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

[Skylar]

those are not compelling without some direct harm involved.

Who are you to make that "direct harm" call for others?

I am the person defending other's right to various freedoms.

Why is one person's butthurt more than another person's butthurt in the absence of actual harm?

Wait...you support the alleged butthurt of those who break the law? Do you also support the butthurt of those who steal? Those who murder? Worry about their feelings, do you?

Theft and murder are actual harm.

As is business discrimination....not to mention the splashing the couple's name on facebook so that they started being harassed by "the god squad".

Bod....you're not going to make any headway. As the only evidence that Marty will accept is his own opinion. See, unless you accept Marty's legal definitions, ignore whatever ruling Marty ignores, and accept whatever assumptions Marty makes......you're merely 'apppealing to authority'.

You can't have a factual discussion with someone who believes that ONLY their opinions are facts.

 

[bodecea]

What a surprise? You lack ethics and integrity.

You wouldn't know it if your fat ass tripped over it.

You make it really easy when you admit you'd lie and break the law. That shows a lack of ethics and integrity.

YOUR ethics and integrity! You're an asshole on the internet, not God.

We were talking about your admitted lack of ethics and integrity. You know, where you said you would lie rather than either follow a law or engage in principled disobedience.

Yep, I lie so filthy shitstains like you couldn't put me out of business. I also pointed out that your love of law only works when you approve it. I'm honest about it, you aren't. You're just a fat shitstain that loves tyranny.

Ok then.

 

[Skylar]

PA laws were never meant to cover things like a baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

The were in Oregon.

The legislature specifically included sexual orientation as a characteristic of the customer which cannot be used as a basis for refusing service.


>>>>

Again, the law is wrong. It has to be balanced against a compelling government interest vs. the rights of those providing a service.

Again, the validity of the law isn't predicated on your personal opinion. Or your belief that the reason isn't 'compelling'.

We've been through this, Marty. Your personal opinion isn't a legal standard. Your argument is predicated on the assumption that it is. None of us accept it as such.

Ergo......you've got nothing.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

PA laws were never meant to cover things like a baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

The were in Oregon.

The legislature specifically included sexual orientation as a characteristic of the customer which cannot be used as a basis for refusing service.


>>>>

Again, the law is wrong. It has to be balanced against a compelling government interest vs. the rights of those providing a service.

You are welcome to bang your head against that wall all you like. It will do no good as the reality is something else.

 

[martybegan]

Who are you to make that "direct harm" call for others?

I am the person defending other's right to various freedoms.

Why is one person's butthurt more than another person's butthurt in the absence of actual harm?

Wait...you support the alleged butthurt of those who break the law? Do you also support the butthurt of those who steal? Those who murder? Worry about their feelings, do you?

Theft and murder are actual harm.

As is business discrimination....not to mention the splashing the couple's name on facebook so that they started being harassed by "the god squad".

Bod....you're not going to make any headway. As the only evidence that Marty will accept is his own opinion. See, unless you accept Marty's legal definitions, ignore whatever ruling Marty ignores, and accept whatever assumptions Marty makes......you're merely 'apppealing to authority'.

You can't have a factual discussion with someone who believes that ONLY their opinions are facts.

No headway is being made because your positions are solely based on the idea that the government should punish people you don't like, and because hurt feelings are actual harm. That someone should bake or be destroyed, and that only people that agree with you 100% on whatever moral issue is the topic du jour can do anything but work in an office and shut their fucking mouths.

 

[paddymurphy]

Damages to the bakers per state law, once the gay couple pressed the issue: $135,000
Damages to the bakers had the gay couple just told them to go to hell and gone to another baker, one who was happy to work with them: $0

Yep, that's the law. Did the issue have to be pressed? Nope, that was a choice.

Punish, intimidate, control.
.

Enforcing the law is wrong then, in your view?

Once the complaint has been made, the law has to be enforced.

I made that pretty clear.
.

Clear, but laughably wrong. The "law" not only requires compliance, it provides for damages that serve the dual purpose of compensation and deterrence.

 

[TNHarley]

I will not argue that. lol
My only argument is its not right. I dont agree with mental conformity.
I do agree with free will and personal liberty.
Did I mention I was "pro-choice"?

I am pro free will and liberty too. Nobody forces you to open a public accommodation business. No one is telling how to conduct your personal life or how to feel, but yes, there are going to be rules and regulations whenever you open a business.

This is the same argument that was used against anti-discrimination laws against black people way back when, such as interracial marriages, and serving black people at certain businesses. The only difference? The discrimination now against our gay citizens is based upon personal sexual habits rather than skin color. It failed then and fails now.

I agree with the top. Im not saying these people didn't break the law, I am saying it shouldn't be a law in the first place. In fact, if you gave me a couple hours I could probably gather some good information to explain how it is also unconstitutional. Because, frankly, there is no possible way that it is.
People should be able to refuse service to anyone they feel they don't want to sell their product to. People have a right to feel uncomfortable, a right to personal opinion, a right to the company they OWN and a right to be an asshole.

"People have a right to feel uncomfortable, a right to personal opinion, a right to the company they OWN and a right to be an asshole." And that is which of the Bill of Rights?

That would be humans rights you fuckin statist.
But article 9 sure does paint a pretty picture doesn't it? Well, maybe not to you. Who needs individual liberty?

There is no "Article 9" dumbass. If you are referring to the 9th Amendment, it does not say or mean what you think it does.

I meant amendment. Honest mistake.

 

[martybegan]

PA laws were never meant to cover things like a baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

The were in Oregon.

The legislature specifically included sexual orientation as a characteristic of the customer which cannot be used as a basis for refusing service.


>>>>

Again, the law is wrong. It has to be balanced against a compelling government interest vs. the rights of those providing a service.

Again, the validity of the law isn't predicated on your personal opinion. Or your belief that the reason isn't 'compelling'.

We've been through this, Marty. Your personal opinion isn't a legal standard. Your argument is predicated on the assumption that it is. None of us accept it as such.

Ergo......you've got nothing.

And all you have is running to the law, and saying the law is the law is the law is the law is the law ad nauseum.

 

[paddymurphy]

Once you apply for and sign a business permit, you are already agreeing to abide by that particular state's laws regarding business practice.

I will not argue that. lol
My only argument is its not right. I dont agree with mental conformity.
I do agree with free will and personal liberty.
Did I mention I was "pro-choice"?

I am pro free will and liberty too. Nobody forces you to open a public accommodation business. No one is telling how to conduct your personal life or how to feel, but yes, there are going to be rules and regulations whenever you open a business.

This is the same argument that was used against anti-discrimination laws against black people way back when, such as interracial marriages, and serving black people at certain businesses. The only difference? The discrimination now against our gay citizens is based upon personal sexual habits rather than skin color. It failed then and fails now.

I agree with the top. Im not saying these people didn't break the law, I am saying it shouldn't be a law in the first place. In fact, if you gave me a couple hours I could probably gather some good information to explain how it is also unconstitutional. Because, frankly, there is no possible way that it is.
People should be able to refuse service to anyone they feel they don't want to sell their product to. People have a right to feel uncomfortable, a right to personal opinion, a right to the company they OWN and a right to be an asshole.

"if you gave me a couple hours I could probably gather some good information to explain how it is also unconstitutional" So, you think, in those couple of hours, you would be able to secure an Amendment to the constitution that would make public accommodation laws no longer constitutional. That is what you would have to do since these laws have been around for decades and have been challenged in the past without any success.

No Mr intelligence(lol) I could prove how anti discrimination laws are unconstitutional. ESPECIALLY invoking fascism like this into private businesses

How could you prove that they are not constitutional when the Supreme Court has held, repeatedly, that they are ?

 

[paddymurphy]

You make it really easy when you admit you'd lie and break the law. That shows a lack of ethics and integrity.

YOUR ethics and integrity! You're an asshole on the internet, not God.

We were talking about your admitted lack of ethics and integrity. You know, where you said you would lie rather than either follow a law or engage in principled disobedience.

Yep, I lie so filthy shitstains like you couldn't put me out of business. I also pointed out that your love of law only works when you approve it. I'm honest about it, you aren't. You're just a fat shitstain that loves tyranny.

No. I mean not allowing yourself to be cowered into accepting that some folks think you are a lesser human being because of an immutable think like race, gender, sexual orientation. Since you are clearly a white male who has never likely been denied service because of his race or had to see his children treated as lesser than others because of their race, and you don't seem to be very bright, it is not surprising you do not understand this.

No one said gays were lessor humans, you lying piece of shit.

Sure you did. That is how lowlifes like you can feel better about yourselves. You look at your miserable existence, your lack of accomplishment, your mindless, dead end job, your lack of a wife or lack of a decent one, the failures that define you and need someone you can judge as lesser than you. How ironic that in doing so you simply prove that you are the lesser human being.

You fuckin hypocritical POS

Your gonna have to wipe the spittle off your screen now. Take a valium.

 

[bodecea]

Let me ask you...what are you ACTIVELY doing to get PA laws off the books? Because there IS a way. You can vote for those who promise to repeal such laws. You can run yourself for office. You can petition. You can help fund organizations who lobby to get such laws repealed. You can start such an organization if you wish. All those avenues are open to you.

Trying to change minds

Well, it ain't workin'. Your position is one of hatred. Give it up,

The only hate here is from your side.

Why is it that you consider it hateful to be against unlawful business discrimination?

Keep hiding behind that crap to cover for your hatred of anyone who disagrees with you, or disapproves of your lifestyle.

I don't hate people. I am sad to see someone so unable to meet their obligations they signed up for when getting a business license. I am sad to see someone so weak in character that they have to post the name of their rejected customers on Facebook in order to deflect from their breaking the law. I am sad to see my fellow Americans willing to sit on their couches and complain about PA laws....but not care enough about their "cause" to actually do anything about it as American citizens.

 

[paddymurphy]

What if the baker were an emergency room surgeon in a small hospital in the south, and he refused to operate on a critical patient because he was gay.

Does he have the right to let someone die because it would infringe on his religious rights.

Strawman. But I will go ahead and break it down for you
That would be illegal. FFS, hospitals cant even turn down people with no insurance.

Aren't those more of those tyrannical laws only statists would support? I mean, if you have the right to refuse to bake a cake, don't you have the right to refuse to actually touch a gay person?

 

[WorldWatcher]

[
A person providing a cake under contract is not a public accommodation.

A business offering goods and services to the public sure is under Oregon law.

The Klein agreed they were a place of Public Accommodation under the law so they disagree with you.



>>>>

 

[Skylar]

I am the person defending other's right to various freedoms.

Why is one person's butthurt more than another person's butthurt in the absence of actual harm?

Wait...you support the alleged butthurt of those who break the law? Do you also support the butthurt of those who steal? Those who murder? Worry about their feelings, do you?

Theft and murder are actual harm.

As is business discrimination....not to mention the splashing the couple's name on facebook so that they started being harassed by "the god squad".

Bod....you're not going to make any headway. As the only evidence that Marty will accept is his own opinion. See, unless you accept Marty's legal definitions, ignore whatever ruling Marty ignores, and accept whatever assumptions Marty makes......you're merely 'apppealing to authority'.

You can't have a factual discussion with someone who believes that ONLY their opinions are facts.

No headway is being made because your positions are solely based on the idea that the government should punish people you don't like, and because hurt feelings are actual harm.

And who says this is the 'whole basis of my argument'? You do, citing yourself.

I don't accept your personal opinion that PA laws are all invalid. Or that the State can't set basic codes of conduct for intra state commerce. Nor does the courts, which recognizes the States authority to do exactly that.

So I've got the constitution implicitly granting the States the authority over intrastate commerce, people of the State supporting PA laws, their representatives enacting those laws, no constitutional guarantees being violated, the court's affirming the State's authority to make such laws, and due process of law with this specific case.

And you insisting that we ignore it all and accept whatever you imagine, based solely on you as the only possible legal authority.

Laughing....nope. You're nobody. And without us accepting you as the sole legal authority.....you've literally got nothing. Since no one accepts you as ANY legal authority, you've got nothing.

What else is there to discuss? You're not presenting a legal argument. You're insisting we ignore the law and replace it with whatever you want to believe.

 

[bodecea]

Sure they do. Try to say you won't serve Christians or Jews. Try it. Make a public announcement on Twitter and FB.

So LGBT is a church then?

LGBT are minorities, and here minorities are protected from the whims of the majority. Now you know.

bakers who don't want to work gay weddings are a minority as well.

What baker was asked to "work" a gay wedding?

Stop quibbling with semantics, it's getting old. Just admit you like using government to punish people who don't like you.

Let's look at the quibbling: First of all....no baker "works" a wedding. In fact, wedding cakes themselves are not at weddings....they are at wedding receptions....the party AFTER the wedding. You would maybe get more respect to your "cause" if you didn't keep trying to slide away from the facts into some fantasy that sounds more outrageous.

 

[bodecea]

What if the baker were an emergency room surgeon in a small hospital in the south, and he refused to operate on a critical patient because he was gay.

Does he have the right to let someone die because it would infringe on his religious rights.

Timely or necessary services are a compelling government interest that merit anti-discrimination rules. A gay couple having to spend 15 minutes finding another baker and feeling bad about it isn't, and it is not worth ruining the baker in question.

Not your call as to whether breaking the law was substantial enough or not.

 

[Skylar]

PA laws were never meant to cover things like a baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

The were in Oregon.

The legislature specifically included sexual orientation as a characteristic of the customer which cannot be used as a basis for refusing service.


>>>>

Again, the law is wrong. It has to be balanced against a compelling government interest vs. the rights of those providing a service.

Again, the validity of the law isn't predicated on your personal opinion. Or your belief that the reason isn't 'compelling'.

We've been through this, Marty. Your personal opinion isn't a legal standard. Your argument is predicated on the assumption that it is. None of us accept it as such.

Ergo......you've got nothing.

And all you have is running to the law, and saying the law is the law is the law is the law is the law ad nauseum.

What I have is the constitution, the will of the people, the authority of the State, the lack of violations of constitutional guarantees, judicial review and due process of law.

You've got your personal opinion.

Our sources are not equal.

 

[WorldWatcher]

PA laws were never meant to cover things like a baker not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

The were in Oregon.

The legislature specifically included sexual orientation as a characteristic of the customer which cannot be used as a basis for refusing service.


>>>>

Again, the law is wrong. It has to be balanced against a compelling government interest vs. the rights of those providing a service.

I understand that you disagree with the law, so do I.

However saying that Sweetcakes wasn't a Public Accommodation under Oregon law is incorrect. They are.

However saying that the Public Accommodation law was wrongly applied is incorrect. It was.



Agreeing on what the law "should" be is one thing. Thinking that your view of what "should be" is reality is a different matter all together.


>>>>

 

[TNHarley]

I will not argue that. lol
My only argument is its not right. I dont agree with mental conformity.
I do agree with free will and personal liberty.
Did I mention I was "pro-choice"?

I am pro free will and liberty too. Nobody forces you to open a public accommodation business. No one is telling how to conduct your personal life or how to feel, but yes, there are going to be rules and regulations whenever you open a business.

This is the same argument that was used against anti-discrimination laws against black people way back when, such as interracial marriages, and serving black people at certain businesses. The only difference? The discrimination now against our gay citizens is based upon personal sexual habits rather than skin color. It failed then and fails now.

I agree with the top. Im not saying these people didn't break the law, I am saying it shouldn't be a law in the first place. In fact, if you gave me a couple hours I could probably gather some good information to explain how it is also unconstitutional. Because, frankly, there is no possible way that it is.
People should be able to refuse service to anyone they feel they don't want to sell their product to. People have a right to feel uncomfortable, a right to personal opinion, a right to the company they OWN and a right to be an asshole.

"if you gave me a couple hours I could probably gather some good information to explain how it is also unconstitutional" So, you think, in those couple of hours, you would be able to secure an Amendment to the constitution that would make public accommodation laws no longer constitutional. That is what you would have to do since these laws have been around for decades and have been challenged in the past without any success.

No Mr intelligence(lol) I could prove how anti discrimination laws are unconstitutional. ESPECIALLY invoking fascism like this into private businesses

How could you prove that they are not constitutional when the Supreme Court has held, repeatedly, that they are ?

Off the top of my head the 13th amendment and the founding documents and property rights.

 

[bodecea]

So, change to that, if you think you can get away with it. Just don't sell to the public. You can't have your no faggot cake and sell it too, unless you are very, very careful.

It's not what I want to get away with, that has nothing to do with it. it's about government being able to ruin someone over something as stupid as politely saying they don't want to provide a wedding cake for a gay wedding.

It's also about the fascist cheering squad you belong to, and the fact that your are all miserable, detestable pond scum forgeries of actual human beings.

Learn to be rational. If the law says Serve One, Serve All, do that.

The law used to say blacks had to use separate water fountains. Where was your respect for the law then?

Appeal to authority isn't a position, its a cop out.

An excellent example. Thank you for bringing it up, Marty. People worked long and hard to get such Jim Crow laws repealed or struck down in court. It took a while but they did it. If all they had done was verbally complain about it and not take ACTION, there probably would still be segregation laws like separate drinking fountains. People got off their couches and actually TOOK ACTION.

Again resorting to the "you don't do X, so shut up" line of retort. its getting old.

Marty. When have I EVER told you to shut up?