The dreaded gay-wedding-cake saga ends: bakers must pay 135 K

[Faun]

It is unfortunate that the memory of society is so pitifully short. In my lifetime, I spent 20 years, in the 1960's and 1950's of listening to bigots explain that they were refusing service to African-Americans back home in Georgia, because segregation was god's plan. They closed their restaurants, marched around with ax handles, joined the KKK, and put the confederate battle flag back on the Georgia state flag.....

And, in the end,they lost. Even George Wallace told the press before he died that he had been wrong about segregation.

Obviously, today's religious bigots need more time to get their shit together.

What a sad bunch of losers....

It's not religious bigotry to refuse to create a cake for a homo wedding.

There still remains nothing in the Bible condemning the baking such a cake.

Nor is there anything in the Bible against integration, but your average fundie makes up his own Bible.

And there you go into Lala land. Progressives really are mentally ill.

suuuure ... we're the ones in "lala land," not you ....

"But Sweet Cakes is doing great business." ~ a brain-dead conservative​

 

[Vandalshandle]

Kg, One of these days, I really believe that you are going to have a stroke, right here in front of everyone online!

Well, I don't want to be responsible, so I am off for the time being. In the meantime, let it out..let it ALLl out! it is the best therapy!

 

[emilynghiem]

Including the baker? Isn't the baker simply having their " feelings hurt" by making the cake?

No, the baker is placed in involuntary servitude.

You are a leftist, thus dedicated to the eradication of civil rights, so the act of placing enemies of the party in defacto slavery pleases you.

Defacto slavery? Involuntary servitude?
I think if you offer your services to the public then your servitude is quite voluntary.

???? Dear Hutch Starskey

* So if camera operators agree to provide filming services to the public,
if a porn director seeks to hire them to shoot hard core porn,
they cannot turn down that work? They have to do whatever someone offers to hire them to film?
Really?

* If your publishing house prints magazines, then if someone hires you to publish porn, you HAVE to print it?
You cannot turn it anyone down because you are a business open to the public?

* If a maid offers to clean houses,
then if your house is filled with dirty condoms and dog feces,
that maid HAS to do the work if you offer to hire those services?
And cannot turn you down for any reason?
Since these house cleaning services are offered to the public?

What happened to common sense and courtesy? Where does it end?
And if it only applies to gay/lesbian discrimination, isn't that special rights?

Holyfuckingshit!

How ******* retarded are you???

No one is forcing anyone to provide a service they don't already provide.

Hi Faun
No, these Christians do not normally engage in business that involves gay weddings.
What do YOU not get about the difference between baking cakes and designing them for gay couples
against someone's beliefs?

Would you understand if it was Muslim cooks who normally serve food, but are asked to serve pork
which is against their beliefs?

Would you understand if a Christian business fixes cars, but not on Sundays when they are closed due to their religious practice?

What do YOU not understand about LIMITS or RULES to people's beliefs.
In the Hobby Lobby case, the point was made that they DID comply with laws on birth control,
but what crossed the line with their beliefs was particular Abortifacient drugs that went beyond and against.

So in that case, just because their company insurance provided CERTAIN levels of birth control
doesn't mean they have to provide OTHER kinds that VIOLATE THEIR BELIEFS.

Does that help? To show there is a difference between wedding services and GAY weddings?

Just because it doesn't make a difference to YOU, so you assume it doesn't violate other's beliefs
because you don't recognize them?

I don't follow Muslim or Hindu beliefs either; I eat both beef and pork.
But I am not going to assume that just because it doesn't offend MY beliefs, then Hindus and Muslims
would have to serve beef and pork because they serve other kinds of foods. How is that not different?

 

[koshergrl]

Kg, One of these days, I really believe that you are going to have a stroke, right here in front of everyone online!

Well, I don't want to be responsible, so I am off for the time being. In the meantime, let it out..let it ALLl out! it is the best therapy!

So if you believe in the letter of the law, you must be really committed to seeing the planned parenthood racketeering ring prosecuted to the nth degree. And I imagine you're adamant about delivering criminal illegal to the authorities for judication....right?

 

[Faun]

Including the baker? Isn't the baker simply having their " feelings hurt" by making the cake?

No, the baker is placed in involuntary servitude.

You are a leftist, thus dedicated to the eradication of civil rights, so the act of placing enemies of the party in defacto slavery pleases you.

Defacto slavery? Involuntary servitude?
I think if you offer your services to the public then your servitude is quite voluntary.

???? Dear Hutch Starskey

* So if camera operators agree to provide filming services to the public,
if a porn director seeks to hire them to shoot hard core porn,
they cannot turn down that work? They have to do whatever someone offers to hire them to film?
Really?

* If your publishing house prints magazines, then if someone hires you to publish porn, you HAVE to print it?
You cannot turn it anyone down because you are a business open to the public?

* If a maid offers to clean houses,
then if your house is filled with dirty condoms and dog feces,
that maid HAS to do the work if you offer to hire those services?
And cannot turn you down for any reason?
Since these house cleaning services are offered to the public?

What happened to common sense and courtesy? Where does it end?
And if it only applies to gay/lesbian discrimination, isn't that special rights?

Holyfuckingshit!

How ******* retarded are you???

No one is forcing anyone to provide a service they don't already provide.

Hi Faun
No, these Christians do not normally engage in business that involves gay weddings.
What do YOU not get about the difference between baking cakes and designing them for gay couples
against someone's beliefs?

Would you understand if it was Muslim cooks who normally serve food, but are asked to serve pork
which is against their beliefs?

Would you understand if a Christian business fixes cars, but not on Sundays when they are closed due to their religious practice?

What do YOU not understand about LIMITS or RULES to people's beliefs.
In the Hobby Lobby case, the point was made that they DID comply with laws on birth control,
but what crossed the line with their beliefs was particular Abortifacient drugs that went beyond and against.

So in that case, just because their company insurance provided CERTAIN levels of birth control
doesn't mean they have to provide OTHER kinds that VIOLATE THEIR BELIEFS.

Does that help? To show there is a difference between wedding services and GAY weddings?

Just because it doesn't make a difference to YOU, so you assume it doesn't violate other's beliefs
because you don't recognize them?

I don't follow Muslim or Hindu beliefs either; I eat both beef and pork.
But I am not going to assume that just because it doesn't offend MY beliefs, then Hindus and Muslims
would have to serve beef and pork because they serve other kinds of foods. How is that not different?

Now you're changing your tune. In the post of yours I responded to, you offered up examples of people being forced to offer a service they don't provide. That is not the circumstance in play regarding Sweet Cakes. They were not asked to perform a service beyond the services they already provided to the public. And hiding behind their religion, which is not supported by the Bible, failed them miserably. The law prevailed.

 

[emilynghiem]

It is unfortunate that the memory of society is so pitifully short. In my lifetime, I spent 20 years, in the 1960's and 1950's of listening to bigots explain that they were refusing service to African-Americans back home in Georgia, because segregation was god's plan. They closed their restaurants, marched around with ax handles, joined the KKK, and put the confederate battle flag back on the Georgia state flag.....

And, in the end,they lost. Even George Wallace told the press before he died that he had been wrong about segregation.

Obviously, today's religious bigots need more time to get their shit together.

What a sad bunch of losers....

It's not religious bigotry to refuse to create a cake for a homo wedding.

There still remains nothing in the Bible condemning the baking such a cake.

Nor is there anything in the Bible against integration, but your average fundie makes up his own Bible.

And there you go into Lala land. Progressives really are mentally ill.

suuuure ... we're the ones in "lala land," not you ....

"But Sweet Cakes is doing great business." ~ a brain-dead conservative​

Dear Faun and Carla_Danger

One of the main differences I see between us,
you only seem to recognize the protection against discrimination for the gay side of this equation.

I recognize beliefs on both sides that need to be protected from discrimination by the other side!

You remind me of people who only defend gays and lesbians but not the rights of bisexuals considered competition.

And I am saying gays. lesbians, bisexuals, transgender, straight, all orientations should be treated equally.

You are so busy trying to defend one particular side from imposition or abuse by the other,
you don't see the other side of the equation. When you go too far, it discriminates and punishes the other.

So that's where I am saying to keep people separated from each other who cannot tolerate each other's views.
If they can't resolve differences amicably, they should be banned from doing business with each other,
REGARDLESS of either sides' beliefs. That way it isn't taking sides or discriminating against either one.

Either both the customer and business respect each other's beliefs, and agree to conduct business together.
Or if they cannot reconcile their beliefs, they agree to REFRAIN from engaging in business to avoid conflict.

That would protect and treat all sides equally, instead of defending one view over another.

You are only defending one sides' beliefs, and apparently don't understand the other enough to respect it as equal. You write it off as 'wrong" the same way some anti-gay assume all homosexuality is 'wrong'

I treat both views as "unproven and faith based" so that people have equal right to their own beliefs.
Since neither side is proven to the other, this is faith based territory and govt should not be mandating laws.

 

[guno]

 

[emilynghiem]

No, the baker is placed in involuntary servitude.

You are a leftist, thus dedicated to the eradication of civil rights, so the act of placing enemies of the party in defacto slavery pleases you.

Defacto slavery? Involuntary servitude?
I think if you offer your services to the public then your servitude is quite voluntary.

???? Dear Hutch Starskey

* So if camera operators agree to provide filming services to the public,
if a porn director seeks to hire them to shoot hard core porn,
they cannot turn down that work? They have to do whatever someone offers to hire them to film?
Really?

* If your publishing house prints magazines, then if someone hires you to publish porn, you HAVE to print it?
You cannot turn it anyone down because you are a business open to the public?

* If a maid offers to clean houses,
then if your house is filled with dirty condoms and dog feces,
that maid HAS to do the work if you offer to hire those services?
And cannot turn you down for any reason?
Since these house cleaning services are offered to the public?

What happened to common sense and courtesy? Where does it end?
And if it only applies to gay/lesbian discrimination, isn't that special rights?

Holyfuckingshit!

How ******* retarded are you???

No one is forcing anyone to provide a service they don't already provide.

Hi Faun
No, these Christians do not normally engage in business that involves gay weddings.
What do YOU not get about the difference between baking cakes and designing them for gay couples
against someone's beliefs?

Would you understand if it was Muslim cooks who normally serve food, but are asked to serve pork
which is against their beliefs?

Would you understand if a Christian business fixes cars, but not on Sundays when they are closed due to their religious practice?

What do YOU not understand about LIMITS or RULES to people's beliefs.
In the Hobby Lobby case, the point was made that they DID comply with laws on birth control,
but what crossed the line with their beliefs was particular Abortifacient drugs that went beyond and against.

So in that case, just because their company insurance provided CERTAIN levels of birth control
doesn't mean they have to provide OTHER kinds that VIOLATE THEIR BELIEFS.

Does that help? To show there is a difference between wedding services and GAY weddings?

Just because it doesn't make a difference to YOU, so you assume it doesn't violate other's beliefs
because you don't recognize them?

I don't follow Muslim or Hindu beliefs either; I eat both beef and pork.
But I am not going to assume that just because it doesn't offend MY beliefs, then Hindus and Muslims
would have to serve beef and pork because they serve other kinds of foods. How is that not different?

Now you're changing your tune. In the post of yours I responded to, you offered up examples of people being forced to offer a service they don't provide. That is not the circumstance in play regarding Sweet Cakes. They were not asked to perform a service beyond the services they already provided to the public. And hiding behind their religion, which is not supported by the Bible, failed them miserably. The law prevailed.

I am talking in general, these laws are unenforceable because you would have to nitpick over
which business did or did not do X Y Z, instead of just recognizing the difference in beliefs as equal.

I am saying the better way to write protective laws is to require clients and businesses to sign agreements to either resolve disputes amicably in order to conduct business by mutual consent;
or agree NOT TO DO BUSINESS TOGETHER. That would eliminate any risk of abuses, discrimination or lawsuits. Both sides would agree the CONFLICT between them precludes any such business, without passing judgment on either sides' beliefs much less suing or fining over them.

If people don't agree to resolve their differences, that should already be grounds to avoid business contracts.
So that way, you avoid the conflict coming up at all. And you don't have to nitpick legally over who did what.
If you don't agree to do business together because of differences, then nip it in the bud and stop right there.
Regardless of the views, it is the CONFLICT between them that should be the reason for avoiding business.

That applies to ALL cases, regardless of what the business did or did not do in the past or present case.
As long as there is a disagreement in beliefs, the parties don't both agree to resolve, they should be prohibited or discouraged from doing business together to avoid legal actions and costs and expenses to the public.

 

[emilynghiem]

They force the issue because for them it's not about tolerance. It's about eradicating Christians and all ppl who don't share their world view. California democrats are trying to remove all traditional marriage references (the terms husband and wife) from the law. That's not equality, it's eradication.

Another bat shit crazy...

I will defend my arguments if you care to take it to the Bullring, Miss Thing.

Can you prove that Homosexuality is 100% genetic if you are going to compare it to Race?

Can you show me one case where someone changed their physical race
by going through spiritual healing as the people who have changed their orientation
(either gay to straight, or straight to gay, transgender etc) by going through spiritual healing?

How much do you want to bet that Orientation is not the same as Race?
I need to raise 2 million to help Pacifica Radio pay off debts,
10 million to set up health care and housing campus program for Veterans.

Since I know you would lose, I would pick a charity you believe in funding so you won't be a sore loser.
But at least you will help a cause that will take the sting out of being called out and proven wrong.

How much are you willing to bet Carla_Danger

Are you REALLY sure that Sexual Orientation is the same as Race? Really?
do you REALLY want to go there? There are a number of charities that could use the money.
Let me know if you really believe this, or if you know those two cannot be compared perfectly.

Surely you must know that some people can change their Orientation but not their Race!!!
You are highly critical and deeply thoughtful in your criticisms. Surely you know the difference!

I see you're having an emotional tantrum. Oregon law says that gay people ARE a protected class. That's all I need to know.

I can't help the fact that you are ignorant of our laws. That's your problem, not mine.

???
You were trying to equate Orientation with Race.
Because Orientation is Faith based
the Faith based beliefs of Christians who don't believe in supporting homosexuality
are LEGALLY on the same level as protected beliefs or creeds as progay beliefs.

So Carla_Danger if you only interpret and enforce laws that
protect the progay beliefs but not the antigay, which are equally faith based,
then you are supporting unequal laws or discrimination by creed.

This is like supporting laws that discriminated against Blacks.
Those laws WERE legal to enforce, just like the laws you cite now,
but it violated civil rights of people excluded and harassed, as Christians are complaining now.

I am glad you don't believe in discriminating against gays but dismayed that you believe it is okay to harass Christians for their beliefs while claiming to be against discrimination. Sadly ironic!

Sorry but the way you interpret one belief as protected, but not the other,
instead of treating both sides equally, that is a form of political discrimination by creed.

You can see when people discriminate against gay orientation but you cannot see when you are discriminating against Christian because you are convinced it is "wrong" -- which is the SAME assumption Christians make when discriminating against gays. You are hardly different!!

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but the courts have not fined Carla $135,000. They HAVE fined the Kleins $135,000. One party, or the other, has been found guilty of violation of the law. Can you guess which one?

Rosa Parks was also guilty of violating law, jailed for refusing to comply with segregation laws.
Are you going to depend on who the govt punishes as criteria to determine what is consistent?

 

[Faun]

Defacto slavery? Involuntary servitude?
I think if you offer your services to the public then your servitude is quite voluntary.

???? Dear Hutch Starskey

* So if camera operators agree to provide filming services to the public,
if a porn director seeks to hire them to shoot hard core porn,
they cannot turn down that work? They have to do whatever someone offers to hire them to film?
Really?

* If your publishing house prints magazines, then if someone hires you to publish porn, you HAVE to print it?
You cannot turn it anyone down because you are a business open to the public?

* If a maid offers to clean houses,
then if your house is filled with dirty condoms and dog feces,
that maid HAS to do the work if you offer to hire those services?
And cannot turn you down for any reason?
Since these house cleaning services are offered to the public?

What happened to common sense and courtesy? Where does it end?
And if it only applies to gay/lesbian discrimination, isn't that special rights?

Holyfuckingshit!

How ******* retarded are you???

No one is forcing anyone to provide a service they don't already provide.

Hi Faun
No, these Christians do not normally engage in business that involves gay weddings.
What do YOU not get about the difference between baking cakes and designing them for gay couples
against someone's beliefs?

Would you understand if it was Muslim cooks who normally serve food, but are asked to serve pork
which is against their beliefs?

Would you understand if a Christian business fixes cars, but not on Sundays when they are closed due to their religious practice?

What do YOU not understand about LIMITS or RULES to people's beliefs.
In the Hobby Lobby case, the point was made that they DID comply with laws on birth control,
but what crossed the line with their beliefs was particular Abortifacient drugs that went beyond and against.

So in that case, just because their company insurance provided CERTAIN levels of birth control
doesn't mean they have to provide OTHER kinds that VIOLATE THEIR BELIEFS.

Does that help? To show there is a difference between wedding services and GAY weddings?

Just because it doesn't make a difference to YOU, so you assume it doesn't violate other's beliefs
because you don't recognize them?

I don't follow Muslim or Hindu beliefs either; I eat both beef and pork.
But I am not going to assume that just because it doesn't offend MY beliefs, then Hindus and Muslims
would have to serve beef and pork because they serve other kinds of foods. How is that not different?

Now you're changing your tune. In the post of yours I responded to, you offered up examples of people being forced to offer a service they don't provide. That is not the circumstance in play regarding Sweet Cakes. They were not asked to perform a service beyond the services they already provided to the public. And hiding behind their religion, which is not supported by the Bible, failed them miserably. The law prevailed.

I am talking in general, these laws are unenforceable because you would have to nitpick over
which business did or did not do X Y Z, instead of just recognizing the difference in beliefs as equal.

I am saying the better way to write protective laws is to require clients and businesses to sign agreements to either resolve disputes amicably in order to conduct business by mutual consent;
or agree NOT TO DO BUSINESS TOGETHER. That would eliminate any risk of abuses, discrimination or lawsuits. Both sides would agree the CONFLICT between them precludes any such business, without passing judgment on either sides' beliefs much less suing or fining over them.

If people don't agree to resolve their differences, that should already be grounds to avoid business contracts.
So that way, you avoid the conflict coming up at all. And you don't have to nitpick legally over who did what.
If you don't agree to do business together because of differences, then nip it in the bud and stop right there.
Regardless of the views, it is the CONFLICT between them that should be the reason for avoiding business.

That applies to ALL cases, regardless of what the business did or did not do in the past or present case.
As long as there is a disagreement in beliefs, the parties don't both agree to resolve, they should be prohibited or discouraged from doing business together to avoid legal actions and costs and expenses to the public.

First of all, these laws are entirely enforceable; and are in fact, being enforced where applicable. Secondly, what I took issue with your post were the examples your were offering since they had nothing to do with why Sweet Cakes was fined. As far as there being a conflict here, there is a law on the books in Oregon prohibiting Sweet Cakes from discriminating against a customer based on their sexual preferences. Sweet Cakes violated that and the lesbian couple was within their right to file a complaint -- which they did.

 

[koshergrl]

Another bat shit crazy...

I will defend my arguments if you care to take it to the Bullring, Miss Thing.

Can you prove that Homosexuality is 100% genetic if you are going to compare it to Race?

Can you show me one case where someone changed their physical race
by going through spiritual healing as the people who have changed their orientation
(either gay to straight, or straight to gay, transgender etc) by going through spiritual healing?

How much do you want to bet that Orientation is not the same as Race?
I need to raise 2 million to help Pacifica Radio pay off debts,
10 million to set up health care and housing campus program for Veterans.

Since I know you would lose, I would pick a charity you believe in funding so you won't be a sore loser.
But at least you will help a cause that will take the sting out of being called out and proven wrong.

How much are you willing to bet Carla_Danger

Are you REALLY sure that Sexual Orientation is the same as Race? Really?
do you REALLY want to go there? There are a number of charities that could use the money.
Let me know if you really believe this, or if you know those two cannot be compared perfectly.

Surely you must know that some people can change their Orientation but not their Race!!!
You are highly critical and deeply thoughtful in your criticisms. Surely you know the difference!

I see you're having an emotional tantrum. Oregon law says that gay people ARE a protected class. That's all I need to know.

I can't help the fact that you are ignorant of our laws. That's your problem, not mine.

???
You were trying to equate Orientation with Race.
Because Orientation is Faith based
the Faith based beliefs of Christians who don't believe in supporting homosexuality
are LEGALLY on the same level as protected beliefs or creeds as progay beliefs.

So Carla_Danger if you only interpret and enforce laws that
protect the progay beliefs but not the antigay, which are equally faith based,
then you are supporting unequal laws or discrimination by creed.

This is like supporting laws that discriminated against Blacks.
Those laws WERE legal to enforce, just like the laws you cite now,
but it violated civil rights of people excluded and harassed, as Christians are complaining now.

I am glad you don't believe in discriminating against gays but dismayed that you believe it is okay to harass Christians for their beliefs while claiming to be against discrimination. Sadly ironic!

Sorry but the way you interpret one belief as protected, but not the other,
instead of treating both sides equally, that is a form of political discrimination by creed.

You can see when people discriminate against gay orientation but you cannot see when you are discriminating against Christian because you are convinced it is "wrong" -- which is the SAME assumption Christians make when discriminating against gays. You are hardly different!!

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but the courts have not fined Carla $135,000. They HAVE fined the Kleins $135,000. One party, or the other, has been found guilty of violation of the law. Can you guess which one?

Rosa Parks was also guilty of violating law, jailed for refusing to comply with segregation laws.
Are you going to depend on who the govt punishes as criteria to determine what is consistent?

They are corrupt, Emily. They see corruption and tyranny as acceptable if they think it affords them power.

 

[Skylar]

Hi Faun
No, these Christians do not normally engage in business that involves gay weddings.
What do YOU not get about the difference between baking cakes and designing them for gay couples
against someone's beliefs?

Cake is cake. There's no such thing as 'gay cake'. If you bake cakes, bake them for gays and lesbians. And for black folks. And for women. And for Christians.

Its when you start denying services to say, Christians.......or black people......or gays....or women.....that you run into trouble.

Would you understand if it was Muslim cooks who normally serve food, but are asked to serve pork
which is against their beliefs?

But Muslim cooks don't normally cook pork for anyone. While cake makers normally make cake.

See the difference? A gay couple isn't asking a cake maker to do anything they don't already do. And advertise for.

Would you understand if a Christian business fixes cars, but not on Sundays when they are closed due to their religious practice?

Then on Monday the Christian bakers will bake the cake for the gay couple? Or is this yet another analogy that has nothing to do with what is being discussed?

What do YOU not understand about LIMITS or RULES to people's beliefs.
In the Hobby Lobby case, the point was made that they DID comply with laws on birth control,
but what crossed the line with their beliefs was particular Abortifacient drugs that went beyond and against.

So in that case, just because their company insurance provided CERTAIN levels of birth control
doesn't mean they have to provide OTHER kinds that VIOLATE THEIR BELIEFS.

Does that help? To show there is a difference between wedding services and GAY weddings?

So if they wanted to deny a cake to black folks because they imagined a difference between wedding services and BLACK weddings....you're down with that? Or if a deli didn't want to serve Christians because it imagined a difference between 'sandwich services' and 'CHRISTIAN sandwiches', you'd be cool with anyone denying any service to Christians?

If so, what laws couldn't you ignore because of religious beliefs?

 

[Skylar]

I will defend my arguments if you care to take it to the Bullring, Miss Thing.

Can you prove that Homosexuality is 100% genetic if you are going to compare it to Race?

Can you show me one case where someone changed their physical race
by going through spiritual healing as the people who have changed their orientation
(either gay to straight, or straight to gay, transgender etc) by going through spiritual healing?

How much do you want to bet that Orientation is not the same as Race?
I need to raise 2 million to help Pacifica Radio pay off debts,
10 million to set up health care and housing campus program for Veterans.

Since I know you would lose, I would pick a charity you believe in funding so you won't be a sore loser.
But at least you will help a cause that will take the sting out of being called out and proven wrong.

How much are you willing to bet Carla_Danger

Are you REALLY sure that Sexual Orientation is the same as Race? Really?
do you REALLY want to go there? There are a number of charities that could use the money.
Let me know if you really believe this, or if you know those two cannot be compared perfectly.

Surely you must know that some people can change their Orientation but not their Race!!!
You are highly critical and deeply thoughtful in your criticisms. Surely you know the difference!

I see you're having an emotional tantrum. Oregon law says that gay people ARE a protected class. That's all I need to know.

I can't help the fact that you are ignorant of our laws. That's your problem, not mine.

???
You were trying to equate Orientation with Race.
Because Orientation is Faith based
the Faith based beliefs of Christians who don't believe in supporting homosexuality
are LEGALLY on the same level as protected beliefs or creeds as progay beliefs.

So Carla_Danger if you only interpret and enforce laws that
protect the progay beliefs but not the antigay, which are equally faith based,
then you are supporting unequal laws or discrimination by creed.

This is like supporting laws that discriminated against Blacks.
Those laws WERE legal to enforce, just like the laws you cite now,
but it violated civil rights of people excluded and harassed, as Christians are complaining now.

I am glad you don't believe in discriminating against gays but dismayed that you believe it is okay to harass Christians for their beliefs while claiming to be against discrimination. Sadly ironic!

Sorry but the way you interpret one belief as protected, but not the other,
instead of treating both sides equally, that is a form of political discrimination by creed.

You can see when people discriminate against gay orientation but you cannot see when you are discriminating against Christian because you are convinced it is "wrong" -- which is the SAME assumption Christians make when discriminating against gays. You are hardly different!!

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but the courts have not fined Carla $135,000. They HAVE fined the Kleins $135,000. One party, or the other, has been found guilty of violation of the law. Can you guess which one?

Rosa Parks was also guilty of violating law, jailed for refusing to comply with segregation laws.
Are you going to depend on who the govt punishes as criteria to determine what is consistent?

They are corrupt, Emily. They see corruption and tyranny as acceptable if they think it affords them power.

There's nothing corrupt or tyranical about ordering a cake from a cake maker.

God you folks are overly melodramatic.

 

[Skylar]

Another bat shit crazy...

I will defend my arguments if you care to take it to the Bullring, Miss Thing.

Can you prove that Homosexuality is 100% genetic if you are going to compare it to Race?

Can you show me one case where someone changed their physical race
by going through spiritual healing as the people who have changed their orientation
(either gay to straight, or straight to gay, transgender etc) by going through spiritual healing?

How much do you want to bet that Orientation is not the same as Race?
I need to raise 2 million to help Pacifica Radio pay off debts,
10 million to set up health care and housing campus program for Veterans.

Since I know you would lose, I would pick a charity you believe in funding so you won't be a sore loser.
But at least you will help a cause that will take the sting out of being called out and proven wrong.

How much are you willing to bet Carla_Danger

Are you REALLY sure that Sexual Orientation is the same as Race? Really?
do you REALLY want to go there? There are a number of charities that could use the money.
Let me know if you really believe this, or if you know those two cannot be compared perfectly.

Surely you must know that some people can change their Orientation but not their Race!!!
You are highly critical and deeply thoughtful in your criticisms. Surely you know the difference!

I see you're having an emotional tantrum. Oregon law says that gay people ARE a protected class. That's all I need to know.

I can't help the fact that you are ignorant of our laws. That's your problem, not mine.

???
You were trying to equate Orientation with Race.
Because Orientation is Faith based
the Faith based beliefs of Christians who don't believe in supporting homosexuality
are LEGALLY on the same level as protected beliefs or creeds as progay beliefs.

So Carla_Danger if you only interpret and enforce laws that
protect the progay beliefs but not the antigay, which are equally faith based,
then you are supporting unequal laws or discrimination by creed.

This is like supporting laws that discriminated against Blacks.
Those laws WERE legal to enforce, just like the laws you cite now,
but it violated civil rights of people excluded and harassed, as Christians are complaining now.

I am glad you don't believe in discriminating against gays but dismayed that you believe it is okay to harass Christians for their beliefs while claiming to be against discrimination. Sadly ironic!

Sorry but the way you interpret one belief as protected, but not the other,
instead of treating both sides equally, that is a form of political discrimination by creed.

You can see when people discriminate against gay orientation but you cannot see when you are discriminating against Christian because you are convinced it is "wrong" -- which is the SAME assumption Christians make when discriminating against gays. You are hardly different!!

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but the courts have not fined Carla $135,000. They HAVE fined the Kleins $135,000. One party, or the other, has been found guilty of violation of the law. Can you guess which one?

Rosa Parks was also guilty of violating law, jailed for refusing to comply with segregation laws.
Are you going to depend on who the govt punishes as criteria to determine what is consistent?

You're actually comparing a couple who denied cake services to a gay couple.....with Rosa Parks?

In your analogy, your cake bakers are much more analogous to the bus driver who denied services to Rosa Parks.

 

[JoeB131]

They force the issue because for them it's not about tolerance. It's about eradicating Christians and all ppl who don't share their world view. California democrats are trying to remove all traditional marriage references (the terms husband and wife) from the law. That's not equality, it's eradication.

Again, not seeing how your straight marriage is effected in any way if the law says "spouse" instead of "wife'.

Maybe we should have marriage certificates say "Ball and Chain". That'd be hilarious.

 

[JoeB131]

It's not religious bigotry to refuse to create a cake for a homo wedding.

The law says otherwise. Actually it's using religion as an excuse for bigotry, since there are a shitload of rules that the Bible has the Kleins probably don't give a shit about. I'm sure they made plenty of cakes for women who weren't virgins on their wedding day, wore braids and jewelry, wrote their own vows and wore pants. All things the Bible also says are wrong but only a few very fanatical sects still follow in the 21st century.

 

[JoeB131]

So if you believe in the letter of the law, you must be really committed to seeing the planned parenthood racketeering ring prosecuted to the nth degree. And I imagine you're adamant about delivering criminal illegal to the authorities for judication....right?

Planned Parenthood didn't break any laws, if you listen to the whole tape.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

You create a strawman argument which has no bearing on how Public Accommodations laws work.

* So if camera operators agree to provide filming services to the public,
if a porn director seeks to hire them to shoot hard core porn,
they cannot turn down that work? They have to do whatever someone offers to hire them to film?
Really?

That is not how Public Accommodation laws work. They do not require that businesses provide and good or service to the public, the only mandate the **IF** goods and services are voluntarily offered by the business then that business cannot refuse service based on certain characteristics of the customer. Such characteristics are defined and the Federal and State (with variation by State) level as race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status.

So to your example, a film company that doesn't do porn for anyone, is not required to accept a contract to do porn. However if a company DOES DO PORN, then they cannot refuse to do porn based on the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status (depending on location) of the customer.

They are free to refuse a contract for any other reason not related to the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status (depending on location) of the customer.

* If your publishing house prints magazines, then if someone hires you to publish porn, you HAVE to print it?
You cannot turn it anyone down because you are a business open to the public?

That is not how Public Accommodation laws work. They do not require that businesses provide and good or service to the public, the only mandate the **IF** goods and services are voluntarily offered by the business then that business cannot refuse service based on certain characteristics of the customer. Such characteristics are defined and the Federal and State (with variation by State) level as race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status.

So to your example, a publishing house that doesn't do porn for anyone, is not required to accept a contract to do porn. However if a company DOES DO PORN, then they cannot refuse to do porn based on the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status (depending on location) of the customer.

They are free to refuse a contract for any other reason not related to the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status (depending on location) of the customer.

* If a maid offers to clean houses,
then if your house is filled with dirty condoms and dog feces,
that maid HAS to do the work if you offer to hire those services?
And cannot turn you down for any reason?
Since these house cleaning services are offered to the public?

That is not how Public Accommodation laws work. They do not require that businesses provide and good or service to the public, the only mandate the **IF** goods and services are voluntarily offered by the business then that business cannot refuse service based on certain characteristics of the customer. Such characteristics are defined and the Federal and State (with variation by State) level as race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status.

So to your example, a cleaning service that doesn't clean pigsty's for anyone, is not required to accept a contract to do pigsty's, say they offer light cleaning services and deep cleaning are not the speciality. However if a company DOES DO deep cleaning, then they cannot refuse a contract based on the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status (depending on location) of the customer.

They are free to refuse a contract for any other reason not related to the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status (depending on location) of the customer.

What happened to common sense and courtesy? Where does it end?

In the Sweetcakes cake, know that went out the window when Aaron Klein referred to the couple as an abomination.

And if it only applies to gay/lesbian discrimination, isn't that special rights?

Nope again you mis-characterize Public Accommodation laws. There is no Public Accommodation law that only applies to gays/lesbians. EVERY one (where it is listed) says "sexual orientation". Sexual Orientation includes both heterosexual and homosexuals.

Your statement ignores that Public Accommodation laws include characteristics such as race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status (depending on location) - therefore the laws present no "special rights" to gays/lesbians.

It is illegal, from a Federal and State perspective, for a gay business owner to discriminate against a customer because they are Christian (or Muslim or Hindu), however it is not illegal in many States for a Christian business owner to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

*********************************************

Glad to be able to explain how PA laws work for you.

No need to thank me.

>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, these Christians do not normally engage in business that involves gay weddings.
What do YOU not get about the difference between baking cakes and designing them for gay couples
against someone's beliefs?

Business are not require to sell wedding cakes. Public Accommodation laws however mandate that if they do sell wedding cakes they cannot refuse service based on the customers race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status (depending on location) of the customer.

Would you understand if it was Muslim cooks who normally serve food, but are asked to serve pork
which is against their beliefs?

That is not how Public Accommodation laws work. They do not require that businesses provide and good or service to the public, the only mandate the **IF** goods and services are voluntarily offered by the business then that business cannot refuse service based on certain characteristics of the customer. Such characteristics are defined and the Federal and State (with variation by State) level as race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status.

So to your example, a Muslim restaurant doesn't do pork for anyone, it is not required to accept an order to do pork. However if it DOES DO PORK, then they cannot refuse to do pork based on the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status (depending on location) of the customer.

They are free to refuse an order for any other reason not related to the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status (depending on location) of the customer.

Would you understand if a Christian business fixes cars, but not on Sundays when they are closed due to their religious practice?

That is not how Public Accommodation laws work. They do not require that businesses provide and good or service to the public, the only mandate the **IF** goods and services are voluntarily offered by the business then that business cannot refuse service based on certain characteristics of the customer. Such characteristics are defined and the Federal and State (with variation by State) level as race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status.

So to your example, a mechanic isn't open on Sundays for anyone, it is not required to be open on Sundays. However if it DOES open on Sundays, then they cannot refuse work based on the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status (depending on location) of the customer.

They are free to refuse not accept work for any other reason not related to the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status (depending on location) of the customer.

In the Hobby Lobby case, the point was made that they DID comply with laws on birth control,
but what crossed the line with their beliefs was particular Abortifacient drugs that went beyond and against.

The Hobby Lobby case had nothing to do with Public Accommodation laws. It had to do with employment law under ObamaCare.

But to put in the context of Public Accommodation laws.\

That is not how Public Accommodation laws work. They do not require that businesses provide and good or service to the public, the only mandate the **IF** goods and services are voluntarily offered by the business then that business cannot refuse service based on certain characteristics of the customer. Such characteristics are defined and the Federal and State (with variation by State) level as race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status.

So to your example, an insurance company offers policies but none of them cover birth control., it is not required to write policies that cover birth control. However if it DOES offer policies the cover birth control, then they cannot refuse to write such policies based on the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status (depending on location) of the customer.

They are free to refuse to not write policies for any other reason not related to the race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status (depending on location) of the customer.

(Note inclusion of such requirements may exist under other functions of law, the above reflects the impact of Public Accommodation law.)

*********************************************

Glad to be able to explain how PA laws work for you.

No need to thank me.

>>>>

 

[Carla_Danger]

It's not religious bigotry to refuse to create a cake for a homo wedding.

There still remains nothing in the Bible condemning the baking such a cake.

Nor is there anything in the Bible against integration, but your average fundie makes up his own Bible.

And there you go into Lala land. Progressives really are mentally ill.

suuuure ... we're the ones in "lala land," not you ....

"But Sweet Cakes is doing great business." ~ a brain-dead conservative​

Dear Faun and Carla_Danger

One of the main differences I see between us,
you only seem to recognize the protection against discrimination for the gay side of this equation.

I recognize beliefs on both sides that need to be protected from discrimination by the other side!

You remind me of people who only defend gays and lesbians but not the rights of bisexuals considered competition.

And I am saying gays. lesbians, bisexuals, transgender, straight, all orientations should be treated equally.

You are so busy trying to defend one particular side from imposition or abuse by the other,
you don't see the other side of the equation. When you go too far, it discriminates and punishes the other.

So that's where I am saying to keep people separated from each other who cannot tolerate each other's views.
If they can't resolve differences amicably, they should be banned from doing business with each other,
REGARDLESS of either sides' beliefs. That way it isn't taking sides or discriminating against either one.

Either both the customer and business respect each other's beliefs, and agree to conduct business together.
Or if they cannot reconcile their beliefs, they agree to REFRAIN from engaging in business to avoid conflict.

That would protect and treat all sides equally, instead of defending one view over another.

You are only defending one sides' beliefs, and apparently don't understand the other enough to respect it as equal. You write it off as 'wrong" the same way some anti-gay assume all homosexuality is 'wrong'

I treat both views as "unproven and faith based" so that people have equal right to their own beliefs.
Since neither side is proven to the other, this is faith based territory and govt should not be mandating laws.

You have the mind of a child.

I don't give two shits about the religious beliefs of a business owner. The business owner is in business to make a profit. If they want to spend the day forcing their religion on others, they need to close up shop and open a church.

DISCRIMINATION IS AGAINST THE LAW, and in Oregon, it's against the law to discriminate toward same sex couples.

If you don't like it, tough shit. Don't open a business.