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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Batshittians 3:42: "Because it was destiny that sweet cakes, Jeebus and 'ghey' would all belong within the same sentence one day in the land of Or, for the holy Spaghetti Monster foresaw it all with his longest noodle."​

Sweet Cakes final order Gresham bakery must pay 135 000 for denying service to same-sex couple OregonLive.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So, when do the cries of evil, evil, evil ZOG persecution begin?
And when will this all be Obama's fault?
And when does the GoFundMe account go up?
Anyone know how much delicious icing 135 K can buy?

No mudslinging, folks! But you may throw delicious icing.

If it's so "dreaded" why are you posting about it?

It isn't, that's the point.

It's a manifestation of the willful ignorance of the law where most on the right have contrived and seek to propagate the lie that this represents some sort of 'injustice,' the lie that these individuals are being 'punished for their faith,' and the lie that their religious liberty is somehow being 'violated' – again, all ridiculous lies intended to advance an agenda hostile to gay Americans.

just one question: why didn't the gay couple buy their cake from a gay baker or a baker who approved of gay marriage?

This whole episode in just another example of in-your-face liberal bullshit. "If you don't believe what we believe then we will destroy you".

You fricken libs are so full of rightous shit. you claim you want tolerance but are totally intolerant of anyone who does not share your view of the world. YOU ARE HYPOCRITES OF THE HIGHEST DEGREE.

Because the idiotic notion that Americans should be compelled to participate in the local marketplace mindful of businesses hostile to who they are – thus avoiding those businesses – is harmful to the local market, all other interrelated markets, and is detrimental to commerce, where government is at liberty to regulate the local market to prevent such an occurrence.

What's sad and telling is that you and others on the right actually want to live in this type of America, an America where citizens must say “we aren't allowed in this store, the owner is hostile to who we are'; that's not who we are as a people, we are better than that.

Personally I have no problem with a gay business if they only want to serve gays. Of course, I have common sense

Actually what you perceive as 'common sense' is just being ignorant and ridiculous.

 

[frigidweirdo]

More stupidity. The problem is not what is on the cake; the problem is denying service to a gay person

BS, a gay person can buy any kind of cake he/she wants. But the baker should not be forced to put his product on display at a gay wedding if that violates his religious or personal beliefs.

As if on cue – an example of the willful ignorance of the law common to most on the right.

Listen dipshit, we understand what the SC ruling means. That makes it law, but it does not make it right.

the next SC could reverse this ruling. enjoy while you can.

No, it doesn't make it right. It is right.

No SC will reverse this.

that is your opinion

we will see what a future SC does with this violation of states rights.

Not really. The problem is once something has been granted to all people, it's almost impossible to take it away. This was a 5 to 4 ruling.

Which is possible to have a change. You need a Republican president. Three SC justices are old, two voted for gay marriage. You're looking at Roberts, Alito being dubya's appointments, and Thomas being Bush senior's appointment and Scalia being a Reagan appointment. They voted for no gay marriage.

But Kennedy was also a Reagan appointment and is going against the right. That's not going to change any time soon. So, the right need a president, they also need to lose some of those appointments.

They also need someone who is going to take a court case to the Supreme Court about how gay marriage gives them problems. That's going to be almost impossible.

 

[Redfish]

just one question: why didn't the gay couple buy their cake from a gay baker or a baker who approved of gay marriage?

This whole episode in just another example of in-your-face liberal bullshit. "If you don't believe what we believe then we will destroy you".

You fricken libs are so full of rightous shit. you claim you want tolerance but are totally intolerant of anyone who does not share your view of the world. YOU ARE HYPOCRITES OF THE HIGHEST DEGREE.

And why didn't the black person go and buy their cake from a black baker who approves of black people?

Should everyone have to walk into a bakery and ask if the person working there approves of all of the things they are?

"Er... hi, I'm straight, I'm male, I'm into sycronised swimming, I like to eat meat, I love wearing tutus on the weekend, I read books before going to be, I work in a minimum wage job, I vote Republican, I have a pet cat, I did some coke when I was in college (not sure if it was Coca-Cola or white powered coke), sometimes I drink alcohol, I fart occasionally in lifts, I love watching friends on TV, my three brothers are all mass murderers in federal prisons, one awaiting execution because he had the audacity to kill a white man, I served in the military, I don't own guns, I think Obama's okay. Can I buy a cake from you?"

funny, but foolish.

but how about this one: go into a muslim bakery and ask for a gay wedding cake with bacon trimming.


then sue them for cutting off your head.

Are you truly this ignorant and ridiculous to believe that a 'Muslim bakery' is actually going to sell as a normal course of business something with bacon.

And this is yet another example of your ignorance and stupidity.

Public accommodations laws concern solely what a business does as part of its normal course of doing business.

I was being absurd in response to an absurd post. Sorry if it was over your head.

 

[Redfish]

BS, a gay person can buy any kind of cake he/she wants. But the baker should not be forced to put his product on display at a gay wedding if that violates his religious or personal beliefs.

As if on cue – an example of the willful ignorance of the law common to most on the right.

Listen dipshit, we understand what the SC ruling means. That makes it law, but it does not make it right.

the next SC could reverse this ruling. enjoy while you can.

No, it doesn't make it right. It is right.

No SC will reverse this.

that is your opinion

we will see what a future SC does with this violation of states rights.

Not really. The problem is once something has been granted to all people, it's almost impossible to take it away. This was a 5 to 4 ruling.

Which is possible to have a change. You need a Republican president. Three SC justices are old, two voted for gay marriage. You're looking at Roberts, Alito being dubya's appointments, and Thomas being Bush senior's appointment and Scalia being a Reagan appointment. They voted for no gay marriage.

But Kennedy was also a Reagan appointment and is going against the right. That's not going to change any time soon. So, the right need a president, they also need to lose some of those appointments.

They also need someone who is going to take a court case to the Supreme Court about how gay marriage gives them problems. That's going to be almost impossible.

maybe, but neither of us can predict the future, who would have predicted that obozo and the hildebeast would be against gay marriage before they were for it.

and as to the gay baker incident: common sense and respect should have prevailed, not this partisan bullshit. as I said

The anti gay marriage baker should have said. "I would prefer not to make your cake because gay marriage is against my religious and personal beliefs, but baker John down the street will do a great cake for you". and the gay couple should have said "we respect your beliefs and thanks for recommending baker John".

 

[frigidweirdo]

funny, but foolish.

but how about this one: go into a muslim bakery and ask for a gay wedding cake with bacon trimming.


then sue them for cutting off your head.

Well, I'm sure the Muslim bakery would say they don't do cakes with bacon trimming. I mean, I'm sure ALL bakeries would say the same thing.

What we're talking about here is a business which says "this is what we sell" then denying what they say they sell to people because they don't like the person who is buying it.

So, your analogy is just wrong.

 

[Silhouette]

But Kennedy was also a Reagan appointment and is going against the right. That's not going to change any time soon. So, the right need a president, they also need to lose some of those appointments.

They also need someone who is going to take a court case to the Supreme Court about how gay marriage gives them problems. That's going to be almost impossible.

1. Kennedy as a Justice by definition should not have a predictable stance.

2. That you feel you can predict him is troubling.

3. Perhaps the six or so adult children raised by gay couples who wrote amicus briefs against gay marriage could petition a case on behalf of children.

4. "Gay" is a behavior. So for that matter any citizen who feels they have a right as a voter to regulate any behaviors (since gay ones aren't more or less special than any others due to equality) might bring a case for suppression of their civil rights.

5. Texas may bring a case for suppression of its civil rights to govern by majority rule.

6. And then there's the aspect of the 1st Amendment and the 9th which says that no other contemporary addition to the Constitution may suppress rights enjoyed in another part.

7. And then there's the problem that the new addition of "behaviors equal race' to the Constitution, which suppresses voters rights to self-govern with regards to behaviors (the only reason TO self-govern) was done by the judicial branch when the legislative is the only one with power to do that.

I'd like to see your rebuttal to 1-7 Frigid.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

maybe, but neither of us can predict the future, who would have predicted that obozo and the hildebeast would be against gay marriage before they were for it.

No prediction was necessary and the one on them changing their minds was easy since much of the public did the same. Even the SC just waited it out until the obvious was easy.

 

[frigidweirdo]

maybe, but neither of us can predict the future, who would have predicted that obozo and the hildebeast would be against gay marriage before they were for it.

and as to the gay baker incident: common sense and respect should have prevailed, not this partisan bullshit. as I said

The anti gay marriage baker should have said. "I would prefer not to make your cake because gay marriage is against my religious and personal beliefs, but baker John down the street will do a great cake for you". and the gay couple should have said "we respect your beliefs and thanks for recommending baker John".

Common sense in the baker incident? You mean, you don't want people to abide by the law of the land, and that people getting away with breaking the law is "common sense"?

Huh?

No, the baker should have said "sure, we'll make the cake for you, because we're a business and while we don't agree with something, we respect you as a human being with feelings, and we'll make it for you because we're Christian and we claim to love all God's creatures and we actually also act on this unlike a lot of other Christians who just use their religion for pure bigotry".

But they didn't.

 

[mikegriffith1]

In America, you're not supposed to be punished for not wanting to support or service a ceremony that you find offensive. We're not talking about refusing to serve someone a burger or rent them a room. We're talking about not wanting to support a ceremony that violates your religious beliefs. In America, you're supposed to be free to decline to be involved with a ceremony if you find the ceremony offensive.

 

[Redfish]

maybe, but neither of us can predict the future, who would have predicted that obozo and the hildebeast would be against gay marriage before they were for it.

and as to the gay baker incident: common sense and respect should have prevailed, not this partisan bullshit. as I said

The anti gay marriage baker should have said. "I would prefer not to make your cake because gay marriage is against my religious and personal beliefs, but baker John down the street will do a great cake for you". and the gay couple should have said "we respect your beliefs and thanks for recommending baker John".

Common sense in the baker incident? You mean, you don't want people to abide by the law of the land, and that people getting away with breaking the law is "common sense"?

Huh?

No, the baker should have said "sure, we'll make the cake for you, because we're a business and while we don't agree with something, we respect you as a human being with feelings, and we'll make it for you because we're Christian and we claim to love all God's creatures and we actually also act on this unlike a lot of other Christians who just use their religion for pure bigotry".

But they didn't.

We have a difference of opinion. you have the right to express yours and I have the right to express mine.

neither you nor the government can force me to accept your opinions. But you think you can and thats the real problem.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

In America, you're not supposed to be punished for not wanting to support or service a ceremony that you find offensive. We're not talking about refusing to serve someone a burger or rent them a room. We're talking about not wanting to support a ceremony that violates your religious beliefs. In America, you're supposed to be free to decline to be involved with a ceremony if you find the ceremony offensive.

They would have had no involvement beyond making the cake which is business, not faith. That is for home and church, not a business that serves the public.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

maybe, but neither of us can predict the future, who would have predicted that obozo and the hildebeast would be against gay marriage before they were for it.

and as to the gay baker incident: common sense and respect should have prevailed, not this partisan bullshit. as I said

The anti gay marriage baker should have said. "I would prefer not to make your cake because gay marriage is against my religious and personal beliefs, but baker John down the street will do a great cake for you". and the gay couple should have said "we respect your beliefs and thanks for recommending baker John".

Common sense in the baker incident? You mean, you don't want people to abide by the law of the land, and that people getting away with breaking the law is "common sense"?

Huh?

No, the baker should have said "sure, we'll make the cake for you, because we're a business and while we don't agree with something, we respect you as a human being with feelings, and we'll make it for you because we're Christian and we claim to love all God's creatures and we actually also act on this unlike a lot of other Christians who just use their religion for pure bigotry".

But they didn't.

We have a difference of opinion. you have the right to express yours and I have the right to express mine.

neither you nor the government can force me to accept your opinions. But you think you can and thats the real problem.

Our collective opinion is that you are wrong so, obey the law or face the consequences, your choice.

 

[paperview]

They choose to press charges for this horrific trauma.

They don't have to.

This selective passion for the law is terribly transparent.

.

They didn't "press charges."

They filed a complaint with the Labor Board.

The Kleins were breaking the law.

 

[Mac1958]

They choose to press charges for this horrific trauma.

They don't have to.

This selective passion for the law is terribly transparent.

.

They didn't "press charges."

They filed a complaint with the Labor Board.

The Kleins were breaking the law.

Great, they chose to file a complaint, thanks.

.

 

[Statistikhengst]

In America, you're not supposed to be punished for not wanting to support or service a ceremony that you find offensive. We're not talking about refusing to serve someone a burger or rent them a room. We're talking about not wanting to support a ceremony that violates your religious beliefs. In America, you're supposed to be free to decline to be involved with a ceremony if you find the ceremony offensive.

They would have had no involvement beyond making the cake which is business, not faith. That is for home and church, not a business that serves the public.

Yepp. Sometimes, it's just that simple.

 

[frigidweirdo]

1. Kennedy as a Justice by definition should not have a predictable stance.

2. That you feel you can predict him is troubling.

3. Perhaps the six or so adult children raised by gay couples who wrote amicus briefs against gay marriage could petition a case on behalf of children.

4. "Gay" is a behavior. So for that matter any citizen who feels they have a right as a voter to regulate any behaviors (since gay ones aren't more or less special than any others due to equality) might bring a case for suppression of their civil rights.

5. Texas may bring a case for suppression of its civil rights to govern by majority rule.

6. And then there's the aspect of the 1st Amendment and the 9th which says that no other contemporary addition to the Constitution may suppress rights enjoyed in another part.

7. And then there's the problem that the new addition of "behaviors equal race' to the Constitution, which suppresses voters rights to self-govern with regards to behaviors (the only reason TO self-govern) was done by the judicial branch when the legislative is the only one with power to do that.

I'd like to see your rebuttal to 1-7 Frigid.

1) Should not have a "predictable stance", what does that mean? I want to say, surely they should interpret the constitution in a predictable manner because the constitution should be quite predictable in the first place. What worries me a lot is that 4 Supreme Court justices think the 14th Amendment is a load of carp.

2) Why would it be worrying that you could predict what someone does?

3) Six or so children of those in gay couples, wow, so, because of six children in the US, all gay people should be denied equal rights? Hmm, that's interesting.
So, I would take from this stance that you too don't like rights either.

4) ""Gay" is a behavior"? Playing basketball is a behavior, does that mean anyone who plays basketball should be denied the right to choose the consenting adult they wish to marry?

5) Texas can do what it likes. It won't make it to the Supreme Court. The Constitution is clear. States get POWERS (not rights, states don't have rights) that the Constitution hasn't given to the federal govt. The 14th Amendment equality of the law clearly states that the federal govt and the state govts CAN'T treat people in a manner which isn't equal to the law.

So anything Texas does will get taken down time and again, they'll only win with judges who are in their favor automatically. But they're not going to get through the whole federal court system AND be accepted by the Supreme Court.

6) Anyone who thinks your freedom of religion is being suppressed by people marrying is going to fall flat on their face. It's an idiotic argument at best.

7) again, you go off on "behavior", which doesn't make any difference. All individuals should have the right to choose the consenting person of their choice to marry, that's equality under the law (within reason, incest is considered harmful to potential children so is not allowed).

 

[frigidweirdo]

In America, you're not supposed to be punished for not wanting to support or service a ceremony that you find offensive. We're not talking about refusing to serve someone a burger or rent them a room. We're talking about not wanting to support a ceremony that violates your religious beliefs. In America, you're supposed to be free to decline to be involved with a ceremony if you find the ceremony offensive.

So, if I find black marriage offensive, I can refuse to serve people who are taking part in a black marriage.

Good ol' You es ay.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Breaking news, direct from Jeebus!!!

 

[Rexx Taylor]

Sweet Cakes bakery must pay $135,000 to lesbian couple
Final order Sweet Cakes bakery must pay 135 000 to lesbian couple Local Regional KATU.com - Portland News Sports Traffic Weather and Breaking News - Portland Oregon

"They've been ordered to pay $135,000 to make up for the emotional damage they caused by telling this couple no."

The Kleins can appeal the ruling. They've already closed their store and now work out of their home by order only, meaning they're no longer a "public accommodation."

The absurd way this order describes the emotional damage done to this couple.

well then, i want 135,000 for the emotional distress I went thru after 9/11.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

I feel sorry for those fruiters who had their feelings hurt but I'm sure $135,000 will make the little faggots feel better.

And you just know they're huddling and deciding which church they want to target for a lawsuit first. One thing is for sure, it won't be a black church.

and also! fine, I want to sue Coke for 250,000 for the hell I went thru after they took "Old Coke" off the shelves in 1986 !!!!