Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case

[roamer_1]

People have used THEIR interpretations of the Bible, to justify:

--Conscientious objector status

--Slavery, discrimination

--Prohibition of mixed race marriage.

--Protestantism, Judaism (Spanish, Italian, French Inquisitions.)

--Avoiding medical treatment (Christian Scientist)

Just because there are many (often contradictory) interpretations of biblical phrases and passages, does NOT make them binding laws on all of the members of a society.

--If you don't "believe" in pork, don't eat pork.
--If you don't believe in mixed-race marriages, don't enter into one.
--If you don't approve of same-sex unions, don't enter into one.

Stone dead wrong, and here's why: When you enter my property, you are no longer on the public square. You are in my house.
If I do not have religious freedom in my own house, there is no religious freedom at all.

And as far as your offense might overtake you in my house, you are free to leave my house, unmolested, but you are not free to make me think or do differently than my conscience dictates.

Be careful what you wish for.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

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.

no thank you, will not read.

However, did Thomas say we should adhere to laws that are immoral in God's eyes?  That appears to be what you are suggesting.

[roamer_1]

How about if you don't like "bigots", then don't do business with them.

Gee, that seems awful simple don't it?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

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 therein lies the heart of a republic.

A state is sovereign in areas like this.  Once the feds are allowed total control, it is game over for Americans who desire freedom, as the only alternative is to leave the USA

[roamer_1]

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.

The absolutist in this case is the homo.

[Oceander]

The absolutist in this case is the homo.

Nope.  The “homo” just wants to be treated fairly, like everyone else.  The absolutist is the baker who thinks his snowflake Christianity should give him a waiver on laws he doesn’t like. 

[INVAR]

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 (country) where he can be compelled to offer his advertised goods and services to all customers without discrimination. 

Hence the actual application of what scripture references as the Mark of the Beast.

If you do not act and think according to the way the Beast demands, one is not permitted to make a living.

It is a truism that liberty dies to thunderous applause.

[Oceander]

no thank you, will not read.

However, did Thomas say we should adhere to laws that are immoral in God's eyes?  That appears to be what you are suggesting.

In a word, yes.  In more detail, yes, if adherence would not require one to directly engage in prohibited conduct, and the “scandal” - Aquinas’ term of art - caused by disobedience was greater than the scandal caused by obedience. 

[roamer_1]

Nope.  The “homo” just wants to be treated fairly, like everyone else.  The absolutist is the baker who thinks his snowflake Christianity should give him a waiver on laws he doesn’t like.

Bullshit. Like 'everyone else', If I am treated unfairly, I go somewhere else, whether or not the law.
That'a what 'everyone else' does.

[Oceander]

Hence the actual application of what scripture references as the Mark of the Beast.

If you do not act and think according to the way the Beast demands, one is not permitted to make a living.

It is a truism that liberty dies to thunderous applause.

/snicker

Yeah, the “Beast” is really concerned with everyone getting a fair shake, which is all this law amounts to. 

[roamer_1]

Hence the actual application of what scripture references as the Mark of the Beast.

If you do not act and think according to the way the Beast demands, one is not permitted to make a living.

It is a truism that liberty dies to thunderous applause.

BUMP THAT.

[Oceander]

Bullshit. Like 'everyone else', If I am treated unfairly, I go somewhere else, whether or not the law.
That'a what 'everyone else' does.

Bull.  Let’s put that to the test: I have a piece of real estate in Brooklyn I’ll sell to you for $200,000.  A real steal so to speak.  If I get your money but don’t transfer the property, are you going to just go look elsewhere to buy a bridge, or are you going to sue to get your money back?

[Frank Cannon]

Bullshit. Like 'everyone else', If I am treated unfairly, I go somewhere else, whether or not the law.
That'a what 'everyone else' does.

No they don't. Ever hear of Yelp?

[roamer_1]

Bull.  Let’s put that to the test: I have a piece of real estate in Brooklyn I’ll sell to you for $200,000.  A real steal so to speak.  If I get your money but don’t transfer the property, are you going to just go look elsewhere to buy a bridge, or are you going to sue to get your money back?

That is breach of contract - Money has changed hands. Different story.

[Oceander]

Hence the actual application of what scripture references as the Mark of the Beast.

If you do not act and think according to the way the Beast demands, one is not permitted to make a living.

It is a truism that liberty dies to thunderous applause.

Funny how the only thing that gets your panties in a twist are laws that relate to gays.  You seem perfectly happy with all manner of other laws that prohibit making a living unless you adhere to the states rules.  At least, you haven’t said anything about them. 

Why is it acceptable to require builders to comply with a building code, on pain of fines and possible jail, but not fine to require that bakers who offer to sell cakes to the public really mean what they say and sell to all comers with money to cover the price?

[Oceander]

That is breach of contract - Money has changed hands. Different story.

It’s also a matter of unfair treatment.  That makes it exactly the same. 

[roamer_1]

No they don't. Ever hear of Yelp?

NOPE.

But I take it it is the internet version of 'word of mouth'...
That has always been present.
And that is the risk one takes providing poor service.

so the homo tells all his homo friends I refuse to serve homos, and they all quit coming to my store.
I don't see a problem with that.

[roamer_1]

It’s also a matter of unfair treatment.  That makes it exactly the same.

No it doesn't - the 'unfair treatment' is breach of contract, which is what in fact makes it actionable.
There is no breach if there is no contract. There is no damage, and there is no standing.

As in this case.

If someone refuses to do business with me, even with extreme prejudice, even with hard words and hurt feelings, It is simple enough to go where my business is wanted. I might kick his ass at some point, but my business would simply go elsewhere.

That is what folks do.

[HoustonSam]

Funny how the only thing that gets your panties in a twist are laws that relate to gays.  You seem perfectly happy with all manner of other laws that prohibit making a living unless you adhere to the states rules.  At least, you haven’t said anything about them. 

Why is it acceptable to require builders to comply with a building code, on pain of fines and possible jail, but not fine to require that bakers who offer to sell cakes to the public really mean what they say and sell to all comers with money to cover the price?

Building codes exist to protect public safety.  No issues of public safety are in play when a baker demurs to prepare a wedding cake which violates his conscience.

Had the bakers argued that they were exempt from health department regulations on a commercial kitchen due to religious beliefs, I would agree that First Amendment freedoms did not apply.

[DCPatriot]

Nope.  The “homo” just wants to be treated fairly, like everyone else.  The absolutist is the baker who thinks his snowflake Christianity should give him a waiver on laws he doesn’t like.

On the money!   ^-^

[Oceander]

No it doesn't - the 'unfair treatment' is breach of contract, which is what in fact makes it actionable.
There is no breach if there is no contract. There is no damage, and there is no standing.

As in this case.

If someone refuses to do business with me, even with extreme prejudice, even with hard words and hurt feelings, It is simple enough to go where my business is wanted. I might kick his ass at some point, but my business would simply go elsewhere.

That is what folks do.

It’s only actionable because positive law says it is. Positive law in Oregon says that discriminating against homosexuals in public accommodations is actionable, so on that level they are precisely the same. 

[roamer_1]

It’s only actionable because positive law says it is. Positive law in Oregon says that discriminating against homosexuals in public accommodations is actionable, so on that level they are precisely the same.

No they aren't.
One is real loss of hard property.
The other is no loss at all.

[Oceander]

Building codes exist to protect public safety.  No issues of public safety are in play when a baker demurs to prepare a wedding cake which violates his conscience.

Had the bakers argued that they were exempt from health department regulations on a commercial kitchen due to religious beliefs, I would agree that First Amendment freedoms did not apply.

And the Oregon anti-discrimination law serves to protect the public as well by preventing unscrupulous businesses from unfairly discriminating against members of the public on the basis of things like sexual orientation.  The people of Oregon, through their elected representatives, duly deliberated and concluded that was a problem of sufficient magnitude that it warranted legal redress.

But more to the point, both entail forcing someone to do something they may not want to do at the threat of losing their livelihood.  So they are identical where it counts, and if you can’t abide by the restriction on the baker you are committed to being against the restrictions on the builder.

[edpc]

Hence the actual application of what scripture references as the Mark of the Beast.

If you do not act and think according to the way the Beast demands, one is not permitted to make a living.

It is a truism that liberty dies to thunderous applause.

Yes and according to ‘the plan’ you know it’s going to get a whole lot worse before anything changes.  Why constantly bemoan the state of things when your religion tells you that’s how it’s going to be and you can’t change it?  I’m seriously asking.

[Oceander]

No they aren't.
One is real loss of hard property.
The other is no loss at all.

Sez you.  Others say differently, including the people of Oregon.  Such is life.