Author Topic: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case  (Read 44251 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest 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 #650 on: January 04, 2018, 11:53:02 pm »
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.

Authority is granted to the state by consensus of the people ("government with the consent of the governed"), and individual rights limit the application of that authority, protecting us from tyranny (at least in theory).

When people invoke the "right" of the state it suggests sloppy thinking, or more charitably, carelessness with words.  I've certainly been guilty of both myself but in discussions like these I find that carelessness particularly distracting.
James 1:20

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,867
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #651 on: January 04, 2018, 11:53:48 pm »
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?

A silly analogy.  That would be like the baker taking payment for the cake, then not delivering.  That's straight-out Fraud.
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 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 #652 on: January 04, 2018, 11:57:09 pm »
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. 

Any law that requires me to serve deviant behavior falls into the same bin of tyranny.  I don't care if it's Adulterors Anonymous, a wife-swapping club, some Hindu marrying a 9 year old girl, a Halloween celebration, a polygamist party or some imbecile who wants to marry their pet shitzu - anything related to serving, acknowledging and providing my services to cater to behaviors anathema to my conscience are services I will not render... PERIOD.  End of sentence.

I don't give a shit what 'the law' says.  The 'law' could insist that when the bell rings I must bow down and worship the golden statue or get chucked in a furnace.  I will still not comply.

You seem perfectly happy with all manner of other laws that prohibit making a living unless you adhere to the states rules. 

And which "laws" are these that I have described myself being 'happy' with???  Do tell.  I would love to know what I have said about them, considering I've never offered an opinion on this board 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?

Issue of public safety for starters.  Compliance with certain codes prevent death by fire, collapse or other hazard to life and limb from shoddy, haphazard or improper construction and installation of materials.  Two fruitcakes upset that someone won't bake them a cake to celebrate their sexual perversion is not even in the same universe of comparison, even if you want to make it so.
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

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #653 on: January 04, 2018, 11:57:36 pm »
A silly analogy.  That would be like the baker taking payment for the cake, then not delivering.  That's straight-out Fraud.

No, the question is, would you complain to the authorities about it, or just suck it up?  You’d complain because that’s the only way to get redress for being wronged.  Oregon law merely gives a remedy to someone who has been wrongfully treated because of their sexual orientation (in addition to the other factors, like race).

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #654 on: January 04, 2018, 11:59:50 pm »
Any law that requires me to serve deviant behavior falls into the same bin of tyranny.  I don't care if it's Adulterors Anonymous, a wife-swapping club, some Hindu marrying a 9 year old girl, a Halloween celebration, a polygamist party or some imbecile who wants to marry their pet shitzu - anything related to serving, acknowledging and providing my services to cater to behaviors anathema to my conscience are services I will not render... PERIOD.  End of sentence.

I don't give a shit what 'the law' says.  The 'law' could insist that when the bell rings I must bow down and worship the golden statue or get chucked in a furnace.  I will still not comply.

And which "laws" are these that I have described myself being 'happy' with???  Do tell.  I would love to know what I have said about them, considering I've never offered an opinion on this board about them.

Issue of public safety for starters.  Compliance with certain codes prevent death by fire, collapse or other hazard to life and limb from shoddy, haphazard or improper construction and installation of materials.  Two fruitcakes upset that someone won't bake them a cake to celebrate their sexual perversion is not even in the same universe of comparison, even if you want to make it so.

Well, if someone builds a shoddy house, word gets out, so why not leave it to buyers to decide if they want a shoddy house or not?  Why let the gubmint step in and decide what kind of house everyone should get?

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #655 on: January 05, 2018, 12:01:33 am »
Gotta love the Christian snowflakes here. Want their little safe spaces and exemption from laws they don’t like, just like the liberal snowflakes. 

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 #656 on: January 05, 2018, 12:01:55 am »

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.

Shaadrach, Meshach and Abednego.

Doesn't matter how bad things get - we will still not subject ourselves to serving evil.

And then, you know what happens to those who actually do accept that mark of the Beast in their thoughts and actions don't you?
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 edpc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,879
  • Gender: Male
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #657 on: January 05, 2018, 12:06:49 am »
Shaadrach, Meshach and Abednego.

Doesn't matter how bad things get - we will still not subject ourselves to serving evil.

And then, you know what happens to those who actually do accept that mark of the Beast in their thoughts and actions don't you?

That wasn’t my question.  If it’s been ordained to happen, you can’t change it, and you’re spiritually solid, what’s the problem?
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 #658 on: January 05, 2018, 12:07:38 am »
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.

.......and the baker resorted to violence to protect himself from the world's immorality exactly when?

That was your definition of the absolutist in 604.  Apply your own definition with intellectual honesty or stand revealed as an intellectual fraud.
James 1:20

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,289
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #659 on: January 05, 2018, 12:16:59 am »
Sez you.  Others say differently, including the people of Oregon.  Such is life.

No.
One is the loss of real and actual property.
The other is a minor case of buttsore.
They don't equate ~AT ALL~.

Math is what makes it actionable.
Hard, quantifiable numbers on paper.

There is no loss here, because there is no contract, real or implied.

To force a man (by way of utter destruction, no less), in his own house, to work against his own conscience is what is unscrupulous and unconscionable here.

I don;t give a rusty shit what the law says.

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,867
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #660 on: January 05, 2018, 12:18:43 am »
No, the question is, would you complain to the authorities about it, or just suck it up?  You’d complain because that’s the only way to get redress for being wronged.  Oregon law merely gives a remedy to someone who has been wrongfully treated because of their sexual orientation (in addition to the other factors, like race).

Of course I'd complain, I'd been defrauded of cash!  That's real harm, as opposed to hurt feelings.  What's silly is claiming the two are analogous.  They are not, and not covered by the same law either.
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 #661 on: January 05, 2018, 12:26:06 am »
Of course I'd complain, I'd been defrauded of cash!  That's real harm, as opposed to hurt feelings.  What's silly is claiming the two are analogous.  They are not, and not covered by the same law either.

Being denied service because of some irrelevant characteristic that goes to the core of who you are is not just “hurt feelings”.


Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #662 on: January 05, 2018, 12:28:48 am »
.......and the baker resorted to violence to protect himself from the world's immorality exactly when?

That was your definition of the absolutist in 604.  Apply your own definition with intellectual honesty or stand revealed as an intellectual fraud.

No, it wasn’t my definition of an absolutist.  Not all absolutists start off with violence. 

What I said is that the trouble with absolutists is that if they aren’t dealt with, they will almost inevitably convince themselves that they’re justified in using violence. 

Perhaps by cutting off the absolutist now, with the anti-discrimination laws, will save lives down the road.  Why knows. 

Snowflake

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 #663 on: January 05, 2018, 12:31:47 am »
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.

They are "identical" only in the sense that they are both laws.  All laws compel people to behavior at the risk of losing livelihood or freedom, so apparently you think all laws are identical.  Your "reasoning" is becoming progressively more absurd.

Despite your continued insistence, no evidence whatsoever has been presented that "The people of Oregon, through their elected representatives, duly deliberated and concluded" that Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Expression are subordinate to the freedom to purchase a wedding cake.  Furthermore you should recall that the people of 14 states, acting directly through referenda or their elected representatives, had concluded prior to Obergefell that marriage is between one man and one woman.  If your appeal to the popular will of the people of Oregon is valid, then surely you acknowledge that the Obergefell decision was a grave injustice against the people of those 14 states.

You asked why one would not make an issue over building codes but would make an issue of the application of the anti-discrimination law in this case.  There is actual potential physical harm to the public if building codes are not maintained.  No such threat exists over the refusal to prepare a custom wedding cake.

You are just sounding ridiculous.
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 #664 on: January 05, 2018, 12:34:05 am »
Being denied service because of some irrelevant characteristic that goes to the core of who you are is not just “hurt feelings”.

What were you saying about *snowflakes* again?

Notwithstanding the stereotype regarding homos anyway.

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 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 #665 on: January 05, 2018, 12:36:41 am »
That wasn’t my question.  If it’s been ordained to happen, you can’t change it, and you’re spiritually solid, what’s the problem?

I guess you never heard of Nineveh then.
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 #666 on: January 05, 2018, 12:36:43 am »
No, it wasn’t my definition of an absolutist.  Not all absolutists start off with violence. 

What I said is that the trouble with absolutists is that if they aren’t dealt with, they will almost inevitably convince themselves that they’re justified in using violence. 

Perhaps by cutting off the absolutist now, with the anti-discrimination laws, will save lives down the road.  Why knows. 

Snowflake

So the absolutist is the person whom *you say* will resort to violence.  Very convenient.  There is a related legal term for that kind of thinking.  It's called "prior restraint."

I thought a lot of the people arguing against you here were unnecessarily antagonistic, but I see now that your position *is* pure prejudice.
James 1:20

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #667 on: January 05, 2018, 12:38:08 am »
They are "identical" only in the sense that they are both laws.  All laws compel people to behavior at the risk of losing livelihood or freedom, so apparently you think all laws are identical.  Your "reasoning" is becoming progressively more absurd.

Despite your continued insistence, no evidence whatsoever has been presented that "The people of Oregon, through their elected representatives, duly deliberated and concluded" that Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Expression are subordinate to the freedom to purchase a wedding cake.  Furthermore you should recall that the people of 14 states, acting directly through referenda or their elected representatives, had concluded prior to Obergefell that marriage is between one man and one woman.  If your appeal to the popular will of the people of Oregon is valid, then surely you acknowledge that the Obergefell decision was a grave injustice against the people of those 14 states.

You asked why one would not make an issue over building codes but would make an issue of the application of the anti-discrimination law in this case.  There is actual potential physical harm to the public if building codes are not maintained.  No such threat exists over the refusal to prepare a custom wedding cake.

You are just sounding ridiculous.


Ahhh, so now you’re denying that the people of Oregon even wanted this law in the first place.  No, it was forced on them by the gay mafia, right?  But only for laws that might somehow benefit a faggot, right. 

You are such a snowflake.  You’re perfectly fine with forcing people to do all manner of things they don’t want to do - except treat homosexuals fairly.  That’s the bridge too far. 

Twinkle, twinkle, snowflake.

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,289
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #668 on: January 05, 2018, 12:40:34 am »
Being denied service because of some irrelevant characteristic that goes to the core of who you are is not just “hurt feelings”.

Sure it is. Happens to me all the time.

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 #669 on: January 05, 2018, 12:41:12 am »

Ahhh, so now you’re denying that the people of Oregon even wanted this law in the first place.  No, it was forced on them by the gay mafia, right?  But only for laws that might somehow benefit a faggot, right. 

You are such a snowflake.  You’re perfectly fine with forcing people to do all manner of things they don’t want to do - except treat homosexuals fairly.  That’s the bridge too far. 

Twinkle, twinkle, snowflake.

This is even more absurd.  In fact it's pitiful.  Are you drunk or something?
James 1:20

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #670 on: January 05, 2018, 12:42:19 am »
Sure it is. Happens to me all the time.

So what?  You may not feel like complaining about it, but that has no bearing on whether others do.

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #671 on: January 05, 2018, 12:42:58 am »
This is even more absurd.  In fact it's pitiful.  Are you drunk or something?

No, snowflake, simply teasing out the necessary implications of what you post.

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,289
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #672 on: January 05, 2018, 12:44:07 am »
So what?  You may not feel like complaining about it, but that has no bearing on whether others do.

Right. It's just that some pigs are more equal then others.

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
« Reply #673 on: January 05, 2018, 12:48:16 am »
Right. It's just that some pigs are more equal then others.


It’s that different people respond differently.  Don’t be so parochial as to assume that every is, or ought to be, just like you.

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 #674 on: January 05, 2018, 12:49:34 am »
No, snowflake, simply teasing out the necessary implications of what you post.

As I said of our discussion earlier in this thread, readers will reach their own conclusions.

I still hold no ill will for you, but unfortunately it's because I've concluded you simply aren't worth the effort.
James 1:20