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

[boedicca]

"...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Tell that to Jim Tranmer, who is was sentenced to 35 years in jail despite his pleas on religious freedoms.

Smuggling drugs into the U.S. is illegal.

Not baking cakes isn't.

 

[koshergrl]

Lol. This is hilarious. Sorry, you don't get special privileges to discriminate because you are a religious person. You just don't.

I see your point, the Constitution is silent regarding protection of religion...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nobody is restricting your right to practice your religion. You are free to attend any church and be any religion you choose. What you cannot do is apply your prejudices to your business practices because the law does not recognize your religion in this case. It recognizes the civil rights of people. The only way your argument makes sense is if we were a theocracy.

That is a steaming pile of sophistry.

Forcing someone to violate his religious beliefs is the same as violating his ability to practice his religion.

Period.

Not baking a cake for a gay couple may hurt their feelings, but it doesn't prevent them from getting married. But to you loons, tolerance (i.e., leaving you alone to do your thing) is not enough. You insist that others participate, which infringes their rights.

Baking a cake does not infringe on anyone's religious beliefs.

But being forced to participate in sacrilege does.

 

[boedicca]

Lol. This is hilarious. Sorry, you don't get special privileges to discriminate because you are a religious person. You just don't.

I see your point, the Constitution is silent regarding protection of religion...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nobody is restricting your right to practice your religion. You are free to attend any church and be any religion you choose. What you cannot do is apply your prejudices to your business practices because the law does not recognize your religion in this case. It recognizes the civil rights of people. The only way your argument makes sense is if we were a theocracy.

That is a steaming pile of sophistry.

Forcing someone to violate his religious beliefs is the same as violating his ability to practice his religion.

Period.

Not baking a cake for a gay couple may hurt their feelings, but it doesn't prevent them from getting married. But to you loons, tolerance (i.e., leaving you alone to do your thing) is not enough. You insist that others participate, which infringes their rights.

Baking a cake does not infringe on anyone's religious beliefs.

Being forced to bake a cake which violates one's religious beliefs is an infringement.

 

[koshergrl]

"...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Tell that to Jim Tranmer, who is was sentenced to 35 years in jail despite his pleas on religious freedoms.

Smuggling drugs into the U.S. is illegal.

Not baking cakes isn't.

I'm afraid that I'm going to be invited to a homo ceremony, and be thrown in jail when I refuse to attend. That will suck. The homos on the inside might target me. I think there are more on the inside than on the outside. Cuz after all, homosexuality is a mental illness, and the result of refusing to call it such means that instead of getting treatment, the poor sad sickos just land in jail.

 

[Faun]

Really?
Selling goods to people in the business that you built to sell goods to people is involuntary servitude?

Yes, it is, if one is not free to choose one's customers.

The PA laws address why you cannot "choose" your customers in the manner you wish to. Grow up.

So PA made a law which violates the 1st Amendment, and you defend it.

What a tool.

Your opinion is noted; and if it does violate the First Amendment, the owner of Sweet Cakes can get the law overturned.

Oh. Good luck with that. Private individuals have no power over the Progressive State Apparatus, as you all are so happy to chortle over.

Just wait until it is aimed at your last remnant of freedom. Because that is where this trend line is headed, bub.

You're an imbecile. Private individuals do have such power. Maybe not to individuals like you, however, who apparently feel powerless.

 

[Faun]

Lol. This is hilarious. Sorry, you don't get special privileges to discriminate because you are a religious person. You just don't.

I see your point, the Constitution is silent regarding protection of religion...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nobody is restricting your right to practice your religion. You are free to attend any church and be any religion you choose. What you cannot do is apply your prejudices to your business practices because the law does not recognize your religion in this case. It recognizes the civil rights of people. The only way your argument makes sense is if we were a theocracy.

That is a steaming pile of sophistry.

Forcing someone to violate his religious beliefs is the same as violating his ability to practice his religion.

Period.

Not baking a cake for a gay couple may hurt their feelings, but it doesn't prevent them from getting married. But to you loons, tolerance (i.e., leaving you alone to do your thing) is not enough. You insist that others participate, which infringes their rights.

Baking a cake does not infringe on anyone's religious beliefs.

Being forced to bake a cake which violates one's religious beliefs is an infringement.

No religion on the planet prohibits baking a cake with the exception of the Jewish faith during Passover.

 

[ChrisL]

Lol. This is hilarious. Sorry, you don't get special privileges to discriminate because you are a religious person. You just don't.

I see your point, the Constitution is silent regarding protection of religion...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nobody is restricting your right to practice your religion. You are free to attend any church and be any religion you choose. What you cannot do is apply your prejudices to your business practices because the law does not recognize your religion in this case. It recognizes the civil rights of people. The only way your argument makes sense is if we were a theocracy.

That is a steaming pile of sophistry.

Forcing someone to violate his religious beliefs is the same as violating his ability to practice his religion.

Period.

Not baking a cake for a gay couple may hurt their feelings, but it doesn't prevent them from getting married. But to you loons, tolerance (i.e., leaving you alone to do your thing) is not enough. You insist that others participate, which infringes their rights.

Baking a cake does not infringe on anyone's religious beliefs.

Being forced to bake a cake which violates one's religious beliefs is an infringement.

Not according to the State of Oregon. If you have an issue with that, I suggest you hire a lawyer.

 

[boedicca]

"...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Tell that to Jim Tranmer, who is was sentenced to 35 years in jail despite his pleas on religious freedoms.

Smuggling drugs into the U.S. is illegal.

Not baking cakes isn't.

I'm afraid that I'm going to be invited to a homo ceremony, and be thrown in jail when I refuse to attend. That will suck. The homos in jail might target me.

I do not understand why two people who love each other would wish to force others to participate in their wedding celebration. Do they really want the energy of hostile people to intrude on their wedding?

I wouldn't.

 

[boedicca]

I see your point, the Constitution is silent regarding protection of religion...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nobody is restricting your right to practice your religion. You are free to attend any church and be any religion you choose. What you cannot do is apply your prejudices to your business practices because the law does not recognize your religion in this case. It recognizes the civil rights of people. The only way your argument makes sense is if we were a theocracy.

That is a steaming pile of sophistry.

Forcing someone to violate his religious beliefs is the same as violating his ability to practice his religion.

Period.

Not baking a cake for a gay couple may hurt their feelings, but it doesn't prevent them from getting married. But to you loons, tolerance (i.e., leaving you alone to do your thing) is not enough. You insist that others participate, which infringes their rights.

Baking a cake does not infringe on anyone's religious beliefs.

Being forced to bake a cake which violates one's religious beliefs is an infringement.

No religion on the planet prohibits baking a cake with the exception of the Jewish faith during Passover.

You are a moron.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nobody is restricting your right to practice your religion.

You are advocating the use of the implied violence of the state to force people to serve against their will in a way that offends and infringes the religious beliefs of others.

You are free to attend any church and be any religion you choose.

So it would be fine with you then, to force a Muslim to work in a pork processing slaughter house M-F, as long as they are allowed to go to Mosque on Saturday?

What you cannot do is apply your prejudices to your business practices because the law does not recognize your religion in this case. It recognizes the civil rights of people. The only way your argument makes sense is if we were a theocracy.

What free people do is determine for themselves who they will engage in commerce with. Your preference may be for the state to dictate who each of us buys products from or sells them to, but that is not freedom.

 

[koshergrl]

"...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Tell that to Jim Tranmer, who is was sentenced to 35 years in jail despite his pleas on religious freedoms.

Smuggling drugs into the U.S. is illegal.

Not baking cakes isn't.

I'm afraid that I'm going to be invited to a homo ceremony, and be thrown in jail when I refuse to attend. That will suck. The homos in jail might target me.

I do not understand why two people who love each other would wish to force others to participate in their wedding celebration. Do they really want the energy of hostile people to intrude on their wedding?

I wouldn't.

It all hearkens back to the depraved nature of homosexuality. It's all about control to them. I durst not say more, but homosexuality is not the only symptom of their illness. The sad thing is, it will backfire on them. They think totalitarian regimes are kind to faggots. They think this time, it will work out for them. And it just...won't.

 

[ChrisL]

"...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Tell that to Jim Tranmer, who is was sentenced to 35 years in jail despite his pleas on religious freedoms.

Smuggling drugs into the U.S. is illegal.

Not baking cakes isn't.

It IS if you are running a business in the State of Oregon. Look, these laws are not to punish you or to make you feel bad. They are to make things fair for everyone because a lot of other Americans do not share your beliefs that certain segments of our population are evil or committing a sin. Our government is secular and it is in the best of interest of American business to remain that way. We are not a theocracy like Iran who would do these kinds of things.

 

[ChrisL]

Nobody is restricting your right to practice your religion.

You are advocating the use of the implied violence of the state to force people to serve against their will in a way that offends and infringes the religious beliefs of others.

You are free to attend any church and be any religion you choose.

So it would be fine with you then, to force a Muslim to work in a pork processing slaughter house M-F, as long as they are allowed to go to Mosque on Saturday?

What you cannot do is apply your prejudices to your business practices because the law does not recognize your religion in this case. It recognizes the civil rights of people. The only way your argument makes sense is if we were a theocracy.

What free people do is determine for themselves who they will engage in commerce with. Your preference may be for the state to dictate who each of us buys products from or sells them to, but that is not freedom.

No, the government is not persecuting you for your religious beliefs. That is your own paranoia.

 

[Faun]

And as liberals crow with pride about this they miss the fact that these people are being denied two constitutional rights.

Freedom to practice religion and freedom of speech.

Good job. Idiots.

No, they are still free to practice their religion.

But if they refuse to commit sacrilege, they lose their business.

"...governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. — That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

They were not forced to commit sacrilege. Your hallucinations are not reality. Though I'm certain they feel real to you.

Like your idiocy that you can and will break the law -- you're not. You're an idiot.

No, they were PUNISHED for REFUSING to participate in sacrilege.

Again. Look these words up. I'm tired of dumbing it down for you. I don't think I can dumb it down any more.

And for everybody else..see, this is their problem. faun knows he doesn't know these words, and he is so retarded he doesn't even look them up out of curiosity. He isn't even smart enough to come back with the definition after LOOKING IT UP and apply it correctly. He just continues blindly with this idiocy. I mean, it's obvious he has no idea what constitutes a sacrament, or sacrilege. And he's so stupid he doesn't even look it up. I can't say it enough times, what a ******* retard.

There's nothing to look up. You're a retard who thinks baking a cake is a sacrilege. Show me where the Bible says that and I'll look it up. You can't because it doesn't exist. And the law does not allow for people to invent sacrileges in order to circumvent the law. Again, the Coptics Church tried that and failed.

 

[koshergrl]

And as liberals crow with pride about this they miss the fact that these people are being denied two constitutional rights.

Freedom to practice religion and freedom of speech.

Good job. Idiots.

No, they are still free to practice their religion.

But if they refuse to commit sacrilege, they lose their business.

"...governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. — That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

They were not forced to commit sacrilege. Your hallucinations are not reality. Though I'm certain they feel real to you.

Like your idiocy that you can and will break the law -- you're not. You're an idiot.

No, they were PUNISHED for REFUSING to participate in sacrilege.

Again. Look these words up. I'm tired of dumbing it down for you. I don't think I can dumb it down any more.

And for everybody else..see, this is their problem. faun knows he doesn't know these words, and he is so retarded he doesn't even look them up out of curiosity. He isn't even smart enough to come back with the definition after LOOKING IT UP and apply it correctly. He just continues blindly with this idiocy. I mean, it's obvious he has no idea what constitutes a sacrament, or sacrilege. And he's so stupid he doesn't even look it up. I can't say it enough times, what a ******* retard.

There's nothing to look up. You're a retard who thinks baking a cake is a sacrilege. Show me where the Bible says that and I'll look it up. You can't because it doesn't exist. And the law does not allow for people to invent sacrileges in order to circumvent the law. Again, the Coptics Church tried that and failed.

Yawn. You're too dumb for this discussion. Thank you for admitting you're willfully ignorant, that you don't understand what the words mean but still won't look them up, because you're just too stupid to learn things.

 

[Faun]

"...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Tell that to Jim Tranmer, who is was sentenced to 35 years in jail despite his pleas on religious freedoms.

Smuggling drugs into the U.S. is illegal.

Not baking cakes isn't.

In Oregon, not baking cakes on the basis of discrimination is absolutely illegal. And in both cases, the people charged with violating state statutes argued their religious freedom allowed for them to violate the law.

And in both cases, they were wrong.

 

[Faun]

Lol. This is hilarious. Sorry, you don't get special privileges to discriminate because you are a religious person. You just don't.

I see your point, the Constitution is silent regarding protection of religion...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nobody is restricting your right to practice your religion. You are free to attend any church and be any religion you choose. What you cannot do is apply your prejudices to your business practices because the law does not recognize your religion in this case. It recognizes the civil rights of people. The only way your argument makes sense is if we were a theocracy.

That is a steaming pile of sophistry.

Forcing someone to violate his religious beliefs is the same as violating his ability to practice his religion.

Period.

Not baking a cake for a gay couple may hurt their feelings, but it doesn't prevent them from getting married. But to you loons, tolerance (i.e., leaving you alone to do your thing) is not enough. You insist that others participate, which infringes their rights.

Baking a cake does not infringe on anyone's religious beliefs.

Being forced to bake a cake which violates one's religious beliefs is an infringement.

If baking a cake infringes on one's religious belief, then you would be able to show me where the Bible says baking a cake is an abomination, You can't because no such religious infringement exists.

 

[boedicca]

"...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Tell that to Jim Tranmer, who is was sentenced to 35 years in jail despite his pleas on religious freedoms.

Smuggling drugs into the U.S. is illegal.

Not baking cakes isn't.

I'm afraid that I'm going to be invited to a homo ceremony, and be thrown in jail when I refuse to attend. That will suck. The homos in jail might target me.

I do not understand why two people who love each other would wish to force others to participate in their wedding celebration. Do they really want the energy of hostile people to intrude on their wedding?

I wouldn't.

It all hearkens back to the depraved nature of homosexuality. It's all about control to them. I durst not say more, but homosexuality is not the only symptom of their illness. The sad thing is, it will backfire on them. They think totalitarian regimes are kind to faggots. They think this time, it will work out for them. And it just...won't.

This is far less about homosexuality as it is about Progressive Identity Politics being used to attack any and all dissidents, especially those who do not worship the Secular State.

 

[boedicca]

I see your point, the Constitution is silent regarding protection of religion...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nobody is restricting your right to practice your religion. You are free to attend any church and be any religion you choose. What you cannot do is apply your prejudices to your business practices because the law does not recognize your religion in this case. It recognizes the civil rights of people. The only way your argument makes sense is if we were a theocracy.

That is a steaming pile of sophistry.

Forcing someone to violate his religious beliefs is the same as violating his ability to practice his religion.

Period.

Not baking a cake for a gay couple may hurt their feelings, but it doesn't prevent them from getting married. But to you loons, tolerance (i.e., leaving you alone to do your thing) is not enough. You insist that others participate, which infringes their rights.

Baking a cake does not infringe on anyone's religious beliefs.

Being forced to bake a cake which violates one's religious beliefs is an infringement.

If baking a cake infringes on one's religious belief, then you would be able to show me where the Bible says baking a cake is an abomination, You can't because no such religious infringement exists.

If you're going to use the Bible as an authority, you might want to check what it has to say about marriage and fornication.

You can't have it both ways, bub.

 

[Faun]

Nobody is restricting your right to practice your religion. You are free to attend any church and be any religion you choose. What you cannot do is apply your prejudices to your business practices because the law does not recognize your religion in this case. It recognizes the civil rights of people. The only way your argument makes sense is if we were a theocracy.

That is a steaming pile of sophistry.

Forcing someone to violate his religious beliefs is the same as violating his ability to practice his religion.

Period.

Not baking a cake for a gay couple may hurt their feelings, but it doesn't prevent them from getting married. But to you loons, tolerance (i.e., leaving you alone to do your thing) is not enough. You insist that others participate, which infringes their rights.

Baking a cake does not infringe on anyone's religious beliefs.

Being forced to bake a cake which violates one's religious beliefs is an infringement.

No religion on the planet prohibits baking a cake with the exception of the Jewish faith during Passover.

You are a moron.

If I'm the moron, then you can prove my statement wrong. Show me the Bible verse that outlaws baking a cake other than for Jews during Passover, or you've demonstrated for the forum that the moron is the one typing nonsense on your keyboard....