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

[Hutch Starskey]

Of course they do! They also have to follow their local and state laws regarding business practice.

Who says that? I offend all people all the time.

can you cite a case of a muslim business being fined for refusing service to gays? I am quite sure it has happened.

Muslim taxi driver ordered to pay lesbian couple 10k for telling them to stop kissing - The Express Tribune

That's not for refusing service. In fact they decided to not pay the driver.

He's being actually fined for their hurt feelings.

Do you think restaurants in the south should still have the freedom to refuse service to blacks?

The 1964 Civil Rights Act already prohibited discrimination by valid Public Accomodations such as restaurants, hotels, transportation, and entertainment venues. The rationale is that the inconvenience of being denied real time service, i.e. a meal, was important enough to qualify as equal protection.

Other retail businesses do not fall into this category. There is no urgent imperative to have a wedding cake Right This Minute. The public policy in this instance should be 1st Amendment protections. There is no right to not have one's feelings hurt.

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

 

[Uncensored2008]

Have you ever been to Portland OR?

Oregon is extremely liberal, especially in Portland. They make Californians look conservative.

The majority of Oregonians support the anti discrimination laws.

The bakery is required to obey laws that the majority of Portlandians support, and that is not totalitarian, it's a great example of a fully functioning constitutional republic.

I'm not sure if you agree with my characterization...but it's adorable watching the right get all outraged over stuff that happens in liberal bastions like San Francisco and Portland.

So!...on that note!.....The Left Coast, love it, or leave it!

Comrade, if a homeless man walks up to your Prius and demands to know where you are going, you tell him "downtown." He demands that you take him, because your car is in public and you already are engaged in the activity - thus you are his slave - do you as a party member have to obey him? You are in Portland, a city that hates the concept of rights and individuality, so you must be the Uber service for any who so desire.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

 

[Faun]

No, it isn't. And business isn't faith.

Starting a business does not override faith or a persons ability to live under their faith without a compelling government interest.

But starting a business is subject to the laws and regulations of the jurisdiction it falls under. And those laws and regulations cannot be ignored due to one's particular religious belief.

Actually why not? Government has to show a compelling interest when they deny any right to someone, and free exercise of a religion is a right.

How about Halal meat? If a government agency decides to ban halal slaughter, doesn't the religious rights of the Muslims in question override the government desire to regulate, unless a compelling interest is found?

The compelling interest you seek is that they are infringing upon the Civil rights of others. In the case of Sweet Cakes, they infringed upon the civil rights of the lesbians by discriminating against them due to their sexual orientation. Imagine, if that were permissible, all bakeries could refuse selling wedding cakes to Muslims. Or to any group, for that matter.

Compelling interest requires an actual harm, not hurt feelings.

If it were "all" bakeries that would be an actual harm, considering the limited scope of the number of bakeries that refuse service in these cases, there is no real harm, and thus no compelling interest that overrides a person's freedom of exercise.

The baker is the one with the actual harm, they have to perform an act against their will simply because of someone's hurt feelings. since the force is on the side against them, the harm is on them, not on the gay couple in this case.

If that were true, then discrimination against blacks would be legal. Discrimination is not legal. And according to Oregon state law, the lesbian couple was harmed.

 

[paperview]

So you are saying that the Defiance of Marriage Law dictated by the SCOTUS ....

Was Brown v Board of Education the Defiance of Segregation by the SCOTUS?

 

[Faun]

I don't believe so, but that would be a great idea for Independence Day. In fact, I just mentioned that in another thread.

So you see Obama's agenda as being anti american when he lights up the people's house in rainbow colors but does not light it up in patriotic colors on July 4th?

Do you not see what is wrong with that?

Look, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that because I support equal rights and privileges for all American citizens, that I am an Obama supporter. You couldn't BE more wrong. I am not a liberal. I am more a libertarian.

If you wre libertarian you wouldn't support the government telling private bisinesses who the must serve.

You're more of a liberal than a libertarian. The later believe in freedom, not in having government make life fair.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Wait a minute! Isn't it your side who is complaining that it isn't fair that you can't discriminate? Oh yes, I think so. You people have been whining for a week now because, OMG, you have to serve the gays!!! The horror. You poor little thingies.

Do muslim owned businesses have to serve gays? When will a muslim business be fined for refusing service to gays?

the problem is the hypocrisy of PC. we can offend Christians, whites, males; but we can't offend gays, muslims, blacks, hispanics, etc.

In Oregon and other states with similar PA laws -- yes. Why wouldn't they?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Was Brown v Board of Education the Defiance of Segregation by the SCOTUS?

No, it was the reversal of a law very similar to that which you celebrate.

Nothing the left fears more than free people.

 

[paperview]

Was Brown v Board of Education the Defiance of Segregation by the SCOTUS?

No, it was the reversal of a law very similar to that which you celebrate.

Nothing the left fears more than free people.

You misspelled "upheld the 14th Amendment."

Nothing the right fears more than people being treated equally under the law.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You misspelled "upheld the 14th Amendment."

Nothing the right fears more than people being treated equally under the law.

Actually moron, the Court cited Title II of the Civil Rights act as their foundation.

Now here is something you have never been exposed to before;

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

I know that you have no clue where those words originate - and while the Tea Party supports them, no - the source isn't Tea Parties.

 

[martybegan]

Starting a business does not override faith or a persons ability to live under their faith without a compelling government interest.

But starting a business is subject to the laws and regulations of the jurisdiction it falls under. And those laws and regulations cannot be ignored due to one's particular religious belief.

Actually why not? Government has to show a compelling interest when they deny any right to someone, and free exercise of a religion is a right.

How about Halal meat? If a government agency decides to ban halal slaughter, doesn't the religious rights of the Muslims in question override the government desire to regulate, unless a compelling interest is found?

The compelling interest you seek is that they are infringing upon the Civil rights of others. In the case of Sweet Cakes, they infringed upon the civil rights of the lesbians by discriminating against them due to their sexual orientation. Imagine, if that were permissible, all bakeries could refuse selling wedding cakes to Muslims. Or to any group, for that matter.

Compelling interest requires an actual harm, not hurt feelings.

If it were "all" bakeries that would be an actual harm, considering the limited scope of the number of bakeries that refuse service in these cases, there is no real harm, and thus no compelling interest that overrides a person's freedom of exercise.

The baker is the one with the actual harm, they have to perform an act against their will simply because of someone's hurt feelings. since the force is on the side against them, the harm is on them, not on the gay couple in this case.

If that were true, then discrimination against blacks would be legal. Discrimination is not legal. And according to Oregon state law, the lesbian couple was harmed.

Blacks used to be harmed because the discrimination was systemic and government mandated. Nowadays the amount of places that would restrict blacks from using them is probably about the same as the number that don't want to work gay weddings, minuscule, and not even coming close to causing harm.

 

[martybegan]

Was Brown v Board of Education the Defiance of Segregation by the SCOTUS?

No, it was the reversal of a law very similar to that which you celebrate.

Nothing the left fears more than free people.

You misspelled "upheld the 14th Amendment."

Nothing the right fears more than people being treated equally under the law.

And nothing the left likes better than punishing thought they don't like, under the guise of equality.

 

[koshergrl]

Actually why not? Government has to show a compelling interest when they deny any right to someone, and free exercise of a religion is a right.

How about Halal meat? If a government agency decides to ban halal slaughter, doesn't the religious rights of the Muslims in question override the government desire to regulate, unless a compelling interest is found?

The compelling interest you seek is that they are infringing upon the Civil rights of others. In the case of Sweet Cakes, they infringed upon the civil rights of the lesbians by discriminating against them due to their sexual orientation. Imagine, if that were permissible, all bakeries could refuse selling wedding cakes to Muslims. Or to any group, for that matter.

Bullshit. They didn't infringe upon anybody's rights. They opted out of participating in sacrilege. They provided a list of bakers who would happily serve the customer.

They broke the law by discriminating against them. Neither a wedding nor baking a cake for one is sacreligious.

The state doesn't dictate to me what is sacrilegious. It doesn't and never has had that authority. So fuck off and die, authoritarian scumbag.

For a piece of shit like you? I will do neither. Still, nothing in the Bible indicates baking a cake for a wedding is sacreligious. If you think for a second you get to trump U.S. law by making up religious beliefs that do not exist in the Bible, like Sweet Cakes, you're sadly mistaken.

As I said, you don't dictate what is sacrilegious to anyone. And neither does the state. And bad law is trumped all the time. As is good law. In fact, that's sort of what happened here. Fuck the law, when the law is illegal.

 

[martybegan]

Of course they do! They also have to follow their local and state laws regarding business practice.

Who says that? I offend all people all the time.

can you cite a case of a muslim business being fined for refusing service to gays? I am quite sure it has happened.

Muslim taxi driver ordered to pay lesbian couple 10k for telling them to stop kissing - The Express Tribune

That's not for refusing service. In fact they decided to not pay the driver.

He's being actually fined for their hurt feelings.

Do you think restaurants in the south should still have the freedom to refuse service to blacks?

The 1964 Civil Rights Act already prohibited discrimination by valid Public Accomodations such as restaurants, hotels, transportation, and entertainment venues. The rationale is that the inconvenience of being denied real time service, i.e. a meal, was important enough to qualify as equal protection.

Other retail businesses do not fall into this category. There is no urgent imperative to have a wedding cake Right This Minute. The public policy in this instance should be 1st Amendment protections. There is no right to not have one's feelings hurt.

Bingo.

 

[ChrisL]

can you cite a case of a muslim business being fined for refusing service to gays? I am quite sure it has happened.

Muslim taxi driver ordered to pay lesbian couple 10k for telling them to stop kissing - The Express Tribune

That's not for refusing service. In fact they decided to not pay the driver.

He's being actually fined for their hurt feelings.

Do you think restaurants in the south should still have the freedom to refuse service to blacks?

The 1964 Civil Rights Act already prohibited discrimination by valid Public Accomodations such as restaurants, hotels, transportation, and entertainment venues. The rationale is that the inconvenience of being denied real time service, i.e. a meal, was important enough to qualify as equal protection.

Other retail businesses do not fall into this category. There is no urgent imperative to have a wedding cake Right This Minute. The public policy in this instance should be 1st Amendment protections. There is no right to not have one's feelings hurt.

Bingo.

The State of Oregon disagrees.

 

[Faun]

But starting a business is subject to the laws and regulations of the jurisdiction it falls under. And those laws and regulations cannot be ignored due to one's particular religious belief.

Actually why not? Government has to show a compelling interest when they deny any right to someone, and free exercise of a religion is a right.

How about Halal meat? If a government agency decides to ban halal slaughter, doesn't the religious rights of the Muslims in question override the government desire to regulate, unless a compelling interest is found?

The compelling interest you seek is that they are infringing upon the Civil rights of others. In the case of Sweet Cakes, they infringed upon the civil rights of the lesbians by discriminating against them due to their sexual orientation. Imagine, if that were permissible, all bakeries could refuse selling wedding cakes to Muslims. Or to any group, for that matter.

Compelling interest requires an actual harm, not hurt feelings.

If it were "all" bakeries that would be an actual harm, considering the limited scope of the number of bakeries that refuse service in these cases, there is no real harm, and thus no compelling interest that overrides a person's freedom of exercise.

The baker is the one with the actual harm, they have to perform an act against their will simply because of someone's hurt feelings. since the force is on the side against them, the harm is on them, not on the gay couple in this case.

If that were true, then discrimination against blacks would be legal. Discrimination is not legal. And according to Oregon state law, the lesbian couple was harmed.

Blacks used to be harmed because the discrimination was systemic and government mandated. Nowadays the amount of places that would restrict blacks from using them is probably about the same as the number that don't want to work gay weddings, minuscule, and not even coming close to causing harm.

Any blacks being discriminated against are harmed, regardless if it is "miniscule." Same with gays in Oregon.

 

[ChrisL]

Was Brown v Board of Education the Defiance of Segregation by the SCOTUS?

No, it was the reversal of a law very similar to that which you celebrate.

Nothing the left fears more than free people.

You misspelled "upheld the 14th Amendment."

Nothing the right fears more than people being treated equally under the law.

And nothing the left likes better than punishing thought they don't like, under the guise of equality.

So, you feel you are being "punished" by this law? How so?

 

[Uncensored2008]

So, you feel you are being "punished" by this law? How so?

You don't think the promotion of involuntary servitude harms all of America?

 

[koshergrl]

Actually why not? Government has to show a compelling interest when they deny any right to someone, and free exercise of a religion is a right.

How about Halal meat? If a government agency decides to ban halal slaughter, doesn't the religious rights of the Muslims in question override the government desire to regulate, unless a compelling interest is found?

The compelling interest you seek is that they are infringing upon the Civil rights of others. In the case of Sweet Cakes, they infringed upon the civil rights of the lesbians by discriminating against them due to their sexual orientation. Imagine, if that were permissible, all bakeries could refuse selling wedding cakes to Muslims. Or to any group, for that matter.

Compelling interest requires an actual harm, not hurt feelings.

If it were "all" bakeries that would be an actual harm, considering the limited scope of the number of bakeries that refuse service in these cases, there is no real harm, and thus no compelling interest that overrides a person's freedom of exercise.

The baker is the one with the actual harm, they have to perform an act against their will simply because of someone's hurt feelings. since the force is on the side against them, the harm is on them, not on the gay couple in this case.

If that were true, then discrimination against blacks would be legal. Discrimination is not legal. And according to Oregon state law, the lesbian couple was harmed.

Blacks used to be harmed because the discrimination was systemic and government mandated. Nowadays the amount of places that would restrict blacks from using them is probably about the same as the number that don't want to work gay weddings, minuscule, and not even coming close to causing harm.

Any blacks being discriminated against are harmed, regardless if it is "miniscule." Same with gays in Oregon.

Gays aren't discriminated against in Oregon. They've been welcomed and included..hence the problem.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Hope your enjoy the cake, Scat.

 

[ChrisL]

So, you feel you are being "punished" by this law? How so?

You don't think the promotion of involuntary servitude harms all of America?

You are not forced to open a business that accommodates to the public. If you do open a business, you agree to the terms and conditions set by your respective state. That is NOT involuntary servitude. This is hyperbole.