Author Topic: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case  (Read 44233 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,867
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #450 on: January 03, 2018, 11:58:53 pm »
Give you a gun, and you’re no better than ISIS.

I'll bet he has one.  Where's the mass grave?
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:

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #451 on: January 04, 2018, 12:00:18 am »
I'll bet he has one.  Where's the mass grave?

Just wait ......

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #452 on: January 04, 2018, 12:01:57 am »
You say they hate people who are gay, they say they hate the sin.  Those two things are not the same.  This is why I'm tired of this thread, but still read it because it's a slow-motion train wreck.  That and it keeps coming up on my New replies to me page.

People don't hate the gay people.  They do dislike greatly being accused of it.

So it’s ok if they say they hate melanin-colored skin, but not the people who happen to have excess melanin in their skin?
« Last Edit: January 04, 2018, 12:02:18 am by Oceander »

Offline Frank Cannon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,097
  • Gender: Male
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #453 on: January 04, 2018, 12:10:42 am »
bleep. Why did I even get involved in this thread?

Because nothing is more important than gays and an effing cake.


Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,867
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #454 on: January 04, 2018, 12:13:59 am »
So it’s ok if they say they hate melanin-colored skin, but not the people who happen to have excess melanin in their skin?

I don't think that was the topic of discussion, so no.  I thought it was about people that did not have immutable characteristics such as what you describe.  Are you calling people racists because they don't like what they consider the sin of homosexuality?  That seems like a bit of a reach there.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2018, 12:14:16 am by Cyber Liberty »
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 edpc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,879
  • Gender: Male
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #455 on: January 04, 2018, 12:14:31 am »
bleep. Why did I even get involved in this thread?


Because you're a symphorophiliac?
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,867
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #456 on: January 04, 2018, 12:15:23 am »
Because nothing is more important than gays and an effing cake.



Is that the cake Lawyers forced you make, Frank?
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:

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,867
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #457 on: January 04, 2018, 12:15:57 am »
bleep. Why did I even get involved in this thread?

Same reason I did.  You got sucked in.
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 Frank Cannon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,097
  • Gender: Male
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #458 on: January 04, 2018, 12:16:46 am »
Is that the cake Lawyers forced you make, Frank?

No, but it is the one I dream about for my gay wedding.

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,867
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #459 on: January 04, 2018, 12:18:00 am »

Because you're a symphorophiliac?

I was wondering how somebody was going to work in a comment about a train wreck and attach it to @RoosGirl.  Extra 10 points for sending me to Google.
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:

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,867
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #460 on: January 04, 2018, 12:18:29 am »
No, but it is the one I dream about for my gay wedding.

Looks more like your dream for a gay wedding night.
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 Frank Cannon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,097
  • Gender: Male
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #461 on: January 04, 2018, 12:21:47 am »
Looks more like your dream for a gay wedding night.

No. That would be this cake....


Offline edpc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,879
  • Gender: Male
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #462 on: January 04, 2018, 12:25:26 am »
Looks more like your dream for a gay wedding night.

This would be the cake topper......

I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Offline HoustonSam

  • "That'll be the day......"
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,982
  • Gender: Male
  • old times there are not forgotten
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #463 on: January 04, 2018, 12:29:12 am »
It’s too bad that making a customized cake involves a measure of expression, but that is not enough to avoid intermediate scrutiny, under which the Oregon law is probably valid.  The situation is reasonably well explained in the court’s opinion, so I would recommend you read the opinion. 

In fact, as the court pointed out, it’s speculative whether anyone who saw the finished cake would even treat it as an expression by the baker, as opposed to expression by the couple as implemented through a cake baked by some anonymous third party.

How about if the baker treats it as an expression by the baker.

Are you seriously arguing, or did the court seriously argue, that whether or not something is an expression is determined by someone other than the party creating the expression?  That means we can decide that any particular statement made by its originator is not an expression, implying that the originator forfeits the right even to make the statement, because we decided it's not an expression and therefore it enjoys no Constitutional protection, until someone else buys the statement, when it becomes an expression and then enjoys First Amendment protection.  The artist has no Constitutional protection for his creation since it's not an expression, but the person who bought the painting does, because it is; the songwriter didn't express anything, but the singer did.  Only the people who pay the commission for the statement are entitled to Constitutional protection for the expression; First Amendment rights are for sale, they aren't inherent in our citizenship.

This argument reduces Intellectual Property to farce.  I don't deny that the court argued this.  I maintain that it's absurd, and yes, indefensible.

You can prove this is not indefensible by actually defending it.  Please note that "the court says so" or "cite the law in Oregon" and even "intermediate scrutiny" are simply instances of the Appeal to Authority, and not a valid defense.
James 1:20

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #464 on: January 04, 2018, 12:44:43 am »
How about if the baker treats it as an expression by the baker.

Are you seriously arguing, or did the court seriously argue, that whether or not something is an expression is determined by someone other than the party creating the expression?  That means we can decide that any particular statement made by its originator is not an expression, implying that the originator forfeits the right even to make the statement, because we decided it's not an expression and therefore it enjoys no Constitutional protection, until someone else buys the statement, when it becomes an expression and then enjoys First Amendment protection.  The artist has no Constitutional protection for his creation since it's not an expression, but the person who bought the painting does, because it is; the songwriter didn't express anything, but the singer did.  Only the people who pay the commission for the statement are entitled to Constitutional protection for the expression; First Amendment rights are for sale, they aren't inherent in our citizenship.

This argument reduces Intellectual Property to farce.  I don't deny that the court argued this.  I maintain that it's absurd, and yes, indefensible.

You can prove this is not indefensible by actually defending it.  Please note that "the court says so" or "cite the law in Oregon" and even "intermediate scrutiny" are simply instances of the Appeal to Authority, and not a valid defense.

Read the opinion.  The court accepted for the sake of argument that it was a mixed expression case - that is, that it involved some degree of expression by the baker - and then applied intermediate scrutiny to the matter, under which an infringement on a constitutional right by a facially neutral statute will be upheld if the statute directly advances a substantial interest of the state.

And yes, whether other people would recognize something as an expression of a particular person or not is a factor that is taken into account.  Read the opinion.

Online sneakypete

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 52,848
  • Twitter is for Twits
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #465 on: January 04, 2018, 12:50:57 am »
And a business has no right refusing service to someone because of their race or religion.

@Restored

WHY? Who owns the damn business,the people that put up the hard work and the money to get it going,or the freaking government and the scum-sucking lawyers?

What happened to freedom,a free market,and let the customers decide?

It would be different if this were a health care facility and someone was suffering,but it's a freaking bakery!

It's the freaking GOVERNMENT that can't discriminate and needs their noses whacked with a rolled up newspaper,or maybe a hatchet,when they step out of line,but A FREE PEOPLE CAN DO BUSINESS WITH OR NOT DO BUSINESS WITH ANY DAMN BODY THEY CHOOSE!
Anyone who isn't paranoid in 2021 just isn't thinking clearly!

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #466 on: January 04, 2018, 12:51:42 am »
@Restored

WHY? Who owns the damn business,the people that put up the hard work and the money to get it going,or the freaking government and the scum-sucking lawyers?

What happened to freedom,a free market,and let the customers decide?

It would be different if this were a health care facility and someone was suffering,but it's a freaking bakery!

It's the freaking GOVERNMENT that can't discriminate and needs their noses whacked with a rolled up newspaper,or maybe a hatchet,when they step out of line,but A FREE PEOPLE CAN DO BUSINESS WITH OR NOT DO BUSINESS WITH ANY DAMN BODY THEY CHOOSE!

:facepalm2:

Online sneakypete

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 52,848
  • Twitter is for Twits
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #467 on: January 04, 2018, 12:53:27 am »
Yes, but Oregon law forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  That makes it illegal.

@Oceander

The law is wrong,because the law itself discriminates against people who want to live free.

Either YOU or the government owns your business. If the government owns it,why aren't they paying  you overtime,and why are you paying them taxes to work for them?
Anyone who isn't paranoid in 2021 just isn't thinking clearly!

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #468 on: January 04, 2018, 12:56:54 am »
Just FYI, for historical background, it is ancient common law that certain businesses have always had a duty to serve all comers without discrimination.  A business that fits into the common law definition of a common carrier, for example, was required to carry all who had the necessary care without discrimination.  And this all before there were any anti-discrimination statutes. 

So it is clearly a well-established aspect of the police power that, unless prevented by the Constitution, a state government can require as a condition of doing business that a certain type of business sell to all who can pay, without the right to deny service to some but not to others. 

Online sneakypete

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 52,848
  • Twitter is for Twits
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #469 on: January 04, 2018, 12:58:54 am »
No.  They have 'special' rights afforded them based on their choice of behavior that is not afforded to others.  If I walk into a gay-owned 'special order custom cake bakery' that caters to homos and demand they make a wedding cake for a normal couple, or a baptism cake with scriptures that condemn homosexuality, I don't get to sue for discrimination because they refused to make the kind of cake I want.

The of course will have government and the courts assisting them with annihilating any business they target for destruction by claiming 'discrimination'.


You and I both know that is not how extortion from the Grievance Industry works.

As that famous philosopher Goober Gore once noted,"Whut iz sposta be up is doawn,n whut iz sposta be doawn iz up!"

Essentially what you are saying (and I do agree with you on this) is that SOME pigs are more equal than other pigs,and can legally discriminate against thee and me,but thee and me can be arrested and sued  if WE try to discriminate against THEM.

Even Goober gets it right once every 10 years or so.  There is no such thing as equality with government-supported discrimination.
Anyone who isn't paranoid in 2021 just isn't thinking clearly!

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #470 on: January 04, 2018, 12:59:09 am »
@Oceander

The law is wrong,because the law itself discriminates against people who want to live free.

Either YOU or the government owns your business. If the government owns it,why aren't they paying  you overtime,and why are you paying them taxes to work for them?

The law is grounded on very ancient aspects of the sovereigns police power: the right of the sovereign to condition the right to conduct business, for example.  It is presumptively ok unless there is something that says it is unconstitutional, and the Oregon Supreme Court is probably correct  in holding that there is not. 

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #471 on: January 04, 2018, 01:00:53 am »
No.  They have 'special' rights afforded them based on their choice of behavior that is not afforded to others.  If I walk into a gay-owned 'special order custom cake bakery' that caters to homos and demand they make a wedding cake for a normal couple, or a baptism cake with scriptures that condemn homosexuality, I don't get to sue for discrimination because they refused to make the kind of cake I want.

The of course will have government and the courts assisting them with annihilating any business they target for destruction by claiming 'discrimination'.


You and I both know that is not how extortion from the Grievance Industry works. 

If they refused to make a cake for a straight couples wedding, you could sue because they would have violated the statute the same way that these bakers violated it.

Online sneakypete

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 52,848
  • Twitter is for Twits
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #472 on: January 04, 2018, 01:02:27 am »
Just because a state passes a law doesn't make it right.



@driftdiver

Seems like such a simple and easily understood concept,doesn't it?
Anyone who isn't paranoid in 2021 just isn't thinking clearly!

Online sneakypete

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 52,848
  • Twitter is for Twits
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #473 on: January 04, 2018, 01:05:27 am »
Didn’t pass a law?  What are you smoking?  The bakers violated ORS 659A.403, which prohibits places like retail bakeries from denying full and equal service to people on account of sexual orientation, amongst other grounds.

@Oceander

Which is IN FACT the state discriminating  by denying rights to one group that are enjoyed by another group.

In AMERICA,the people are SUPPOSED to be free to make up their own damn minds about what is permissible for THEM,not anyone else. In America,IT'S THE GOVERNMENT THAT IS NOT ALLOWED TO DISCRIMINATE!

Which is PRECISELY what they are doing in this and many other cases.
Anyone who isn't paranoid in 2021 just isn't thinking clearly!

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #474 on: January 04, 2018, 01:07:47 am »
@Oceander

Which is IN FACT the state discriminating  by denying rights to one group that are enjoyed by another group.

In AMERICA,the people are SUPPOSED to be free to make up their own damn minds about what is permissible for THEM,not anyone else. In America,IT'S THE GOVERNMENT THAT IS NOT ALLOWED TO DISCRIMINATE!

Which is PRECISELY what they are doing in this and many other cases.

Nope