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

[bodecea]

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.

Would you be proud of fining a litterer $138k?

You are ruining someone over not baking a cake.

If someone litters, get's caught...refuses to pay....the state ups the fine...they refuse to pay...the state ups the fine...etc. If the litterer is stubborn enough.....what do you think happens? You don't seem to understand what happens to scofflaws when they ignore fines.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

So, never read Loving, did you? The right is to equal protection of the law and to the liberty to make decisions about your life without the government interfering. Is there a right to Liberty in the constitution? Is there a right to equal protection of the law? You think that a state can pass a law saying that Christians cannot marry Jews? That blacks cannot marry whites? That infertile people cannot marry? Your claim that "the states are the arbiters of what constitutes a marriage contract would allow all of these to exist. What you are too ******* stupid to understand is that the US constitution is the supreme law of the nation. No law, state, local or federal, that denies rights protected by the constitution, is valid. States do have the power to define marriage, but only in a manner consistent with the constitution. Laws banning interracial marriages violate the very same constitutional rights that laws banning gay marriages violate; the right to liberty and the right to equal protection of the law.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Wrong. Some people care more about the process than the results.

You don't think there was a process?

 

[martybegan]

I think bigotry is something that is more common amongst the older generations. It is much more rare among younger people.

You probably do, they just hate the things you don't like as well.

I don't think so.

The blinders of groupthink don't discriminate based on age.

Oh, you don't like that? What if someone doesn't like old people and they don't want to serve them at their store? Make the old hags take the bus to the other side of town to the old folks store.

It depends, is it a timely or necessary service?

Maybe they need some Depends?

Necessary service, medical.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

They don't need a compelling governmental interest because the law applies to everyone equally. It did not target a particular religious belief. I though you understood this. Apparently not.

 

[martybegan]

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.

You must be a libertarian like Rand who said people should be able to refuse service based on color. 1964 much?

Back then they should not have because the discrimination was systemic.

Today? as long as the service is not of a timely or necessary nature? let the market handle it.

You think the court didn't take everything into consideration before reaching their ruling or are you just "makin' stuff up" to muddle the waters?

You utilize the public infrastructure then you serve the public. Simple as that.

The "public infrastructure" cop out is one of the weakest used by your side. by that definition government can tell me whatever it wants me to do because I walk on a sidewalk and drink tap water.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

Would you be proud of fining a litterer $138k?

You are ruining someone over not baking a cake.

If that fine causes all of the bigots to think twice before acting on their bigotry, then it served its purpose.

 

[martybegan]

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.

They don't need a compelling governmental interest because the law applies to everyone equally. It did not target a particular religious belief. I though you understood this. Apparently not.

Equal protection under the law applies to protection from government.

 

[ChrisL]

I think bigotry is something that is more common amongst the older generations. It is much more rare among younger people.
I don't think so.

The blinders of groupthink don't discriminate based on age.

Oh, you don't like that? What if someone doesn't like old people and they don't want to serve them at their store? Make the old hags take the bus to the other side of town to the old folks store.

It depends, is it a timely or necessary service?

Maybe they need some Depends?

Necessary service, medical.

Look friend. What you are suggesting is absolutely ridiculous and is NOT going to happen. I suggest you begin to accept that the world is changing and people realize that discriminating against certain groups of Americans is very UN-American.

 

[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"

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.

Would you be proud of fining a litterer $138k?

You are ruining someone over not baking a cake.

If that fine causes all of the bigots to think twice before acting on their bigotry, then it served its purpose.

Again, you seek to punish Thought Crime. How Orwellian.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

You must live in a very nice progressive hipster-ville bubble then.

The bubble where the majority of Americans live; you know, the ones who support marriage equality.

 

[martybegan]

The blinders of groupthink don't discriminate based on age.

Oh, you don't like that? What if someone doesn't like old people and they don't want to serve them at their store? Make the old hags take the bus to the other side of town to the old folks store.

It depends, is it a timely or necessary service?

Maybe they need some Depends?

Necessary service, medical.

Look friend. What you are suggesting is absolutely ridiculous and is NOT going to happen. I suggest you begin to accept that the world is changing and people realize that discriminating against certain groups of Americans is very UN-American.

So basically accept the fact that government can ruin a person over not baking a cake? NEVER.

 

[martybegan]

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.

You must live in a very nice progressive hipster-ville bubble then.

The bubble where the majority of Americans live; you know, the ones who support marriage equality.

I supported it when it was through convincing State legislatures to change the marriage laws, not by judicial fiat.

 

[martybegan]

**** 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.

Wrong. Some people care more about the process than the results.

You don't think there was a process?

it was the wrong process.

 

[ChrisL]

Oh, you don't like that? What if someone doesn't like old people and they don't want to serve them at their store? Make the old hags take the bus to the other side of town to the old folks store.

It depends, is it a timely or necessary service?

Maybe they need some Depends?

Necessary service, medical.

Look friend. What you are suggesting is absolutely ridiculous and is NOT going to happen. I suggest you begin to accept that the world is changing and people realize that discriminating against certain groups of Americans is very UN-American.

So basically accept the fact that government can ruin a person over not baking a cake? NEVER.

Well, that is the way things are. If you are going to open a business that serves the public, then you have to be intelligent enough to realize that the "public" includes ALL kinds of people that you might disagree with on a personal level. Grow up!

 

[bodecea]

I think bigotry is something that is more common amongst the older generations. It is much more rare among younger people.
I don't think so.

The blinders of groupthink don't discriminate based on age.

Oh, you don't like that? What if someone doesn't like old people and they don't want to serve them at their store? Make the old hags take the bus to the other side of town to the old folks store.

It depends, is it a timely or necessary service?

Maybe they need some Depends?

Necessary service, medical.

PA laws don't specify "necessary service only".

 

[paddymurphy]

"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.

Would you be proud of fining a litterer $138k?

You are ruining someone over not baking a cake.

If that fine causes all of the bigots to think twice before acting on their bigotry, then it served its purpose.

Again, you seek to punish Thought Crime. How Orwellian.

No, assholes like you can think hateful thoughts all you want. You can even say hateful things. What you cannot do, it you provide a public accommodation, is ACT on your hatred. How the **** is it a thought crime when it is a) not a crime; and b) only punishes actions.

 

[martybegan]

It depends, is it a timely or necessary service?

Maybe they need some Depends?

Necessary service, medical.

Look friend. What you are suggesting is absolutely ridiculous and is NOT going to happen. I suggest you begin to accept that the world is changing and people realize that discriminating against certain groups of Americans is very UN-American.

So basically accept the fact that government can ruin a person over not baking a cake? NEVER.

Well, that is the way things are. If you are going to open a business that serves the public, then you have to be intelligent enough to realize that the "public" includes ALL kinds of people that you might disagree with on a personal level. Grow up!

Yes, using government to ruin people who disagree with you is really ******* mature.

 

[martybegan]

The blinders of groupthink don't discriminate based on age.

Oh, you don't like that? What if someone doesn't like old people and they don't want to serve them at their store? Make the old hags take the bus to the other side of town to the old folks store.

It depends, is it a timely or necessary service?

Maybe they need some Depends?

Necessary service, medical.

PA laws don't specify "necessary service only".

They should, and the original federal definition of a PA wasn't "any business" but very specific ones.

 

[bodecea]

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.

They don't need a compelling governmental interest because the law applies to everyone equally. It did not target a particular religious belief. I though you understood this. Apparently not.

Equal protection under the law applies to protection from government.

This is an exact quote of that portion of the 14th:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.