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

[eagle1462010]

Disclaimer...............No Muslim Bakeries were sued in the making of the video in post # 805.

That's because it was a sting video, and utterly invalid.

Of course it's a sting video...............doesn't matter.................If these Muslim bakeries would say No to the sting they would do so in real life situations....................

Where are the lawsuits against them...............as the sting suggested gays wouldn't go to those bakeries in the first place..........knowing the Muslim position on gays.............Just look at the middle east.................

Let Freedom Ring Mr. Paint...............Sue everyone...........make an example of these Muslim Bakeries as well.............and stamp out the injustices of our society................

Takes the cake doesn't it..............

 

[eagle1462010]

This case isn't over yet...............with donations flooding in...........it will likely lead to another SCOTUS decision.........

Baker Has a Message for the Gov t Official Who Just Fined Him 135 000 for Declining a Gay Wedding Cake He s Doing This With the Wrong Christian TheBlaze.com

The SC has already rejected such cases. Sorry, there is nothing they can do but pay up or keep breaking the law.

It is not over until the fat lady sings.............just so happens there is a 5 to 4 consensus at the present time......Doesn't mean that Roberts wouldn't reverse course to the other side on a Faith Base case versus the marriage issue...............

Those in SCOTUS who disagreed said these things would happen................Bottom line is Anti Discrimination laws versus the Freedom of Religion and where does public versus private domain begin and end.............

 

[PaintMyHouse]

This case isn't over yet...............with donations flooding in...........it will likely lead to another SCOTUS decision.........

Baker Has a Message for the Gov t Official Who Just Fined Him 135 000 for Declining a Gay Wedding Cake He s Doing This With the Wrong Christian TheBlaze.com

The SC has already rejected such cases. Sorry, there is nothing they can do but pay up or keep breaking the law.

It is not over until the fat lady sings.............just so happens there is a 5 to 4 consensus at the present time......Doesn't mean that Roberts wouldn't reverse course to the other side on a Faith Base case versus the marriage issue...............

Those in SCOTUS who disagreed said these things would happen................Bottom line is Anti Discrimination laws versus the Freedom of Religion and where does public versus private domain begin and end.............

Gay Marriage will not be undone, and PA laws have been long defended by the SC. A business is not a church, now you know.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Yes, it is, you stupid ****. Tanakh forbids tattoos and declares them an abomination. So, go **** yourself Sassylezbithing.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

You dont know jack-shit, jack. Quote the passage that calls it an abomination.
More ignorant bawk from the chief of stupidity on USMB.

Vayikra 19:28, you stupid fuckwad, which is then interpreted by Maimonides in Mishnah Torah 12:11 (you know, the most revered of Rabbis, a fact you should know, but you don't, because you are fake) as the most base form of idolatry, which is indeed to'evah. Anything that invokes false gods is to'evah, and if you were a real Jew, you would have known it. Here you are, always railing on others about context, you claim to be a Rabbi, and yet, you cannot connect two simple dots from the Tanakh and one of our most revered commentaries. This is how willingly stupid and unlearned you are, you disgusting fuckwad. Maimonides even goes so far as to argue that if a certain tattoo does not have the name of a false god etched into it, it is still idolatry, for it takes on the trappings of pagan culture, which is also strictly forbidden in Tanakh, something you would also know if you were a real Jew and had some brain cells to rub together.

You know, ever since my first day in USMB, you have been a rude, disgusting fuckwad to me from the get-go and I have given you more than the benefit of the doubt.

You are not a Jew. Hell, you are not even an adult. You are prolly some 22 year old twinky kid who just can't wait for the next big bare cock to fill up your boypussy with a lot of that protein filled cum that you so crave, and this is why you act so fucked-up. You are as gay as it gets, but don't want to admit it, and so you attack others in order to stay in your fragile closet. You are a fraud, a fake.

So, it's of no use to tell you to go **** yourself; your to'evah hole is filled day and night, fuckwad. Don't forget to take your truvada, whore.

And by the way, this is the end of my even giving you the slightest benefit of the doubt. Until now, you have seen my nice side. Just wait until you see the other side.

I am sure that when death gets the contract to come pick you up, it will want it's money back.

OK you found the prohibiton but not where it says it is an "abomination."
So you are wrong, as usual.
You arent the most ignroant poster on this site. But you are the most arrogant piece of shit in the universe who thinks he knows far more than he actually does. A real drekk oifn shpitz messer if I ever saw one.

Ok, and so you are still too stupid to know that context is as important as text itself. You are a disgrace to anything Jewish.

You stated something. I called on you to back it up. You failed. And now you blame me for your failure.
Man up, take some responsibility for your **** ups, admit I was right, and move on. It's shit like this that makes you one of the most detested posters on this site.

You are a mental midget.

I showed the verse in Vayikra and also showed that the commentaries classify this sin as an abomination. I never wrote that the verse in Vayikra specifically calls it an abomination. It's called context and is also something a real Jew would already know. So, no, you were not right, you are acting like a little baby that so desperately needs someone to tell it that it is somehow right.

I'm not detested, I don't act like a dickwad like you, fake Rabbi, fake Jew, ben-zona.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Disclaimer...............No Muslim Bakeries were sued in the making of the video in post # 805.

That's because it was a sting video, and utterly invalid.

Of course it's a sting video...............doesn't matter.................If these Muslim bakeries would say No to the sting they would do so in real life situations....................

Where are the lawsuits against them...............as the sting suggested gays wouldn't go to those bakeries in the first place..........knowing the Muslim position on gays.............Just look at the middle east.................

Let Freedom Ring Mr. Paint...............Sue everyone...........make an example of these Muslim Bakeries as well.............and stamp out the injustices of our society................

Takes the cake doesn't it..............

Had a real couple wanted a cake they would have had standing. What a shame for you that you had to fake it, yet again.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[Yarddog]

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

Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian on Thursday ordered the owners of a former Gresham bakery to pay $135,000 in damages to a lesbian couple for refusing to make them a wedding cake.

Avakian's ruling upheld a preliminary finding earlier this year that the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa had discriminated against the women on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Bakery owners Melissa and Aaron Klein cited their Christian beliefs against same-sex marriage in denying service. The case ignited a long-running skirmish in the nation's culture wars, pitting civil rights advocates against religious freedom proponents who argued business owners should have the right to refuse services for gay and lesbian weddings.

Avakian's final order makes clear that serving potential customers equally trumps the Kleins' religious beliefs. Under Oregon law, businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot turn customers away because of race, sex, disability, age or religion, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said in a news release.

"This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage," Avakian wrote. "It is about a business's refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.

"Within Oregon's public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society. The ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry."

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


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.

Wrong. It punishes people with religious faith. That is unjust.

No, because again, it applies to everyone equally. It is not a punishment for goodness sakes! It must suck to live your life feeling that you are being persecuted because a business is not allowed to discriminate.

It does not affect everyone equally. It serves to punish those with religious objections. Which is unconstitutional under our system.
WHich part of that do you not get?

Nope, it doesn't. If you are a racist, it applies to you as well. If you are a gay person, it applies to you too. The LAW in that state states that you cannot discriminate based upon sexual orientation. PERIOD.

The Law is one thing, but the amount of the fine is BS. there's a difference in spanking your child and beating your child. There's a difference in punishing a small company and trying to break them. No court should have let that happen. There should be some sort of basis for a fine according the what the company Nets in a year that is more realistic. If the court wants the bakery to go out of business then they should just say that straight out right. Change the laws to say if you discriminate, you lose your business.

Fundraiser For Bakery Removed After Activists Complain The Daily Caller

How is this about compensating the gay couple? thats not even what this is about.

 

[Pop23]

I guess we will have to take your word for it?

Or you can explain how that does not make you a bigot

Because there are women's and men's locker rooms. Who knows though? Maybe soon enough you will have those co-ed showers and locker rooms.

A lesbian functions the same as a married male in this. Both are attracted to females, but only one will be arrested the other not.

I wonder what the public poles would be if the public ACCOMODATIONS laws would have to be changed for this?

Not sure a whole lot of people would appreciate this new equality, but I guess we'll have to see. If it's not accepted publicly, I wonder what the backlash could be?

Doesn't matter because they are all WOMEN.

And all married. Lesbians desire women in exactly the same way as married men. The male gets arrested and the lesbian doesn't.

The legal reasoning that this is not a violation of public accomodations laws?

Please

Bathrooms are based on junk Pops, not desire. Sorry.

So gender matters? Hmmmm, I think I argued that and lost.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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

Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian on Thursday ordered the owners of a former Gresham bakery to pay $135,000 in damages to a lesbian couple for refusing to make them a wedding cake.

Avakian's ruling upheld a preliminary finding earlier this year that the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa had discriminated against the women on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Bakery owners Melissa and Aaron Klein cited their Christian beliefs against same-sex marriage in denying service. The case ignited a long-running skirmish in the nation's culture wars, pitting civil rights advocates against religious freedom proponents who argued business owners should have the right to refuse services for gay and lesbian weddings.

Avakian's final order makes clear that serving potential customers equally trumps the Kleins' religious beliefs. Under Oregon law, businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot turn customers away because of race, sex, disability, age or religion, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said in a news release.

"This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage," Avakian wrote. "It is about a business's refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.

"Within Oregon's public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society. The ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry."

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


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.

Wrong. It punishes people with religious faith. That is unjust.

No, because again, it applies to everyone equally. It is not a punishment for goodness sakes! It must suck to live your life feeling that you are being persecuted because a business is not allowed to discriminate.

It does not affect everyone equally. It serves to punish those with religious objections. Which is unconstitutional under our system.
WHich part of that do you not get?

Nope, it doesn't. If you are a racist, it applies to you as well. If you are a gay person, it applies to you too. The LAW in that state states that you cannot discriminate based upon sexual orientation. PERIOD.

The Law is one thing, but the amount of the fine is BS. there's a difference in spanking your child and beating your child. There's a difference in punishing a small company and trying to break them. No court should have let that happen. There should be some sort of basis for a fine according the what the company Nets in a year that is more realistic. If the court wants the bakery to go out of business then they should just say that straight out right. Change the laws to say if you discriminate, you lose your business.

Fundraiser For Bakery Removed After Activists Complain The Daily Caller

How is this about compensating the gay couple? thats not even what this is about.

Bad press, bad decisions, and bad theology is what put them out of business. Had they done the right thing, baked the damn cake, you never would have heard of them.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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

Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian on Thursday ordered the owners of a former Gresham bakery to pay $135,000 in damages to a lesbian couple for refusing to make them a wedding cake.

Avakian's ruling upheld a preliminary finding earlier this year that the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa had discriminated against the women on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Bakery owners Melissa and Aaron Klein cited their Christian beliefs against same-sex marriage in denying service. The case ignited a long-running skirmish in the nation's culture wars, pitting civil rights advocates against religious freedom proponents who argued business owners should have the right to refuse services for gay and lesbian weddings.

Avakian's final order makes clear that serving potential customers equally trumps the Kleins' religious beliefs. Under Oregon law, businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot turn customers away because of race, sex, disability, age or religion, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said in a news release.

"This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage," Avakian wrote. "It is about a business's refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.

"Within Oregon's public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society. The ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry."

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


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.

Wrong. It punishes people with religious faith. That is unjust.

No, because again, it applies to everyone equally. It is not a punishment for goodness sakes! It must suck to live your life feeling that you are being persecuted because a business is not allowed to discriminate.

It does not affect everyone equally. It serves to punish those with religious objections. Which is unconstitutional under our system.
WHich part of that do you not get?

Nope, it doesn't. If you are a racist, it applies to you as well. If you are a gay person, it applies to you too. The LAW in that state states that you cannot discriminate based upon sexual orientation. PERIOD.

The Law is one thing, but the amount of the fine is BS. there's a difference in spanking your child and beating your child. There's a difference in punishing a small company and trying to break them. No court should have let that happen. There should be some sort of basis for a fine according the what the company Nets in a year that is more realistic. If the court wants the bakery to go out of business then they should just say that straight out right. Change the laws to say if you discriminate, you lose your business.

Fundraiser For Bakery Removed After Activists Complain The Daily Caller

How is this about compensating the gay couple? thats not even what this is about.

It will surprise you, but on that point, I agree with you. 135 K does seem steep to me. But then again, we don't know how expensive the lawyers have been.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Because there are women's and men's locker rooms. Who knows though? Maybe soon enough you will have those co-ed showers and locker rooms.

A lesbian functions the same as a married male in this. Both are attracted to females, but only one will be arrested the other not.

I wonder what the public poles would be if the public ACCOMODATIONS laws would have to be changed for this?

Not sure a whole lot of people would appreciate this new equality, but I guess we'll have to see. If it's not accepted publicly, I wonder what the backlash could be?

Doesn't matter because they are all WOMEN.

And all married. Lesbians desire women in exactly the same way as married men. The male gets arrested and the lesbian doesn't.

The legal reasoning that this is not a violation of public accomodations laws?

Please

Bathrooms are based on junk Pops, not desire. Sorry.

So gender matters? Hmmmm, I think I argued that and lost.

Gender matters in where you shower, in most cases, but I've never had a problem with communal locker rooms or bathrooms however most do. That has nothing to do with gays being denied access to a public accommodation even if now spouses end up in the same bathroom from time to time.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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

Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian on Thursday ordered the owners of a former Gresham bakery to pay $135,000 in damages to a lesbian couple for refusing to make them a wedding cake.

Avakian's ruling upheld a preliminary finding earlier this year that the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa had discriminated against the women on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Bakery owners Melissa and Aaron Klein cited their Christian beliefs against same-sex marriage in denying service. The case ignited a long-running skirmish in the nation's culture wars, pitting civil rights advocates against religious freedom proponents who argued business owners should have the right to refuse services for gay and lesbian weddings.

Avakian's final order makes clear that serving potential customers equally trumps the Kleins' religious beliefs. Under Oregon law, businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot turn customers away because of race, sex, disability, age or religion, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said in a news release.

"This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage," Avakian wrote. "It is about a business's refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.

"Within Oregon's public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society. The ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry."

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


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.

Wrong. It punishes people with religious faith. That is unjust.

No, because again, it applies to everyone equally. It is not a punishment for goodness sakes! It must suck to live your life feeling that you are being persecuted because a business is not allowed to discriminate.

It does not affect everyone equally. It serves to punish those with religious objections. Which is unconstitutional under our system.
WHich part of that do you not get?

Nope, it doesn't. If you are a racist, it applies to you as well. If you are a gay person, it applies to you too. The LAW in that state states that you cannot discriminate based upon sexual orientation. PERIOD.

The Law is one thing, but the amount of the fine is BS. there's a difference in spanking your child and beating your child. There's a difference in punishing a small company and trying to break them. No court should have let that happen. There should be some sort of basis for a fine according the what the company Nets in a year that is more realistic. If the court wants the bakery to go out of business then they should just say that straight out right. Change the laws to say if you discriminate, you lose your business.

Fundraiser For Bakery Removed After Activists Complain The Daily Caller

How is this about compensating the gay couple? thats not even what this is about.

It will surprise you, but on that point, I agree with you. 135 K does seem steep to me. But then again, we don't know how expensive the lawyers have been.

This was the state. There aren't really any lawyers involved. They broke a state law, a complaint was filed, and the state has acted on it.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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

Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian on Thursday ordered the owners of a former Gresham bakery to pay $135,000 in damages to a lesbian couple for refusing to make them a wedding cake.

Avakian's ruling upheld a preliminary finding earlier this year that the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa had discriminated against the women on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Bakery owners Melissa and Aaron Klein cited their Christian beliefs against same-sex marriage in denying service. The case ignited a long-running skirmish in the nation's culture wars, pitting civil rights advocates against religious freedom proponents who argued business owners should have the right to refuse services for gay and lesbian weddings.

Avakian's final order makes clear that serving potential customers equally trumps the Kleins' religious beliefs. Under Oregon law, businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot turn customers away because of race, sex, disability, age or religion, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said in a news release.

"This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage," Avakian wrote. "It is about a business's refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.

"Within Oregon's public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society. The ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry."

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


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.

No, because again, it applies to everyone equally. It is not a punishment for goodness sakes! It must suck to live your life feeling that you are being persecuted because a business is not allowed to discriminate.

It does not affect everyone equally. It serves to punish those with religious objections. Which is unconstitutional under our system.
WHich part of that do you not get?

Nope, it doesn't. If you are a racist, it applies to you as well. If you are a gay person, it applies to you too. The LAW in that state states that you cannot discriminate based upon sexual orientation. PERIOD.

The Law is one thing, but the amount of the fine is BS. there's a difference in spanking your child and beating your child. There's a difference in punishing a small company and trying to break them. No court should have let that happen. There should be some sort of basis for a fine according the what the company Nets in a year that is more realistic. If the court wants the bakery to go out of business then they should just say that straight out right. Change the laws to say if you discriminate, you lose your business.

Fundraiser For Bakery Removed After Activists Complain The Daily Caller

How is this about compensating the gay couple? thats not even what this is about.

It will surprise you, but on that point, I agree with you. 135 K does seem steep to me. But then again, we don't know how expensive the lawyers have been.

This was the state. There aren't really any lawyers involved. They broke a state law, a complaint was filed, and the state has acted on it.

No lawyers at all? Are you 100% sure of that?

 

[bodecea]

Ah...the Chosen One.

 

[Mac1958]

...

.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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

Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian on Thursday ordered the owners of a former Gresham bakery to pay $135,000 in damages to a lesbian couple for refusing to make them a wedding cake.

Avakian's ruling upheld a preliminary finding earlier this year that the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa had discriminated against the women on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Bakery owners Melissa and Aaron Klein cited their Christian beliefs against same-sex marriage in denying service. The case ignited a long-running skirmish in the nation's culture wars, pitting civil rights advocates against religious freedom proponents who argued business owners should have the right to refuse services for gay and lesbian weddings.

Avakian's final order makes clear that serving potential customers equally trumps the Kleins' religious beliefs. Under Oregon law, businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot turn customers away because of race, sex, disability, age or religion, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said in a news release.

"This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage," Avakian wrote. "It is about a business's refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.

"Within Oregon's public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society. The ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry."

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


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.

It does not affect everyone equally. It serves to punish those with religious objections. Which is unconstitutional under our system.
WHich part of that do you not get?

Nope, it doesn't. If you are a racist, it applies to you as well. If you are a gay person, it applies to you too. The LAW in that state states that you cannot discriminate based upon sexual orientation. PERIOD.

The Law is one thing, but the amount of the fine is BS. there's a difference in spanking your child and beating your child. There's a difference in punishing a small company and trying to break them. No court should have let that happen. There should be some sort of basis for a fine according the what the company Nets in a year that is more realistic. If the court wants the bakery to go out of business then they should just say that straight out right. Change the laws to say if you discriminate, you lose your business.

Fundraiser For Bakery Removed After Activists Complain The Daily Caller

How is this about compensating the gay couple? thats not even what this is about.

It will surprise you, but on that point, I agree with you. 135 K does seem steep to me. But then again, we don't know how expensive the lawyers have been.

This was the state. There aren't really any lawyers involved. They broke a state law, a complaint was filed, and the state has acted on it.

No lawyers at all? Are you 100% sure of that?

The state has lawyers, and I would imagine the administrative law judge is a lawyer. The couple that was awarded the judgement didn't use a lawyer but I'm sure good old Melissa has been contacted by a few. This case is not in the courtroom yet as far as I know.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[The Rabbi]

Wrong. It punishes people with religious faith. That is unjust.

No, because again, it applies to everyone equally. It is not a punishment for goodness sakes! It must suck to live your life feeling that you are being persecuted because a business is not allowed to discriminate.

It does not affect everyone equally. It serves to punish those with religious objections. Which is unconstitutional under our system.
WHich part of that do you not get?

Nope, it doesn't. If you are a racist, it applies to you as well. If you are a gay person, it applies to you too. The LAW in that state states that you cannot discriminate based upon sexual orientation. PERIOD.

You are a dope.
If there is a law that says all businesses must be open Saturday then I am affected by it because my religion forbids me from working on saturday, even though the law applies to everyone else.

There is no such law.

You are a dope. Never said there was.
There were laws that prohibited businesses being open Sunday. And those were ruled discriminatory.

 

[eagle1462010]

Before the recent incident..........it's obvious that others see a potential to make money off this via law suits.....

Azucar bakery that refused to ice cake with anti-gay slogans is slapped with religious discrimination complaint Daily Mail Online

Refused: Marjorie Silva, owner of Azucar Bakery, refused to create a homophobic cake for a customer

Read more: Azucar bakery that refused to ice cake with anti-gay slogans is slapped with religious discrimination complaint Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[The Rabbi]

You dont know jack-shit, jack. Quote the passage that calls it an abomination.
More ignorant bawk from the chief of stupidity on USMB.

Vayikra 19:28, you stupid fuckwad, which is then interpreted by Maimonides in Mishnah Torah 12:11 (you know, the most revered of Rabbis, a fact you should know, but you don't, because you are fake) as the most base form of idolatry, which is indeed to'evah. Anything that invokes false gods is to'evah, and if you were a real Jew, you would have known it. Here you are, always railing on others about context, you claim to be a Rabbi, and yet, you cannot connect two simple dots from the Tanakh and one of our most revered commentaries. This is how willingly stupid and unlearned you are, you disgusting fuckwad. Maimonides even goes so far as to argue that if a certain tattoo does not have the name of a false god etched into it, it is still idolatry, for it takes on the trappings of pagan culture, which is also strictly forbidden in Tanakh, something you would also know if you were a real Jew and had some brain cells to rub together.

You know, ever since my first day in USMB, you have been a rude, disgusting fuckwad to me from the get-go and I have given you more than the benefit of the doubt.

You are not a Jew. Hell, you are not even an adult. You are prolly some 22 year old twinky kid who just can't wait for the next big bare cock to fill up your boypussy with a lot of that protein filled cum that you so crave, and this is why you act so fucked-up. You are as gay as it gets, but don't want to admit it, and so you attack others in order to stay in your fragile closet. You are a fraud, a fake.

So, it's of no use to tell you to go **** yourself; your to'evah hole is filled day and night, fuckwad. Don't forget to take your truvada, whore.

And by the way, this is the end of my even giving you the slightest benefit of the doubt. Until now, you have seen my nice side. Just wait until you see the other side.

I am sure that when death gets the contract to come pick you up, it will want it's money back.

OK you found the prohibiton but not where it says it is an "abomination."
So you are wrong, as usual.
You arent the most ignroant poster on this site. But you are the most arrogant piece of shit in the universe who thinks he knows far more than he actually does. A real drekk oifn shpitz messer if I ever saw one.

Ok, and so you are still too stupid to know that context is as important as text itself. You are a disgrace to anything Jewish.

You stated something. I called on you to back it up. You failed. And now you blame me for your failure.
Man up, take some responsibility for your **** ups, admit I was right, and move on. It's shit like this that makes you one of the most detested posters on this site.

You are a mental midget.

I showed the verse in Vayikra and also showed that the commentaries classify this sin as an abomination. I never wrote that the verse in Vayikra specifically calls it an abomination. It's called context and is also something a real Jew would already know. So, no, you were not right, you are acting like a little baby that so desperately needs someone to tell it that it is somehow right.

I'm not detested, I don't act like a dickwad like you, fake Rabbi, fake Jew, ben-zona.

So the Bible does not condemn tatoos as an abomination. While your claim was it did.
Do you understand that no amount of rationalizing or insulting will change the fact that you were wrong, because you are misinformed? Just man up admit you didnt know and move on with life.
Geezus what a wanker you are.