Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case

[Jazzhead]

Because every sale is in fact a contract, and no one should be made to enter a contract against his will.

Contracts are mutually agreeable, or they are not contracts.

That isn't how it works in the context of a retail store or other public accommodation.  The shopowner decides what he will sell, advertises his wares and posts his prices.   The customer's acceptance of those terms represents the contract.   Here, the customer didn't know he'd get the bum's rush until after he'd entered the store and requested the advertised service.

[txradioguy]

Exaggerate much?  After all, what we're arguing about is a simple rule that a businessman be true to his word.  This isn't "censorship", of even the camel's nose variety.

The Liberalism in your DNA blinds you to the very simple fact that if the Federal Government can force you to bake a cake that goes against your beliefs...in very short order they can and will force you to produce things whether it's a cake or a something else whether you want to or not.

That is the very definition of tyranny.  And you're all for tyranny in all it's many flavors.

[Oceander]

The Liberalism in your DNA blinds you to the very simple fact that if the Federal Government can force you to bake a cake that goes against your beliefs...in very short order they can and will force you to produce things whether it's a cake or a something else whether you want to or not.

That is the very definition of tyranny.  And you're all for tyranny in all it's many flavors.

It’s not the Federal government, it’s the state government of Oregon, and the states, unlike the federal government, possess full police power except to the extent taken away or limited by the Constitution.  And the police power includes the power to set the terms under which business will be done.

[roamer_1]

What is the difference between an artist and a craftsman? And why should it matter?

Artistry and craftsmanship are beside the point.

No one... NO ONE should be forced into a contract against their will. Doesn't matter if it's art, or craft, or widgets, or groceries.

[driftdiver]

Artistry and craftsmanship are beside the point.

No one... NO ONE should be forced into a contract against their will. Doesn't matter if it's art, or craft, or widgets, or groceries.

@roamer_1
If someone doesn't want to sell you a cake, and edible cake, why would you want to force them to buy it.   Why would you put a wedding cake in their hands.  Something that could turn your wedding day into a disaster?

Why would you choose to do that?   Unless of course it wasn't about cake in the first place.

[roamer_1]

Exaggerate much?  After all, what we're arguing about is a simple rule that a businessman be true to his word.  This isn't "censorship", of even the camel's nose variety.

There is no exaggeration. This is grievous censorship under the color of law.
This is nothing to do with a businessman being true to his word - His word has not been given. There is no contract. Once there is a contract, THEN you have a point. But there is no contract - no agreement, and therefore, no word.

[txradioguy]

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.

And their discriminating against the many to satisfy the political agenda of the very few.  You can go into any restaurant in the state...hell anywhere in the country and find the No Shoes sign.

The fact of the matter is there is purposeful targeting of specific bakeries in order to punish them for their beliefs.  Oregon is a very Liberal gay friendly state.  You're telling me this is the ONLY bakery capable of making this cake?

No it's not.

This is turning out to be another case like Colorado where the bakery was targeted from what I can tell.  The gay mafia got wind that this was a bare run by a Christian and they decided to make an example out of the owner.

That how the brutal fist of tyranny works and they try to camouflage it under the moronic guise of "inclusiveness".

No business should be forced to make anything that violates their religious or moral beliefs.

Should a sign and banner maker who caters mostly to churches and christian organizations be forced to make a banner for a LGBTQRXMDP "pride" parade?

Again the answer is no.

Should a Kosher butcher be forced to sell Halal meats?

What about a Muslim baker making a Bah Mitzvah cake?


Should those people be forced to violate their religious beliefs and tenets just because someone wants to create a issue on purpose?

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.

Funny...I never ready that in the 1St Amendment.  Like the 2nd it's pretty clear in what it says.

And for commercial speech it must be able to withstand intermediate scrutiny not have it's 1st Amendment rights completely obliterated just because someone makes a profit from it.  And in this case as in Colorado no protected classes are being harmed in any way by this particular baker's refusal to make a stupid cake.

When it comes down to it this is more about the free exercise of religious beliefs not speech. 

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

Right now the state of Oregon and it's Liberal courts system are in violation of the Free Exercise clause by preventing this baker from exercising his religious beliefs.

[txradioguy]

There is no exaggeration. This is grievous censorship under the color of law.
This is nothing to do with a businessman being true to his word - His word has not been given. There is no contract. Once there is a contract, THEN you have a point. But there is no contract - no agreement, and therefore, no word.

Well said.

[roamer_1]

That isn't how it works in the context of a retail store or other public accommodation. 

YES, IN FACT, it is. It is the basis of every sale, of every kind.

The point of sale is the point of contract. If the business owner does not enter into the agreement, there is no agreement. PERIOD.

The shopowner decides what he will sell, advertises his wares and posts his prices.   The customer's acceptance of those terms represents the contract.   Here, the customer didn't know he'd get the bum's rush until after he'd entered the store and requested the advertised service.

Not at all. This is analogous to getting your money back on a complaint fo poor food or service that you have not purchased yet.
You have no right to legal complaint against a hot dog vendor until you have actually bought a hot dog. If his product or service is unacceptable, THAT is when you get to complain.

[roamer_1]

@roamer_1
If someone doesn't want to sell you a cake, and edible cake, why would you want to force them to buy it.   Why would you put a wedding cake in their hands.  Something that could turn your wedding day into a disaster?

Why would you choose to do that?   Unless of course it wasn't about cake in the first place.

OF COURSE it isn't about the cake.
It's about grinding the face of a man who lives according to his conscience.

[txradioguy]

It’s not the Federal government, it’s the state government of Oregon, and the states, unlike the federal government, possess full police power except to the extent taken away or limited by the Constitution.  And the police power includes the power to set the terms under which business will be done.

By turning a blind eye to a willful violation of the free exercise class of the 1st Amendment the Federal Government is complicit in the state's tyranny.

[INVAR]

It won't end at just cakes despite the insistences of the meddlesome tyrants and perversion-pushers.  The goal is to FORCE acceptance and celebration of deviant behavior. 

The same insipid arguments of discrimination made in favor of forcing someone to bake a cake to celebrate homosexual sex making a mockery of matrimony - will be made to force churches to marry perverts.

Wickedness is never content to co-exist, despite it's calls for equality - wickedness will always seek to dominate and snuff out any opposition to it's absolute dominance in all things.

We have simply arrived at the point whereby it is our duty to refuse to comply with such tyrannical orders.  When the agents of tyranny come to force compliance, we would do well to remember our forbears who were faced with less overtly heinous affronts to liberty.

[Oceander]

And their discriminating against the many to satisfy the political agenda of the very few.  You can go into any restaurant in the state...hell anywhere in the country and find the No Shoes sign.

The fact of the matter is there is purposeful targeting of specific bakeries in order to punish them for their beliefs.  Oregon is a very Liberal gay friendly state.  You're telling me this is the ONLY bakery capable of making this cake?

No it's not.

This is turning out to be another case like Colorado where the bakery was targeted from what I can tell.  The gay mafia got wind that this was a bare run by a Christian and they decided to make an example out of the owner.

That how the brutal fist of tyranny works and they try to camouflage it under the moronic guise of "inclusiveness".

No business should be forced to make anything that violates their religious or moral beliefs.

Should a sign and banner maker who caters mostly to churches and christian organizations be forced to make a banner for a LGBTQRXMDP "pride" parade?

Again the answer is no.

Should a Kosher butcher be forced to sell Halal meats?

What about a Muslim baker making a Bah Mitzvah cake?


Should those people be forced to violate their religious beliefs and tenets just because someone wants to create a issue on purpose?

Funny...I never ready that in the 1St Amendment.  Like the 2nd it's pretty clear in what it says.

And for commercial speech it must be able to withstand intermediate scrutiny not have it's 1st Amendment rights completely obliterated just because someone makes a profit from it.  And in this case as in Colorado no protected classes are being harmed in any way by this particular baker's refusal to make a stupid cake.

When it comes down to it this is more about the free exercise of religious beliefs not speech. 

Right now the state of Oregon and it's Liberal courts system are in violation of the Free Exercise clause by preventing this baker from exercising his religious beliefs.

There is no prohibition of the free exercise of religion.  There is not one word in the Oregon law that says anything about religion.  So at most you have an as-applied infringement on the bakers religious beliefs, and that is generally permissible if the law otherwise passed intermediate scrutiny.  This law will most likely pass intermediate scrutiny except with respect to the level of the penalty, which is so outrageously disproportionate that it is probably unconstitutional all by itself. 

[Jazzhead]

YES, IN FACT, it is. It is the basis of every sale, of every kind.

The point of sale is the point of contract. If the business owner does not enter into the agreement, there is no agreement. PERIOD.

Not at all. This is analogous to getting your money back on a complaint fo poor food or service that you have not purchased yet.
You have no right to legal complaint against a hot dog vendor until you have actually bought a hot dog. If his product or service is unacceptable, THAT is when you get to complain.

The hot dog vendor posts his price - $1.00 - for a hot dog.    The customer requests a hot dog, and has the dollar to pay for it.  But the vendor refuses because the customer is black.   That's analogous to the bigotry practiced by the baker.   It's disgraceful,  and crying religion as the reason for the refusal of service is an insult to decent Christians.

And it also happens to be against the law.     

[driftdiver]

The hot dog vendor posts his price - $1.00 - for a hot dog.    The customer requests a hot dog, and has the dollar to pay for it.  But the vendor refuses because the customer is black.   That's analogous to the bigotry practiced by the baker.   It's disgraceful,  and crying religion as the reason for the refusal of service is an insult to decent Christians.

And it also happens to be against the law.   

OH BS, the guy was selling wedding cakes.   For the last 200 years in America that was understood to be  a wedding between a man and a woman.   only recently has that traditional meaning been perverted.

Your bigotry is disgusting.

[Bigun]

Guess which side of this argument I come down on.

[DCPatriot]

There is no exaggeration. This is grievous censorship under the color of law.
This is nothing to do with a businessman being true to his word - His word has not been given. There is no contract. Once there is a contract, THEN you have a point. But there is no contract - no agreement, and therefore, no word.

One would think Judge Roberts would agree with you.

[WingNot]

Guess which side of this argument I come down on.

The right side.

[goatprairie]

It’s exactly the same thing.  It’s just like things like redlining, where real estate agents used to not show certain types of houses in certain neighborhoods to blacks and other disfavored people.

Most of that redlining was simply a case of people with poor credit ratings being denied loans. As the subprime cirise proved, banks and other lending institutions had good reasons to create credit rating systems. People with poor credit ratings tended to default on their loans a lot more than people with good credit ratings.
Once again I'll repeat this until maybe you get the point....nobody is being denied a service. Nobody can demand a business make them a certain kind of product.
A Satanist cannot go to a business that makes strictly Christian-related items  and demand the business make them a whole slew of Satanist items.  Even though being a Satanist is perfectly legal.
You still fail to understand the distinction between a business refusing service and refusing to make/create something.  It does not matter if the couple were heterosexual hedonists/nudists and demanded  a wedding  cake with nude figurines on top engaging in sexual congress.  Hedonism/nudism is perfectly legal.
If I sell wedding cakes,  the hedonists/nudists do not have the right to have me make them what I consider to be a lewd cake. Even if I don't think it's lewd, I still reserve the right to bake the cake the way I see fit.  The hedonists are free to alter the cake after they've purchased it.
The basic principle of a business having the right to make/create whatever it wants is at stake here.

[roamer_1]

The hot dog vendor posts his price - $1.00 - for a hot dog.    The customer requests a hot dog, and has the dollar to pay for it.  But the vendor refuses because the customer is black.   That's analogous to the bigotry practiced by the baker.   It's disgraceful,  and crying religion as the reason for the refusal of service is an insult to decent Christians.

Bullshit. And so what? Let the market decide. That is the way of commerce.

If someone is a bigot - Let him. If someone sells shoddy work, again, let him. if someone imports crappy chinese shit, let him. The market always corrects that sort of thing.

If someone thinks he can make a buck selling to nazis, that is his right.

And it also happens to be against the law.   

The law is bullshit.

[Bigun]

The right side.

 

[txradioguy]

The hot dog vendor posts his price - $1.00 - for a hot dog.    The customer requests a hot dog, and has the dollar to pay for it.  But the vendor refuses because the customer is black.

Apples and oranges analogy.

Gay is not a race.  It's not a genetic mix of chromosomes and DNA that determines your skin color and facial and body features.

It's a sexual preference that a person consciously decides upon.

You don't wake up one day and decide to be black...no matter what some idiot like Rachel Dozeal tries to say.

[goatprairie]

The hot dog vendor posts his price - $1.00 - for a hot dog.    The customer requests a hot dog, and has the dollar to pay for it.  But the vendor refuses because the customer is black.   That's analogous to the bigotry practiced by the baker.   It's disgraceful,  and crying religion as the reason for the refusal of service is an insult to decent Christians.

And it also happens to be against the law.   

It is not remotely analogous. The cake bakers are not refusing to sell a cake to the homosexual couple..they are refusing to bake/make a certain kind of cake.
But you know this...this has been explained to you ad nauseam. Yet you persist in claiming it's a case of a homosexual couple being denied service.
My cable tv company puts on a lot of shows I don't like, and very little I do. There are certain types of shows I'd love to see much more than what is now available to me.
I can request my cable tv company provide these things to me, but I cannot, by force of law, demand they do so.
However, I am free to go to another cable tv outfit.
But even if there are no cable tv companies that can provide what I want, I cannot demand some tv company provide me with what I want. I can only request.
That's how freedom works.

[Cyber Liberty]

Apples and oranges analogy.

Gay is not a race.  It's not a genetic mix of chromosomes and DNA that determines your skin color and facial and body features.

It's a sexual preference that a person consciously decides upon.

You don't wake up one day and decide to be black...no matter what some idiot like Rachel Dozeal tries to say.

You are correct, it's an inappropriate analogy.  Race is an immutable characteristic, while "gayness" cannot be determined by mere physical examination.  We are constantly told, and I agree, that "Gaydar" is a myth.

Oh, for @Jazzhead's reference, this is the dictionary definition of "immutable."  Please refer to this next time you wish to compare "race" to "gay":

im·mu·ta·ble
i(m)ˈmyo͞odəb(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: immutable

    unchanging over time or unable to be changed.
    "an immutable fact"
    synonyms:   fixed, set, rigid, inflexible, permanent, established, carved in stone;

[WingNot]

Apples and oranges analogy.



You don't wake up one day and decide to be black...no matter what some idiot like Rachel Dozeal tries to say.

Or her Brother Shawn King