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

[martybegan]

It's the truth. Deny it all you want.

"ThoughtCrime"......sure, Marty.

yep, you found a way to punish people for their beliefs. Plus you get to ruin them, and make an example of them "pour l'encouragement les autres"

Serve one - serve all isn't complicated, and it's good business. They are baking cakes for money, not God...

Then reason with them to do it, don't force them. Bake or Die isn't the American way.

We don't need to reason with them, they were a PA and those are the rules. You don't have to like a law but unless you want all hell to breaks loose, obey it until you can change it. These laws are better for everyone, and would have worked in their favor as well, had they obeyed them.

So running to government to fight your battles for you as usual.

What a ******* *****.

 

[Dot Com]

Right. An argument that has been made to the Supreme Court and rejected. There is a compelling interest in outlawing discrimination.

In your opinion. The compelling interest is in government being neutral, as well as timely and or necessary services. Also the discrimination cannot be systemic. If those conditions don't apply, a persons individual right to associate should win out.

Not my opinion. The Opinion of the SCOTUS.

SCOTUS can kiss my ass.

You may not believe in SCOTUS, but they ARE 1/3rd of our Federal system. Can't ignore them. Sorry.

Not ignoring them, saying they can kiss my ass.

Try to keep up.

as bodey said, they are 1/3 of the gov't hence- America, love it or ..... GTFO!!!

IOW's- if you don't run for political office to change the system then you have no leg to stand on to complain about the system

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"ThoughtCrime"......sure, Marty.

yep, you found a way to punish people for their beliefs. Plus you get to ruin them, and make an example of them "pour l'encouragement les autres"

Serve one - serve all isn't complicated, and it's good business. They are baking cakes for money, not God...

Then reason with them to do it, don't force them. Bake or Die isn't the American way.

We don't need to reason with them, they were a PA and those are the rules. You don't have to like a law but unless you want all hell to breaks loose, obey it until you can change it. These laws are better for everyone, and would have worked in their favor as well, had they obeyed them.

So running to government to fight your battles for you as usual.

What a ******* *****.

They are my battles only in that all should be equal before the law and in PAs. Using the government to nail these guys was entirely appropriate. They broke the law the government established, the law that lets everyone get on with their day without having to worry about do they serve my kind here...

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Dumb example. Hospitals generally have more than one surgeon. The Hospital decides who the surgeon operates on, not the surgeon.

Too ******* stupid to answer the question so you change the facts.

There were no facts, moron, just a fantasy dreamed up by a moron.

It is called a hypothetical. And since you cannot answer it, you change the hypothetical and then just ***** out entirely.

If it's "hypothetical" it's not a fact. You just admitted you lied when you called them facts. Not only that, you proved you're a dumbass.

 

[martybegan]

yep, you found a way to punish people for their beliefs. Plus you get to ruin them, and make an example of them "pour l'encouragement les autres"

Serve one - serve all isn't complicated, and it's good business. They are baking cakes for money, not God...

Then reason with them to do it, don't force them. Bake or Die isn't the American way.

We don't need to reason with them, they were a PA and those are the rules. You don't have to like a law but unless you want all hell to breaks loose, obey it until you can change it. These laws are better for everyone, and would have worked in their favor as well, had they obeyed them.

So running to government to fight your battles for you as usual.

What a ******* *****.

They are my battles only in that all should be equal before the law and in PAs. Using the government to nail these guys was entirely appropriate. They broke the law the government established, the law that's lets everyone get on with their day without having to worry about do they serve my kind here...

equal before the law implies things that involve the government, which should be neutral. when you want to force people to do things, you have to have a compelling government interest, which in the case of a wedding cake, is not even close to one.

 

[Dot Com]

Not my opinion. The Opinion of the SCOTUS.

SCOTUS can kiss my ass.

You may not believe in SCOTUS, but they ARE 1/3rd of our Federal system. Can't ignore them. Sorry.

Not ignoring them, saying they can kiss my ass.

Try to keep up.

as bodey said, they are 1/3 of the gov't hence- America, love it or ..... GTFO!!!

**** off, ****.

I'm not the one saying I don't like laws that were duly enacted even though I (in this case- you) didn't lift a finger to influence the enactment of such laws. That would be you twit boi

We are a nation of laws, not men.

 

[bodecea]

I think it's 56 pages of some very revealing stuff:

1. One poster upset that another poster would not serve pedophiles

2. Two posters who get upset when called to action.....no, make that three posters

3. One poster learning that the Muslim cake bakers were in a state with no PA protections for sexual orientation

Just off the top of my head.

and the posters on your side continue to support punishment for ThoughtCrime.

No...but rant on, Marty.

It's the truth. Deny it all you want.

"ThoughtCrime"......sure, Marty.

yep, you found a way to punish people for their beliefs. Plus you get to ruin them, and make an example of them "pour l'encouragement les autres"

Nope....that is, unless their beliefs go against the law. For example...let's go back to what Britpat is going on about....I would be PROUD to punish a pedophile for their beliefs. I would be PROUD to punish a murderer for their beliefs. I would be PROUD to punish a terrorist member of ISIS for their beliefs. I would be PROUD to punish a litterer for their belief that the world is their trash can.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Serve one - serve all isn't complicated, and it's good business. They are baking cakes for money, not God...

Then reason with them to do it, don't force them. Bake or Die isn't the American way.

We don't need to reason with them, they were a PA and those are the rules. You don't have to like a law but unless you want all hell to breaks loose, obey it until you can change it. These laws are better for everyone, and would have worked in their favor as well, had they obeyed them.

So running to government to fight your battles for you as usual.

What a ******* *****.

They are my battles only in that all should be equal before the law and in PAs. Using the government to nail these guys was entirely appropriate. They broke the law the government established, the law that's lets everyone get on with their day without having to worry about do they serve my kind here...

equal before the law implies things that involve the government, which should be neutral. when you want to force people to do things, you have to have a compelling government interest, which in the case of a wedding cake, is not even close to one.

They weren't forced to do anything they didn't already do, for a living, which is bake cakes. Had they done their job you never would have heard of them and there's nothing unreasonable in that.

 

[jillian]

The two lesbians stated that they do not want any money from the Kleins:

Talking about the personal reasons, Aaron cited a July interview in Willamette Week, where the complainants suggested that the case wasn’t about money.

“We didn’t have a choice in how this was prosecuted,” Rachel Bowman-Cryer said. “We didn’t have a choice in the fine. If we had been given the option, we probably would have said: ‘Just apologize. Just say you’re sorry and go away.’”

Her wife, Laurel, added, “[W]e’re not asking for anything. We’ve never asked for a penny from anybody.”

“When you have these girls come out and say we never wanted the money,” Aaron said, “it wasn’t about the money and we don’t need the money … and I say this isn’t right, I shouldn’t have to pay this money, and the only person saying the money should exchange hands seems to be Brad Avakian.”
​

They aren't going to voluntarily pay and the state will have a very difficult time collecting.

why do you think the state would have difficulty collection on a judgment?

They can simply file Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and the judgement will be dismissed.

you can't discharge a penalty.

nice try, though.

 

[Dot Com]

The two lesbians stated that they do not want any money from the Kleins:

Talking about the personal reasons, Aaron cited a July interview in Willamette Week, where the complainants suggested that the case wasn’t about money.

“We didn’t have a choice in how this was prosecuted,” Rachel Bowman-Cryer said. “We didn’t have a choice in the fine. If we had been given the option, we probably would have said: ‘Just apologize. Just say you’re sorry and go away.’”

Her wife, Laurel, added, “[W]e’re not asking for anything. We’ve never asked for a penny from anybody.”

“When you have these girls come out and say we never wanted the money,” Aaron said, “it wasn’t about the money and we don’t need the money … and I say this isn’t right, I shouldn’t have to pay this money, and the only person saying the money should exchange hands seems to be Brad Avakian.”
​

They aren't going to voluntarily pay and the state will have a very difficult time collecting.

why do you think the state would have difficulty collection on a judgment?

They can simply file Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and the judgement will be dismissed.

you can't discharge a penalty.

nice try, though.

yep. That would be a brazen case of evading a fine simply because they didnt want to pay it.

 

[bodecea]

It's the truth. Deny it all you want.

"ThoughtCrime"......sure, Marty.

yep, you found a way to punish people for their beliefs. Plus you get to ruin them, and make an example of them "pour l'encouragement les autres"

Serve one - serve all isn't complicated, and it's good business. They are baking cakes for money, not God...

Then reason with them to do it, don't force them. Bake or Die isn't the American way.

We don't need to reason with them, they were a PA and those are the rules. You don't have to like a law but unless you want all hell to breaks loose, obey it until you can change it. These laws are better for everyone, and would have worked in their favor as well, had they obeyed them.

Well......you know.....it's too hard......

 

[paddymurphy]

I was trying to explain to a brain dead **** that he was wrong in describing the law. I guess I failed.

And My argument is with the basis of the law, and the reason for having the law you fascist **** waddle.

Go play in traffic.

You have no ******* idea what your "legal" argument is. You heard some talking head on TV use words like "compelling governmental interest" and "fundamental right" and think that you are smarter than every one of the dozens of Supreme Court Justices and hundreds of lower Court judges whose rulings have given us an entire body of law. Your high opinion of yourself is evidence of either profound stupidity or profound illness.

I came to my conclusions all on my own, of course with input from various sources, mostly online, some written. And as an american citizen I take the opinions of those in power and make my own mind up about them. To me the current and most recent crop of jurists have been lacking more often then they have been competent. That 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers can unleash such profound changes on a whim is troubling for those of us who value individual liberty tempered by government input. Your side thinks government, on the other hand, mandates what we must do and the rest of us have to baa like good little sheep.

You may not desire a spine, but the rest of us do.

You have no clue what you are talking about. You prattled on about "compelling" interests because you thought that was the law. When I pointed out you were wrong, your response was that "SCOTUS could kiss your ass." The legal principles you pretend to know about are not the product of the current or recent crop of jurists; they are the product of decades of decisions by the Supreme Court and lower Courts. Your side wants to be allowed to harm others through your bigotry. Denying service to people based on race or some other immutable factor creates a societal harm; a harm that society has the right and authority to remedy. The ability of 5 of 9 Justices to determine that a law is not consistent with the protection of rights found in the Constitution is the most fundamental principle of our Constitution; it places the rights of individuals beyond the reach of government. You idiots seem to forget that the Obergefell decision was brought by individuals asking the Court to protect their rights from government intrusion.

Compelling interest is what is required when you want to trample the rights of others. And its not "my bigotry" I am worried about, I am worried about others right to free exercise of religion.

And there is no harm asking a couple to go to another baker, the only "harm" is hurt feeeewwwwiiinnnggggs!!!!!

The travesty of the SC decision on gay marriage is another topic. What should have happened is that States could decide to issue SSM if they chose, but would be forced to recognize SSM's from other states.

Right. It was a travesty for the Court to stop the government from denying to gay people the fundamental right to marry whomever they wanted and to stop the government from denying equal application of the law to gay couples. You think that there should be a right to discriminate on the basis of race, gender or any other characteristic you can think of but there should not be the right to make the most important association anyone will ever make; marriage. What fucked values you possess.

 

[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.

Dumb example. Hospitals generally have more than one surgeon. The Hospital decides who the surgeon operates on, not the surgeon.

Too ******* stupid to answer the question so you change the facts.

There were no facts, moron, just a fantasy dreamed up by a moron.

It is called a hypothetical. And since you cannot answer it, you change the hypothetical and then just ***** out entirely.

If it's "hypothetical" it's not a fact. You just admitted you lied when you called them facts. Not only that, you proved you're a dumbass.

Right the **** over your head. "Hypothetical question - A question based on certain proven or assumed facts, and formulated to arrive at a generalized answer applicable in most such situations in the absence of dependable data."

Read more: What is hypothetical question? definition and meaning

 

[bodecea]

Then reason with them to do it, don't force them. Bake or Die isn't the American way.

We don't need to reason with them, they were a PA and those are the rules. You don't have to like a law but unless you want all hell to breaks loose, obey it until you can change it. These laws are better for everyone, and would have worked in their favor as well, had they obeyed them.

So running to government to fight your battles for you as usual.

What a ******* *****.

They are my battles only in that all should be equal before the law and in PAs. Using the government to nail these guys was entirely appropriate. They broke the law the government established, the law that's lets everyone get on with their day without having to worry about do they serve my kind here...

equal before the law implies things that involve the government, which should be neutral. when you want to force people to do things, you have to have a compelling government interest, which in the case of a wedding cake, is not even close to one.

The two lesbians stated that they do not want any money from the Kleins:

Talking about the personal reasons, Aaron cited a July interview in Willamette Week, where the complainants suggested that the case wasn’t about money.

“We didn’t have a choice in how this was prosecuted,” Rachel Bowman-Cryer said. “We didn’t have a choice in the fine. If we had been given the option, we probably would have said: ‘Just apologize. Just say you’re sorry and go away.’”

Her wife, Laurel, added, “[W]e’re not asking for anything. We’ve never asked for a penny from anybody.”

“When you have these girls come out and say we never wanted the money,” Aaron said, “it wasn’t about the money and we don’t need the money … and I say this isn’t right, I shouldn’t have to pay this money, and the only person saying the money should exchange hands seems to be Brad Avakian.”
​

They aren't going to voluntarily pay and the state will have a very difficult time collecting.

why do you think the state would have difficulty collection on a judgment?

They can simply file Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and the judgement will be dismissed.

you can't discharge a penalty.

nice try, though.

yep. That would be a brazen case of evading a fine simply because they didnt want to pay it.

And I believe they even tried that tack but it didn't work because it is public knowledge they got more than $500K in donations from people supporting their lawlessness.

 

[Dot Com]

"ThoughtCrime"......sure, Marty.

yep, you found a way to punish people for their beliefs. Plus you get to ruin them, and make an example of them "pour l'encouragement les autres"

Serve one - serve all isn't complicated, and it's good business. They are baking cakes for money, not God...

Then reason with them to do it, don't force them. Bake or Die isn't the American way.

We don't need to reason with them, they were a PA and those are the rules. You don't have to like a law but unless you want all hell to breaks loose, obey it until you can change it. These laws are better for everyone, and would have worked in their favor as well, had they obeyed them.

Well......you know.....it's too hard......

they also wouldn't have been able to start a rw gofundme acct (modern day conservative welfare) if they followed the law

 

[ChrisL]

And My argument is with the basis of the law, and the reason for having the law you fascist **** waddle.

Go play in traffic.

You have no ******* idea what your "legal" argument is. You heard some talking head on TV use words like "compelling governmental interest" and "fundamental right" and think that you are smarter than every one of the dozens of Supreme Court Justices and hundreds of lower Court judges whose rulings have given us an entire body of law. Your high opinion of yourself is evidence of either profound stupidity or profound illness.

I came to my conclusions all on my own, of course with input from various sources, mostly online, some written. And as an american citizen I take the opinions of those in power and make my own mind up about them. To me the current and most recent crop of jurists have been lacking more often then they have been competent. That 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers can unleash such profound changes on a whim is troubling for those of us who value individual liberty tempered by government input. Your side thinks government, on the other hand, mandates what we must do and the rest of us have to baa like good little sheep.

You may not desire a spine, but the rest of us do.

You have no clue what you are talking about. You prattled on about "compelling" interests because you thought that was the law. When I pointed out you were wrong, your response was that "SCOTUS could kiss your ass." The legal principles you pretend to know about are not the product of the current or recent crop of jurists; they are the product of decades of decisions by the Supreme Court and lower Courts. Your side wants to be allowed to harm others through your bigotry. Denying service to people based on race or some other immutable factor creates a societal harm; a harm that society has the right and authority to remedy. The ability of 5 of 9 Justices to determine that a law is not consistent with the protection of rights found in the Constitution is the most fundamental principle of our Constitution; it places the rights of individuals beyond the reach of government. You idiots seem to forget that the Obergefell decision was brought by individuals asking the Court to protect their rights from government intrusion.

Compelling interest is what is required when you want to trample the rights of others. And its not "my bigotry" I am worried about, I am worried about others right to free exercise of religion.

And there is no harm asking a couple to go to another baker, the only "harm" is hurt feeeewwwwiiinnnggggs!!!!!

The travesty of the SC decision on gay marriage is another topic. What should have happened is that States could decide to issue SSM if they chose, but would be forced to recognize SSM's from other states.

Right. It was a travesty for the Court to stop the government from denying to gay people the fundamental right to marry whomever they wanted and to stop the government from denying equal application of the law to gay couples. You think that there should be a right to discriminate on the basis of race, gender or any other characteristic you can think of but there should not be the right to make the most important association anyone will ever make; marriage. What fucked values you possess.

I agree. It is fucked up. I never knew such people even existed until I started posting on these forums. Lol. They are DINOSAURS.

 

[martybegan]

SCOTUS can kiss my ass.

You may not believe in SCOTUS, but they ARE 1/3rd of our Federal system. Can't ignore them. Sorry.

Not ignoring them, saying they can kiss my ass.

Try to keep up.

as bodey said, they are 1/3 of the gov't hence- America, love it or ..... GTFO!!!

**** off, ****.

I'm not the one saying I don't like laws that were duly enacted even though I (in this case- you) didn't lift a finger to influence the enactment of such laws. That would be you twit boi

We are a nation of laws, not men.

You only go running for the law when it suits you.

 

[martybegan]

And My argument is with the basis of the law, and the reason for having the law you fascist **** waddle.

Go play in traffic.

You have no ******* idea what your "legal" argument is. You heard some talking head on TV use words like "compelling governmental interest" and "fundamental right" and think that you are smarter than every one of the dozens of Supreme Court Justices and hundreds of lower Court judges whose rulings have given us an entire body of law. Your high opinion of yourself is evidence of either profound stupidity or profound illness.

I came to my conclusions all on my own, of course with input from various sources, mostly online, some written. And as an american citizen I take the opinions of those in power and make my own mind up about them. To me the current and most recent crop of jurists have been lacking more often then they have been competent. That 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers can unleash such profound changes on a whim is troubling for those of us who value individual liberty tempered by government input. Your side thinks government, on the other hand, mandates what we must do and the rest of us have to baa like good little sheep.

You may not desire a spine, but the rest of us do.

You have no clue what you are talking about. You prattled on about "compelling" interests because you thought that was the law. When I pointed out you were wrong, your response was that "SCOTUS could kiss your ass." The legal principles you pretend to know about are not the product of the current or recent crop of jurists; they are the product of decades of decisions by the Supreme Court and lower Courts. Your side wants to be allowed to harm others through your bigotry. Denying service to people based on race or some other immutable factor creates a societal harm; a harm that society has the right and authority to remedy. The ability of 5 of 9 Justices to determine that a law is not consistent with the protection of rights found in the Constitution is the most fundamental principle of our Constitution; it places the rights of individuals beyond the reach of government. You idiots seem to forget that the Obergefell decision was brought by individuals asking the Court to protect their rights from government intrusion.

Compelling interest is what is required when you want to trample the rights of others. And its not "my bigotry" I am worried about, I am worried about others right to free exercise of religion.

And there is no harm asking a couple to go to another baker, the only "harm" is hurt feeeewwwwiiinnnggggs!!!!!

The travesty of the SC decision on gay marriage is another topic. What should have happened is that States could decide to issue SSM if they chose, but would be forced to recognize SSM's from other states.

Right. It was a travesty for the Court to stop the government from denying to gay people the fundamental right to marry whomever they wanted and to stop the government from denying equal application of the law to gay couples. You think that there should be a right to discriminate on the basis of race, gender or any other characteristic you can think of but there should not be the right to make the most important association anyone will ever make; marriage. What fucked values you possess.

That "fundamental right" is nowhere to be found in the constitution, and was not even a thought exercise 30 years ago. The State legislatures are the arbiters of what constitutes a marriage contract. The feds can only force States to recognize marriage contracts issued in good faith by other States, nothing more. The SC went with feelings instead of law.

 

[martybegan]

Then reason with them to do it, don't force them. Bake or Die isn't the American way.

We don't need to reason with them, they were a PA and those are the rules. You don't have to like a law but unless you want all hell to breaks loose, obey it until you can change it. These laws are better for everyone, and would have worked in their favor as well, had they obeyed them.

So running to government to fight your battles for you as usual.

What a ******* *****.

They are my battles only in that all should be equal before the law and in PAs. Using the government to nail these guys was entirely appropriate. They broke the law the government established, the law that's lets everyone get on with their day without having to worry about do they serve my kind here...

equal before the law implies things that involve the government, which should be neutral. when you want to force people to do things, you have to have a compelling government interest, which in the case of a wedding cake, is not even close to one.

They weren't forced to do anything they didn't already do, for a living, which is bake cakes. Had they done their job you never would have heard of them and there's nothing unreasonable in that.

There is everything unreasonable with the government forcing people to do something they do not want to without a compelling government interest.

 

[bodecea]

You may not believe in SCOTUS, but they ARE 1/3rd of our Federal system. Can't ignore them. Sorry.

Not ignoring them, saying they can kiss my ass.

Try to keep up.

as bodey said, they are 1/3 of the gov't hence- America, love it or ..... GTFO!!!

**** off, ****.

I'm not the one saying I don't like laws that were duly enacted even though I (in this case- you) didn't lift a finger to influence the enactment of such laws. That would be you twit boi

We are a nation of laws, not men.

You only go running for the law when it suits you.

As do we all. You make it sound like it's something out of the ordinary.