Author Topic: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case  (Read 44325 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #50 on: January 02, 2018, 03:08:40 pm »
@Jazzhead Which is exactly what the gay couple is trying to do. Do you really not see the irony of your position.

The gay couple sought only the service the baker advertised to provide.  The baker's refusal of that service was arbitrary and, it turns out, against the law.   I don't think the gay couple has a right to ruin the baker.  But neither does the baker have the right to continue to refuse service on the basis of sexual orientation.

The just result is to find for the plaintiffs and require the baker to pay their court costs and attorney's fees, and refrain from discriminatory conduct in the future.  I strongly oppose the court's decision to uphold the punitive monetary damage award.           
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline jpsb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,141
  • Gender: Male
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #51 on: January 02, 2018, 03:11:12 pm »
How about I go to some man hating feminist baker and tell her to make a cake like this

« Last Edit: January 02, 2018, 03:26:16 pm by mystery-ak »

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #52 on: January 02, 2018, 03:11:25 pm »
Gov most certainly is forcing the artist, in this case the baker, to create a work of art that
violates his conscience. That is unconstitutional and immoral.

Not so.  The baker is under no legal obligation to make wedding cakes for anyone.   That's his choice.  Having made that choice, the community's requirement is merely, and only, that he not discriminate.   

Why is it "immoral" for the community to require that a baker provide the services that he advertises to provide? 
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #53 on: January 02, 2018, 03:12:25 pm »
How about I go to some man hating feminist baker and tell her to make a cake like this

Do you think that the rest of us admire Christians more when they act like jerks?   
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline jpsb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,141
  • Gender: Male
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #54 on: January 02, 2018, 03:12:59 pm »
Commercial speech receives less protection than non-commercial speech, and no matter how “artistic” it may be, if it’s done for profit as part of a business, it’s commercial speech, at most.

And you point is?

Offline jpsb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,141
  • Gender: Male
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #55 on: January 02, 2018, 03:17:55 pm »
Not so.  The baker is under no legal obligation to make wedding cakes for anyone.   That's his choice.  Having made that choice, the community's requirement is merely, and only, that he not discriminate.   

Why is it "immoral" for the community to require that a baker provide the services that he advertises to provide?


Making a custom cake is creating a work of art. It is an artist endeavor like painting a portrait
Would you require a working artist to also create art  work that violated his conscience? Absurd.

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #56 on: January 02, 2018, 03:19:43 pm »

Making a custom cake is creating a work of art. It is an artist endeavor like painting a portrait
Would you require a working artist to also create art  work that violated his conscience? Absurd.

Nonsense. It’s not high art. It’s commercial work, like signage or a vehicle wrap. 

Offline jpsb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,141
  • Gender: Male
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #57 on: January 02, 2018, 03:20:09 pm »
Do you think that the rest of us admire Christians more when they act like jerks?

Oh so my request is bad but the queers request is good? LOL, you lose, I win.

Offline jpsb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,141
  • Gender: Male
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #58 on: January 02, 2018, 03:23:44 pm »
Nonsense. It’s not high art. It’s commercial work, like signage or a vehicle wrap.

Oh really?


Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #59 on: January 02, 2018, 03:26:04 pm »
Not so.  The baker is under no legal obligation to make wedding cakes for anyone.   That's his choice.  Having made that choice, the community's requirement is merely, and only, that he not discriminate.   

Why is it "immoral" for the community to require that a baker provide the services that he advertises to provide?

Because a large majority of us have shown countless times where your position on this is severely flawed I'll just say this...

You're wrong.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #60 on: January 02, 2018, 03:26:26 pm »
Oh really?



Really.  It is commercial work done for profit, and is therefore not entitled to the full panoply of First Amendment protections. 

If the baker doesn’t want to make cakes for queers, then he should move to a different state where it’s not illegal to discriminate or find a new line of business. 

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #61 on: January 02, 2018, 03:29:13 pm »
Really.  It is commercial work done for profit, and is therefore not entitled to the full panoply of First Amendment protections. 

If the baker doesn’t want to make cakes for bleep, then he should move to a different state where it’s not illegal to discriminate or find a new line of business.

Show me in the Constitution where the distinction is made or there is a clause that draws a distinction between for profit and regular old free speech.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #62 on: January 02, 2018, 03:32:24 pm »
Show me in the Constitution where the distinction is made or there is a clause that draws a distinction between for profit and regular old free speech.

Why don’t you stop swilling Constitutional bromides and go learn something about the Constitution and how it’s interpreted and applied, particularly in the commercial speech context. 

Wedding cakes made by a commercial baker are not the same as the Sistine Chapel and are not entitled to the same protections.  It’s just that simple, and if you can’t see it, that’s because you don’t want to see it. 

Offline Right_in_Virginia

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 79,323
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #63 on: January 02, 2018, 03:36:35 pm »
Oh really?



Now THIS is a work of art! 

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,873
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #64 on: January 02, 2018, 03:40:45 pm »
Do you think that the rest of us admire Christians more when they act like jerks?

So you admit gay people that seek out Christian bakers to create complains are "acting like jerks?"  Thanks for finally coming clean about that.
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline driftdiver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,897
  • Gender: Male
  • I could eat it raw but why when I have fire
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #65 on: January 02, 2018, 03:41:53 pm »

Making a custom cake is creating a work of art. It is an artist endeavor like painting a portrait
Would you require a working artist to also create art  work that violated his conscience? Absurd.

@jpsb

I don't care if its art or not, just because I have a business doesn't mean I'm a slave. 
Fools mock, tongues wag, babies cry and goats bleat.

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #66 on: January 02, 2018, 03:42:16 pm »
Why don’t you stop swilling Constitutional bromides and go learn something about the Constitution and how it’s interpreted and applied, particularly in the commercial speech context. 

Wedding cakes made by a commercial baker are not the same as the Sistine Chapel and are not entitled to the same protections.  It’s just that simple, and if you can’t see it, that’s because you don’t want to see it.

You made the claim O...you need to back it up.

I know the Constitution especially where the 1st Amendment is concerned.

There is no asterisk anywhere in it that says your entitled to free speech unless you profit from it.

If that were the case newspapers would have been sued out of existence a long time ago.

And if refusing to make a cake is discrimatory...why isn't "no shirt no shoes no service"?
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #67 on: January 02, 2018, 03:43:10 pm »
@jpsb

I don't care if its art or not, just because I have a business doesn't mean I'm a slave.

Exactly
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #68 on: January 02, 2018, 03:52:19 pm »
You made the claim O...you need to back it up.

I know the Constitution especially where the 1st Amendment is concerned.

There is no asterisk anywhere in it that says your entitled to free speech unless you profit from it.

If that were the case newspapers would have been sued out of existence a long time ago.

And if refusing to make a cake is discrimatory...why isn't "no shirt no shoes no service"?

Refusing to bake a cake is discriminatory because Oregon made it so and imposed penalties for violating the proscription.  If Oregon makes it illegal to deny service for lack of shoes or a shirt, then that would be illegal. As of now, it’s not.

If you know the Constitution as well as you claim, then you understand the difference between strict scrutiny, which applies to state laws that infringe on noncommercial speech, and intermediate scrutiny, which applies to state laws that infringe on commercial speech, and under which the state only has to show that the infringing law addresses a substantial interest, and directly and materially advances that interest by means no more extensive than necessary.  Discrimination against a significant portion of the community on an irrelevant basis is a substantial interest and prohibiting such discrimination by businesses is generally a direct means of advancing the goal of preventing that discrimination that is not an extensive overreach.  The punitive damages penalty is, by contrast, excessive and if anything is most likely to be struck down. 

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,873
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #69 on: January 02, 2018, 03:53:40 pm »
And if refusing to make a cake is discrimatory...why isn't "no shirt no shoes no service"?

I foresee a day when that gets sued out of existence by some barefoot, topless chick with boobs nobody wants to see.
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline driftdiver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,897
  • Gender: Male
  • I could eat it raw but why when I have fire
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #70 on: January 02, 2018, 04:01:31 pm »
Refusing to bake a cake is discriminatory because Oregon made it so and imposed penalties for violating the proscription.  If Oregon makes it illegal to deny service for lack of shoes or a shirt, then that would be illegal. As of now, it’s not.

If you know the Constitution as well as you claim, then you understand the difference between strict scrutiny, which applies to state laws that infringe on noncommercial speech, and intermediate scrutiny, which applies to state laws that infringe on commercial speech, and under which the state only has to show that the infringing law addresses a substantial interest, and directly and materially advances that interest by means no more extensive than necessary.  Discrimination against a significant portion of the community on an irrelevant basis is a substantial interest and prohibiting such discrimination by businesses is generally a direct means of advancing the goal of preventing that discrimination that is not an extensive overreach.  The punitive damages penalty is, by contrast, excessive and if anything is most likely to be struck down.

@Oceander
So says the guy who in one thread says he passed the CA bar and in another denies it.

Significant portion of the community eh?

Roughly `10% of gays have gotten married.   Gays make up about 1.7% of the population so thats .17% of the US population is under consideration here.  Thats LESS then 2 tenths of a %.

Hardly a significant number.
Fools mock, tongues wag, babies cry and goats bleat.

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #71 on: January 02, 2018, 04:01:33 pm »
@jpsb

I don't care if its art or not, just because I have a business doesn't mean I'm a slave.

Requiring a commercial business to abide by the community's reasonable rules is not "slavery".   Slavery's a serious matter, and you're trivializing it.   

No one has forced this baker to make wedding cakes.  That's his free choice, and all the community requires is that he not arbitrarily discriminate with respect to the services he's advertised to provide.   
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #72 on: January 02, 2018, 04:02:25 pm »
@Oceander
So says the guy who in one thread says he passed the CA bar and in another denies it.

Significant portion of the community eh?

Roughly `10% of gays have gotten married.   Gays make up about 1.7% of the population so thats .17% of the US population is under consideration here.  Thats LESS then 2 tenths of a %.

Hardly a significant number.


I have never claimed to have passed the CA bar. 

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #73 on: January 02, 2018, 04:05:55 pm »
@Oceander
So says the guy who in one thread says he passed the CA bar and in another denies it.

Significant portion of the community eh?

Roughly `10% of gays have gotten married.   Gays make up about 1.7% of the population so thats .17% of the US population is under consideration here.  Thats LESS then 2 tenths of a %.

Hardly a significant number.

Then it should be no significant burden to profit handsomely from the production of wedding cakes.   99.80% of your business won't violate your "conscience".   
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline driftdiver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,897
  • Gender: Male
  • I could eat it raw but why when I have fire
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #74 on: January 02, 2018, 04:06:15 pm »
Requiring a commercial business to abide by the community's reasonable rules is not "slavery".   Slavery's a serious matter, and you're trivializing it.   

No one has forced this baker to make wedding cakes.  That's his free choice, and all the community requires is that he not arbitrarily discriminate with respect to the services he's advertised to provide.

@Jazzhead
Nonsense, you're bigotry against Christians is so tiresome.
Fools mock, tongues wag, babies cry and goats bleat.