Author Topic: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case  (Read 44261 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

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 #600 on: January 04, 2018, 08:54:59 pm »
Hopefully when those Bakers have an upstairs plumbing emergency, the plumber that is on call 24 hrs. a day won't be a friend of the lesbo couple, or worse yet one him/herself---and refuse them services.

"Just fix the damn plumbing. All is forgotten. We'll bake the damn cake. Just stop the leak", (which is causing many $thousands in floor damage, ceiling damages, etc).

aka "what goes around, comes around." Olde Bible Proverb or ordinary Cosmic Karma, in the Landes of Big Odin.

Why don't we let the bakers decide for themselves whether they want to run that risk.  It is not a function of government to compel free people to make wise choices.
James 1:20

Offline INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,961
  • Gender: Male
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #601 on: January 04, 2018, 08:59:10 pm »
ISIS could not have said it better.

You got it backwards.

I don't give a crap that you or anyone else doesn't think or believe as I do about jack shit.  I'm not putting a gun to your head demanding you acknowledge my God or keep His Commandments.

But your fellow hedonists are quite insistent on putting Government guns to our heads demanding we accept, recognize and serve homosharia or suffer ruin and punishment.
Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly.  - Benjamin Franklin

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,869
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #602 on: January 04, 2018, 08:59:19 pm »
Hopefully when those Bakers have an upstairs plumbing emergency, the plumber that is on call 24 hrs. a day won't be a friend of the lesbo couple, or worse yet one him/herself---and refuse them services.

"Just fix the damn plumbing. All is forgotten. We'll bake the damn cake. Just stop the leak", (which is causing many $thousands in floor damage, ceiling damages, etc).

aka "what goes around, comes around." Olde Bible Proverb or ordinary Cosmic Karma, in the Landes of Big Odin.

I highly doubt it would go that way.  More likely, it would go like this:  "You won't come fix it because of my cake policy?  OK.  No problem."  {Click} {Dial tone, dialing}  "Hi, brother Tom?  We met at the church Ice Cream Social?  I know it's the middle of the night, but can you come fix this leak for me?"

Leak fixed sans $Thousands, and nobody forced to do a job under violation of his beliefs, nor threat of penalty of loss of his livelihood.  Done because the baker has fellowship with other members of his church.  Which, when I think about it, is probably why the gays are so pissed at him in the first place:  He has friends, independent of his lifestyle.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2018, 09:00:43 pm 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 #603 on: January 04, 2018, 09:00:53 pm »
Hopefully when those Bakers have an upstairs plumbing emergency, the plumber that is on call 24 hrs. a day won't be a friend of the lesbo couple, or worse yet one him/herself---and refuse them services.

Somebody's been watching Bound.....

I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #604 on: January 04, 2018, 09:03:15 pm »
You got it backwards.

I don't give a crap that you or anyone else doesn't think or believe as I do about jack shit.  I'm not putting a gun to your head demanding you acknowledge my God or keep His Commandments.

But your fellow hedonists are quite insistent on putting Government guns to our heads demanding we accept, recognize and serve homosharia or suffer ruin and punishment.

True enough, for now.  But the problem with absolutists and absolutism, is there inevitably comes a point where the absolutist convinces himself that he is morally entitled, nay, morally obligated, to defend himself from what he sees as the immorality of the world, using any means necessary, including violence. 

I’ll take forcing the occasional baker to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding over having to worry about the absolutist-next-door any day of the week, and twice on Sundays. 
« Last Edit: January 04, 2018, 09:04:44 pm by Oceander »

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 #605 on: January 04, 2018, 09:09:39 pm »
...we accept, recognize and serve homosharia...

Homosharia started off in the Nippon League pitching for the Yomiuri Giants, but was traded to the Yakult Swallows.  You can probably guess why.
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Offline INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,961
  • Gender: Male
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #606 on: January 04, 2018, 09:12:50 pm »
True enough, for now.  But the problem with absolutists and absolutism, is there inevitably comes a point where the absolutist convinces himself that he is morally entitled, nay, morally obligated, to defend himself from what he sees as the immorality of the world, using any means necessary, including violence. 

Yes, biblical Christians have always been seen as the greatest threat to the safety, existence and the supremacy of the State and it's hedonists since the Roman Empire.

Hence lions, stakes and crucifixions and other fun punishments secular/pagan/theocratic regimes have conjured via the same justification you offered over the perceived threat Christians pose to the stability of hedonism.

I’ll take forcing the occasional baker to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding over having to worry about the absolutist-next-door any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

Thugs and tyrants are often found applauding the States imposition of punishment on those 'moral absolutists' they hate more than anything else in life, for simply refusing to partake in celebrations of hedonism. 

I'll chalk up you view of liberty as being as shallow and thin as your skin.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2018, 09:14:00 pm by INVAR »
Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly.  - Benjamin Franklin

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775

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 #607 on: January 04, 2018, 09:15:00 pm »
True enough, for now.  But the problem with absolutists and absolutism, is there inevitably comes a point where the absolutist convinces himself that he is morally entitled, nay, morally obligated, to defend himself from what he sees as the immorality of the world, using any means necessary, including violence. 

I’ll take forcing the occasional baker to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding over having to worry about the absolutist-next-door any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

You're simply acknowledging that you are the first absolutist, retaining the government as your sub-contractor of threatened violence.
James 1:20

Offline jpsb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,141
  • Gender: Male
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #608 on: January 04, 2018, 09:26:41 pm »
You're projecting again as usual - the unmitigated LIAR that you are.

You're the one using the state and it's courts to force your evil religious beliefs down OUR throats.

What I find so offensive and hypocritical is that The State is imposing it's religion on the people. The
State believes in Secular Humanism that is The States religion and it is imposing that believe system
on the people in violation of the Constitution. This is not going to end well.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2018, 11:12:09 pm by jpsb »

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #609 on: January 04, 2018, 09:33:28 pm »
You're simply acknowledging that you are the first absolutist, retaining the government as your sub-contractor of threatened violence.

Nonsense.  That right belongs to the state regardless of what I say.  It is, like gravity, a fact, not a conclusion. 

I am not the one espousing an absolutist ideology, nor implying the right to “defend” myself from others because I perceive those others as a threat to my subjective beliefs. 

In this case, I am quite certain that even Thomas Aquinas would agree that the bakers have a duty to obey this law, even if we assume it is an unjust law because it provides some modicum of protection to gays and lesbians.  They have created a greater scandal by refusing to obey than they would have if they had simply baked the cake. 

The bakers are wholly in the wrong here, both as a matter of positive law (the state statute) and as a matter of natural law.  They had an obligation to obey the positive law because such obedience would not require them to directly engage in a morally wrong act, and the consequences of their disobedience are worse than the consequences of simply making the cake.

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #610 on: January 04, 2018, 09:36:58 pm »
Yes, biblical Christians have always been seen as the greatest threat to the safety, existence and the supremacy of the State and it's hedonists since the Roman Empire.

Hence lions, stakes and crucifixions and other fun punishments secular/pagan/theocratic regimes have conjured via the same justification you offered over the perceived threat Christians pose to the stability of hedonism.

Thugs and tyrants are often found applauding the States imposition of punishment on those 'moral absolutists' they hate more than anything else in life, for simply refusing to partake in celebrations of hedonism. 

I'll chalk up you view of liberty as being as shallow and thin as your skin.

:bigsilly:

You clearly haven’t read a whit of history, or if you have, have chosen to ignore all the ugly bits in favor of the pretty baubles that comfort your ego and allow you to not think. 

Christianity has provided a great deal of value and worth to the world, and Christians absolutists have committed very great sins in the name of God. 

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,746
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #611 on: January 04, 2018, 09:57:15 pm »
:bigsilly:

Thanks for conceding.  You lose.
The game is not ours to decide.

It is God's and BTW, you lose.
No punishment, in my opinion, is too great, for the man who can build his greatness upon his country's ruin~  George Washington

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #612 on: January 04, 2018, 10:02:37 pm »
The game is not ours to decide.

It is God's and BTW, you lose.

It’s not ours to decide, but you’re going to decide anyway?

Whatever.

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 #613 on: January 04, 2018, 10:10:09 pm »
Nonsense.  That right belongs to the state regardless of what I say.  It is, like gravity, a fact, not a conclusion. 

I am not the one espousing an absolutist ideology, nor implying the right to “defend” myself from others because I perceive those others as a threat to my subjective beliefs. 

In this case, I am quite certain that even Thomas Aquinas would agree that the bakers have a duty to obey this law, even if we assume it is an unjust law because it provides some modicum of protection to gays and lesbians.  They have created a greater scandal by refusing to obey than they would have if they had simply baked the cake. 

The bakers are wholly in the wrong here, both as a matter of positive law (the state statute) and as a matter of natural law.  They had an obligation to obey the positive law because such obedience would not require them to directly engage in a morally wrong act, and the consequences of their disobedience are worse than the consequences of simply making the cake.

Individuals have rights, the state has authority.

You're taking a position which is well-characterized by your own description of the absolutist : a belief in the moral obligation to defend, if not yourself then someone else, from the immorality of the world by using any means necessary.  The only difference is that you delegate violence to the state.  If you aren't an absolutist according to this definition then at least the homosexual would-be customers are.  And appealing to the state's consensus monopoly on violence provides no exemption from your own definition, when no violence has been threatened.

You acknowledge that you would gladly force a baker to engage in activity he finds spiritually intolerable, then you accuse the baker of creating a scandal by not acceding to your own worldview.  The scandal is created by those bringing the lawsuit when they easily could have procured a wedding cake elsewhere.  And you acknowledge that a "modicum of protection" for gays and lesbians, presumably protection from the outrage of shopping at more than one bakery, merits an unjust law which forces someone to act in violation of his own spiritual beliefs and right to expression.

And you feel morally obligated to do this, because @INVAR hasn't done it yet.

I'm not surprised you deny taking this position.  I myself sometimes don't like what I see in the mirror.
James 1:20

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,746
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #614 on: January 04, 2018, 10:29:48 pm »
It’s not ours to decide, but you’re going to decide anyway?

Whatever.
You are a challenged reader once again.

God is the decider, regardless of whether you agree or not, Chief Dork.
No punishment, in my opinion, is too great, for the man who can build his greatness upon his country's ruin~  George Washington

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,746
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #615 on: January 04, 2018, 10:35:03 pm »
Nonsense.  That right belongs to the state regardless of what I say.  It is, like gravity, a fact, not a conclusion. 

I am not the one espousing an absolutist ideology, nor implying the right to “defend” myself from others because I perceive those others as a threat to my subjective beliefs. 

In this case, I am quite certain that even Thomas Aquinas would agree that the bakers have a duty to obey this law, even if we assume it is an unjust law because it provides some modicum of protection to gays and lesbians.  They have created a greater scandal by refusing to obey than they would have if they had simply baked the cake. 

The bakers are wholly in the wrong here, both as a matter of positive law (the state statute) and as a matter of natural law.  They had an obligation to obey the positive law because such obedience would not require them to directly engage in a morally wrong act, and the consequences of their disobedience are worse than the consequences of simply making the cake.
only an immoral person of this world would make such an outlandish statement.
No punishment, in my opinion, is too great, for the man who can build his greatness upon his country's ruin~  George Washington

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,869
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #616 on: January 04, 2018, 10:42:01 pm »
Individuals have rights, the state has authority.

Thanks for that one sentence.  Something always sticks in my craw when I hear somebody say, "The State has a right to (fill in the blank)."  Now I know why.
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 roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,292
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #617 on: January 04, 2018, 10:43:14 pm »
Stop spouting your arrogant nonsense that you and you alone know what pleases God.   

It ain't hard to figure our... It's written down. You should read it sometime.

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,746
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #618 on: January 04, 2018, 10:48:05 pm »
:amen:

We have enough troubles without arrogant religious folks insisting their "beliefs" be ours.
you, the most arrogant guy here, said this tongue-in-cheek, right?

Exactly whose beliefs are imposed on the bakers? Not theirs.
No punishment, in my opinion, is too great, for the man who can build his greatness upon his country's ruin~  George Washington

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #619 on: January 04, 2018, 10:49:31 pm »
only an immoral person of this world would make such an outlandish statement.

So Saint Thomas Aquinas is an immoral person?

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #620 on: January 04, 2018, 10:51:50 pm »
Individuals have rights, the state has authority.

You're taking a position which is well-characterized by your own description of the absolutist : a belief in the moral obligation to defend, if not yourself then someone else, from the immorality of the world by using any means necessary.  The only difference is that you delegate violence to the state.  If you aren't an absolutist according to this definition then at least the homosexual would-be customers are.  And appealing to the state's consensus monopoly on violence provides no exemption from your own definition, when no violence has been threatened.

You acknowledge that you would gladly force a baker to engage in activity he finds spiritually intolerable, then you accuse the baker of creating a scandal by not acceding to your own worldview.  The scandal is created by those bringing the lawsuit when they easily could have procured a wedding cake elsewhere.  And you acknowledge that a "modicum of protection" for gays and lesbians, presumably protection from the outrage of shopping at more than one bakery, merits an unjust law which forces someone to act in violation of his own spiritual beliefs and right to expression.

And you feel morally obligated to do this, because @INVAR hasn't done it yet.

I'm not surprised you deny taking this position.  I myself sometimes don't like what I see in the mirror.

If the baker finds it spiritually intolerable to bake a cake that will be used at a lesbian wedding, then he shouldn’t be baking cakes in a state where he can be compelled to offer his advertised goods and services to all customers without discrimination. 

He can’t have his cake, and eat it, too. 

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,746
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #621 on: January 04, 2018, 10:55:09 pm »
So Saint Thomas Aquinas is an immoral person?
are you possibly saying Thomas was involved in this?

Exactly why could you be saying anyway?

Please enlighten us to your intellect, as you seem to have strayed way off the plantation.
No punishment, in my opinion, is too great, for the man who can build his greatness upon his country's ruin~  George Washington

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #622 on: January 04, 2018, 10:56:12 pm »
If the baker finds it spiritually intolerable to bake a cake that will be used at a lesbian wedding, then he shouldn’t be baking cakes in a state where he can be compelled to offer his advertised goods and services to all customers without discrimination. 

He can’t have his cake, and eat it, too. 

And no, I see no problem with requiring commercial businesses that are open to the public to not discriminate on the basis of idiocies like sexual orientation.  Invidious discrimination causes a lot of problems that are simplest solved in the commercial realm by prohibiting businesses from engaging in them.

If, on occasion, that puts someone’s commercial interests in conflict with their subjective personal beliefs, so be it so long as they had advance notice going in that this would present a problem for them.

I don’t see any reason to cater to such snowflakes, any more than to cater to the idiocies of any liberal snowflake. 

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #623 on: January 04, 2018, 10:57:48 pm »
are you possibly saying Thomas was involved in this?

Exactly why could you be saying anyway?

Please enlighten us to your intellect, as you seem to have strayed way off the plantation.

You should go read Aquinas’ writings on law, the relationship between natural law and human law, and the obligation to obey human law, even if the human law is not fully consonant with natural law.

Offline goatprairie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,928
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #624 on: January 04, 2018, 11:00:58 pm »
Nonsense.  That right belongs to the state regardless of what I say.  It is, like gravity, a fact, not a conclusion. 

I am not the one espousing an absolutist ideology, nor implying the right to “defend” myself from others because I perceive those others as a threat to my subjective beliefs. 

In this case, I am quite certain that even Thomas Aquinas would agree that the bakers have a duty to obey this law, even if we assume it is an unjust law because it provides some modicum of protection to gays and lesbians.  They have created a greater scandal by refusing to obey than they would have if they had simply baked the cake. 

The bakers are wholly in the wrong here, both as a matter of positive law (the state statute) and as a matter of natural law.  They had an obligation to obey the positive law because such obedience would not require them to directly engage in a morally wrong act, and the consequences of their disobedience are worse than the consequences of simply making the cake.
The Nazis passed a lot of laws. According to your logic, since they were in authority, everybody had the obligation to obey them. Hey you citizen, help us round up the Jews. Tell us where they're hiding.  I guess Thomas Aquinas would say you'd have to obey the Nazis then, right?
Slavery was one time the law of the land in many states. Because it was legal, did that make it just or moral? Obviously not.
The facts are laws are supposed reflect the wishes of the public. If fifty percent of the public says one thing about a law, and the other fifty percent say another, we have a problem.So your definition of what is moral and legal is quite different from many of us on this forum.
Although you deny it, you are on the absolutist side in the wrong way. It's not enough for you that a vender is willing to sell a cake, the vender must (according to you) make the cake to the specifications of the homosexual couple.
BTW, you claimed the couple only want a general cake, but an article I read yesterday said otherwise. It's difficult to believe they didn't want some message on the cake.
We're not talking about selling something, we're talking about making something. The baker, businessman, vender has the absolute right to refuse to make something it doesn't want to make.
It doesn't matter if the business will make his product for someone else but not me.  And it doesn't matter if the owner is bigoted, prejudiced, a jerk, whatever. 
This is not the same thing as asking for food in a restaurant.
This demand entails making specific kind of product for a certain clientele.
All business owners of whatever race, creed, or ethnic origin reserve the right to make things only they want to make. They cannot be coerced in making something they don't want to make.
If some homosexual business only makes things for homosexual people, I have no right to demand they make something designed for a heterosexual clientele.
I have to go elsewhere.  That means I'm free to buy whatever the homosexual business has for sale, but I cannot demand they make me something special. That violates their rights.
So who is on the side of people that says a business is free to create whatever they want to make, and who is on the side of people demanding a business violate their consciences?
You would be in the latter camp.