access to all goods offered. They don't make gay wedding cakes for heteros, either.

Did they make straight wedding cakes?

They won't bake gay cakes for heteros, either.

Did they make straight wedding cakes?

They made wedding cakes. They offered the dykes anything they produce for everyone, including them.

Great. They could have sold them one of those, but they didn't.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Regarding the unresolved court case? It's unresolved.

I see another head banging collision between those who believe in moral objections to federal immigration and marijuana laws.

You?

I'm sure there are threads on those subjects. Use the search function to find them

This is one. It's regarding the moral refusal to follow federal law.

Should you be able to refuse a woman from buying gas if your religion says she shouldn't drive? What if the religion opposed interracial marriages, or even mixing of races as they eat? At what point does your religion over ride the law?

Yes. Yes. Always.

Fascinating....so if your so-called religion says you don't have to follow safety/health laws with your business, you should still be granted a business license?

The government grants business licenses. That would be their call.

But since we're speculating, let's say the dykes want to pave their driveway. They go to buy gravel and want a special gay gravel. Should the gravel guy be forced to produce this gay gravel for them? He doesn't sell gay gravel to anybody. He doesn't sell gay gravel at all. Force him to?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The constitution trumps state law. The constitution is not confusing in this.

Congress shall make NO law ........

Congress didn't make the law.

States have the power to regulate intrastate commerce under the 10th Amendment.

There's something to be pointed out here. “Congress shall make no law…”. As originally written, this applied only to the federal government. Originally states were left the power to impose restrictions that the federal government is here forbidden to impose. I think the founders imagines that people would organize themselves into geographic areas based on common beliefs. Catholics might form communities which would have laws that reflect Catholic values. Jews might form different communities, with laws that reflect Jewish values. And so on.

That's now how it turned out, of course; most states and most communities have quite a mix of different religions and beliefs.

It is by incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment that the First Amendment now applies to state and local governments as well as the federal government, and no government at any level is now permitted to enact laws which violate the rights affirmed in the First Amendment.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Everyone...homos, heteros, and other...had equal access to all goods offered. They don't make gay wedding cakes for heteros, either.

Did they make straight wedding cakes?

They won't bake gay cakes for heteros, either.

Did they make straight wedding cakes?

They made wedding cakes. They offered the dykes anything they produce for everyone, including them.

Great. They could have sold them one of those, but they didn't.

The dykes demanded something he didn't offer for sale.