State Takes Legal Action to Seize $135K From Bakers Who Refused to Make Cake for Lesbian Couple

[Debra K]

This one was clearly an over-zealous witch hunt. It went too far. We have to respect religious beliefs and practices as well. Gay Rights aren't the only rights that matter. This was not justice.

Witch hunt? Everyone is required to know and comply with the law. There is no exemption for people who use "religion" to excuse or justify their unlawful conduct. Their motive for violating the law is not relevant. Opening a bakery business and baking cakes for a living is not a "religious practice". It's commerce, which is subject to government regulation.

 

[bodecea]

If you want to pretend that your God hates fags, that's your business.

If you want to act out on that belief, that's our business.

Actually its none of your business who a business chooses to do business with. None. Zero. It wasn't my business either until the state decided to persecute this couple.

Then you don't like state PA laws, period?

 

[Nosmo King]

It's a sign the government has slipped into tyranny when they force people to be accepting of politically aggressive deviant lifestyles. We shouldn't need a religious reason to turn down business we find repulsive.

You have no religious reason. None at all.

"Politically aggressive"? American citizens seeking equal justice under law is seen as "politically aggressive" by those who seek to deny equal justice.

You have no ability to think at all. I'm not religious and said we shouldn't even need a religious reason. And your idiotic definition of equality can be applied to anybody that wants to claim it. Tyrants like you need to be beat back down into the hellhole your escaped from.

Those claiming a religious reason are committing religious fraud. Those using the 'we find Gays icky' defense have no standing.

Alas, you are politically impotent to stave off equal; justice. You are cu7lturally impotent in labeling homosexuals as 'repulsive'. And now we find you are rhetorically impotent by making such a ham handed argument.

Only the foaming at the mouth libtards claim the icky defense. Those Christians don't want to participate in sin according to their faith. You want to stop on that right like the little Nazi thug that you are. We get it.

And you can't even respond to my "equality" bullshit you try to beat people around with. The ham is between your ears.

There is no religious defense. Wedding vendors do not participate in the wedding. They merely supply services. Those who claim some religious exception are committing religious fraud. They have no religious 'right' to discriminate.

So it boils down to the perception of the LGBT community. Hammer headed bigots find them 'icky' or to use your term repulsive. This is not a basis for discrimination.

 

[bodecea]

This is how you teach the law to the ineducable.

You mean this is how you break the spirit of religious people,stomp on religious liberty and force them to choose between principles and doing what a state ORDERS it to do illegally. Just remember. A man who has lost everything has nothing left to lose. AKA keep pissing people off and taking what they have and leave them with nothing you are going to end up with a very pissed off,armed populous that has nothing left to lose.

If your religion teaches the illegal persecution of others, then you're either in the wrong religion, or in the wrong country.

Not baking a cake now is persecution....good god....you ******* liberals have gone off the ******* deep end....now what IS persecution is fining,threatening to jail,confiscate their business,home,car etc for not making a cake. THAT is persecution.

You're exactly the kind of person who makes these laws necessary.

I would go farther than these people have gone. I would release a short statement directly to the state. Simple as this. GO **** YOURSELF. YOU ARE NOT GETTING ANY MONEY. I WILL NOT APOLOGIZE FOR BEING RIGHT.

So easy for YOU to be a tough guy on an anonymous message board with other people's businesses and money, isn't it?

 

[bodecea]

If you want to pretend that your God hates fags, that's your business.

If you want to act out on that belief, that's our business.

Actually its none of your business who a business chooses to do business with. None. Zero. It wasn't my business either until the state decided to persecute this couple.

The state awarded a similar amount to a woman who was discriminated against BECAUSE she was a Christian.

So much for your ignorance -based theories.

No. The state awarded over 300K to a woman who was discriminated against because she was Christian.

 

[mudwhistle]

This one was clearly an over-zealous witch hunt. It went too far. We have to respect religious beliefs and practices as well. Gay Rights aren't the only rights that matter. This was not justice.

Witch hunt? Everyone is required to know and comply with the law. There is no exemption for people who use "religion" to excuse or justify their unlawful conduct. Their motive for violating the law is not relevant. Opening a bakery business and baking cakes for a living is not a "religious practice". It's commerce, which is subject to government regulation.

When Democrats start following the law.....then you can start lecturing us on following the law!!!

 

[martybegan]

You are the ones that want a form of it back, not us, you want government to fight your fights for you, to dictate how a business can be run over hurt feelings.

And by a 'form of it', you mean laws that have nothing to do with it....and in fact do the exact opposite?

Jim crow was government mandated discrimination, you want to apply PA laws to be government mandated punishment of perceived discrimination.

YOU are on the side of force this time, enjoy it.

No, Jim Crow wasn't. In many cases Jim Crow PERMITTED discrimination, but did not mandate. Learn an ounce of history.

Taken from wikipedia, from a Georgia law:

• "All persons licensed to conduct a restaurant, shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room or serve the two races anywhere under the same license."[citation needed]

From Kentucky:

1908: Public Accommodation
It was unlawful for whites and blacks to purchase and consume alcohol on the same location. Penalty for this act was a misdemeanor punishable by a fine from $50 to $500 or an imprisonment in the parish prison or jail up to two years.

Don't see much of an option there.

Tennessee:

1875: Public accommodations [Statute] Hotel keepers, carriers of passengers and keepers of places of amusement have the right to control access and exclude persons as "that of any private person over his private house."

1885: Public accommodations [Statute] All well-behaved persons to be admitted to theaters, parks, shows, or other public amusements, but also declared that proprietors had the right to create separate accommodations for whites and Negroes.

Those were earlier than the ones I quoted, most went from "you can" to "you shall".

Your statement is of course, wrong, but you won't have the balls to admit it.

 

[martybegan]

You are the ones that want a form of it back, not us, you want government to fight your fights for you, to dictate how a business can be run over hurt feelings.

And by a 'form of it', you mean laws that have nothing to do with it....and in fact do the exact opposite?

Jim crow was government mandated discrimination, you want to apply PA laws to be government mandated punishment of perceived discrimination.

YOU are on the side of force this time, enjoy it.

No, Jim Crow wasn't. In many cases Jim Crow PERMITTED discrimination, but did not mandate. Learn an ounce of history.

Taken from wikipedia, from a Georgia law:

• "All persons licensed to conduct a restaurant, shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room or serve the two races anywhere under the same license."[citation needed]

From Kentucky:

1908: Public Accommodation
It was unlawful for whites and blacks to purchase and consume alcohol on the same location. Penalty for this act was a misdemeanor punishable by a fine from $50 to $500 or an imprisonment in the parish prison or jail up to two years.

Don't see much of an option there.

That's because they're both jim crow laws. As you know, as you pulled from a page on Wikipedia called 'List of Jim Crow Laws examples by State.

List of Jim Crow law examples by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which of course you know. But really didn't want us to.

And a 1908 racial segregation law from Kentucky isn't what you're comparing jim crow laws to. You're comparing Jim Crow laws to Oregon Public Accommodation Laws forbidding discrimination against race from 2013.

Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.

ORS 659A.403 - Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

You're so far down the rabbit hole that you read 'all persons are entitled to full and equal accomidation' as identical with this:

It was unlawful for whites and blacks to purchase and consume alcohol on the same location. Penalty for this act was a misdemeanor punishable by a fine from $50 to $500 or an imprisonment in the parish prison or jail up to two years.

To your eyes, they identical. To any rational person, they're exact opposites. You're incapable of discerning the difference. And that's a demonstration of how much of your capacity for reason you've abdicated on this issue.

I actually said "from wikipedia", you must have missed that.

The issue is a baker baking a cake for a specific event isn't even close to a"public accommodation". The term was never meant to cover "all businesses", Your side has extended the meaning to punish people you disagree with, using government to ruin them for their beliefs.

You are just as miserable as those southern good ol boys back in the day.

 

[Debra K]

This one was clearly an over-zealous witch hunt. It went too far. We have to respect religious beliefs and practices as well. Gay Rights aren't the only rights that matter. This was not justice.

Witch hunt? Everyone is required to know and comply with the law. There is no exemption for people who use "religion" to excuse or justify their unlawful conduct. Their motive for violating the law is not relevant. Opening a bakery business and baking cakes for a living is not a "religious practice". It's commerce, which is subject to government regulation.

When Democrats start following the law.....then you can start lecturing us on following the law!!!

That's not a defense to violating the law. If your neighbor violates the law, that doesn't mean you can do whatever you want without consequences. When are you going to make a logical argument?

 

[bodecea]

When u start a business there are laws that business must follow .

Maybe I'd be ok if they just ignored food safety rules too?

No, just don't force 'em to provide products and services to sexual deviants and perverts (homosexuals).

I find religious fanatics of all kinds to be the sexual deviants and perverts.....many on the down low.

 

[jasonnfree]

Total insanity. When did homosexuals achieve the status of state protected mafia? Also, it's insanity to force a food server/preparer/handler, of all people, to do something they don't want to do? They could easily spit in the preparation or worse.

 

[martybegan]

You are the ones that want a form of it back, not us, you want government to fight your fights for you, to dictate how a business can be run over hurt feelings.

And by a 'form of it', you mean laws that have nothing to do with it....and in fact do the exact opposite?

Jim crow was government mandated discrimination, you want to apply PA laws to be government mandated punishment of perceived discrimination.

Jim Crow enforced racial segregation. PA laws forbid racial segregation. The exact opposite of Jim Crow laws.

That you can't tell the difference demonstrates just how far down the rabbit hole you have to go in order to hold your beliefs.

PA laws were designed to prohibit systemic discrimination, not a single baker not wanting to bake a cake. That you want to apply PA laws to any little transaction because you don't like the people you are persecuting has more to do with those good ol boys down south during Jim crow than any desire for fairness.

So you don't believe a baker can be held liable for refusing to serve blacks, because they're black?

I believe a baker who does that will be ruined by the market in 99% of the cases. and the issue isn't one bakery refusing, it was all bakeries refusing, or making them use a separate entrance because the law mandated it.

It's not worth the government's time and money to punish non-systemic faith based discrimination, or really any discrimination that is not systemic and widespread.

 

[Skylar]

And by a 'form of it', you mean laws that have nothing to do with it....and in fact do the exact opposite?

Jim crow was government mandated discrimination, you want to apply PA laws to be government mandated punishment of perceived discrimination.

YOU are on the side of force this time, enjoy it.

No, Jim Crow wasn't. In many cases Jim Crow PERMITTED discrimination, but did not mandate. Learn an ounce of history.

Taken from wikipedia, from a Georgia law:

• "All persons licensed to conduct a restaurant, shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room or serve the two races anywhere under the same license."[citation needed]

From Kentucky:

1908: Public Accommodation
It was unlawful for whites and blacks to purchase and consume alcohol on the same location. Penalty for this act was a misdemeanor punishable by a fine from $50 to $500 or an imprisonment in the parish prison or jail up to two years.

Don't see much of an option there.

That's because they're both jim crow laws. As you know, as you pulled from a page on Wikipedia called 'List of Jim Crow Laws examples by State.

List of Jim Crow law examples by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which of course you know. But really didn't want us to.

And a 1908 racial segregation law from Kentucky isn't what you're comparing jim crow laws to. You're comparing Jim Crow laws to Oregon Public Accommodation Laws forbidding discrimination against race from 2013.

Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.

ORS 659A.403 - Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

You're so far down the rabbit hole that you read 'all persons are entitled to full and equal accomidation' as identical with this:

It was unlawful for whites and blacks to purchase and consume alcohol on the same location. Penalty for this act was a misdemeanor punishable by a fine from $50 to $500 or an imprisonment in the parish prison or jail up to two years.

To your eyes, they identical. To any rational person, they're exact opposites. You're incapable of discerning the difference. And that's a demonstration of how much of your capacity for reason you've abdicated on this issue.

I actually said "from wikipedia", you must have missed that.

Yeah, but without any link. And certainly not telling us that the page your Kentucky law from was 'List of examples of Jim Crow Laws by State".

You knew the 1908 Kentucky law you were offering was a Jim Crow law. You didn't want us to know it though. And that speaks volumes.

The issue is a baker baking a cake for a specific event isn't even close to a"public accommodation".

Says you. Citing you. Which has no relevance to the law.

That you can't tell the difference between this:

Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.

ORS 659A.403 - Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

and this:

It was unlawful for whites and blacks to purchase and consume alcohol on the same location. Penalty for this act was a misdemeanor punishable by a fine from $50 to $500 or an imprisonment in the parish prison or jail up to two years.

....Demonstrates your lack of capacity for reason on this topic. As you perceive the two as identical. While any rational person can see they are plainly opposites.

 

[martybegan]

Jim crow was government mandated discrimination, you want to apply PA laws to be government mandated punishment of perceived discrimination.

YOU are on the side of force this time, enjoy it.

No, Jim Crow wasn't. In many cases Jim Crow PERMITTED discrimination, but did not mandate. Learn an ounce of history.

Taken from wikipedia, from a Georgia law:

• "All persons licensed to conduct a restaurant, shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room or serve the two races anywhere under the same license."[citation needed]

From Kentucky:

1908: Public Accommodation
It was unlawful for whites and blacks to purchase and consume alcohol on the same location. Penalty for this act was a misdemeanor punishable by a fine from $50 to $500 or an imprisonment in the parish prison or jail up to two years.

Don't see much of an option there.

That's because they're both jim crow laws. As you know, as you pulled from a page on Wikipedia called 'List of Jim Crow Laws examples by State.

List of Jim Crow law examples by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which of course you know. But really didn't want us to.

And a 1908 racial segregation law from Kentucky isn't what you're comparing jim crow laws to. You're comparing Jim Crow laws to Oregon Public Accommodation Laws forbidding discrimination against race from 2013.

Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.

ORS 659A.403 - Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

You're so far down the rabbit hole that you read 'all persons are entitled to full and equal accomidation' as identical with this:

It was unlawful for whites and blacks to purchase and consume alcohol on the same location. Penalty for this act was a misdemeanor punishable by a fine from $50 to $500 or an imprisonment in the parish prison or jail up to two years.

To your eyes, they identical. To any rational person, they're exact opposites. You're incapable of discerning the difference. And that's a demonstration of how much of your capacity for reason you've abdicated on this issue.

I actually said "from wikipedia", you must have missed that.

Yeah, but without any link. And certainly not telling us that the page your Kentucky law from was 'List of examples of Jim Crow Laws by State".

You knew the 1908 Kentucky law you were offering was a Jim Crow law. You didn't want us to know it though. And that speaks volumes.

The issue is a baker baking a cake for a specific event isn't even close to a"public accommodation".

Says you. Citing you. Which has no relevance to the law.

That you can't tell the difference between this:

Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.

ORS 659A.403 - Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited - 2013 Oregon Revised Statutes

and this:

It was unlawful for whites and blacks to purchase and consume alcohol on the same location. Penalty for this act was a misdemeanor punishable by a fine from $50 to $500 or an imprisonment in the parish prison or jail up to two years.

....Demonstrates your lack of capacity for reason on this topic. As you perceive the two as identical. While any rational person can see they are plainly opposites.

Actually i was replying to Carbineer who said Jim Crow laws were not mandatory, and i showed him otherwise?

Here is a link, as you seem incapable of typing in Jim crow laws by state into wikipedia:

List of Jim Crow law examples by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The comparison is in the use of government fiat to define who a business interacts with its customers, one to discriminate, and the other to discriminate. the issue is you don't like the old discrimination, but love the new discrimination because you don't like the people who don't want to participate in gay weddings.

 

[mudwhistle]

This one was clearly an over-zealous witch hunt. It went too far. We have to respect religious beliefs and practices as well. Gay Rights aren't the only rights that matter. This was not justice.

Witch hunt? Everyone is required to know and comply with the law. There is no exemption for people who use "religion" to excuse or justify their unlawful conduct. Their motive for violating the law is not relevant. Opening a bakery business and baking cakes for a living is not a "religious practice". It's commerce, which is subject to government regulation.

When Democrats start following the law.....then you can start lecturing us on following the law!!!

That's not a defense to violating the law. If your neighbor violates the law, that doesn't mean you can do whatever you want without consequences. When are you going to make a logical argument?

Well, considering the fact that this whole issue isn't based on logic in the first place......you don't really have a moral leg to stand on.

Just because you have the power, it doesn't give you the right to abuse it.

And that is really what you're doing.

If we really were discussing the difference between what is right and wrong.....it appears you folks have been able to carve out your own definition of what is right.....and are now trying to make everyone obey and adhere to your ideology.


Laws are created in the legislature, not in the courts, btw.

End of discussion.

 

[bodecea]

[QUOTE="ogibillm, post: 12472825, member: 27956]also wildly illegal. criminal even. so you'd rather go to jail than pay a lawful debt?

Not that I'd ever make it to the jail, but yes I would commit crimes before paying a debt to the US Government or to any immoral individual.[/QUOTE]
Well, you seem to have a lot in common with that free-loading Clive Bundy.

 

[bodecea]

Bakery knew the law
Bakery broke the law
Bakery must pay the price

Bakery didn't break any law. Bakery WON'T pay anything As you can see.

Bakery took $500k from the we hate fags crow

They can pay

You mean people donated money to fight the religious persecution of this couple. I know. I helped. As far as I know they haven't taken the money yet and they don't want to.

The fun part is now more homosexual customers will come in and ask for a cake

At $135k a pop

And they will be denied See I would have made a lovely cake...maybe a protruding vagina or a woman's head eating another woman out....you want cake? Here ya go!

If you want to pretend that your God hates fags, that's your business.

If you want to act out on that belief, that's our business.

Actually its none of your business who a business chooses to do business with. None. Zero. It wasn't my business either until the state decided to persecute this couple.

The state awarded a similar amount to a woman who was discriminated against BECAUSE she was a Christian.

So much for your ignorance -based theories.

Where?

If I were in the homosexual community, I would send a steady stream of gay couples requesting wedding cakes

$135,000 a pop should break them pretty soon

Its very easy to stop that. Its called paying for and getting license to become private club. Therefore you CAN or CAN NOT issue memberships to people you want to be members Very simple.Very legal.

You are correct. Why didn't they do that? Or....after this is over, why don't they do that?

 

[bodecea]

Bakery took $500k from the we hate fags crow

They can pay

You mean people donated money to fight the religious persecution of this couple. I know. I helped. As far as I know they haven't taken the money yet and they don't want to.

The fun part is now more homosexual customers will come in and ask for a cake

At $135k a pop

And they will be denied See I would have made a lovely cake...maybe a protruding vagina or a woman's head eating another woman out....you want cake? Here ya go!

The state awarded a similar amount to a woman who was discriminated against BECAUSE she was a Christian.

So much for your ignorance -based theories.

Where?

In Oregon, dumbass. What part of 'the state' don't you understand?

Link?

In the Matter ofANDREW W. ENGEL, DMD, PC dba AWE DENTAL SPA andDR. ANDREW W. ENGEL individually as an Aider and AbettorCase No. 38-11Final Order of Commissioner Brad AvakianIssued September 13, 2012SYNOPSIS
Respondent Awe Dental Spa employed Complainant as a dental assistant andsubjected her to harassment based on her religion, failed to reasonably accommodateher religious beliefs, and constructively discharged her based on her religion.Respondent Dr. Andrew W. Engel aided and abetted Respondent Awe Dental Spa inthe commission of the unlawful employment practices. The forum awardedComplainant $12,000 in back pay, $10,654 in out-of-pocket expenses attributable to theunlawful employment practices, and $325,000 in damages for mental, emotional, andphysical suffering, and found Respondents jointly and severally liable for thesedamages. The forum also required Respondent Dr. Engel and his staff to attendtraining on recognizing and preventing religious discrimination. ORS 659A.030(1)(a),ORS 659A.030(1)(b), ORS 659A.030(1)(g), ORS 659A.033, ORS 659A.850.

Dr Andrew Engel #38-11

Now let's hear you defend Dr. Engel

He tried forcing his employee to attend HIS religious training etc....how in the hell is that even CLOSE to being the same with the Bakery not wanting to bake a cake for faggots? Hint. ITS NOT!

It breaks the same Oregon business law. Did you bother to actually READ the link to the business law?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Gee, refusing to pay didn't work? What a shock. Thought for sure the State was just gonna give up and forget about it.

If 300 armed supporters show up to protect the rights of the bakers, will the state engage in a fire fight?

 

[Uncensored2008]

When u start a business there are laws that business must follow .

Maybe I'd be ok if they just ignored food safety rules too?

When you type a post, there are laws that you must follow, they are known as "grammar," sploogy.

By the way, when these bakers obtained their license, were homosexuals already a preferred class, or did the state alter the foundational structure after the fact?