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

[koshergrl]

The state doesn't dictate to me what is sacrilegious. It doesn't and never has had that authority. So **** 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. **** the law, when the law is illegal.

Not true. You can't just break the law and cite some made up religious belief as a defense. I recall a church in Miami trying that idiocy as a defense for smoking weed. That turned out even worse for them than it did for Sweet Cakes.

The law itself is in violation of the law.

And watch us. Believe me, we can and will break the law. Just like you and your homo friends did every time you took it up the butt before sodomy became the (fake) law of the land.

Outstanding case of butthurt without borders!!!


Brava, Kosherthingy, brava!!!

Unlike you, my butt retains the borders it was designed with.

 

[ChrisL]

Being forced to bake a cake to celebrate something the Bible forbids is a violation of the religious beliefs of those whose religious beliefs are based on such a reading of the Bible.

The fact that you can't admit this just proves what a hack you are.

I'm not a PA fan, but you are not honestly addressing what the law forbids. The Christian baker is not punished for not baking the cake. He's punished for not selling the cake. Once he enters into private commerce he must comply with all constitutional laws, and there's no argument that PA laws are unconstitutional. That issue is settled, whether we like it or not.

So, imo, the argument against the PA law is, imo, that the gay plaintiffs were never really denied a cake because there are lots of bakers. Rather, the issue was the gay plaintiffs used the law to force the gay baker to bow to their demand to validate their union the same way they'd validate a straight union. Do we want the law to judge which party is the bigger boor?

Exactly. Everyone is supposed to have equal access to the product. The law does not recognize religious beliefs as a basis for laws when it comes to operating a business, as it should be.

Well, the gay couple had plenty of access to cakes even if the Christian baker wouldn't sell one to the gay couple. And as a result the gay baker goes out of biz and owes 135K. I submit, the penalty far exceeded any offense, and the gay couple's motivation was not achieving equal access to cakes, but rather punish the baker for choosing to base his business decision on a belief that their marriage was not a good as a hetro marriage. So, I'm pretty sure both parties are boors, but I'm a little hard pressed to find the gay baker is the bigger jerk than the gays.

Point is, if you deny them access, you are discriminating against them and breaking the law. I agree that the amount awarded is pretty high, but that is probably because of the blatant disregard for the law exhibited by this couple.

The Christian baker broke the law, no argument. But, I gotta say, I'm pretty much in favor of decriminalizing drug use, and I have lots less sympathy for druggies getting raped in prison that I have for the Christian baker.

I know, some of you will continue to see these bakers as some kind of victims or martyrs. I don't see it like that.

 

[Statistikhengst]

You people need to die off. How can anyone this stupid possibly be smart enough to breathe? I know you aren't smart enough to support yourself...once we cut off the government tit, you'll all starve. Thank god. I just hope you cannibalize each other first. I'd pay money to watch.

Outstanding meltdown!! When your argument just totally falls apart and everyone is handing you your (in this case a, very FAT ) ASS, then just call for them to die!!! Brava, Kosherthingy, brava!!!

 

[Faun]

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.

Even if we did play dumb, since that's the only way you know how to play....show me where in the Constitution it says that homos can force people to participate in their 'ceremonies'? And in the meantime...you don't have to agree with my religion before I am allowed to practice it. Nor do you get to dictate what is, or is not, a sacrament. I know you've admitted you don't understand what sacrament or sacrilege mean....but for the rest of us who do, it needs to be said.

Let's look at the bigger issue:

Where does it say in The Constitution that one private party can force another private party to do something against his will?

I heard the same complaint against having to buy health insurance. The Supreme Court said that was Constitutional too.

 

[Coyote]

This is Zone 2 Politics...let's talk about the topic please. And talking about bans is a no no

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

What they are doing is demanding that Christians recant their faith, or be fined into penury, and lose their businesses. Which is exactly what the Spanish Inquisition was all about.and Nazism..and Marxism.....the state inspecting the faith of people and then punishing them if they don't worship according to what the state dictates is proper. Whether that means adhering to a state-sanctioned faith, or rejecting your own...it's all the same.

Only they're so ******* stupid and illiterate they don't see it.

Social Justice Snowflakes are today's Totalitarian Shock Troops.

Use "Stormtroopers". It's much more dramatic, you know.

 

[Faun]

Where does the Bible state, thou shalt not bake a cake for thine woman who lieth with another woman?

Well if I need a strawman baked, I know who to look up.

Translation: Sweet Cakes was not asked to violate their religious beliefs by baking a cake.

A woman having sex with a woman is sin, asking a third party to participate in celebrating that sin is a violation of the third party's rights.

They weren't asking them to celebrate them having sex either.

Of course they were. Though I doubt you know what the definition of marriage is....it has to do with two being joined as one. How do you suppose that takes place..or do you not know the definition of 'joined', either?

You're an imbecile. According to you, a married couple is divorced every time they finish having sex and roll over -- they are no longer "one."

Marriage is not sex.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

Yes, I can imagine that you are afraid a great deal. Paranoia...

 

[Faun]

You people need to die off. How can anyone this stupid possibly be smart enough to breathe? I know you aren't smart enough to support yourself...once we cut off the government tit, you'll all starve. Thank god. I just hope you cannibalize each other first. I'd pay money to watch.

Outstanding meltdown!! When your argument just totally falls apart and everyone is handing you your (in this case a, very FAT ) ASS, then just call for them to die!!! Brava, Kosherthingy, brava!!!

She's the one promoting Christian values.

 

[Faun]

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. **** the law, when the law is illegal.

Not true. You can't just break the law and cite some made up religious belief as a defense. I recall a church in Miami trying that idiocy as a defense for smoking weed. That turned out even worse for them than it did for Sweet Cakes.

The law itself is in violation of the law.

And watch us. Believe me, we can and will break the law. Just like you and your homo friends did every time you took it up the butt before sodomy became the (fake) law of the land.

Outstanding case of butthurt without borders!!!


Brava, Kosherthingy, brava!!!

So if the law is always right, it was right when you took it up the butt when sodomy was illegal...right, statist? That makes you a criminal.

Who the **** told you the law is always right?? You truly are an imbecile.

 

[bendog]

I'm not a PA fan, but you are not honestly addressing what the law forbids. The Christian baker is not punished for not baking the cake. He's punished for not selling the cake. Once he enters into private commerce he must comply with all constitutional laws, and there's no argument that PA laws are unconstitutional. That issue is settled, whether we like it or not.

So, imo, the argument against the PA law is, imo, that the gay plaintiffs were never really denied a cake because there are lots of bakers. Rather, the issue was the gay plaintiffs used the law to force the gay baker to bow to their demand to validate their union the same way they'd validate a straight union. Do we want the law to judge which party is the bigger boor?

Exactly. Everyone is supposed to have equal access to the product. The law does not recognize religious beliefs as a basis for laws when it comes to operating a business, as it should be.

Well, the gay couple had plenty of access to cakes even if the Christian baker wouldn't sell one to the gay couple. And as a result the gay baker goes out of biz and owes 135K. I submit, the penalty far exceeded any offense, and the gay couple's motivation was not achieving equal access to cakes, but rather punish the baker for choosing to base his business decision on a belief that their marriage was not a good as a hetro marriage. So, I'm pretty sure both parties are boors, but I'm a little hard pressed to find the gay baker is the bigger jerk than the gays.

Point is, if you deny them access, you are discriminating against them and breaking the law. I agree that the amount awarded is pretty high, but that is probably because of the blatant disregard for the law exhibited by this couple.

The Christian baker broke the law, no argument. But, I gotta say, I'm pretty much in favor of decriminalizing drug use, and I have lots less sympathy for druggies getting raped in prison that I have for the Christian baker.

I know, some of you will continue to see these bakers as some kind of victims or martyrs. I don't see it like that.

I think they're bigots and boors, but there are plenty of those amongst the gay folk too. I just think civil law should .... take a pass on this. The gays will win out within 20 years, and nobody in Oregon is going without cake.

On a slightly different tack .... I think the whole issue of religion and public life is interesting. In the bigger picture this is sort of like the Elizabethan Compromise and the concept of via media. All citizens had to swear to the primacy of the Anglican Church, and to Elizabeth and all future rulers being Anglican, and to a prescribed rite of worship. But, the rite was vague enough to allow both Anglican and Roman Catholic services. What you chose to worship was not of interest to the state. But to deny Elizabeth, or Anglicanism as the state religion, at the least you'd lose your head, and there was also the possibility of having your balls roasted while you were trussed up by your hands and feet over a fire.

The Founders had good reason to eschew a state religion. I think in terms of PA and gay rights, we've elevated secularism to a state religion, and the state is picking the winner in a fight between boors. And the Founders rather believed that with free speech and debate, people would find the correct path without state compulsion, on way or the other.

 

[bendog]

Well if I need a strawman baked, I know who to look up.

Translation: Sweet Cakes was not asked to violate their religious beliefs by baking a cake.

A woman having sex with a woman is sin, asking a third party to participate in celebrating that sin is a violation of the third party's rights.

They weren't asking them to celebrate them having sex either.

Of course they were. Though I doubt you know what the definition of marriage is....it has to do with two being joined as one. How do you suppose that takes place..or do you not know the definition of 'joined', either?

You're an imbecile. According to you, a married couple is divorced every time they finish having sex and roll over -- they are no longer "one."

Marriage is not sex.

If only divorce was so easy. (-:

 

[koshergrl]

Exactly. Everyone is supposed to have equal access to the product. The law does not recognize religious beliefs as a basis for laws when it comes to operating a business, as it should be.

Well, the gay couple had plenty of access to cakes even if the Christian baker wouldn't sell one to the gay couple. And as a result the gay baker goes out of biz and owes 135K. I submit, the penalty far exceeded any offense, and the gay couple's motivation was not achieving equal access to cakes, but rather punish the baker for choosing to base his business decision on a belief that their marriage was not a good as a hetro marriage. So, I'm pretty sure both parties are boors, but I'm a little hard pressed to find the gay baker is the bigger jerk than the gays.

Point is, if you deny them access, you are discriminating against them and breaking the law. I agree that the amount awarded is pretty high, but that is probably because of the blatant disregard for the law exhibited by this couple.

The Christian baker broke the law, no argument. But, I gotta say, I'm pretty much in favor of decriminalizing drug use, and I have lots less sympathy for druggies getting raped in prison that I have for the Christian baker.

I know, some of you will continue to see these bakers as some kind of victims or martyrs. I don't see it like that.

I think they're bigots and boors, but there are plenty of those amongst the gay folk too. I just think civil law should .... take a pass on this. The gays will win out within 20 years, and nobody in Oregon is going without cake.

On a slightly different tack .... I think the whole issue of religion and public life is interesting. In the bigger picture this is sort of like the Elizabethan Compromise and the concept of via media. All citizens had to swear to the primacy of the Anglican Church, and to Elizabeth and all future rulers being Anglican, and to a prescribed rite of worship. But, the rite was vague enough to allow both Anglican and Roman Catholic services. What you chose to worship was not of interest to the state. But to deny Elizabeth, or Anglicanism as the state religion, at the least you'd lose your head, and there was also the possibility of having your balls roasted while you were trussed up by your hands and feet over a fire.

The Founders had good reason to eschew a state religion. I think in terms of PA and gay rights, we've elevated secularism to a state religion, and the state is picking the winner in a fight between boors. And the Founders rather believed that with free speech and debate, people would find the correct path without state compulsion, on way or the other.

Well we no longer have free speech.

 

[Spare_change]

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.

Being forced to bake a cake to celebrate something the Bible forbids is a violation of the religious beliefs of those whose religious beliefs are based on such a reading of the Bible.

The fact that you can't admit this just proves what a hack you are.

Baking a cake does not equal homosexuality.

You're right ... but baking a cake in support of a gay wedding equals a sin.

Apparently, "your bible" and the actual Bible don't read the same way.

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.

Being forced to bake a cake to celebrate something the Bible forbids is a violation of the religious beliefs of those whose religious beliefs are based on such a reading of the Bible.

The fact that you can't admit this just proves what a hack you are.

Baking a cake does not equal homosexuality.

You're right ... but baking a cake in support of a gay wedding equals a sin.

Apparently, "your bible" and the actual Bible don't read the same way.

Have you ever SEEN a Bible?

 

[Statistikhengst]

So if the law is always right, it was right when you took it up the butt when sodomy was illegal...right, statist? That makes you a criminal.

"took it up the butt"





I am so glad you are back. You are an excellent playtoy. But you do seem obsessed with buttsex. I'm not, cuz I don't do buttsex.

Are you trying to confess that you really, really want to try buttsex but are just way too old and way to ugly to get started, perhaps?

 

[Esmeralda]

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.

Even if we did play dumb, since that's the only way you know how to play....show me where in the Constitution it says that homos can force people to participate in their 'ceremonies'? And in the meantime...you don't have to agree with my religion before I am allowed to practice it. Nor do you get to dictate what is, or is not, a sacrament. I know you've admitted you don't understand what sacrament or sacrilege mean....but for the rest of us who do, it needs to be said.

Practicing your religion and owning a commercial business that serves the public are two different things. When you own a commercial business, you are required to keep to the state and national laws governing commerical business. Period. It is completely separate from your personal religious beliefs.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

Even if we did play dumb, since that's the only way you know how to play....show me where in the Constitution it says that homos can force people to participate in their 'ceremonies'? And in the meantime...you don't have to agree with my religion before I am allowed to practice it. Nor do you get to dictate what is, or is not, a sacrament. I know you've admitted you don't understand what sacrament or sacrilege mean....but for the rest of us who do, it needs to be said.

Practicing your religion and owning a commercial business that serves the public are two different things. When you own a commercial business, you are required to keep to the state and national laws governing commerical business. Period. It is completely separate from your personal religious beliefs.

No, it's not.

That was easy.

 

[Esmeralda]

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.

Even if we did play dumb, since that's the only way you know how to play....show me where in the Constitution it says that homos can force people to participate in their 'ceremonies'? And in the meantime...you don't have to agree with my religion before I am allowed to practice it. Nor do you get to dictate what is, or is not, a sacrament. I know you've admitted you don't understand what sacrament or sacrilege mean....but for the rest of us who do, it needs to be said.

Practicing your religion and owning a commercial business that serves the public are two different things. When you own a commercial business, you are required to keep to the state and national laws governing commerical business. Period. It is completely separate from your personal religious beliefs.

No, it's not.

That was easy.

Yes it is dingbat. Your 'easy answer' is only easy for the simple minded.

 

[bendog]

Well, the gay couple had plenty of access to cakes even if the Christian baker wouldn't sell one to the gay couple. And as a result the gay baker goes out of biz and owes 135K. I submit, the penalty far exceeded any offense, and the gay couple's motivation was not achieving equal access to cakes, but rather punish the baker for choosing to base his business decision on a belief that their marriage was not a good as a hetro marriage. So, I'm pretty sure both parties are boors, but I'm a little hard pressed to find the gay baker is the bigger jerk than the gays.

Point is, if you deny them access, you are discriminating against them and breaking the law. I agree that the amount awarded is pretty high, but that is probably because of the blatant disregard for the law exhibited by this couple.

The Christian baker broke the law, no argument. But, I gotta say, I'm pretty much in favor of decriminalizing drug use, and I have lots less sympathy for druggies getting raped in prison that I have for the Christian baker.

I know, some of you will continue to see these bakers as some kind of victims or martyrs. I don't see it like that.

I think they're bigots and boors, but there are plenty of those amongst the gay folk too. I just think civil law should .... take a pass on this. The gays will win out within 20 years, and nobody in Oregon is going without cake.

On a slightly different tack .... I think the whole issue of religion and public life is interesting. In the bigger picture this is sort of like the Elizabethan Compromise and the concept of via media. All citizens had to swear to the primacy of the Anglican Church, and to Elizabeth and all future rulers being Anglican, and to a prescribed rite of worship. But, the rite was vague enough to allow both Anglican and Roman Catholic services. What you chose to worship was not of interest to the state. But to deny Elizabeth, or Anglicanism as the state religion, at the least you'd lose your head, and there was also the possibility of having your balls roasted while you were trussed up by your hands and feet over a fire.

The Founders had good reason to eschew a state religion. I think in terms of PA and gay rights, we've elevated secularism to a state religion, and the state is picking the winner in a fight between boors. And the Founders rather believed that with free speech and debate, people would find the correct path without state compulsion, on way or the other.

Well we no longer have free speech.

Constitutionally, you have free speech. The legal argument against PA was it infringed the right to contract, which is an enumerated right. The gummit cannot compel you to enter a contract. PA laws are premised on equal protection or the commerce clause allowing the govt to compel you.

Roberts correctly upheld Obamacare as a tax, because a non-activist judge upholds a law if there's any way to do it, but he didn't buy the argument that the commerce clause gave the gummit power to compel you to enter a contract.

 

[saveliberty]

These laws damage you and your business in what way?

It restricts my right to express my beliefs through my vocation. It is like you think people are robots during work hours and their life starts after the work day. It is repression and slavery.

Nice drama llama Stat.