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

[TNHarley]

I guess the SC should rule that landlords shouldn't be able to turn down tenants for credit, hygiene or references. Right statists?

Those are not PA issues. You know that too.

So a landlord renting his property to someone doesn't equate to a private business selling its products? lol

 

[bodecea]

Anti -Discrimination laws do not trample on the freedom of others. You seem not to understand that morons have made these same arguments in court many times and always lose.

You guys are deliberately misrepresenting the issue. Homosexuality was never included as a protected class until recently in some cities/states. They added it because there's no Constitutional basis for it. Duh.

So...if you feel it is unConstitutional to add sexual orientation as a protected class, sounds like you should file a lawsuit to get PA laws challenged Constitutionally....especially those that include sexual orientation. Good luck in your endeavor.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"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.

Better to have tried to use what is inside your head. The 13 Amendment banned slavery. No being allowed to discriminate in who your perform services for, for which you get paid, is not slavery. Maybe to a dumbass like you, but not to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. "Property rights"? Bet you have no clue what that means.

involuntary servitude dumbfuck. By way of compulsory force.

That argument died, 60 years ago: Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[TNHarley]

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.

The surgeon is in business and he is being forced to provide his services to gay people, which he doesn't want to do.

He's being forced to provide his services to EVERYONE.

See dopes.

Most of the morons posting here are just dying to post, "Yes, let the F*****s die"

Who has said that dumbfuck? You are nothing but a big ball of emotional statism.

Give it time.

So you lied. Thanks!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I guess the SC should rule that landlords shouldn't be able to turn down tenants for credit, hygiene or references. Right statists?

Those are not PA issues. You know that too.

So a landlord renting his property to someone doesn't equate to a private business selling its products? lol

Nope. It would be like not selling a gun, to a felon.

 

[bodecea]

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.

OK, 'Slick Willey', I will engage in your 'definition of 'IS'' argument. Obviously in their minds supplying one of their products for the reception is still supporting a practice that violates their religious beliefs.

It is THEIR religious beliefs, not YOURS, not ATHEISTS', not OBAMA's - it's THEIRS. You don't get to dictate YOUR views onto them and what they believe. You don't get a say in how they exercise their beliefs. This is exactly why we have the Constitutional protection for Freedom of Religion and the right to exercise that religion. Yet for all the cheap TALK about how TOLERANT they are and how RESPECTFUL Liberals (and ISIS) want, they want WHAT they want WHEN they want it, and to hell with whatever stands in their way of getting it. Disrespecting someone's faith, trampling their rights...no problem.

People of faith, unlike the GOP Leadership, just don't roll over and surrender, forsaking their religions beliefs and values just because a liberal (or terrorist) tells them to do so just to benefit them. 'You' want to punish them for their religious beliefs, because that is what this is about, not that some gay couple didn't get a cake because there were more than enough other bakeries willing to cater their event. This bakery did not want to cater the event because of their religious beliefs, these two selfish disrespectful Libs didn't like that, and they wanted to PUNISH them and FORCE them to comply. That's it! The government was all too willing to step in and give them this ridiculously exorbitant punitive fine 'to teach them a lesson' and not let them get away with the exercising of their faith-based conviction!

You believe otherwise - got it. That's why, thank God for now, it's still legal (no longer acceptable, though, according to Libs) to agree to disagree.

So....a cake baker has some rather "narrow" views on what is a religiously acceptable wedding and what is not.....seems to me they should either accept the consequences of failure to follow business law or stop baking the kind of cakes they have religious conflicts over. Quite simple.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Anti -Discrimination laws do not trample on the freedom of others. You seem not to understand that morons have made these same arguments in court many times and always lose.

You guys are deliberately misrepresenting the issue. Homosexuality was never included as a protected class until recently in some cities/states. They added it because there's no Constitutional basis for it. Duh.

Most constitutional things are not in the Constitution. Deal with it.

 

[paddymurphy]

Anti -Discrimination laws do not trample on the freedom of others. You seem not to understand that morons have made these same arguments in court many times and always lose.

You guys are deliberately misrepresenting the issue. Homosexuality was never included as a protected class until recently in some cities/states. They added it because there's no Constitutional basis for it. Duh.

There are no "protected" classes identified in the constitution. Nothing in the constitution would prohibit discrimination by private actors. All PA laws were enacted because the constitution does not apply to private interactions. Your point?

 

[paddymurphy]

"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.

Better to have tried to use what is inside your head. The 13 Amendment banned slavery. No being allowed to discriminate in who your perform services for, for which you get paid, is not slavery. Maybe to a dumbass like you, but not to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. "Property rights"? Bet you have no clue what that means.

involuntary servitude dumbfuck. By way of compulsory force.

Sure. That would definitely fly in any courtroom. "Your honor, by making me serve this hamburger to that negroe, you are making me a slave; subjecting to to involuntary servitude." Cannot believe no one ever thought of that before. You can millions advising civil rights lawyers are your never thought off, novel way to defeat anti discrimination laws.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

The surgeon is in business and he is being forced to provide his services to gay people, which he doesn't want to do.

He's being forced to provide his services to EVERYONE.

See dopes.

Most of the morons posting here are just dying to post, "Yes, let the F*****s die"

Who has said that dumbfuck? You are nothing but a big ball of emotional statism.

Give it time.

So you lied. Thanks!

You have trouble with English? I did not say you and your friends DID post that, I said you are "dying to". Understand the difference, there, Bubba?

 

[TNHarley]

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.

Better to have tried to use what is inside your head. The 13 Amendment banned slavery. No being allowed to discriminate in who your perform services for, for which you get paid, is not slavery. Maybe to a dumbass like you, but not to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. "Property rights"? Bet you have no clue what that means.

involuntary servitude dumbfuck. By way of compulsory force.

Sure. That would definitely fly in any courtroom. "Your honor, by making me serve this hamburger to that negroe, you are making me a slave; subjecting to to involuntary servitude." Cannot believe no one ever thought of that before. You can millions advising civil rights lawyers are your never thought off, novel way to defeat anti discrimination laws.

So you don't have a rebuttal, basically? So much for needing to study

 

[TNHarley]

The surgeon is in business and he is being forced to provide his services to gay people, which he doesn't want to do.

He's being forced to provide his services to EVERYONE.

See dopes.

Most of the morons posting here are just dying to post, "Yes, let the F*****s die"

Who has said that dumbfuck? You are nothing but a big ball of emotional statism.

Give it time.

So you lied. Thanks!

You have trouble with English? I did not say you and your friends DID post that, I said you are "dying to". Understand the difference, there, Bubba?

No hablo ingles

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

Better to have tried to use what is inside your head. The 13 Amendment banned slavery. No being allowed to discriminate in who your perform services for, for which you get paid, is not slavery. Maybe to a dumbass like you, but not to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. "Property rights"? Bet you have no clue what that means.

involuntary servitude dumbfuck. By way of compulsory force.

Sure. That would definitely fly in any courtroom. "Your honor, by making me serve this hamburger to that negroe, you are making me a slave; subjecting to to involuntary servitude." Cannot believe no one ever thought of that before. You can millions advising civil rights lawyers are your never thought off, novel way to defeat anti discrimination laws.

So you don't have a rebuttal, basically? So much for needing to study

I do. The 13th Amendment does not prohibit anti-discriminating laws based on the moronic argument that requiring a person to follow the law constitutes involuntary servitude. That argument can be applied to just about any law. "But, judge, the zoning law that requires that I put a fence around my pool violates the 13th Amendment because it would force me into involuntary servitude by making be build that fence." You are really amusing with your attempts to discuss constitutional law with what amounts to a third grade understanding of it.

 

[bodecea]

"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.

Better to have tried to use what is inside your head. The 13 Amendment banned slavery. No being allowed to discriminate in who your perform services for, for which you get paid, is not slavery. Maybe to a dumbass like you, but not to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. "Property rights"? Bet you have no clue what that means.

involuntary servitude dumbfuck. By way of compulsory force.

Is forcing a business to follow safety and health laws involuntary servitude?

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

Better to have tried to use what is inside your head. The 13 Amendment banned slavery. No being allowed to discriminate in who your perform services for, for which you get paid, is not slavery. Maybe to a dumbass like you, but not to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. "Property rights"? Bet you have no clue what that means.

involuntary servitude dumbfuck. By way of compulsory force.

Is forcing a business to follow safety and health laws involuntary servitude?

Seatbelt laws must really drive him crazy.

 

[bodecea]

I guess the SC should rule that landlords shouldn't be able to turn down tenants for credit, hygiene or references. Right statists?

Those are not PA issues. You know that too.

So a landlord renting his property to someone doesn't equate to a private business selling its products? lol

Yes...it is a business....but as you well know, not paying your bills (credit issues) is not protected under PA laws. Hygiene is not protected under PA laws...in fact it may be denied under health codes.

Not the same. But you knew that.

 

[Mac1958]

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.

I'm not arguing with either of those points.

The point is that the "offended" party has to choose to say something.

They can choose to report the "offender", or they can choose not to.

That's it.
.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

Better to have tried to use what is inside your head. The 13 Amendment banned slavery. No being allowed to discriminate in who your perform services for, for which you get paid, is not slavery. Maybe to a dumbass like you, but not to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. "Property rights"? Bet you have no clue what that means.

involuntary servitude dumbfuck. By way of compulsory force.

Is forcing a business to follow safety and health laws involuntary servitude?

Seatbelt laws must really drive him crazy.

They do. I had a wreck a few years ago. The state trooper told me I would probably be dead if I was wearing it. Got a fuckin 25$ ticket a month or so ago.

 

[bodecea]

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.

I'm not arguing with either of those points.

The point is that the "offended" party has to choose to say something.

They can choose to have the "offender" punished, or they can choose not to.

That's it.
.

So...your objection is that the couple actually exercised their right under the law to complain to the authorities.

 

[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.

I'm not arguing with either of those points.

The point is that the "offended" party has to choose to say something.

They can choose to have the "offender" punished, or they can choose not to.

That's it.
.

True. And for every such suit filed or complaint made, there are likely thousands who simply let it go. I mean, these laws have been in place for several years and we are still talking about two bakeries and, I think, a florist. This action is likely to prevent many others from doing the same thing. That is the point of deterrence.