Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case

[roamer_1]

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

YEP

[driftdiver]

/snicker

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

@Oceander @Bigun
The courts aren't necessary for the voluntary agreement or trade to take place.   They are only necessary when one side defaults on the agreement in some way.   They really aren't even required then most of the time as reasonable people can usually find a way to correct the situation.

[Cyber Liberty]

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.   

You didn't say that when it was the exact same case being made in Colorado.  You said the baker was a bigot and deserved to be put out of business.

I'd think maybe you were becoming reasonable, but then I remember all the times before when you came across as "being reasonable," only to double back to the leftist position you always take.  It's a tactic.

[INVAR]

You didn't say that when it was the exact same case being made in Colorado.  You said the baker was a bigot and deserved to be put out of business.

I'd think maybe you were becoming reasonable, but then I remember all the times before when you came across as "being reasonable," only to double back to the leftist position you always take.  It's a tactic.

Tyrants always try to make themselves appear as angels of light, reasonable, tolerant, all for fairness and equality for the people.

They deceive and beguile with syrupy sentiments while injecting poison from their fangs when their true nature is revealed.

It is why we are told not to be ignorant of the Devil's devices and methods.

[roamer_1]

The courts aren't necessary for the voluntary agreement or trade to take place.   They are only necessary when one side defaults on the agreement in some way.   They really aren't even required then most of the time as reasonable people can usually find a way to correct the situation.

@driftdiver

Not precisely true - Weights and measures, content guarantee, truth in advertising... All of these are legitimate functions of regulation
But until now, they had no bearing until the contract was made. No one as standing without an action causing damages.
This guy is being forced to pay damages for not entering the contract in the first place. That's the difference. Penalization for *not* doing something. Not a matter of negligence, which would be actionable, but rather, non-participation. Refusing to contract.

The damage this does is immense. It is the precedence for governmental fiat and favoritism - to make you sell, and make you buy, against your will. There is literally no end to it.

@Oceander
@Bigun

[Jazzhead]

You didn't say that when it was the exact same case being made in Colorado.  You said the baker was a bigot and deserved to be put out of business.

I'd think maybe you were becoming reasonable, but then I remember all the times before when you came across as "being reasonable," only to double back to the leftist position you always take.  It's a tactic.

Could you find the quote, please?   Sure, I think the baker is a bigot but I can't think of any reason off the top of my head why Phillips' case is more or less egregious than this Oregon case.   Justice should be the goal, not a punitive flogging for failing to discern the state of the law.     

[Cyber Liberty]

Tyrants always try to make themselves appear as angels of light, reasonable, tolerant, all for fairness and equality for the people.

They deceive and beguile with syrupy sentiments while injecting poison from their fangs when their true nature is revealed.

It is why we are told not to be ignorant of the Devil's devices and methods.

I'm not going to go as far as saying he's the Devil, that would be an undeserved promotion, but he proffers a lot of dishonest arguments that do not reflect his true beliefs.

[Jazzhead]

Tyrants always try to make themselves appear as angels of light, reasonable, tolerant, all for fairness and equality for the people.

They deceive and beguile with syrupy sentiments while injecting poison from their fangs when their true nature is revealed.

It is why we are told not to be ignorant of the Devil's devices and methods.

Bigotry remains bigotry sir.   

[Cyber Liberty]

Could you find the quote, please?   Sure, I think the baker is a bigot but I can't think of any reason off the top of my head why Phillips' case is more or less egregious than this Oregon case.   Justice should be the goal, not a punitive flogging for failing to discern the state of the law.     

Nope.  Not going to sift thousands of your posts doing research, I have better things to do with my time.  I'm braiding my hair right now.  Regular readers of your posts know what you have said on this subject.

[Jazzhead]

I'm not going to go as far as saying he's the Devil, that would be an undeserved promotion, but he proffers a lot of dishonest arguments that do not reflect his true beliefs.

My "true beliefs" are as I state them.   And I assume the same goes for you.   That is the common courtesy and expectation in a message board community.   

[Jazzhead]

Nope.  Not going to sift thousands of your posts doing research, I have better things to do with my time.  I'm braiding my hair right now.  Regular readers of your posts know what you have said on this subject.

Then show the good grace to retract the accusation.   I don't favor either the Oregon baker or the Colorado baker being driven out of business.   That would be a miscarriage of justice.   The Colorado baker does not in fact sell custom wedding cakes anymore.   He is an honorable man, willing to follow the law.   

[INVAR]

Bigotry remains bigotry sir.

Well until useful idiots for tyranny make that a capital offense punishable by imprisonment and death - I shall wholeheartedly practice what you deem bigotry, and do so with extreme prejudice and with all vigor.

You're welcome to be stupid enough to try and stop me.

[driftdiver]

Then show the good grace to retract the accusation.   I don't favor either the Oregon baker or the Colorado baker being driven out of business.   That would be a miscarriage of justice.   The Colorado baker does not in fact sell custom wedding cakes anymore.   He is an honorable man, willing to follow the law.   

@Jazzhead
I think you mean beaten into submission.

[INVAR]

I'm not going to go as far as saying he's the Devil, that would be an undeserved promotion, but he proffers a lot of dishonest arguments that do not reflect his true beliefs.

He's just a puppet parroting the talking points from the Adversary.

Anyone with a foundational understanding of scripture that has read his opinions on this board, recognizes what spirit he speaks from.

[driftdiver]

Bigotry remains bigotry sir.

@Jazzhead
Yes and you are a stellar example of anti-Christian bigotry.

[Oceander]

@Oceander @Bigun
The courts aren't necessary for the voluntary agreement or trade to take place.   They are only necessary when one side defaults on the agreement in some way.   They really aren't even required then most of the time as reasonable people can usually find a way to correct the situation.

Ahhh.  So you’re saying that courts are just an unnecessary government interference in the true world of voluntary free markets.  That would make contract law equally untenable as nothing more than unwarranted government interference. 

You don’t want free markets, you want anarchy.

[thackney]

Could you find the quote, please?   Sure, I think the baker is a bigot but I can't think of any reason off the top of my head why Phillips' case is more or less egregious than this Oregon case.   Justice should be the goal, not a punitive flogging for failing to discern the state of the law.     

IMO, the case against Phillips was worse as same-sex marriage was illegal in Colorado at the time.  The state prosecuted him for the same "discrimination" they were doing themselves.

[thackney]

You didn't say that when it was the exact same case being made in Colorado.  You said the baker was a bigot and deserved to be put out of business....

Could you find the quote, please?   Sure, I think the baker is a bigot but I can't think of any reason off the top of my head why Phillips' case is more or less egregious than this Oregon case.   Justice should be the goal, not a punitive flogging for failing to discern the state of the law.     

@Jazzhead
@Cyber Liberty

I've got to defend Jazzhead on this one.  I followed this discussion quite a bit.  I saw him state just the opposite.

With link back to the original post:

...A baker arbitrarily refusing service to his customer is wrong, but using a lawsuit to drive him out of business is appalling....

[Smokin Joe]

It's very simple:  if you engage in a commercial enterprise, you follow reasonable rules or regulations, even if they violate your personal subjective beliefs, or you get penalized for it.

If the baker's personal religious beliefs were so damned precious to them, then they would have quit the cake-baking business.  That they did not, simply demonstrates that those beliefs aren't nearly as precious to them as they are now claiming.

There is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees complete freedom to do whatever the hell you want, and even less so when it comes to commercial activities, which have always received less protection than purely private noncommercial activities.

I know you don't like it, but that's only because you hate bleep and want the untrammelled right to discriminate against them.

Essentially, by what you propose, you get a choice: Be Christian or make a living.
This was predicted.

[goatprairie]

It's very simple:  if you engage in a commercial enterprise, you follow reasonable rules or regulations, even if they violate your personal subjective beliefs, or you get penalized for it.

If the baker's personal religious beliefs were so damned precious to them, then they would have quit the cake-baking business.  That they did not, simply demonstrates that those beliefs aren't nearly as precious to them as they are now claiming.

There is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees complete freedom to do whatever the hell you want, and even less so when it comes to commercial activities, which have always received less protection than purely private noncommercial activities.

I know you don't like it, but that's only because you hate bleep and want the untrammelled right to discriminate against them.

If the customer demands it, the business must do exactly as the customer demands....the business must obey every customer request..... gotcha. Welcome to tyranny.

[Jazzhead]

If the customer demands it, the business must do exactly as the customer demands....the business must obey every customer request..... gotcha. Welcome to tyranny.

Oh, lighten up Francis.   The customer "demanded" no more and no less than what the baker advertised to provide.   

It's not tyranny to live up to one's word.   

[Jazzhead]

@thackney -  thanks!   

[Smokin Joe]

Oh, lighten up Francis.   The customer "demanded" no more and no less than what the baker advertised to provide.   

It's not tyranny to live up to one's word.

I can provide custom services, and decline to provide them to anyone. If I advertise that I provide custom landscaping, but decline to produce what, in effect would be an outline of genitalia on the ground when viewed from the air, would the peckernazis come after me? Sue me? You don't even have a clue what a can of worms is getting served up with this crap.

IMHO, no one should be forced to provide a service they find offensive to anyone, regardless of whether they provide similar services which they do not find offensive to others.

[truth_seeker]

Essentially, by what you propose, you get a choice: Be Christian or make a living.
This was predicted.

Isn't it just one particular Christian denomination that you mean to say?

Because several Christian denominations are okay with same sex unions.

I do know that during America's debate over slavery, and the Civil War.....the Southern Baptist denomination found Biblical justification for slavery, and supported it.

OTOH at that same time, many denominations opposed slavery.

[Smokin Joe]

Isn't it just one particular Christian denomination that you mean to say?

Because several Christian denominations are okay with same sex unions.

I do know that during America's debate over slavery, and the Civil War.....the Southern Baptist denomination found Biblical justification for slavery, and supported it.

OTOH at that same time, many denominations opposed slavery.

Christian denominations accept homosexuality?

False prophets were predicted, too.