Kern County judge rules against State of California in case against Tastries Bakery

[Hoodat]

But she's in business to sell wedding cakes.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.  She is in business to sell whatever she chooses to sell.

If you are a car dealer, and someone asks you to sell them your personal 1969 Plymouth Barracuda sitting on the dealership floor for display purposes only, you have the right to say 'no'.

[Hoodat]

The baker alone decides what she will sell, and advertises those wares to the public.

Correctamundo.  And this baker never made the decision to sell same-gender wedding cakes.

[roamer_1]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.  She is in business to sell whatever she chooses to sell.

If you are a car dealer, and someone asks you to sell them your personal 1969 Plymouth Barracuda sitting on the dealership floor for display purposes only, you have the right to say 'no'.

More than that - If you advertise that car for sale, and later decide not to sell it, you are under no obligation, because there is no contract, verbal or otherwise.

[Jazzhead]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.  She is in business to sell whatever she chooses to sell.

No, she advertises that she sells wedding cakes.  That's her choice, and her right.  What she doesn't have the right to do is deny service because she doesn't care for the customer's skin color, or religion, or sexual orientation.   That's the law.   "Religious freedom" has nothing to do with it.   It does not provide an excuse for breaking the law.   

Since we're all about enabling lawbreakers on this thread, why not a simple compromise - give both bakers and illegal aliens amnesty for breaking the law.   The illegals just want to feed their families, and the bakers just want to virtue-signal about their god.       

[Hoodat]

The State Constitution of California defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.  That goes far beyond most other States who define it only as a matter of State Legislative Law.

[Jazzhead]

Correctamundo.  And this baker never made the decision to sell same-gender wedding cakes.

That's putting the rabbit in the hat.  She advertised wedding cakes, period. 

[Hoodat]

No, she advertises that she sells wedding cakes.  That's her choice, and her right.  What she doesn't have the right to do is deny service because she doesn't care for the customer's skin color, or religion, or sexual orientation.     

Here you are once again making up your own facts.  I will give you a pass this one time because it is clear you aren't aware that the defendant did not refuse service to the plaintiff.  But this is your only warning.  In any subsequent post where you repeat this same bogus claim, I will be left with no choice but to call you out for being a liar.  Capisce?

[Sanguine]

[Hoodat]

No, she advertises that she sells wedding cakes.     

Does she advertise that she sells same-gender wedding cakes?  Didn't think so.  And per the Constitution of the State of California, weddings are between one man and one woman.

[INVAR]

No, she advertises that she sells wedding cakes.

She referred them to another bakery for the cake they wanted. 

But as usual, that is not good enough.  As we have said, this agenda of yours that you push with vehement regularity, is all about forcing people to serve, cater, acknowledge and serve homosexuality by force.

You advocate for the Beast.  One cannot buy or sell unless they think and act as you demand they do - and you will empower the government to impose that by force.

[mountaineer]

If I were a painter who specialized in portraits, and a potential customer came to me and said, "I want you to paint my portrait, and here's the picture I expect you to paint:  In my portrait, I'll be sodomizing a 4-year-old child at the same time I'm shooting a police officer. Since you advertised you paint portraits, I'm sure you'll do this for me, won't you?"

Am I required by law to paint what this customer wants?

[Oceander]

Amazing the contortions people will go through in order to justify their hatred of gays. 

[Sanguine]

Amazing the contortions people will go through in order to justify their hatred of gays.

Rubbish.  This has nothing to do with hating gays.

[Hoodat]

Amazing the contortions people will go through in order to justify their hatred of gays.

Amazing the idiocy of people who purposely ignore the facts while pushing their own bigoted narrative.

[roamer_1]

Amazing the contortions people will go through in order to justify their hatred of gays.

Baloney.
This is persecution of religious folks under the color of law.
YHWH says homosexuality is sinful, and I am to have nothing to  do with it.
YHWH says that marriage is between one man and one woman, until death.

To support otherwise is wholly irreconcilable.

As a believer, do I follow the laws of men or the laws of YHWH?
That question should be self-evident. And therein lies the crux (pun intended).

[Oceander]

Rubbish.  This has nothing to do with hating gays.

Rubbish.  Any other thread where there’s discussion of someone favoring some other group over, say, whites, the bitching is all about how those people are engaged in discrimination, but when it comes to gays, it’s Alice in Wonderland, like watching Adam Schiff defend FISA transparency in 2013 side by side with Adam Schiff denigrating FISA transparency now; the only relevant difference being that now involves attempts to spy on Trump’s campaign.

In other words, there is very little internal consistency. 

[Oceander]

Amazing the idiocy of people who purposely ignore the facts while pushing their own bigoted narrative.

/snicker

[Restored]

That's putting the rabbit in the hat.  She advertised wedding cakes, period.

Yes but she can say "no" to any order. I know someone who makes wedding cakes. She says "no" to people all the time. They don't sue her. They go find another baker.
These people weren't interested in a cake. They were interested in a lawsuit.

[Sanguine]

Rubbish.  Any other thread where there’s discussion of someone favoring some other group over, say, whites, the bitching is all about how those people are engaged in discrimination, but when it comes to gays, it’s Alice in Wonderland, like watching Adam Schiff defend FISA transparency in 2013 side by side with Adam Schiff denigrating FISA transparency now; the only relevant difference being that now involves attempts to spy on Trump’s campaign.

In other words, there is very little internal consistency.

May be a bit of projection there. 

[mountaineer]

Amazing the contortions people will go through in order to justify their hatred of gays.

If you're referring to my post, O, it's not at all about hating gays. It's just a hypothetical fact situation, kind of like a law school exam.

[Oceander]

May be a bit of projection there. 

None at all.  It’s clear I’ve hit the nail on the head with all the hyper-vigorous denials popping up. 

Why not simply be honest and admit to hating gays?

[Oceander]

If you're referring to my post, O, it's not at all about hating gays. It's just a hypothetical fact situation, kind of like a law school exam.

Not yours at all.  Why would you think I was?  I’m referring to the general tenor of the responses.

[Sanguine]

None at all.  It’s clear I’ve hit the nail on the head with all the hyper-vigorous denials popping up. 

Why not simply be honest and admit to hating gays?

Umm...because it wouldn't be honest were I to admit to hating gays.  But, your mind is made up, so there we are.

[skeeter]

These people weren't interested in a cake. They were interested in a lawsuit.

Without lawsuits some people would have to find real jobs & produce something of real value.

[WingNot]

I feel like I've seen this thread before.  I know how it ends too.