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

[LittleNipper]

The right of the individual to associate with who they want to can only be taken away with a compelling government interest, more so if there is a religious component. Furthermore, the chruch/state "wall" you people blather on about works both ways, giving even more of a burden to the government to prove a compelling interest.

Melissa's isn't a church. It's a business institution.

And if she wasn't turning away Brides who wore pants, had braids, wore jewelry, had tattoos, weren't virgins or any of the other 300 examples of biblical misogyny, then she was using religion as an excuse, not as a reason, for their bigotry.

Freedom of Religion isn't limited to Churches or Clergy.

And you don't get to decide how a person follows their faith, and government sure as hell doesn't either.

But you can't run a business that caters to public accommodations (food) and discriminate.

Their store benefits from public roads, sidewalks, a business district, parking, police (property protection).


#1 no one is forcing them to acknowledge the wedding, attend the wedding or other wise bless the wedding.

#2 they are hired to provide food to a catered event. Flour, Sugar, eggs, etc. Bake and STFU .....

#3 they are running a for-profit bakery - to do so, they agreed to follow state and federal laws concerning their type of business. This was a choice.

So, children are allowed to frequent bars? Isn't that discrimination? Churches benefit from public roads, sidewalk, etc... Christian photographers are required to attend the ritual and the party unless they turn the couple in question down.

 

[LittleNipper]

Research indicates that pedophiles are much more common among homosexuals. So perhaps we should no longer arrest those who molest children, because such is simply another form of "homophobic" discrimination against those whose only desire is to train the young in various forms of sexual freedom, while seeking personal satisfaction. Please see: Report: Pedophilia more common among ‘gays’

 

[LittleNipper]

Also of note: Family Research Council
Also realize that it is documented that there were approximately 10,667 reported victims (younger than 18 years) of clergy sexual abuse between 1950 and 2002 ---- Around 81% of these victims were male.

Does this indicate that homosexual behavior is not questionable.

 

[JoeB131]

In other words, you care about what I believe. The fact that you want to "crush" me only shows how weak you believe your position is.

Well, no, and I'm sorry I have to keep explaining this to you.

You racists, homophobes and misogynists keep voting against your and my economic interests when you vote REpublican. they never ban abortion and the gays keep getting more rights and they never deport the Mexicans, but you idiots keep voting for them, not realizing the queers and the beaners and the sluts are really in the same boat you are in. The one where the 1 percent keep trying to take more of what you have because they are too damned greedy.

The only way we reduce this to a discussion about economics is to crush all the bullshit social issues. The gay argument is pretty much over. Even the churches are going to stop talking smack about the gays pretty soon.

Once we've crushed all this other bullshit, you'll be forced to squeal "I want to work harder for less money while my insurance company tries to cheat me on my cancer treatment!!!!"

Then you'll realize how stupid you look.

 

[martybegan]

The right of the individual to associate with who they want to can only be taken away with a compelling government interest, more so if there is a religious component. Furthermore, the chruch/state "wall" you people blather on about works both ways, giving even more of a burden to the government to prove a compelling interest.

Melissa's isn't a church. It's a business institution.

And if she wasn't turning away Brides who wore pants, had braids, wore jewelry, had tattoos, weren't virgins or any of the other 300 examples of biblical misogyny, then she was using religion as an excuse, not as a reason, for their bigotry.

Freedom of Religion isn't limited to Churches or Clergy.

And you don't get to decide how a person follows their faith, and government sure as hell doesn't either.

And nobody is, certainly not the government. Your right to practice your religion is not being infringed upon.

yes it is. You just don't think the infringement is wrong.

 

[martybegan]

The right of the individual to associate with who they want to can only be taken away with a compelling government interest, more so if there is a religious component. Furthermore, the chruch/state "wall" you people blather on about works both ways, giving even more of a burden to the government to prove a compelling interest.

Melissa's isn't a church. It's a business institution.

And if she wasn't turning away Brides who wore pants, had braids, wore jewelry, had tattoos, weren't virgins or any of the other 300 examples of biblical misogyny, then she was using religion as an excuse, not as a reason, for their bigotry.

Freedom of Religion isn't limited to Churches or Clergy.

And you don't get to decide how a person follows their faith, and government sure as hell doesn't either.

But you can't run a business that caters to public accommodations (food) and discriminate.

Their store benefits from public roads, sidewalks, a business district, parking, police (property protection).


#1 no one is forcing them to acknowledge the wedding, attend the wedding or other wise bless the wedding.

#2 they are hired to provide food to a catered event. Flour, Sugar, eggs, etc. Bake and STFU fuckers.

#3 they are running a for-profit bakery - to do so, they agreed to follow state and federal laws concerning their type of business. This was a choice.

Argument 1 is based on the presumption that any place that serves food is a public accommodation. That is wrong on its face, proven by private clubs.

Argument 2 is based on the fallacy that since people go outside their house, they lose any right they have due to using public property.

Argumen 3 is similar to argument 1, where you stretch PA to mean any transaction whatsoever, which was never the definition of a PA.

 

[JoeB131]

yes it is. You just don't think the infringement is wrong.

Well, no, it isn't. Using a selective reading of the Bible to rationalize your homophobia AFTER you invited gay people to patronize your business is not an infringement.

Civil law trumps religious law. Otherwise, we'd have parents killing their mouthy teenagers like the bible says to.

 

[martybegan]

it's not a "crime". Its a civil violation, which doesn't mean its right in this case.

and your embellishment of the details is noted, weak arguments require twisting the truth.

and your last point has been debunked by people on YOUR side of the argument.

Uh, no. Seawitch just said that the fact they started a hate campaign against this couple wasn't a factor in the fine. I don't think this was the case, but I like her and didn't want to get into a pissing contest about it...

THAT SAID.

Sweet Cakes by Melissa Didn’t Just Deny a Lesbian Couple Service, They Also Doxxed Them and Their Kids


Laurel Bowman-Cryer filed a complaint in January 2013, but because she filed it online on her smartphone she was not shown the disclaimer informing her that the complaint, including her name and address, would be sent to the individual against whom it was being made. When Aaron Klein received the complaint, he immediately published it on his Facebook page in full, with Laurel’s name and address included.

That’s right, the Kleins doxxed the Bowman-Cryers.

State officials told the Bowman-Cryers that if they couldn’t protect the foster children in their home from the harassment that resulted from the Klein’s public posting of their home address, etc., they would lose the children—the children they were trying to adopt. Can you say stressful?!

Attempts to downplay what the Bowman-Cryers went through (calling them “rice paper lesbians,” etc.) ignore what the Bowman-Cryers ignores the gravity of what the couple suffered. The $135,000 ultimately awarded in damages was only for the suffering resulting from the initial refusal (which the commissioner found continued throughout the period of media attention), but this was not the sum of what the couple experienced at the hands of the Kleins. The simple complaint they lodged resulted in a media firestorm brought with it death threats, harassment, and the possibility of losing their children.

So i guess the memories pizza people are entitled to 135k from the media for being doxxed by them.

So now the commission is implying people charged with this bullshit cannot fight back.

Noted,.

 

[martybegan]

yes it is. You just don't think the infringement is wrong.

Well, no, it isn't. Using a selective reading of the Bible to rationalize your homophobia AFTER you invited gay people to patronize your business is not an infringement.

Civil law trumps religious law. Otherwise, we'd have parents killing their mouthy teenagers like the bible says to.

Civil law says you have free exercise of religion, and like all rights, they can only be curtailed by a compelling government interest.

Stopping and punishing murder is a compelling government interest, shutting down one baker over a wedding cake is not.

 

[martybegan]

Freedom of Religion isn't limited to Churches or Clergy.

And you don't get to decide how a person follows their faith, and government sure as hell doesn't either.

Well, I still hope for the happy day that we all stop beliving in magic sky pixies, but that said.

You can have a faith. Your business cannot.

If I refused to serve Jews because they killed Jesus or Mormons because they are heretics, there wouldn't be an issue here about MY rights. I would be charged with discrimination. It wouldn't matter what kind of snake-handling religion I claimed to belong to.

Just like the Amish have to put lights on their horse carriages... A whacky belief doesn't exempt you from other laws.

Where does the constitution say that? Only when there is a compelling government interest can rights be limited, and then only in the most non-interfering manner possible.

As for your next point, as long as it was only you or a few others doing it, and the discrimination wasn't systemic for your area, I'd say have a blast with that, and let the market sort it out.

no lights on a horse carriage can cause actual harm to someone else, again I have not seen it with the cake wars we are having now.

 

[martybegan]

Freedom of Religion isn't limited to Churches or Clergy.

And you don't get to decide how a person follows their faith, and government sure as hell doesn't either.

Well, I still hope for the happy day that we all stop beliving in magic sky pixies, but that said.

You can have a faith. Your business cannot.

Says who? The Supreme Court ruled otherwise when it decided in favor of Hobby Lobby.

If I refused to serve Jews because they killed Jesus or Mormons because they are heretics, there wouldn't be an issue here about MY rights. I would be charged with discrimination. It wouldn't matter what kind of snake-handling religion I claimed to belong to.

Just like the Amish have to put lights on their horse carriages... A whacky belief doesn't exempt you from other laws.

That may be the law, but there is no moral principle that says you have to serve Jews or Muslims or anyone you prefer not to serve, just as there is no moral principle that says you have to invite them into your home.

I take one exception to your points, and that is when it comes to necessary point of sale services, of a timely manner.

 

[JoeB131]

So i guess the memories pizza people are entitled to 135k from the media for being doxxed by them.

Well, no, given that they invited the Camera crew into their store to announce they hated the Gays and wouldn't give them any Pizza....

I think they saw an opportunity for free publicity that backfired on them badly.

So now the commission is implying people charged with this bullshit cannot fight back.

I think there's a difference between fighting back and exposing the people you are having a dispute with to physical harm by giving out their personal details.

Civil law says you have free exercise of religion, and like all rights, they can only be curtailed by a compelling government interest.

Stopping and punishing murder is a compelling government interest, shutting down one baker over a wedding cake is not.

I think ending homophobia IS a compelling interest.

I've known gay people who've been fired from their jobs for being gay. I've known people who have been beaten up for being gay.

You end it by letting it be known it just won't be tolerated.

no lights on a horse carriage can cause actual harm to someone else, again I have not seen it with the cake wars we are having now.

Of course you don't. But you'd be the first one whining if White Christians were denied services.

 

[martybegan]

So i guess the memories pizza people are entitled to 135k from the media for being doxxed by them.

Well, no, given that they invited the Camera crew into their store to announce they hated the Gays and wouldn't give them any Pizza....

I think they saw an opportunity for free publicity that backfired on them badly.

So now the commission is implying people charged with this bullshit cannot fight back.

I think there's a difference between fighting back and exposing the people you are having a dispute with to physical harm by giving out their personal details.

Civil law says you have free exercise of religion, and like all rights, they can only be curtailed by a compelling government interest.

Stopping and punishing murder is a compelling government interest, shutting down one baker over a wedding cake is not.

I think ending homophobia IS a compelling interest.

I've known gay people who've been fired from their jobs for being gay. I've known people who have been beaten up for being gay.

You end it by letting it be known it just won't be tolerated.

no lights on a horse carriage can cause actual harm to someone else, again I have not seen it with the cake wars we are having now.

Of course you don't. But you'd be the first one whining if White Christians were denied services.

You seem to love it when people you disagree with get the same treatment, your concern seems hollow.

Not wanting to bake a cake does not equal getting fired or beating people up. and you beat something by convincing people of stuff, not by forcing them. Plus people are entitled to their opinions in this country, and entitled to live their lives as they see fit as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. You want everyone to be just. like. you, and worse, you want government to force them to comply.

And ive already stated that it should be all or none, when it comes to non essential non timely services.

 

[Seawytch]

The right of the individual to associate with who they want to can only be taken away with a compelling government interest, more so if there is a religious component. Furthermore, the chruch/state "wall" you people blather on about works both ways, giving even more of a burden to the government to prove a compelling interest.

Melissa's isn't a church. It's a business institution.

And if she wasn't turning away Brides who wore pants, had braids, wore jewelry, had tattoos, weren't virgins or any of the other 300 examples of biblical misogyny, then she was using religion as an excuse, not as a reason, for their bigotry.

Freedom of Religion isn't limited to Churches or Clergy.

And you don't get to decide how a person follows their faith, and government sure as hell doesn't either.

And nobody is, certainly not the government. Your right to practice your religion is not being infringed upon.

yes it is. You just don't think the infringement is wrong.

Your believing it does does not make it so.

RELIGIOUS REFUSALS TO PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS LAWS: FOUR REASONS TO SAY NO

 

[martybegan]

The right of the individual to associate with who they want to can only be taken away with a compelling government interest, more so if there is a religious component. Furthermore, the chruch/state "wall" you people blather on about works both ways, giving even more of a burden to the government to prove a compelling interest.

Melissa's isn't a church. It's a business institution.

And if she wasn't turning away Brides who wore pants, had braids, wore jewelry, had tattoos, weren't virgins or any of the other 300 examples of biblical misogyny, then she was using religion as an excuse, not as a reason, for their bigotry.

Freedom of Religion isn't limited to Churches or Clergy.

And you don't get to decide how a person follows their faith, and government sure as hell doesn't either.

And nobody is, certainly not the government. Your right to practice your religion is not being infringed upon.

yes it is. You just don't think the infringement is wrong.

Your believing it does does not make it so.

RELIGIOUS REFUSALS TO PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS LAWS: FOUR REASONS TO SAY NO

The right of the individual to associate with who they want to can only be taken away with a compelling government interest, more so if there is a religious component. Furthermore, the chruch/state "wall" you people blather on about works both ways, giving even more of a burden to the government to prove a compelling interest.

Melissa's isn't a church. It's a business institution.

And if she wasn't turning away Brides who wore pants, had braids, wore jewelry, had tattoos, weren't virgins or any of the other 300 examples of biblical misogyny, then she was using religion as an excuse, not as a reason, for their bigotry.

Freedom of Religion isn't limited to Churches or Clergy.

And you don't get to decide how a person follows their faith, and government sure as hell doesn't either.

And nobody is, certainly not the government. Your right to practice your religion is not being infringed upon.

yes it is. You just don't think the infringement is wrong.

Your believing it does does not make it so.

RELIGIOUS REFUSALS TO PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS LAWS: FOUR REASONS TO SAY NO

So the ACLU had to decide who's butt hurt is more viable, and they picked your side. Congrats.

Its great the ACLU has gone from protecting all civil rights to attacking those it finds wrong, similar to its position on the 2nd amendment.

I doubt the current version would protect the Nazis in Skokie.

 

[LittleNipper]

So i guess the memories pizza people are entitled to 135k from the media for being doxxed by them.

Well, no, given that they invited the Camera crew into their store to announce they hated the Gays and wouldn't give them any Pizza....

I think they saw an opportunity for free publicity that backfired on them badly.

So now the commission is implying people charged with this bullshit cannot fight back.

I think there's a difference between fighting back and exposing the people you are having a dispute with to physical harm by giving out their personal details.

Civil law says you have free exercise of religion, and like all rights, they can only be curtailed by a compelling government interest.

Stopping and punishing murder is a compelling government interest, shutting down one baker over a wedding cake is not.

I think ending homophobia IS a compelling interest.

I've known gay people who've been fired from their jobs for being gay. I've known people who have been beaten up for being gay.

You end it by letting it be known it just won't be tolerated.

no lights on a horse carriage can cause actual harm to someone else, again I have not seen it with the cake wars we are having now.

Of course you don't. But you'd be the first one whining if White Christians were denied services.

I know for a fact, that back in the 1970's one guy was fired from a local department store I was working for. He was hitting on his male coworkers. It made everyone rather uncomfortable. The guy was white, in his mid 20's, and was the touchy feely type where the guys were concerned.
Report: Pedophilia more common among ‘gays’

In 1995 the homosexual magazine “Guide” said, “We can be proud that the gay movement has been home to the few voices who have had the courage to say out loud that children are naturally sexual” and “deserve the right to sexual expression with whoever they choose. …” The article went on to say: “Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children’s sexuality … we must do it for the children’s sake.”
Read more at Report: Pedophilia more common among ‘gays’

 

[Seawytch]

Melissa's isn't a church. It's a business institution.

And if she wasn't turning away Brides who wore pants, had braids, wore jewelry, had tattoos, weren't virgins or any of the other 300 examples of biblical misogyny, then she was using religion as an excuse, not as a reason, for their bigotry.

Freedom of Religion isn't limited to Churches or Clergy.

And you don't get to decide how a person follows their faith, and government sure as hell doesn't either.

And nobody is, certainly not the government. Your right to practice your religion is not being infringed upon.

yes it is. You just don't think the infringement is wrong.

Your believing it does does not make it so.

RELIGIOUS REFUSALS TO PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS LAWS: FOUR REASONS TO SAY NO

Melissa's isn't a church. It's a business institution.

And if she wasn't turning away Brides who wore pants, had braids, wore jewelry, had tattoos, weren't virgins or any of the other 300 examples of biblical misogyny, then she was using religion as an excuse, not as a reason, for their bigotry.

Freedom of Religion isn't limited to Churches or Clergy.

And you don't get to decide how a person follows their faith, and government sure as hell doesn't either.

And nobody is, certainly not the government. Your right to practice your religion is not being infringed upon.

yes it is. You just don't think the infringement is wrong.

Your believing it does does not make it so.

RELIGIOUS REFUSALS TO PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS LAWS: FOUR REASONS TO SAY NO

So the ACLU had to decide who's butt hurt is more viable, and they picked your side. Congrats.

Its great the ACLU has gone from protecting all civil rights to attacking those it finds wrong, similar to its position on the 2nd amendment.

I doubt the current version would protect the Nazis in Skokie.

What? That may have made sense in your head, but when you put it on paper...not so much.

Bigots tried for religious exemptions during desegregation. Should they have succeeded? They didn't, BTW.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Argument 1 is based on the presumption that any place that serves food is a public accommodation. That is wrong on its face, proven by private clubs.

That is false.

Not every place that serves food is a public accommodation. For profit businesses that serve food are a public accommodation defined under the law in the State of Oregon.

I serve food in my home, it is not a public accommodation because it is not a for profit business. My Church has Family Spaghetti Dinner Nights periodically, they are not a for profit business so don't fall under public accommodation laws.

That is wrong on its face, proven by private clubs.

To be more correct, Public Accommodation apply to for profit businesses (whether considered a "private club" or not. Public Accommodation laws don't apply to non-profit organizations and to fall into the "private club" category there are very specific requirements that must be met, including:

"1. the genuine selectivity of the group in the admission of its members;
2. the membership's control over the operations of the establishment;
3 .the history of the organization;
4. the use of the facilities by nonmembers;
5. the purpose of the club's existence;
6. whether the club advertises for members;
7. whether the club is profit or nonprofit; and
8. the formalities observed by the club (e.g. bylaws, meetings, membership cards, etc.)."​

COSTCO, Sam's Club, and BJ's Warehouse are membership only to shop there (i.e. "private clubs") but as for profit businesses are still subject to Public Accommodation laws.

http://www.cmaa.org/uploadedFiles/PCS/MayJune02legal.pdf
Anti-Discrimination Laws Applicable to Private Clubs or Not?

Argument 2 is based on the fallacy that since people go outside their house, they lose any right they have due to using public property.

I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws as applied to private businesses, not religious exemptions, but that rights of property and association be returned to business owners and let customers use their power of free speech to spotlight discriminatory business practices and then the market decide.

If a business doesn't want to server coloreds, or Asians, or Jews, or Muslims, or women, or homosexuals - they should be free to do so.

Argumen 3 is similar to argument 1, where you stretch PA to mean any transaction whatsoever, which was never the definition of a PA.

This false again.

The Oregon law has been posted for you multiple times, and this is a thread about the Oregon laws. The legislature clearly wrote a law that applied to all for profit businesses that provide goods and services.


>>>>

 

[bripat9643]

The right of the individual to associate with who they want to can only be taken away with a compelling government interest, more so if there is a religious component. Furthermore, the chruch/state "wall" you people blather on about works both ways, giving even more of a burden to the government to prove a compelling interest.

Melissa's isn't a church. It's a business institution.

And if she wasn't turning away Brides who wore pants, had braids, wore jewelry, had tattoos, weren't virgins or any of the other 300 examples of biblical misogyny, then she was using religion as an excuse, not as a reason, for their bigotry.

Freedom of Religion isn't limited to Churches or Clergy.

And you don't get to decide how a person follows their faith, and government sure as hell doesn't either.

And nobody is, certainly not the government. Your right to practice your religion is not being infringed upon.

yes it is. You just don't think the infringement is wrong.

Your believing it does does not make it so.

RELIGIOUS REFUSALS TO PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS LAWS: FOUR REASONS TO SAY NO

And your not believing it doesn't make it not so.

 

[Silhouette]

State Takes Legal Action to Seize $135K From Oregon Bakers

Nope no harm done to you if you disagree with homosexuality and won't bend to their will. None at all. Just lose your business,money,freedom,house,cars etc etc etc. Great thing about the internet is it NEVER loses its memory so when time comes it will be fairly simple to find the scum who destroyed this nation and get revenge.

The Nazi Party started with eerily identical tactics. What these knuckleheads should be doing with their crowd fund is filing a civil rights suit against the labor people for violating their 1st Amendment civil rights. They seem disorganized.