Oregon imposes gag order on Christian bakers in gay wedding case

[Flopper]

Neither is the former.

You don't see the difference in character between the two? The right to discriminate essentially boils down to the right to abstain. To have the freedom to say "no thanks" to any transaction you find against your interests. That's distinctly different that a supposed "right" to be served by others.

So using your logic, a doctor or medical facility should be able to turn away a Jew or a Muslim who needs care because it would go against his religious beliefs. A hotel owner should be able turn away blacks or Latinos because he doesn't like them. An employer should be able to bypass hiring an unwed mother because it violates his principals. A business should be able to say no to installing facilities for the disabled because it cut into his profits.

And the far left once again used horrid analogies to make another reference to their debunked religious beliefs.

A business can turn down anyone it chooses, but many on the far left will claim racism or bigotry instead looking at the facts.

Yes, a business can turn down anyone it pleases if it wants to suffer the legal penalties.

You mean far left punishment because they dare to think differently than the far left religious drones..

No one should be made a second class citizen because merchants say it's against my religious beliefs for you to stay in my hotel, eat in my restaurant, buy my products or services. If you are open to the public, then you should serve the public.

 

[Carla_Danger]

If it's legal, it's not pretend.

that's what your pretending, that legal equals real......

I think Sweet Cakes bakery has learned a thing or two about pretend laws and real ones. lol

not pretend laws......pretend marriages.....

You just keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep better.

 

[Carla_Danger]

They are welcome to take that as well to court but truthfully, after having to pay up, they need to learn to follow the laws for now.

They won't be paying up and They are appealing this hopefully all way to supreme court

And they will lose. The SC has already rejected such things, even before last week. Bake the cake, or be put out of business...

And somehow you retards still spew that nobody is being forced to participate in a gay wedding. If you don't it will only cost you 135k to opt out. Because that seems like a fair price to pay for your religious beliefs right?

If you want to practice your religion instead of serve the public, open a damn church.

If you want to flaunt your homosexuality do it in a bath house. But you would never say that would you? Selective outrage at it's ugliest.

You sound like sour grapes.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

why would you need a real wedding cake at a pretend wedding?......

It's not a pretend wedding. Same-sex couple really do get Civilly Married in this country and have been starting with the first state in 2004.


>>>>

so you pretend......

Not a "pretend", they are in fact legally valid Civil Marriages.


>>>>

you just keep on pretending that.......it will make you feel better.....just like when you pretend killing unborn children isn't really killing children.........

See, that's the thing though...we KNOW our marriages are legal and in all 50 states now. You pretending that gays aren't civilly married is to make YOU feel better, but it is you who is pretending.

You all in the Fag Militia will always be vexed by the fact you can't force everyone to accept your lifestyle. The fact that you try to merits all the contempt you people get.

 

[bripat9643]

You don't see the difference in character between the two? The right to discriminate essentially boils down to the right to abstain. To have the freedom to say "no thanks" to any transaction you find against your interests. That's distinctly different that a supposed "right" to be served by others.

So using your logic, a doctor or medical facility should be able to turn away a Jew or a Muslim who needs care because it would go against his religious beliefs. A hotel owner should be able turn away blacks or Latinos because he doesn't like them. An employer should be able to bypass hiring an unwed mother because it violates his principals. A business should be able to say no to installing facilities for the disabled because it cut into his profits.

And the far left once again used horrid analogies to make another reference to their debunked religious beliefs.

A business can turn down anyone it chooses, but many on the far left will claim racism or bigotry instead looking at the facts.

Yes, a business can turn down anyone it pleases if it wants to suffer the legal penalties.

You mean far left punishment because they dare to think differently than the far left religious drones..

No one should be made a second class citizen because merchants say it's against my religious beliefs for you to stay in my hotel, eat in my restaurant, buy my products or services. If you are open to the public, then you should serve the public.

Horseshit. There's no reason a business shouldn't be allowed to serve whoever the owner wants to server. The "open to the public" scam only fools the gullible. I don't lose my right to associate with whom I choose because I choose to sell pizzas or wedding cakes. The idea that my disinclination to serve you makes you a "second class" citizen is laughable. You're second class only in your own mind.

 

[bripat9643]

They won't be paying up and They are appealing this hopefully all way to supreme court

And they will lose. The SC has already rejected such things, even before last week. Bake the cake, or be put out of business...

And somehow you retards still spew that nobody is being forced to participate in a gay wedding. If you don't it will only cost you 135k to opt out. Because that seems like a fair price to pay for your religious beliefs right?

If you want to practice your religion instead of serve the public, open a damn church.

If you want to flaunt your homosexuality do it in a bath house. But you would never say that would you? Selective outrage at it's ugliest.

You sound like sour grapes.

You sound like a brainwashed dumbass.

 

[Seawytch]

It's not a pretend wedding. Same-sex couple really do get Civilly Married in this country and have been starting with the first state in 2004.


>>>>

so you pretend......

Not a "pretend", they are in fact legally valid Civil Marriages.


>>>>

you just keep on pretending that.......it will make you feel better.....just like when you pretend killing unborn children isn't really killing children.........

See, that's the thing though...we KNOW our marriages are legal and in all 50 states now. You pretending that gays aren't civilly married is to make YOU feel better, but it is you who is pretending.

You all in the Fag Militia will always be vexed by the fact you can't force everyone to accept your lifestyle. The fact that you try to merits all the contempt you people get.

Do you get a little thrill when you use the F word Mikey? You like using the N word too?

Your acceptance is neither desired nor required. You can pretend our marriages aren't real. The alternate reality you choose to live in has no bearing or effect on our lives at all. Enjoy denial...I hear it's nice this time of year.

 

[RKMBrown]

Those civil rights abusing bakers still in the news? ROFL You'd think you numb nutz would have figured out civil rights by now.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

so you pretend......

Not a "pretend", they are in fact legally valid Civil Marriages.


>>>>

you just keep on pretending that.......it will make you feel better.....just like when you pretend killing unborn children isn't really killing children.........

See, that's the thing though...we KNOW our marriages are legal and in all 50 states now. You pretending that gays aren't civilly married is to make YOU feel better, but it is you who is pretending.

You all in the Fag Militia will always be vexed by the fact you can't force everyone to accept your lifestyle. The fact that you try to merits all the contempt you people get.

Do you get a little thrill when you use the F word Mikey? You like using the N word too?

Your acceptance is neither desired nor required. You can pretend our marriages aren't real. The alternate reality you choose to live in has no bearing or effect on our lives at all. Enjoy denial...I hear it's nice this time of year.

Glad you're still with us, I was worried.

This isn't about my acceptance. I accept the marriage of my two lady friends just fine and our family will be in attendance as enthusiastic supporters. But here's the difference between these women and you all in the Fag Militia.

1. They don't want anyone at the wedding who doesn't approve of or accept what they're doing.

2. They ordered a cake to be made by somebody who knows what it's for and actually wants to do it.

3. They have a pastor who is only too happy to marry them...they didn't go shopping for pastors who disagree with SSM in order to target them.

4. They don't plan on having children. They feel that anyone who wants to marry to have kids should marry a person of the opposite sex. The idea that SSM having kids to create the image of a family and depriving them of a mother father parent would make them angry enough to kill them in their sleep actually came from one of them.

5. One of them even votes Republican.

6. They aren't members of LGBT, hate the entire "gay rights" movement, and think people like you who want to cram your lifestyle down everyone's throats are faggots.

7. We trust these women implicitly, allow them to watch our children often, and even encourage our children to think of them and call them aunts. We would never extend this trust to faggots like yourself.

8. These are classy ladies, not faggots like yourself and the Gaysteppo.

 

[Silhouette]

Interesting example. Why did these lesbians need to get married then if a civil contract would've sufficed for all the same benefits except adopting kids?

 

[Silhouette]

Those civil rights abusing bakers still in the news? ROFL You'd think you numb nutz would have figured out civil rights by now.

You mean the 1st Amendment civil right of a Christian to sue a gay billboard artist for his refusal on principle to print "Homosexuality is a sin unto God" on a sign for a busy highway?

I think we have that figured out pretty well. Those goddamned bigoted gay designers had better tow the line or else. How dare they defy a Christian's civil rights?

 

[Seawytch]

Glad you're still with us, I was worried.

Still not getting this. Care to explain?

But here's the difference between these women and you all in the Fag Militia.

Is that like the difference between good N word and "uppity" N words?

1. They don't want anyone at the wedding who doesn't approve of or accept what they're doing.

Guess it would depend on who it is...like your parent maybe. Bakers don't attend the wedding. They bake the cake, they deliver the cake.

2. They ordered a cake to be made by somebody who knows what it's for and actually wants to do it.

So did the couple that were refused and treated with vileness by Sweet Cakes. They went to another baker. (And reported the unlawful behavior).

3. They have a pastor who is only too happy to marry them...they didn't go shopping for pastors who disagree with SSM in order to target them.

Link to this happening in the U.S.?

4. They don't plan on having children. They feel that anyone who wants to marry to have kids should marry a person of the opposite sex. The idea that SSM having kids to create the image of a family and depriving them of a mother father parent would make them angry enough to kill them in their sleep actually came from one of them.

Hmmmm, somehow I don't believe you.

Keep hoping my children will kill me are you, sicko?

5. One of them even votes Republican.

There are self loathing people everywhere.

6. They aren't members of LGBT, hate the entire "gay rights" movement, and think people like you who want to cram your lifestyle down everyone's throats are faggots.

There are self loathing people everywhere.

(Mikey getting his jollies using the F word again. Isn't little Mikey an adorable little bigot?)

7. We trust these women implicitly, allow them to watch our children often, and even encourage our children to think of them and call them aunts. We would never extend this trust to faggots like yourself.

Of course you do. You make them appear to hate gays as much as you do. There are self loathing people everywhere.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Interesting example. Why did these lesbians need to get married then if a civil contract would've sufficed for all the same benefits except adopting kids?

There is no "civil contract" that reproduces all the rights, responsibilities, and benefits of marriage for the same cost of a Civil Marriage license (IIRC about $50.00).


>>>>

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes, a business can turn down anyone it pleases if it wants to suffer the legal penalties.

So we can raise our eyes when a democrat massah enters the room, we just must accept that we will be lynched for it?

You Communists have an interesting perspective of what "liberty" means.

The democrat bill of right:

All citizens of the world are free to obey the party without question.

This is the only right of any person.

Obama Akbar.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The basic business problem with discrimination is you don't make money turning away customers.

Then no need for laws which violate the Constitution, the problem will solve itself.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You sound like a brainwashed dumbass.

Cruella is a Soros Hate Drone.

If you want to know what Cruella thinks on any given subject, log on to ThinkProgress.

 

[bendog]

Neither is the former.

You don't see the difference in character between the two? The right to discriminate essentially boils down to the right to abstain. To have the freedom to say "no thanks" to any transaction you find against your interests. That's distinctly different that a supposed "right" to be served by others.

So using your logic, a doctor or medical facility should be able to turn away a Jew or a Muslim who needs care because it would go against his religious beliefs. A hotel owner should be able turn away blacks or Latinos because he doesn't like them. An employer should be able to bypass hiring an unwed mother because it violates his principals. A business should be able to say no to installing facilities for the disabled because it cut into his profits.

And the far left once again used horrid analogies to make another reference to their debunked religious beliefs.

A business can turn down anyone it chooses, but many on the far left will claim racism or bigotry instead looking at the facts.

Not far fetched. PA laws originally encompassed religions and racial private discrimination. If you want to argue against PA laws applying to gays, either you have to be for them not applying to races and religions, or you think there's a reason to apply them to race and religion but not orientation.

It's a simple either or distinction. My opinion is simply that GLBT folks are winning in marketplace of ideas. People are learning that discrimination against them makes no sense, and the bakers are azzhats. So, the infringement on the right to contract is not necessary to protect the GLBT folks from discrimination. But, people disagree with me, and that's fine.

The basic business problem with discrimination is you don't make money turning away customers.

Precisely. And that is why I don't think the GLBT folks have a good reason for PA protections. In the 1960s, and frankly right through the 70s, a biz in the South would get more overall biz by not serving blacks. Wal-Mart ended that, but Wal-Mart really rose in the 80s and 90s. And, even today, don't think for a minute that folks don't go a little farther to shop at grocery store with fewer blacks, and that's just not in the South. Racism is systemic in our society.

But, I don't think GLBT folks have it that bad, in general. In some small rural communities, there may be only a few sources for a good or service, and they may well face real discrimination in terms of just not getting something. But, overall, I don't think they lack access to cakes.

 

[RKMBrown]

Those civil rights abusing bakers still in the news? ROFL You'd think you numb nutz would have figured out civil rights by now.

You mean the 1st Amendment civil right of a Christian to sue a gay billboard artist for his refusal on principle to print "Homosexuality is a sin unto God" on a sign for a busy highway?

I think we have that figured out pretty well. Those goddamned bigoted gay designers had better tow the line or else. How dare they defy a Christian's civil rights?

Did that really happen? lol

 

[Flopper]

So using your logic, a doctor or medical facility should be able to turn away a Jew or a Muslim who needs care because it would go against his religious beliefs. A hotel owner should be able turn away blacks or Latinos because he doesn't like them. An employer should be able to bypass hiring an unwed mother because it violates his principals. A business should be able to say no to installing facilities for the disabled because it cut into his profits.

And the far left once again used horrid analogies to make another reference to their debunked religious beliefs.

A business can turn down anyone it chooses, but many on the far left will claim racism or bigotry instead looking at the facts.

Yes, a business can turn down anyone it pleases if it wants to suffer the legal penalties.

You mean far left punishment because they dare to think differently than the far left religious drones..

No one should be made a second class citizen because merchants say it's against my religious beliefs for you to stay in my hotel, eat in my restaurant, buy my products or services. If you are open to the public, then you should serve the public.

Horseshit. There's no reason a business shouldn't be allowed to serve whoever the owner wants to server. The "open to the public" scam only fools the gullible. I don't lose my right to associate with whom I choose because I choose to sell pizzas or wedding cakes. The idea that my disinclination to serve you makes you a "second class" citizen is laughable. You're second class only in your own mind.

There is very good reason. It should make no difference to a business who buys their cakes, eat's in their restaurant, or stays in their motel as long they are paid for the product or service and the customer conducts themselves properly. For the customer, it makes a huge difference, never knowing when you will be turned away from a restaurant, hotel, or store. It's not only unfair but it's humiliating, and yes, discrimination does make 2nd class citizens out of minorities who are denied goods and services that the rest of the community enjoys.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Precisely. And that is why I don't think the GLBT folks have a good reason for PA protections. In the 1960s, and frankly right through the 70s, a biz in the South would get more overall biz by not serving blacks. Wal-Mart ended that, but Wal-Mart really rose in the 80s and 90s. And, even today, don't think for a minute that folks don't go a little farther to shop at grocery store with fewer blacks, and that's just not in the South. Racism is systemic in our society.

But, I don't think GLBT folks have it that bad, in general. In some small rural communities, there may be only a few sources for a good or service, and they may well face real discrimination in terms of just not getting something. But, overall, I don't think they lack access to cakes.

In my area I often travel a bit further to shop at stores with MORE blacks.

Of course black people in my area tend to be more affluent and generally speak English. It's an American vs. Mexican dichotomy.