Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case

[Bigun]

A free market system is an economic system based solely on demand and supply, and there is little or no government regulation. In a free market system, a buyer and a seller transact freely only when they voluntarily agree on the price of a good or a service.

See if you can find the key word there.

[txradioguy]

Or her Brother Shawn King

Yeah him too.   

[INVAR]

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.

Not analogous - but completely disingenuous, bullshit and ridiculous on it's face to make such an assertion.  Only a tyrannical moron intent on pushing homosharia equates skin color and gender with BEHAVIOR. 

Yours is the seriously perverted morality that would push to penalize a business for restricting a grown man from being enrolled in a daycare because he self-identifies as a little girl.

And then in short order, Christians will be subject to accommodate every sort of lewd and deviant behavior that is deemed to require anti-discriminatory special privileges, while other 'approved' religions and tribes are exempt from enforcement requirements.

It's disgraceful,  and crying religion as the reason for the refusal of service is an insult to decent Christians.

You can keep attempting to redefine what a 'decent Christian' is based on your own twisted and warped definition, but those sheep who hear His voice know you do not represent the One you claim to follow.

And it also happens to be against the law.   

You can shove your "law".  We refuse to comply.

It will be interested to see how many tyrants are willing to risk their lives to enforce it.

[roamer_1]

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

Doesn't matter. Any purchase is a contract, and no one can be made to enter a contract against his will - In a perfect world (and the way it was here) for any reason under the sun.

"Sell me this"

"No."

Done.

[truth_seeker]

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.

Sorry but sticking with just real estate, "redlining" also had to do with agents only showing homes to blacks, in areas where blacks lived.

IOW it was the previous real estate practice to preserve segregation by race. Until it was made illegal.

In the marriage sphere, it was illegal to marry across racial lines, until it was made legal.

If you are a real estate agent or a baker, you are bound to not discriminate on bases of race, religion, ethic or national background, sexual preference etc.

It is the law, and if a person can't follow the laws, best just find some solitary work.

[driftdiver]

Sorry but sticking with just real estate, "redlining" also had to do with agents only showing homes to blacks, in areas where blacks lived.

IOW it was the previous real estate practice to preserve segregation by race. Until it was made illegal.

In the marriage sphere, it was illegal to marry across racial lines, until it was made legal.

If you are a real estate agent or a baker, you are bound to not discriminate on bases of race, religion, ethic or national background, sexual preference etc.

It is the law, and if a person can't follow the laws, best just find some solitary work.

@truth_seeker

They wern't discriminating against the cake buyers.   They wanted a wedding cake.  The baker makes wedding cakes but since a wedding is between a man and  woman they wanted something he didnt offer.

Wedding is a religious term, has been for a long long time.

[goatprairie]

Sorry but sticking with just real estate, "redlining" also had to do with agents only showing homes to blacks, in areas where blacks lived.

IOW it was the previous real estate practice to preserve segregation by race. Until it was made illegal.

In the marriage sphere, it was illegal to marry across racial lines, until it was made legal.

If you are a real estate agent or a baker, you are bound to not discriminate on bases of race, religion, ethic or national background, sexual preference etc.

It is the law, and if a person can't follow the laws, best just find some solitary work.

Okay fine.....punish the real estate broker if he or she breaks the law.
The cake baker is not breaking the law.  If the cake baker, in your estimation, is breaking the law, virtually all businesses  break the law if they refuse to provide an exact service to a customer.
The facts  are businesses have the right to create a particular kind of business....ACCORDING TO HOW THEY WANT TO SET IT UP
If I create a house building business, no customer has the right to order me to build him or her a certain kind of house. I will show the customer the kinds of houses I build, and they are free to buy or decline.  That is the principle here.

[driftdiver]

So they gay coffee shop owner who kicked the Christians out should be fined.   right?

[Oceander]

A free market system is an economic system based solely on demand and supply, and there is little or no government regulation. In a free market system, a buyer and a seller transact freely only when they voluntarily agree on the price of a good or a service.

See if you can find the key word there.

Every free market requires government regulation.  What else do you think courts are, where the rules of contract law are invented and applied, or the sheriffs and police who enforce the judgments of those courts. 

[Oceander]

Sorry but sticking with just real estate, "redlining" also had to do with agents only showing homes to blacks, in areas where blacks lived.

IOW it was the previous real estate practice to preserve segregation by race. Until it was made illegal.

In the marriage sphere, it was illegal to marry across racial lines, until it was made legal.

If you are a real estate agent or a baker, you are bound to not discriminate on bases of race, religion, ethic or national background, sexual preference etc.

It is the law, and if a person can't follow the laws, best just find some solitary work.

[goatprairie]

Every free market requires government regulation.  What else do you think courts are, where the rules of contract law are invented and applied, or the sheriffs and police who enforce the judgments of those courts.

Let me ask you a direct question: do you believe a customer, any customer, has the right to force a business owner to make them a particular, specially made product that the business owner does not normally make?
If I make widgets of only certain colors/designs, does a customer have the right to force me to make him or her a widget of a color/design I do not like to put on my widgets?
Remember, I am not refusing to sell the customer one of my widgets, I am only refusing to sell him or her a widget with a color/design I don't like to use.

[Oceander]

Let me ask you a direct question: do you believe a customer, any customer, has the right to force a business owner to make them a particular, specially made product that the business owner does not normally make?
If I make widgets of only certain colors/designs, does a customer have the right to force me to make him or her a widget of a color/design I do not like to put on my widgets?
Remember, I am not refusing to sell the customer one of my widgets, I am only refusing to sell him or her a widget with a color/design I don't like to use.

It doesn’t matter what I think personally.  What matters is whether the Oregon law is constitutional or not. 

If it were up to me, I would not enact such a law because I think it’s stupid, but stupid is not the same thing as unconstitutional, and the matter isn’t up for my decision.  Unless the Constitution curtails Oregon’s right to enact this sort of stupid law, the people of Oregon are stuck with it and the baker has to follow it. 

As far as constitutionality goes, with the exception of the penalty, which I think is so out of line that it is unconstitutional by itself, I think this law, stupid as it is, passes muster under the Supreme Court’s intermediate scrutiny jurisprudence. 

[INVAR]

So they gay coffee shop owner who kicked the Christians out should be fined.   right?

Oh no, he is to be applauded and accoladed for discriminating against  'intolerant bigots'.  Medal of honor winner to be sure.

Discrimination laws are to only be applied in one direction, in favor of whatever constituency the "law" is designed to promote and advance to the detriment of the other.

[txradioguy]

So they gay coffee shop owner who kicked the Christians out should be fined.   right?

More like sued in court for "damages".

[Cyber Liberty]

Oh no, he is to be applauded and accoladed for discriminating against  'intolerant bigots'.  Medal of honor winner to be sure.

Discrimination laws are to only be applied in one direction, in favor of whatever constituency the "law" is designed to promote and advance to the detriment of the other.

Our liberal friend would say the Christians who were kicked out were "being jerks," and are therefore not protected by the law like homosexuals who attempt to buy wedding cakes from people who can't sell them, for the express purpose of generating a complaint.

He wrote that upthread.

[Jazzhead]

So they gay coffee shop owner who kicked the Christians out should be fined.   right?

I don't know the facts of the case, but, sure, arbitrary discrimination is just as pernicious as practiced against Christians as any other protected classification of individuals.   Or is it your view that Christians ought to have no protection against discrimination because they have chosen to be Christians?     

Now were the Christians proselytizing in the store?    If they were kicked out for that, that's not unlawful discrimination.  Causing a disturbance in the store is grounds for removal, just as coming in with no shoes or shirt.   

It is the arbitrary denial of service for the very product the seller has advertised to provide that is at stake in these cases.    The law in Oregon proscribes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.   That being the case, the baker's discrimination is just as illegal as the hot dog vendor's refusal to sell his wares to a black customer.     

[Bigun]

Every free market requires government regulation.  What else do you think courts are, where the rules of contract law are invented and applied, or the sheriffs and police who enforce the judgments of those courts.

BZZZZZ! you missed!  The key word is "Voluntary"

[Oceander]

BZZZZZ! you missed!  The key word is "Voluntary"

/snicker

So courts to enforce voluntary contracts are just more unnecessary government regulation?

[Cyber Liberty]

Now were the Christians proselytizing in the store?    If they were kicked out for that, that's not unlawful discrimination.  Causing a disturbance in the store is grounds for removal, just as coming in with no shoes or shirt.   

By all accounts, even the owner of the coffee shop's, they were not proselytizing in the store.  They were doing so on the sidewalk away from the store prior, and the only way the store owner knew about it was because he walked by their demonstration and it made him mad.  He could not believe his good fortune when they came into the store, because he was furious and wanted to take it out on the rotten Christians.  There is a video of it.  It's a pity you missed the story, it was posted on TBR some time ago.

The Christians who were ejected from the store declined to file a complaint because they were not jerks, as were the homosexuals in all the stories you so love to come lecture us about.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

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.

Then the state of Oregon failed miserably to enact its mission statement by the State Bureau of Labor and Industry(BOLI) who pursued this business with this obvious tie-him-to-the-stake witch hunt against the baker.

Here's the mission statement on the website of BOLI 
The mission of the Bureau of Labor and Industries is to protect employment rights, advance employment opportunities, and protect access to housing and public accommodations free from discrimination.  http://www.oregon.gov/boli/Pages/about_us.aspx

Since you declared this is the state of Oregon's place to pursue this, please tell us where on that mission statement is it correct for BOLI to pursue an anti-discrimination grievance like it did?

[Oceander]

Then the state of Oregon failed miserably to enact its mission statement by the State Bureau of Labor and Industry(BOLI) who pursued this business with this obvious tie-him-to-the-stake witch hunt against the baker.

Here's the mission statement on the website of BOLI 
The mission of the Bureau of Labor and Industries is to protect employment rights, advance employment opportunities, and protect access to housing and public accommodations free from discrimination.  http://www.oregon.gov/boli/Pages/about_us.aspx

Since you declared this is the state of Oregon's place to pursue this, please tell us where on that mission statement is it correct for BOLI to pursue an anti-discrimination grievance like it did?

/snicker

Go find me a case where a “mission” statement is a legally binding restriction on what an agency can do. 

[Jazzhead]

Then the state of Oregon failed miserably to enact its mission statement by the State Bureau of Labor and Industry(BOLI) who pursued this business with this obvious tie-him-to-the-stake witch hunt against the baker.

Here's the mission statement on the website of BOLI 
The mission of the Bureau of Labor and Industries is to protect employment rights, advance employment opportunities, and protect access to housing and public accommodations free from discrimination.  http://www.oregon.gov/boli/Pages/about_us.aspx

Since you declared this is the state of Oregon's place to pursue this, please tell us where on that mission statement is it correct for BOLI to pursue an anti-discrimination grievance like it did?

Oceander has made it quite clear that he opposes the monetary penalty imposed on the baker.    I do as well.   The status of the baker's acts as unlawful was unclear, and to exact a punitive sanction in such a context is immoral and, well, just plain lousy.   Have the baker pay the plaintiffs' attorney's fees and promise not to do it again.  That would be justice.  Not running the baker out of business.   

[roamer_1]

A free market system is an economic system based solely on demand and supply, and there is little or no government regulation. In a free market system, a buyer and a seller transact freely only when they voluntarily agree on the price of a good or a service.

See if you can find the key word there.

I see it right now, I bet...

[driftdiver]

I see it right now, I bet...

Funny how the left is all about the "LAW" when they've got it twisted to their favor.   But when the law isn't what they want they ignore the heck out of it.

[roamer_1]

Funny how the left is all about the "LAW" when they've got it twisted to their favor.   But when the law isn't what they want they ignore the heck out of it.

Some pigs are more equal than others, and all that...