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

[Rexx Taylor]

They should have baked the cake and spelled the dyke's names wrong.

christ! for 135K , i could take a 3 week vacation on Martha's Vinyard! and even a seperate jet for my wife/kids/dogs/and sexy maids.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, that's exactly what you said. According to you, discrimination in buying a product or service is different from discriminating in selling a product or service because the later is illegal. Therefore, the later should be illegal.

How is that not an accurate paraphrase of what you said?

You're too stupid to see the fallacy in what you posted even after it has been pointed out to you.

Uh, no.

Discrimination by sellers is illegal because they are a public accommodation. Their ability to act as a vendor is supported by the fact that they are propped up by a lot of government infrastructure - Utilities, Roads, Regulatory compliance, Police Protection, Fire Protection and so on. therefore, they must be open to all customers regardless of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.

A vendor CAN discriminate on the basis of whether they can perform a service. For instance, a baker can refuse to serve meat because they aren't set up to serve meat. They can't say, "We aren't going to serve you because our Imaginary Friend in the Sky says what you are doing is bad."

 

[ChrisL]

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 **** 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.

Well, you know, if they serve a gay, they might turn gay. Scary!!! The gays are scarrrrrryyyy!

 

[ChrisL]

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.

After being a member of this forum, I am skeptical. I used to think racism and gay-haters were rare and the minority, but not anymore. I see what a problem it really is in our society, especially from the older generation who are out of date and out of touch.

Not just that, Fox News and righty talk radio are cultivating new racists with their promotion of conservative Christian victimhood

Well, they must have someone that they can oppress. That's the name of the game with religion. They have to dehumanize one group at least, so that they can feel superior.

 

[Pop23]

The Kleins are a good Christian couple and I hate seeing this happen to them. I reversed my approval of gay weddings over this outrage. Now I am totally opposed to any gay marriage and will work to have this court decision overturned by new legislation or constutitional convention to outlaw gay marriage. Gays have overstepped. They couldn't leave their victory alone. Now they are using it to persecute decent people who cannot violate their Christian beliefs. The Kleins are going to appeal this decision and I wish them God-speed.

It's remarkable that anyone can truly be this ignorant of the Constitution and hateful toward gay Americans.

Clearly we're still very much in need of the 14th Amendment jurisprudence that safeguards all Americans' civil rights from this sort of ignorance and hate.

Clearly the argument on the 14th was successfully argued by same sex marriage advocates.

What will happen when plural marriage is legalized by a State or by Court ruling? It would appear that all 50 states would be forced to recognize those marriages? If this goes the same way that same sex marriage went, the courts would then force states to issue those same licenses.

Unless, I suppose, the States took a proactive stance and tried to ban them altogether, which didn't work too well earlier, or simply stop issuing marriage licenses.

Plural marriage is a slam dunk now since there is no limiting factor to the institution now, or none that could be successfully argued.

Is there ANY OTHER CONTRACT, that limits the participating parties to two? I can't think of a single one.

So the number is arbitrary.

Incestuous marriage would be the logical next step, politically even less popular than SSM or plural marriage, but would not be stopped by sound legal reasoning. How can two same sex siblings procreate?

That is how this will, if not overturn, but end same sex marriage along with all marriage.

It will be messy, and a backlash should be expected.

 

[koshergrl]

Can a bakery refuse to bake a retirement cake for a vaccination lab?

Yup.

 

[Esmeralda]

The Kleins are a good Christian couple and I hate seeing this happen to them. I reversed my approval of gay weddings over this outrage. Now I am totally opposed to any gay marriage and will work to have this court decision overturned by new legislation or constutitional convention to outlaw gay marriage. Gays have overstepped. They couldn't leave their victory alone. Now they are using it to persecute decent people who cannot violate their Christian beliefs. The Kleins are going to appeal this decision and I wish them God-speed.

It's remarkable that anyone can truly be this ignorant of the Constitution and hateful toward gay Americans.

Clearly we're still very much in need of the 14th Amendment jurisprudence that safeguards all Americans' civil rights from this sort of ignorance and hate.

Clearly the argument on the 14th was successfully argued by same sex marriage advocates.

What will happen when plural marriage is legalized by a State or by Court ruling? It would appear that all 50 states would be forced to recognize those marriages? If this goes the same way that same sex marriage went, the courts would then force states to issue those same licenses.

Unless, I suppose, the States took a proactive stance and tried to ban them altogether, which didn't work too well earlier, or simply stop issuing marriage licenses.

Plural marriage is a slam dunk now since there is no limiting factor to the institution now, or none that could be successfully argued.

Is there ANY OTHER CONTRACT, that limits the participating parties to two? I can't think of a single one.

So the number is arbitrary.

Incestuous marriage would be the logical next step, politically even less popular than SSM or plural marriage, but would not be stopped by sound legal reasoning. How can two same sex siblings procreate?

That is how this will, if not overturn, but end same sex marriage along with all marriage.

It will be messy, and a backlash should be expected.

You guys are always trying to use arguments that are false analogies. Plural marriage is not analogous to same sex marriage, not at all: it's a completely different thing. One marriage: two people. That's the traditional way and the same sex way. Plural spouses is not at all the same thing.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Evidently it hasn't ended, the bakers filed suit yesterday. It will probably end up with SCOTUS

 

[toxicmedia]

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 **** 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.

Well, you know, if they serve a gay, they might turn gay. Scary!!! The gays are scarrrrrryyyy!

The GOP media will provide them with plenty of pseudo constitutional arguments they can use to attempt to NOT appear to be what they are...bigots.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

Well, you know, if they serve a gay, they might turn gay. Scary!!! The gays are scarrrrrryyyy!

The GOP media will provide them with plenty of pseudo constitutional arguments they can use to attempt to NOT appear to be what they are...bigots.

You realize your intense dislike for the GOP makes you a bigot, right? Same as with those that dislike Christians, they are what they spew, bigots. Have a nice day

 

[boedicca]

Oh great. That really is the purpose of the Law for Progressives: to make basically innocent people into Sacrifices to their Statist Gods so that the rest of the Small Folk are cowed into obedience.

Bigot Cakes By Melissa isn't innocent. We've already established this. There are PA Laws in Oregon, she broke them.

Laws are only meaningful if they are seen to be enforced.

B'loney. She just wants to be left alone. She didn't try to stop anyone's wedding.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I knew it was coming, people are sick of the whines and demands.

SURVEY: 14-POINT DROP IN PERCENTAGE OF AMERICANS BELIEVING BUSINESS OWNERS MUST PROVIDE SERVICES TO SAME-SEX COUPLES

A new survey published by the Newseum Institute finds a 14-point drop since 2013 in the percentage of Americans who believe business owners should be required to provide services to same-sex couples, even when business owners say it is against their religion to do so.

Survey 14-Point Drop in Percentage of Americans Believing Business Owners Must Provide Services To Same-Sex Couples

 

[Flash Farley]

 

[toxicmedia]

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.

Well, you know, if they serve a gay, they might turn gay. Scary!!! The gays are scarrrrrryyyy!

The GOP media will provide them with plenty of pseudo constitutional arguments they can use to attempt to NOT appear to be what they are...bigots.

You realize your intense dislike for the GOP makes you a bigot, right? Same as with those that dislike Christians, they are what they spew, bigots. Have a nice day

Sure.

Here is a list of the kind of people I show bigotry towards:

Family Values groups
Evangelical Conservatives
Militia Members
Tea Partiers
Stormfront/KKK/Neo-Nazi types
Fox News Republicans
Talk Radio Fans
People who don't think a college degree has value
Anyone who opposes gay marriage and abortion

Any one of these symptoms indicates you're retarded

I don't dislike the GOP, when it comes to people like Jeb Bush and Chris Christie

It's the Palins, Bachmanns, Gomerts, and Kings that I hate

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

Well, you know, if they serve a gay, they might turn gay. Scary!!! The gays are scarrrrrryyyy!

The GOP media will provide them with plenty of pseudo constitutional arguments they can use to attempt to NOT appear to be what they are...bigots.

You realize your intense dislike for the GOP makes you a bigot, right? Same as with those that dislike Christians, they are what they spew, bigots. Have a nice day

Sure.

Here is a list of the kind of people I show bigotry towards:

Family Values groups
Evangelical Conservatives
Militia Members
Tea Partiers
Stormfront/KKK/Neo-Nazi types
Fox News Republicans
Talk Radio Fans
People who don't think a college degree has value
Anyone who opposes gay marriage and abortion

Any one of these symptoms indicates you're retarded

So you're a bigot, I suggest you cease calling others bigot. Of course you won't grasp it but others will

 

[Statistikhengst]

The level of zany RWNJ butthurt on this thread is just priceless.

Proceed apace.

 

[toxicmedia]

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.

Well, you know, if they serve a gay, they might turn gay. Scary!!! The gays are scarrrrrryyyy!

The GOP media will provide them with plenty of pseudo constitutional arguments they can use to attempt to NOT appear to be what they are...bigots.

You realize your intense dislike for the GOP makes you a bigot, right? Same as with those that dislike Christians, they are what they spew, bigots. Have a nice day

Sure.

Here is a list of the kind of people I show bigotry towards:

Family Values groups
Evangelical Conservatives
Militia Members
Tea Partiers
Stormfront/KKK/Neo-Nazi types
Fox News Republicans
Talk Radio Fans
People who don't think a college degree has value
Anyone who opposes gay marriage and abortion

Any one of these symptoms indicates you're retarded

So you're a bigot, I suggest you cease calling others bigot. Of course you won't grasp it but others will

You're a bigot.

We both are

The difference is you won't admit it

 

[Flash Farley]

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.

Well, you know, if they serve a gay, they might turn gay. Scary!!! The gays are scarrrrrryyyy!

The GOP media will provide them with plenty of pseudo constitutional arguments they can use to attempt to NOT appear to be what they are...bigots.

You realize your intense dislike for the GOP makes you a bigot, right? Same as with those that dislike Christians, they are what they spew, bigots. Have a nice day

Sure.

Here is a list of the kind of people I show bigotry towards:

Family Values groups
Evangelical Conservatives
Militia Members
Tea Partiers
Stormfront/KKK/Neo-Nazi types
Fox News Republicans
Talk Radio Fans
People who don't think a college degree has value
Anyone who opposes gay marriage and abortion

Any one of these symptoms indicates you're retarded

I don't dislike the GOP, when it comes to people like Jeb Bush and Chris Christie

It's the Palins, Bachmanns, Gomerts, and Kings that I hate

 

[MarcATL]

I'll donate to their account........the gay fascists will target churches next.......

It's true what they say..."A fool and his money are soon parted."

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[bodecea]

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.

Well, you know, if they serve a gay, they might turn gay. Scary!!! The gays are scarrrrrryyyy!

The GOP media will provide them with plenty of pseudo constitutional arguments they can use to attempt to NOT appear to be what they are...bigots.

You realize your intense dislike for the GOP makes you a bigot, right? Same as with those that dislike Christians, they are what they spew, bigots. Have a nice day

So...if someone has an intense dislike of the Democrat Party they are bigots?