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

[paddymurphy]

When are they going to start persecuting muslim bakers?

When they disobey the law...

muslim baker refusing cake service to gays - Bing

Guess what? Those happened in Michigan. Guess what? Michigan doesn't have sexual orientation in their PA law.

But Dearborn, where one happened, does. Of course, since the person seeking to buy the cake was not actually a gay person, he would not be able to sue or complain.

 

[Mac1958]

I've said all along this is about intimidation (or the euphemism "deterrence"), it's not about changing hearts and minds and giving people their space.

So we don't really have a disagreement.
.

Kind of like laws that make speeding an offense are about intimidating speeders or zoning laws are about intimidating property owners and food safety laws are about intimidating food producers. Is it surprising to you that people who violate the law are punished?

Ugh, now you're going obtuse.

Never mind.
.

All laws are meant to deter conduct that society, through their elected officials, believe to be wrong. Your comment that deterrence is akin to intimidation is kind of stupid when you consider that all laws are intended to deter.

Great, then there is no reason to continue this.
.

Unless you need to have this explained to you again? Maybe you will get it the third time.

No, I know quite well what's going on.

But thanks for the offer.
.

 

[paddymurphy]

All laws are meant to deter conduct that society, through their elected officials, believe to be wrong. Your comment that deterrence is akin to intimidation is kind of stupid when you consider that all laws are intended to deter.

Like voting laws deter people from voting? You are a gas bag and a half. LOL

Okay. You have officially dropped into negative numbers. You don't think that laws cracked down on illegal voting; that required ID; that provided for severe penalties for illegal voting would work to deter illegal voting?

 

[paddymurphy]

Kind of like laws that make speeding an offense are about intimidating speeders or zoning laws are about intimidating property owners and food safety laws are about intimidating food producers. Is it surprising to you that people who violate the law are punished?

Ugh, now you're going obtuse.

Never mind.
.

All laws are meant to deter conduct that society, through their elected officials, believe to be wrong. Your comment that deterrence is akin to intimidation is kind of stupid when you consider that all laws are intended to deter.

Great, then there is no reason to continue this.
.

Unless you need to have this explained to you again? Maybe you will get it the third time.

No, I know quite well what's going on.

But thanks for the offer.
.

Glad to help.

 

[bripat9643]

Probably because I was in lindergarten.

Why such ignorance? Do you not understand the way our laws work and the reason why they exist? Are you advocating for Americans to discriminate against gay people?

I'm not advocating it, but the freedom to associate also means the freedom to no associate for whatever reason you deem appropriate.

That applies to your personal life, yes. Not with your business practice. Not for "whatever" reason. Nope.

Where in the constitution does it state you lose your rights when you open a business?

Where does it state that you can lose your right to own a gun if you're a criminal? Same place...

Nope, it doesn't say you lose your rights because you own business.

 

[bripat9643]

Tell us, boys, when are going to start living in the real world and accept PA laws and the need for them?

The real world isn't the one where you have a right to be served. There is no such right.

 

[bodecea]

When are they going to start persecuting muslim bakers?

What muslim bakers have broken a PA law? Got an example for us?

I posted a link

Saw it...replied. I see that I am not the only one who pointed out it happened in Michigan with no "sexual orientation" protection in it's PA law.

 

[bodecea]

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.

What they do is up to them, I really don't care enough about this to object.

What I'm curious about is what the goal is. If it's to punish, that their call (although it's not what I would do).

If their goal is to improve relations between gays and those have some kind of problem with them, well, that's obviously not the goal.
.

The punishment was not the couple's call.

Oh, so all they wanted was the bakers to get a real stern talking-to, huh?

Come on. Look at all the happiness with the fine here. Not a chance.
.

Initially, that were not seeking damages. After the bakery published their names and contact information and the "values voters" began harassing them, they probably changed their tune.

It's not their call tho.....this wasn't ever a lawsuit. It's strictly been the state fining the bakery.

 

[bripat9643]

A LOT of gay people are actually business owners too. The laws apply to them too, regardless of how they might feel about straight people or religious people. The applies to everyone the same. You cannot discriminate based upon race, gender, religion, disability, sexual orientation. That pretty much covers everyone, I think.

What about pedophiles? Don't they have a right to be served? What about Nazis? Does a Jewish baker have the right to refuse serving them?

 

[bripat9643]

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

What they do is up to them, I really don't care enough about this to object.

What I'm curious about is what the goal is. If it's to punish, that their call (although it's not what I would do).

If their goal is to improve relations between gays and those have some kind of problem with them, well, that's obviously not the goal.
.

The punishment was not the couple's call.

Oh, so all they wanted was the bakers to get a real stern talking-to, huh?

Come on. Look at all the happiness with the fine here. Not a chance.
.

Initially, that were not seeking damages. After the bakery published their names and contact information and the "values voters" began harassing them, they probably changed their tune.

It's not their call tho.....this wasn't ever a lawsuit. It's strictly been the state fining the bakery.

They complained to the state. Otherwise it never would have happened. So it was their call.

 

[bripat9643]

That applies to your personal life, yes. Not with your business practice.

Why? Who owns the business?

That's exactly the point, it doesn't matter a damn who owns it, the business is required to operate under the same rules for that form of business. Nice eh?

You mean the business is entitled to do whatever the government tells it to do. That's a thoroughly servile conception of government.

 

[bripat9643]

The government doesn't see a difference between a gay person's money and a straight person's money or a gay cake and a straight cake.

Who gives a **** what the government sees? Why do you automatically assume that whatever the government wants is acceptable?

 

[bripat9643]

That applies to your personal life, yes. Not with your business practice.

Why? Who owns the business?

That's exactly the point, it doesn't matter a damn who owns it, the business is required to operate under the same rules for that form of business. Nice eh?

Where in the Constitution is sexual preference protected like race, religion or gender? I'll wait.

They are tax-paying American citizens. Why do you feel they should be discriminated against is the question.

A business is not the government. Government should not discriminate. However, deciding who you associate with is one of your fundamental individual rights.

 

[bripat9643]

OK then. Would you accept my debate on the unconstitutionality of anti-discrimination laws?

There is no debate. The laws have been challenged, and found constitutional. Time to move on, that dog won't hunt.

They were found "constitutional" by a gang of hacks hand-picked to render the decisions their benefactors wanted them to render.

Up until Roosevelt threatened to pack the court, it consistently held that the federal government had no authority to regulate private businesses.

 

[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.

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?

Wrong.


Home / Federal Employment and Labor Laws / US Constitution - 5th and 14th Amendments
US Constitution - 5th and 14th Amendments

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution limit the power of the federal and state governments to discriminate. The private sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution.

The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly prohibits states from violating an individual's rights of due process and equal protection. Equal protection limits the State and Federal governments' power to discriminate in their employment practices by treating employees, former employees, or job applicants unequally because of membership in a group, like a race, religion or sex. Due process protection requires that employees have a fair procedural process before they are terminated if the termination is related to a "liberty," like the right to free speech, or a property interest.

You really ought to try to comment on topics you have a clue about. Your cut and paste says exactly what I said. The constitution only" limits the State and Federal governments' power to discriminate in their employment practices..." It has nothing to do with private actors.

You really need to quit hammering your finger up your ass thinking you're accomplishing something. I said all along the PA laws were added because there was no Constitutional protection. Get some air, shitstain.

So...are you going to challenge the Constitutionality of PA laws with "sexual orientation" added? Or not?

 

[bodecea]

A LOT of gay people are actually business owners too. The laws apply to them too, regardless of how they might feel about straight people or religious people. The applies to everyone the same. You cannot discriminate based upon race, gender, religion, disability, sexual orientation. That pretty much covers everyone, I think.

What about pedophiles? Don't they have a right to be served? What about Nazis? Does a Jewish baker have the right to refuse serving them?

THERE IT IS!

 

[bodecea]

What they do is up to them, I really don't care enough about this to object.

What I'm curious about is what the goal is. If it's to punish, that their call (although it's not what I would do).

If their goal is to improve relations between gays and those have some kind of problem with them, well, that's obviously not the goal.
.

The punishment was not the couple's call.

Oh, so all they wanted was the bakers to get a real stern talking-to, huh?

Come on. Look at all the happiness with the fine here. Not a chance.
.

Initially, that were not seeking damages. After the bakery published their names and contact information and the "values voters" began harassing them, they probably changed their tune.

It's not their call tho.....this wasn't ever a lawsuit. It's strictly been the state fining the bakery.

They complained to the state. Otherwise it never would have happened. So it was their call.

Are you saying that people who have been victims of a law being broken shouldn't report it?

 

[bripat9643]

That applies to your personal life, yes. Not with your business practice.

Why? Who owns the business?

It doesn't matter. You STILL have to follow the laws. I can own a business, I can choose my product, I can choose what type of business I am going to be involved in, but I cannot discriminate against certain groups of American citizens. They ARE American citizens, not considered better or less than me when it comes to my business.

Yeah, we know what the law says. That isn't what's being debated here. Whenever libs can't support their immoral unconstitutional laws on their merits, they start arguing the law.

 

[bripat9643]

A LOT of gay people are actually business owners too. The laws apply to them too, regardless of how they might feel about straight people or religious people. The applies to everyone the same. You cannot discriminate based upon race, gender, religion, disability, sexual orientation. That pretty much covers everyone, I think.

What about pedophiles? Don't they have a right to be served? What about Nazis? Does a Jewish baker have the right to refuse serving them?

THERE IT IS!

There what is? Are you clapping because someone threw you a sardine?

 

[bripat9643]

The government doesn't see a difference between a gay person's money and a straight person's money or a gay cake and a straight cake.

The government shouldn't if it owns the business.

That is why anti-discrimination laws exist. Such things just put a cluster **** into business matters. The state would have to take on NUMEROUS problems due to discrimination issues regarding business. Instead, we make it fair for everyone and treat everyone the same. It's only common sense, after all.

You are still free to feel anyway you choose and you are free to not open a business if you don't think you can abide by the laws in your state. Or you can try to get around the law, that's your problem.

That's a pile of pure meaningless babble. Thanks for explaining we are free to do what we are free to do.

It's not common sense. It's tyrannical idiocy.