The Briefing Room

General Category => National News/Current Events => Topic started by: Right_in_Virginia on December 28, 2017, 06:55:01 PM

Title: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Right_in_Virginia on December 28, 2017, 06:55:01 PM
Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Washington Post, Dec 28, 2017, Steven Dubois | AP

PORTLAND, Ore. — An appellate court Thursday upheld a penalty against Oregon bakery owners who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding almost five years ago.

The owners of the since-closed Gresham bakery — Aaron and Melissa Klein — argued that state Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian violated state and federal laws by forcing them to pay emotional-distress damages of $135,000 to the lesbian couple.

Their lawyers said Avakian and the state Bureau of Labor and Industries violated the Kleins’ rights as artists to free speech, their rights to religious freedom and their rights as defendants to a due process.


More: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/court-rules-against-oregon-bakers-in-wedding-cake-case/2017/12/28/e4ac9d7c-ec01-11e7-956e-baea358f9725_story.html?utm_term=.5fcc1240995f (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/court-rules-against-oregon-bakers-in-wedding-cake-case/2017/12/28/e4ac9d7c-ec01-11e7-956e-baea358f9725_story.html?utm_term=.5fcc1240995f)
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Right_in_Virginia on December 28, 2017, 06:56:31 PM
I hope this goes to the Supremes.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: The Ghost on December 28, 2017, 08:02:40 PM
I hope this goes to the Supremes.

It better.  In the meantime we can look forward to that cisgender person Jazz something to  tell us why the court was correct to rule as it did. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: goatprairie on December 28, 2017, 10:23:42 PM
The issue primarily has nothing to do with religion or artistry but the right of a business to make whatever it wants to make without being coerced into doing so by the gov. or a customer.
No customer has the right to tell a business it must make a certain type of item for them.
The libs are liars when they claim it's about prejudice. None of those libs will attack Muslim bakeries or businesses for not making homosexual-themed items. For obvious reasons. They wish to undermine and destroy the moral and ethical foundations of the country.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on December 29, 2017, 09:23:03 AM
This looks to me to be a total shakedown anyway.

$135,000 awarded for 'emotional distress', not by any court but by a thug bureaucrat?

3rd World country stuff.

That bureaucrat should be fired and pension removed for creating this situation as well as removing a business from the state.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: txradioguy on December 29, 2017, 09:28:11 AM
I hope this goes to the Supremes.

Well if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Colorado baker in the case that is at their level now...the lawyers in the Oregon case representing that baker have a ready made appeal to the current state level ruling.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on December 29, 2017, 12:03:27 PM
It better.  In the meantime we can look forward to that cisgender person Jazz something to  tell us why the court was correct to rule as it did.

He has already stated that his desire is to empower the state to punish 'bigots'.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: verga on December 29, 2017, 06:18:07 PM
Rand Paul said it best in regards to Obama care. This is nothing more than slavery, you are requiring a person to perform work agaisnt their will.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: The Ghost on December 29, 2017, 07:47:50 PM
He has already stated that his desire is to empower the state to punish 'bigots'.

He's a real sport that person. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on December 29, 2017, 07:54:20 PM
Rand Paul said it best in regards to Obama care. This is nothing more than slavery, you are requiring a person to perform work agaisnt their will.

This isn’t slavery. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: TomSea on December 29, 2017, 08:07:02 PM
It better.  In the meantime we can look forward to that cisgender person Jazz something to  tell us why the court was correct to rule as it did.
@The Ghost

People should lay off Jazz, he just states his views. How is that worse, than folks who claim to be moral but would gladly see an Obama or Clinton in office with their views as well?  Same difference as far as I'm concerned. Oh, we who might have voted to see the GOP in office are genuflecting to Trump according to some of these folks.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: verga on December 29, 2017, 10:17:10 PM
This isn’t slavery.
Forced to work that are opposed to, and without your consent. What would you call it?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on December 29, 2017, 10:37:59 PM
This isn’t slavery.
It is nothing but slavery to be forced to do someone else's bidding.

It damn sure isn't freedom.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on December 29, 2017, 10:40:56 PM
It is nothing but slavery to be forced to do someone else's bidding.

It damn sure isn't freedom.

Yeah, right.  I suppose it's slavery then, if a railroad is forced, under penalty of criminal prosecution, to operate with certain safety features in place, or to be required to offer its services to all comers (i.e., to be a "common carrier").

Requiring that a business be operated according to certain rules and regulations, and subjecting business owners to fines and penalties if they violate those rules and regulations, is not slavery.

The bakers were never forced into baking cakes; they had a simple choice:  follow the laws that apply to the commercial activity of baking cakes, or don't get into the business of baking cakes for profit.

The penalty, of course, seems outlandish and quite possibly unconstitutionally harsh given the minimal harm suffered by the folks who didn't get a cake baked.  Attacking that seems to me to be the better route.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on December 29, 2017, 10:45:22 PM
Forced to work that are opposed to, and without your consent. What would you call it?

Nobody forced them to bake cakes; they voluntarily chose to enter into the business of baking cakes for profit, and if they choose not to follow the rules and regulations that apply to that business, then they have nobody to blame but themselves when they're fined for violating those rules and regulations.

It is no different than the sanitation laws that apply to restaurants and commercial kitchens - someone who gets into the business of owning a restaurant must operate their kitchen in accordance with the sanitation laws or risk being fined for violations.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on December 29, 2017, 11:06:29 PM
I will be most eager to see efforts made at Muslim bakeries, who voluntarily entered into business to make a profit, to require them to make cakes for Bar Mitzvahs, Christenings and homo weddings.

Should be a real interesting turn-of-events.

Unless of course - these "laws" are only applicable to "Christian" businesses and "rules" only apply to them and not to protected classes of bakeries.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on December 29, 2017, 11:28:32 PM
I will be most eager to see efforts made at Muslim bakeries, who voluntarily entered into business to make a profit, to require them to make cakes for Bar Mitzvahs, Christenings and homo weddings.

Should be a real interesting turn-of-events.

Unless of course - these "laws" are only applicable to "Christian" businesses and "rules" only apply to them and not to protected classes of bakeries.

It's been done.  The bureaucrats simply ignored the violations, as we would expect, see link.  As for our mutual "friend" mentioned upthread, he's only posted three times since the week before Christmas, and in each post demanded to know if somebody was "alt-right," whatever the heck that means.  Apparently his Mommy bought him a new dog whistle for Christmas.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/5/video-puts-muslim-bakeries-florists-in-gay-rights-/ (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/5/video-puts-muslim-bakeries-florists-in-gay-rights-/)
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: verga on December 30, 2017, 12:35:23 AM
Yeah, right.  I suppose it's slavery then, if a railroad is forced, under penalty of criminal prosecution, to operate with certain safety features in place, or to be required to offer its services to all comers (i.e., to be a "common carrier").

Requiring that a business be operated according to certain rules and regulations, and subjecting business owners to fines and penalties if they violate those rules and regulations, is not slavery.

The bakers were never forced into baking cakes; they had a simple choice:  follow the laws that apply to the commercial activity of baking cakes, or don't get into the business of baking cakes for profit.

The penalty, of course, seems outlandish and quite possibly unconstitutionally harsh given the minimal harm suffered by the folks who didn't get a cake baked.  Attacking that seems to me to be the better route.
@Oceander Your analogy is a Non Sequitur Are Jewish deli's required to sell non kosher meat or pork?
The bakers were never forced into baking cakes; they had a simple choice:  follow the laws that apply to the commercial activity of baking cakes, Can you site the specific law the says they are required to violate there own beliefs, you see there is this little thing in the Constitution called the first amendment that prevents the government from infringing on my religious beliefs.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on December 30, 2017, 12:52:01 AM
@Oceander Your analogy is a Non Sequitur Are Jewish deli's required to sell non kosher meat or pork?
The bakers were never forced into baking cakes; they had a simple choice:  follow the laws that apply to the commercial activity of baking cakes, Can you site the specific law the says they are required to violate there own beliefs, you see there is this little thing in the Constitution called the first amendment that prevents the government from infringing on my religious beliefs.

Don't forget the "Right of Association" that's implied in the 1st Amendment.  I never hear any mention of that.  Probably won't.

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/annotation12.html (http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/annotation12.html)
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: anubias on December 30, 2017, 02:15:27 AM
He's a real sport that person.

Sport?  Since when did refrigerator packing become a sport?  Did I miss a new Winter Olympic designation?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on December 30, 2017, 04:00:09 PM
@Oceander Your analogy is a Non Sequitur Are Jewish deli's required to sell non kosher meat or pork?
The bakers were never forced into baking cakes; they had a simple choice:  follow the laws that apply to the commercial activity of baking cakes, Can you site the specific law the says they are required to violate there own beliefs, you see there is this little thing in the Constitution called the first amendment that prevents the government from infringing on my religious beliefs.

It's very simple:  if you engage in a commercial enterprise, you follow reasonable rules or regulations, even if they violate your personal subjective beliefs, or you get penalized for it.

If the baker's personal religious beliefs were so damned precious to them, then they would have quit the cake-baking business.  That they did not, simply demonstrates that those beliefs aren't nearly as precious to them as they are now claiming.

There is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees complete freedom to do whatever the hell you want, and even less so when it comes to commercial activities, which have always received less protection than purely private noncommercial activities.

I know you don't like it, but that's only because you hate bleep and want the untrammelled right to discriminate against them.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on December 30, 2017, 04:02:21 PM
@Oceander Your analogy is a Non Sequitur Are Jewish deli's required to sell non kosher meat or pork?
The bakers were never forced into baking cakes; they had a simple choice:  follow the laws that apply to the commercial activity of baking cakes, Can you site the specific law the says they are required to violate there own beliefs, you see there is this little thing in the Constitution called the first amendment that prevents the government from infringing on my religious beliefs.

You clearly don't know what the term "non sequitur" means (and it's not capitalized).  Is there a law that requires all delis to sell non-kosher meat or pork?

You haven't pointed to any, so your comparison is utterly meaningless.  Just like your hatred for gay people.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on December 30, 2017, 04:03:16 PM
Don't forget the "Right of Association" that's implied in the 1st Amendment.  I never hear any mention of that.  Probably won't.

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/annotation12.html (http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/annotation12.html)

The "right of association" does not generally apply to commercial enterprises.  If it were, then none of the anti-discrimination laws would be constitutional.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on December 30, 2017, 04:03:40 PM
It's absolutely fascinating the level of hatred displayed on this thread.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: txradioguy on December 30, 2017, 04:45:01 PM
He's a real sport that person.

Stick around long enough you'll see him rail against judicial activism in one thread and defend it in the next.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on December 30, 2017, 04:58:46 PM
The "right of association" does not generally apply to commercial enterprises.  If it were, then none of the anti-discrimination laws would be constitutional.

Makes sense to me.  From what I read, it's only been around since the 50's.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Axeslinger on December 30, 2017, 05:22:30 PM
...then none of the anti-discrimination laws would be constitutional.

First thing you’ve said I agree with...they aren’t.  If I run a business, I should be within my legal rights to discriminate (and in most cases that’s exactly what it is) against anyone I choose.  I should be able to discriminate against men or women, whites or blacks, gay or straight,  Christian or Muslim.  And my business will succeed or fail based upon society’s response to my business choices.

THAT is a free society.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Fishrrman on December 30, 2017, 06:21:46 PM
I presume this couple will lose when the case eventually reaches the Oregon state supreme court.

If they have any hope, it must be seen in the forthcoming ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.

If I were them, I'd file for bankruptcy, then move to as red a state as still can be found.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Bigun on December 30, 2017, 06:55:24 PM
First thing you’ve said I agree with...they aren’t.  If I run a business, I should be within my legal rights to discriminate (and in most cases that’s exactly what it is) against anyone I choose.  I should be able to discriminate against men or women, whites or blacks, gay or straight,  Christian or Muslim.  And my business will succeed or fail based upon society’s response to my business choices.

THAT is a free society.

The day ANY human being on this planet stops discriminating will very likely be the day he dies!
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on December 30, 2017, 07:53:26 PM
And he causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, that they must receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: (to act and to think in accord with the State) Thus no man may buy or sell (to make a living), except that he has that mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name (in his thoughts and actions). - Revelation 13:16-17
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on December 30, 2017, 08:17:14 PM
It's absolutely fascinating the level of hatred displayed on this thread.
So why is it you exhibit such animosity for those who choose freedom over slavery?

You and the old school Democrats are a tight club, eh?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: verga on December 30, 2017, 08:36:05 PM
It's very simple:  if you engage in a commercial enterprise, you follow reasonable rules or regulations, even if they violate your personal subjective beliefs, or you get penalized for it.

If the baker's personal religious beliefs were so damned precious to them, then they would have quit the cake-baking business.  That they did not, simply demonstrates that those beliefs aren't nearly as precious to them as they are now claiming.

There is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees complete freedom to do whatever the hell you want, and even less so when it comes to commercial activities, which have always received less protection than purely private noncommercial activities.

I know you don't like it, but that's only because you hate bleep and want the untrammelled right to discriminate against them.
@Oceander  8bs8
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: verga on December 30, 2017, 08:38:56 PM
You clearly don't know what the term "non sequitur" means (and it's not capitalized).  Is there a law that requires all delis to sell non-kosher meat or pork?

You haven't pointed to any, so your comparison is utterly meaningless.  Just like your hatred for gay people.
@Oceander My ignore list is reserved for only the biggest most ignorant A$$holes here, welcome to it.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: goatprairie on December 30, 2017, 09:15:25 PM
It's very simple:  if you engage in a commercial enterprise, you follow reasonable rules or regulations, even if they violate your personal subjective beliefs, or you get penalized for it.

If the baker's personal religious beliefs were so damned precious to them, then they would have quit the cake-baking business.  That they did not, simply demonstrates that those beliefs aren't nearly as precious to them as they are now claiming.

There is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees complete freedom to do whatever the hell you want, and even less so when it comes to commercial activities, which have always received less protection than purely private noncommercial activities.

I know you don't like it, but that's only because you hate bleep and want the untrammelled right to discriminate against them.
So basically you're taking the fascist position that if a customer demands a business make him a certain kind of product, the business must do exactly as the customer orders.
In what universe do you think this is anything but a fascist position?
I make certain types of widgets. A customer enters my business and demands I make him or her a certain kind of widget. I tell the customer he or she is free to purchase the widgets I make, but I do not make widgets I don't want to make.
The customer decides to enter the force of law into the issue and people with guns force me to make widgets I don't want to make.
It was never an issue of a baker refusing service to a customer. It was the issue of the baker being free to make whatever kinds of pastries he felt like.
NO CUSTOMER HAS THE RIGHT TO DEMAND AND FORCE AN OWNER OF A BUSINESS MAKE HIM OR HER A PARTICULAR KIND OF CAKE OR WIDGET!!!!!
To force a business to make things it doesn't want to make is entering into fascism.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Joe Wooten on December 31, 2017, 11:47:42 PM
It's absolutely fascinating the level of hatred displayed on this thread.

Hatred? That sounds like the last argument of the left when they lose on the facts. They call it hate and smear those beat them. I call it freedom.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 02, 2018, 08:34:30 AM
This looks to me to be a total shakedown anyway.

$135,000 awarded for 'emotional distress', not by any court but by a thug bureaucrat?

3rd World country stuff.

That bureaucrat should be fired and pension removed for creating this situation as well as removing a business from the state.

I agree.   The successful plaintiffs should be awarded their counsel fees and damages in the amount of one dollar.   
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 02, 2018, 08:39:48 AM
It's very simple:  if you engage in a commercial enterprise, you follow reasonable rules or regulations, even if they violate your personal subjective beliefs, or you get penalized for it.

If the baker's personal religious beliefs were so damned precious to them, then they would have quit the cake-baking business.  That they did not, simply demonstrates that those beliefs aren't nearly as precious to them as they are now claiming.

There is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees complete freedom to do whatever the hell you want, and even less so when it comes to commercial activities, which have always received less protection than purely private noncommercial activities.

I know you don't like it, but that's only because you hate bleep and want the untrammelled right to discriminate against them.

Well said,  Oceander.   Being required to follow the rules of the community when running a commercial enterprise is not slavery.   There are plenty of other ways to make a living if you can't bear making a cake for a gay wedding.   And this high-minded talk about freedom is just a demand that the community excuse bigotry when festooned in the cloak of religion.   
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: verga on January 02, 2018, 09:03:05 AM
Hatred? That sounds like the last argument of the left when they lose on the facts. They call it hate and smear those beat them. I call it freedom.
@Joe Wooten Considering that he is the one doing the most accusing of homophobia and bigotry.....
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 02, 2018, 09:11:48 AM
@Joe Wooten Considering that he is the one doing the most accusing of homophobia and bigotry.....

And he's spot on.  Just because one may claim religious justification for bigotry doesn't change its stripes, certainly not to those who disagree with that religion.     Live your own life as your conscience requires.   Just don't impose your moral edicts on others. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: DCPatriot on January 02, 2018, 09:34:52 AM
Followed this case like a typical conservative, and always 'knew' in my heart that "..the Supreme Court will straighten it out!"

So?   Were we lied to by the so-called 'Conservative' media this past year+?

What would make even a moderate leaning Court rule against the baker?   Especially, since there are cases involving Muslim-owned bakeries that are 'prosecuted' differently?

So?   WTF happened?   Is Ayn Rand a Prophet?   Up is Down?  Lie is 'Truth'?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: driftdiver on January 02, 2018, 09:50:49 AM
Well said,  Oceander.   Being required to follow the rules of the community when running a commercial enterprise is not slavery.   There are plenty of other ways to make a living if you can't bear making a cake for a gay wedding.   And this high-minded talk about freedom is just a demand that the community excuse bigotry when festooned in the cloak of religion.

@Jazzhead
Your version of freedom - to do anything one wants as long as its approved behavior.

You are the most bigoted person on this forum.   You condemn Christians at every turn.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 02, 2018, 09:52:36 AM
Followed this case like a typical conservative, and always 'knew' in my heart that "..the Supreme Court will straighten it out!"

So?   Were we lied to by the so-called 'Conservative' media this past year+?

What would make even a moderate leaning Court rule against the baker?   Especially, since there are cases involving Muslim-owned bakeries that are 'prosecuted' differently?

So?   WTF happened?   Is Ayn Rand a Prophet?   Up is Down?  Lie is 'Truth'?

There are two issues here.   First, the legal right of a customer to enter a place of business and not be discriminated against with respect to the services the storeowner has advertised to provide.   Second,  the assessment of ruinous monetary damages in the event a storeowner is found - in a case never decided before - to have violated the law. 

The customer was right to challenge this baker and win a legal victory.   But $135,000 in damages for "emotional distress"  is not justifiable.   The baker should pay the plaintiff's legal costs, but should not, in a case of first impression,  be effectively driven out of business for not knowing what the law is. 

Going forward, once everyone's obligations under laws like these are known,  monetary damages may be appropriate when proven.   But not with respect to this baker, who is being punished unfairly for taking a position she thought reasonable at the time.    The remedy should be equitable, not punitive.     
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: driftdiver on January 02, 2018, 09:53:24 AM
Followed this case like a typical conservative, and always 'knew' in my heart that "..the Supreme Court will straighten it out!"

So?   Were we lied to by the so-called 'Conservative' media this past year+?

What would make even a moderate leaning Court rule against the baker?   Especially, since there are cases involving Muslim-owned bakeries that are 'prosecuted' differently?

So?   WTF happened?   Is Ayn Rand a Prophet?   Up is Down?  Lie is 'Truth'?

@DCPatriot
I'm going to set out to find every business possible that is owned by gays and attempt to purchase something they don't agree with.   Maybe also go down to the kosher deli and order a ham sandwhich, maybe the muslim resturant and order bacon with my service dog at my side.

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 02, 2018, 09:55:03 AM
@DCPatriot
I'm going to set out to find every business possible that is owned by gays and attempt to purchase something they don't agree with.   Maybe also go down to the kosher deli and order a ham sandwhich, maybe the muslim resturant and order bacon with my service dog at my side.

There you go - spreading Christian love wherever you roam.    *****rollingeyes*****
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: jpsb on January 02, 2018, 09:56:14 AM
Forcing an artist to create a work of art that violates his/her moral principles is not constitutional
nor is it good government. An artist is free to decide which commissions he/she will take and
which he/she will not take. I fine it very troubling that the big government conservatives (liberals)
would argue otherwise.



Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: verga on January 02, 2018, 09:59:46 AM
And he's spot on.  Just because one may claim religious justification for bigotry doesn't change its stripes, certainly not to those who disagree with that religion.     Live your own life as your conscience requires.   Just don't impose your moral edicts on others.
@Jazzhead Which is exactly what the gay couple is trying to do. Do you really not see the irony of your position.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 02, 2018, 10:01:10 AM
@Jazzhead
Your version of freedom - to do anything one wants as long as its approved behavior.

You are the most bigoted person on this forum.   You condemn Christians at every turn.

Christians aren't bigots - certainly not the ones I know.   

Laws against discrimination in the workplace,  and with respect to public accommodations, are simply a manifestation of the community's reasonable rules and expectations regarding interaction among the citizenry.   You are under no obligation to be part of the community and its rules.  If you define freedom as the liberty to be a bigoted bleep,  go right ahead.   But don't expect the community to structure itself to tolerate or accommodate you.     
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 02, 2018, 10:03:29 AM
Forcing an artist to create a work of art that violates his/her moral principles is not constitutional
nor is it good government. An artist is free to decide which commissions he/she will take and
which he/she will not take. I fine it very troubling that the big government conservatives (liberals)
would argue otherwise.

No one is forcing this baker/artist to make wedding cakes. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: jpsb on January 02, 2018, 10:08:10 AM
No one is forcing this baker/artist to make wedding cakes.

Gov most certainly is forcing the artist, in this case the baker, to create a work of art that
violates his conscience. That is unconstitutional and immoral.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 02, 2018, 10:08:33 AM
Forcing an artist to create a work of art that violates his/her moral principles is not constitutional
nor is it good government. An artist is free to decide which commissions he/she will take and
which he/she will not take. I fine it very troubling that the big government conservatives (liberals)
would argue otherwise.





Commercial speech receives less protection than non-commercial speech, and no matter how “artistic” it may be, if it’s done for profit as part of a business, it’s commercial speech, at most. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 02, 2018, 10:08:40 AM
@Jazzhead Which is exactly what the gay couple is trying to do. Do you really not see the irony of your position.

The gay couple sought only the service the baker advertised to provide.  The baker's refusal of that service was arbitrary and, it turns out, against the law.   I don't think the gay couple has a right to ruin the baker.  But neither does the baker have the right to continue to refuse service on the basis of sexual orientation.

The just result is to find for the plaintiffs and require the baker to pay their court costs and attorney's fees, and refrain from discriminatory conduct in the future.  I strongly oppose the court's decision to uphold the punitive monetary damage award.           
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: jpsb on January 02, 2018, 10:11:12 AM
How about I go to some man hating feminist baker and tell her to make a cake like this

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 02, 2018, 10:11:25 AM
Gov most certainly is forcing the artist, in this case the baker, to create a work of art that
violates his conscience. That is unconstitutional and immoral.

Not so.  The baker is under no legal obligation to make wedding cakes for anyone.   That's his choice.  Having made that choice, the community's requirement is merely, and only, that he not discriminate.   

Why is it "immoral" for the community to require that a baker provide the services that he advertises to provide? 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 02, 2018, 10:12:25 AM
How about I go to some man hating feminist baker and tell her to make a cake like this

Do you think that the rest of us admire Christians more when they act like jerks?   
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: jpsb on January 02, 2018, 10:12:59 AM
Commercial speech receives less protection than non-commercial speech, and no matter how “artistic” it may be, if it’s done for profit as part of a business, it’s commercial speech, at most.

And you point is?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: jpsb on January 02, 2018, 10:17:55 AM
Not so.  The baker is under no legal obligation to make wedding cakes for anyone.   That's his choice.  Having made that choice, the community's requirement is merely, and only, that he not discriminate.   

Why is it "immoral" for the community to require that a baker provide the services that he advertises to provide?


Making a custom cake is creating a work of art. It is an artist endeavor like painting a portrait
Would you require a working artist to also create art  work that violated his conscience? Absurd.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 02, 2018, 10:19:43 AM

Making a custom cake is creating a work of art. It is an artist endeavor like painting a portrait
Would you require a working artist to also create art  work that violated his conscience? Absurd.

Nonsense. It’s not high art. It’s commercial work, like signage or a vehicle wrap. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: jpsb on January 02, 2018, 10:20:09 AM
Do you think that the rest of us admire Christians more when they act like jerks?

Oh so my request is bad but the bleep request is good? LOL, you lose, I win.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: jpsb on January 02, 2018, 10:23:44 AM
Nonsense. It’s not high art. It’s commercial work, like signage or a vehicle wrap.

Oh really?

(http://bellaweddingsite.com/wp-content/uploads/imgp/unbelievable-wedding-cakes-2-7055.jpg)
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: txradioguy on January 02, 2018, 10:26:04 AM
Not so.  The baker is under no legal obligation to make wedding cakes for anyone.   That's his choice.  Having made that choice, the community's requirement is merely, and only, that he not discriminate.   

Why is it "immoral" for the community to require that a baker provide the services that he advertises to provide?

Because a large majority of us have shown countless times where your position on this is severely flawed I'll just say this...

You're wrong.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 02, 2018, 10:26:26 AM
Oh really?

(http://bellaweddingsite.com/wp-content/uploads/imgp/unbelievable-wedding-cakes-2-7055.jpg)

Really.  It is commercial work done for profit, and is therefore not entitled to the full panoply of First Amendment protections. 

If the baker doesn’t want to make cakes for bleep, then he should move to a different state where it’s not illegal to discriminate or find a new line of business. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: txradioguy on January 02, 2018, 10:29:13 AM
Really.  It is commercial work done for profit, and is therefore not entitled to the full panoply of First Amendment protections. 

If the baker doesn’t want to make cakes for bleep, then he should move to a different state where it’s not illegal to discriminate or find a new line of business.

Show me in the Constitution where the distinction is made or there is a clause that draws a distinction between for profit and regular old free speech.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 02, 2018, 10:32:24 AM
Show me in the Constitution where the distinction is made or there is a clause that draws a distinction between for profit and regular old free speech.

Why don’t you stop swilling Constitutional bromides and go learn something about the Constitution and how it’s interpreted and applied, particularly in the commercial speech context. 

Wedding cakes made by a commercial baker are not the same as the Sistine Chapel and are not entitled to the same protections.  It’s just that simple, and if you can’t see it, that’s because you don’t want to see it. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Right_in_Virginia on January 02, 2018, 10:36:35 AM
Oh really?

(http://bellaweddingsite.com/wp-content/uploads/imgp/unbelievable-wedding-cakes-2-7055.jpg)

Now THIS is a work of art! 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 02, 2018, 10:40:45 AM
Do you think that the rest of us admire Christians more when they act like jerks?

So you admit gay people that seek out Christian bakers to create complains are "acting like jerks?"  Thanks for finally coming clean about that.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: driftdiver on January 02, 2018, 10:41:53 AM

Making a custom cake is creating a work of art. It is an artist endeavor like painting a portrait
Would you require a working artist to also create art  work that violated his conscience? Absurd.

@jpsb

I don't care if its art or not, just because I have a business doesn't mean I'm a slave. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: txradioguy on January 02, 2018, 10:42:16 AM
Why don’t you stop swilling Constitutional bromides and go learn something about the Constitution and how it’s interpreted and applied, particularly in the commercial speech context. 

Wedding cakes made by a commercial baker are not the same as the Sistine Chapel and are not entitled to the same protections.  It’s just that simple, and if you can’t see it, that’s because you don’t want to see it.

You made the claim O...you need to back it up.

I know the Constitution especially where the 1st Amendment is concerned.

There is no asterisk anywhere in it that says your entitled to free speech unless you profit from it.

If that were the case newspapers would have been sued out of existence a long time ago.

And if refusing to make a cake is discrimatory...why isn't "no shirt no shoes no service"?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: txradioguy on January 02, 2018, 10:43:10 AM
@jpsb

I don't care if its art or not, just because I have a business doesn't mean I'm a slave.

Exactly
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 02, 2018, 10:52:19 AM
You made the claim O...you need to back it up.

I know the Constitution especially where the 1st Amendment is concerned.

There is no asterisk anywhere in it that says your entitled to free speech unless you profit from it.

If that were the case newspapers would have been sued out of existence a long time ago.

And if refusing to make a cake is discrimatory...why isn't "no shirt no shoes no service"?

Refusing to bake a cake is discriminatory because Oregon made it so and imposed penalties for violating the proscription.  If Oregon makes it illegal to deny service for lack of shoes or a shirt, then that would be illegal. As of now, it’s not.

If you know the Constitution as well as you claim, then you understand the difference between strict scrutiny, which applies to state laws that infringe on noncommercial speech, and intermediate scrutiny, which applies to state laws that infringe on commercial speech, and under which the state only has to show that the infringing law addresses a substantial interest, and directly and materially advances that interest by means no more extensive than necessary.  Discrimination against a significant portion of the community on an irrelevant basis is a substantial interest and prohibiting such discrimination by businesses is generally a direct means of advancing the goal of preventing that discrimination that is not an extensive overreach.  The punitive damages penalty is, by contrast, excessive and if anything is most likely to be struck down. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 02, 2018, 10:53:40 AM
And if refusing to make a cake is discrimatory...why isn't "no shirt no shoes no service"?

I foresee a day when that gets sued out of existence by some barefoot, topless chick with boobs nobody wants to see.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: driftdiver on January 02, 2018, 11:01:31 AM
Refusing to bake a cake is discriminatory because Oregon made it so and imposed penalties for violating the proscription.  If Oregon makes it illegal to deny service for lack of shoes or a shirt, then that would be illegal. As of now, it’s not.

If you know the Constitution as well as you claim, then you understand the difference between strict scrutiny, which applies to state laws that infringe on noncommercial speech, and intermediate scrutiny, which applies to state laws that infringe on commercial speech, and under which the state only has to show that the infringing law addresses a substantial interest, and directly and materially advances that interest by means no more extensive than necessary.  Discrimination against a significant portion of the community on an irrelevant basis is a substantial interest and prohibiting such discrimination by businesses is generally a direct means of advancing the goal of preventing that discrimination that is not an extensive overreach.  The punitive damages penalty is, by contrast, excessive and if anything is most likely to be struck down.

@Oceander
So says the guy who in one thread says he passed the CA bar and in another denies it.

Significant portion of the community eh?

Roughly `10% of gays have gotten married.   Gays make up about 1.7% of the population so thats .17% of the US population is under consideration here.  Thats LESS then 2 tenths of a %.

Hardly a significant number.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 02, 2018, 11:01:33 AM
@jpsb

I don't care if its art or not, just because I have a business doesn't mean I'm a slave.

Requiring a commercial business to abide by the community's reasonable rules is not "slavery".   Slavery's a serious matter, and you're trivializing it.   

No one has forced this baker to make wedding cakes.  That's his free choice, and all the community requires is that he not arbitrarily discriminate with respect to the services he's advertised to provide.   
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 02, 2018, 11:02:25 AM
@Oceander
So says the guy who in one thread says he passed the CA bar and in another denies it.

Significant portion of the community eh?

Roughly `10% of gays have gotten married.   Gays make up about 1.7% of the population so thats .17% of the US population is under consideration here.  Thats LESS then 2 tenths of a %.

Hardly a significant number.


I have never claimed to have passed the CA bar. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 02, 2018, 11:05:55 AM
@Oceander
So says the guy who in one thread says he passed the CA bar and in another denies it.

Significant portion of the community eh?

Roughly `10% of gays have gotten married.   Gays make up about 1.7% of the population so thats .17% of the US population is under consideration here.  Thats LESS then 2 tenths of a %.

Hardly a significant number.

Then it should be no significant burden to profit handsomely from the production of wedding cakes.   99.80% of your business won't violate your "conscience".   
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: driftdiver on January 02, 2018, 11:06:15 AM
Requiring a commercial business to abide by the community's reasonable rules is not "slavery".   Slavery's a serious matter, and you're trivializing it.   

No one has forced this baker to make wedding cakes.  That's his free choice, and all the community requires is that he not arbitrarily discriminate with respect to the services he's advertised to provide.

@Jazzhead
Nonsense, you're bigotry against Christians is so tiresome.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 02, 2018, 11:07:48 AM
Just because one may claim religious justification for bigotry doesn't change its stripes, certainly not to those who disagree with that religion. 

Goes especially for the homosexual religion, who have raised bigotry towards anyone who will not kiss their parts in celebration, to an art form.

   Live your own life as your conscience requires.   Just don't impose your moral edicts on others.

Unless you are of the Homosexual religion like Jazzy here.  THEN, you can impose your moral edicts upon those who refuse to submit to homosharia and use the government to destroy persons and businesses that will not bow down and serve it.

Your whole presence here on this subject is to impose your homosexual morality on others - BY FORCE.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: driftdiver on January 02, 2018, 11:08:15 AM
Then it should be no significant burden to profit handsomely from the production of wedding cakes.   99.80% of your business won't violate your "conscience".   

@Jazzhead

Thats 99.98% of my business doesn't need one of these.

I don't cater to .02% of the market and expect to survive as a business.

You leftist know all about slavery and have supported it for a couple hundred years.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on January 02, 2018, 11:18:28 AM
No one is forcing this baker/artist to make wedding cakes.
Nor is anyone forcing people to buy from them.

It is a two way street, that thing called freedom.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: goatprairie on January 02, 2018, 11:24:49 AM
Not so.  The baker is under no legal obligation to make wedding cakes for anyone.   That's his choice.  Having made that choice, the community's requirement is merely, and only, that he not discriminate.   

Why is it "immoral" for the community to require that a baker provide the services that he advertises to provide?
You completely misunderstand the issue. The baker is not denying service to a homosexual couple. The homosexual couple is free to buy anything the baker makes.
However, the customer has no right to demand the baker make him a particular kind of cake.
If I'm a painter and I only paint wildlife scenes, nobody has the right to demand I paint some other kind of picture.
If I only paint religious paintings for Christian clientele, nobody has the right to force me to paint paintings for other religions.
It is the basic right of a business to make whatever it wants to make.  Nobody is being refused service. They simply don't have the right to demand the business owner make them something he or she doesn't want to make.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Neverdul on January 02, 2018, 11:25:20 AM
If the baker is asked to decorate the cake in a manner that “celebrates” gay marriage in anyway, such has with messages, rainbow flags, or two “grooms” or two “brides” on the top, I can certainly understand their objection. But if they are just baking and decorating a wedding cake such as the one pictured below, I don’t get it. That would just be a cake.

(https://www.weddingcakes.com/CMS/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/collections_3_graphics.jpg)

Then again as a more libertarian minded person, I guess they and anyone else should be able to service or refuse service to anyone they like.

So when the devout Christian couple who are about to marry and are wearing their crosses and their "Marriage Is Only Between One Man and One Woman Because God Says So" tee shirts happens to go to a bakery where the owner is gay, perhaps he can refuse to bake their cake, or the atheist baker or the baker who doesn’t think a mix race couple, should one of them be black and the other white, should marry.  So be it.

I guess the Muslim tow truck driver can also refuse service to a woman driving alone, or the Jewish deli refuse to cater a Christmas party and so on. What if the baker hates, “gingers”? At the end of the day, someone’s ox is going to get gored and I’m not saying that is a bad thing, but it’s probably not a good thing either.

I recall not long ago, a bit bugaboo when some pro-life and anti-gay protesters went into a coffee shop across the street from where they were protesting, and the owner who was gay, threw them out.

I guess I support his decision as long as he would support the Christian baker for refusing to serve customers who they are ideologically or religiously opposed to.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: driftdiver on January 02, 2018, 11:28:43 AM
If the baker is asked to decorate the cake in a manner that “celebrates” gay marriage in anyway, such has with messages, rainbow flags, or two “grooms” or two “brides” on the top, I can certainly understand their objection. But if they are just baking and decorating a wedding cake such as the one pictured below, I don’t get it. That would just be a cake.

(https://www.weddingcakes.com/CMS/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/collections_3_graphics.jpg)

Then again as a more libertarian minded person, I guess they and anyone else should be able to service or refuse service to anyone they like.

So when the devout Christian couple who are about to marry and are wearing their crosses and their "Marriage Is Only Between One Man and One Woman Because God Says So" tee shirts happens to go to a bakery where the owner is gay, perhaps he can refuse to bake their cake, or the atheist baker or the baker who doesn’t think a mix race couple, should one of them be black and the other white, should marry.  So be it.

I guess the Muslim tow truck driver can also refuse service to a woman driving alone, or the Jewish deli refuse to cater a Christmas party and so on. What if the baker hates, “gingers”? At the end of the day, someone’s ox is going to get gored and I’m not saying that is a bad thing, but it’s probably not a good thing either.

I recall not long ago, a bit bugaboo when some pro-life and anti-gay protesters went into a coffee shop across the street from where they were protesting, and the owner who was gay, threw them out.

I guess I support his decision as long as he would support the Christian baker for refusing to serve customers who they are ideologically or religiously opposed to.

Thats just it, this is a one way street.  Endorse their agenda or be marginalized in the public square.  Be labeled all kinds of nasty evil things because you don't want to sell them a wedding cake.

In most cases a wedding cake is not just a cake.  its also participating in the wedding.  Unless its a simple cake like you posted.   
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: DCPatriot on January 02, 2018, 11:29:49 AM
@jpsb

I don't care if its art or not, just because I have a business doesn't mean I'm a slave.

I'd still bake the cake...but just not put my heart and soul into 'The Presentation'.

This way, at least you get paid when some jerk forces you to 'bark' and sit.

And bye the bye...how many of us know a bakery shop owner who advertises wedding cakes, who would refuse the order like these two Birkenstock wearing weenies?    :laugh:
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: goatprairie on January 02, 2018, 11:34:03 AM
If the baker is asked to decorate the cake in a manner that “celebrates” gay marriage in anyway, such has with messages, rainbow flags, or two “grooms” or two “brides” on the top, I can certainly understand their objection. But if they are just baking and decorating a wedding cake such as the one pictured below, I don’t get it. That would just be a cake.

(https://www.weddingcakes.com/CMS/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/collections_3_graphics.jpg)

Then again as a more libertarian minded person, I guess they and anyone else should be able to service or refuse service to anyone they like.

So when the devout Christian couple who are about to marry and are wearing their crosses and their "Marriage Is Only Between One Man and One Woman Because God Says So" tee shirts happens to go to a bakery where the owner is gay, perhaps he can refuse to bake their cake, or the atheist baker or the baker who doesn’t think a mix race couple, should one of them be black and the other white, should marry.  So be it.

I guess the Muslim tow truck driver can also refuse service to a woman driving alone, or the Jewish deli refuse to cater a Christmas party and so on. What if the baker hates, “gingers”? At the end of the day, someone’s ox is going to get gored and I’m not saying that is a bad thing, but it’s probably not a good thing either.

I recall not long ago, a bit bugaboo when some pro-life and anti-gay protesters went into a coffee shop across the street from where they were protesting, and the owner who was gay, threw them out.

I guess I support his decision as long as he would support the Christian baker for refusing to serve customers who they are ideologically or religiously opposed to.
But nobody is being refused service. What is at issue here is the right of a business to make/create items it wants to make without being forced (at gunpoint) to make what it does not want to make.
The cake baker didn't refuse service to the homosexual couple. It simply used its constitutional right to refuse to make something it didn't want to make. The homosexual couple were free to purchase any item in the bakery. Or a standard wedding cake of the business owner's idea.
It doesn't matter if it's a trivial item or not, no one has the right to force a business to make something it doesn't want to make. To do otherwise is entering into tyranny.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 02, 2018, 11:41:48 AM
It is the basic right of a business to make whatever it wants to make.  Nobody is being refused service. They simply don't have the right to demand the business owner make them something he or she doesn't want to make.

Not according to our resident meddlesome tyrants who support government forcing you to make what Homosharia demands, or you will be forced out of business.

As they have said - if you do not want to serve homosexuals - do not go into business for profit.

Next week they will lecture us that churches have no right to discriminate whom they marry, and this entire issue will be revisited on yet another level.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: goatprairie on January 02, 2018, 11:57:53 AM
Not according to our resident meddlesome tyrants who support government forcing you to make what Homosharia demands, or you will be forced out of business.

As they have said - if you do not want to serve homosexuals - do not go into business for profit.

Next week they will lecture us that churches have no right to discriminate whom they marry, and this entire issue will be revisited on yet another level.
A number of them are already demanding/threatening churches if they don't want to marry homosexuals.
What all the petty fascists in America and on this forum don't understand is the difference between being served and forcing someone i.e. a business to make something specially for them.
Nobody has the right to demand a business make them something the business does not want to make.
If a homosexual couple can force a business to make them a specially designed cake, then anybody can force any other business to make them something special whether the business wants to make it or not.
There are innumerable other businesses where accusations of prejudice and discrimination can be applied similar to this case.  And the accusers don't have to be homosexuals. It can be anybody claiming discrimination because the business won't make them a special item.
When we've crossed that line, we've entered into tyranny.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 02, 2018, 12:21:47 PM
A number of them are already demanding/threatening churches if they don't want to marry homosexuals.
What all the petty fascists in America and on this forum don't understand is the difference between being served and forcing someone i.e. a business to make something specially for them.

Oh they understand it perfectly well. They want to impose tyranny, because their newfound morality seeks to punish what they deem 'bigotry', while at the same time insisting reciprocal treatment is discriminatory. 

Some animals are more equal than others.

Homosharia is the newfound religious crusade against the intolerant Christian infidels who must be made to serve and bow before the god of perversion and tolerance for abomination.

Nobody has the right to demand a business make them something the business does not want to make.

If you are in business to make a profit - then according to the meddlesome tyrants - YES, they can.  They will lecture you that discrimination is criminal and that you do not have a right to exercise your beliefs in public or if you operate a business for profit.  You must serve whom they tell you must serve, and craft and create whatever it is they tell you must craft and create.

Unless you think and act as the Beast demands, you will not be permitted to make a living.

If a homosexual couple can force a business to make them a specially designed cake, then anybody can force any other business to make them something special whether the business wants to make it or not.

That is in-fact, the goal as stated by the leaders of the Gay Mafia.  All must serve the homosexual and their appetites.  That is the nature of that abomination, and it will force itself on those who refuse to acquiesce to it.  Genesis 19 already bears that fact out.  Nothing new under the sun.

There are innumerable other businesses where accusations of prejudice and discrimination can be applied similar to this case.  And the accusers don't have to be homosexuals. It can be anybody claiming discrimination because the business won't make them a special item.
When we've crossed that line, we've entered into tyranny.

It's already being crossed to much applause.

What they choose to overlook is that those pushing this meddlesome tyranny are exactly the reason we have a Second Amendment in the first place.

We have an historical heritage of a people willing to kill agents of tyranny over a 3% tax on tea.  Imagine what kind of vengeance would have ensued if the king's agents attempted to do what the Homosharia fanatics are attempting to do today?

The question in the future is going to be whether or not agents of tyranny are going to be willing to risk their lives attempting to force Americans to serve homosexuals at the end of a gun?

Because that is what it is going to come down to.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: truth_seeker on January 02, 2018, 12:37:05 PM
Forcing an artist to create a work of art that violates his/her moral principles is not constitutional
nor is it good government. An artist is free to decide which commissions he/she will take and
which he/she will not take. I fine it very troubling that the big government conservatives (liberals)
would argue otherwise.

What is the difference between an artist and a craftsman? And why should it matter?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: goatprairie on January 02, 2018, 01:13:14 PM
What is the difference between an artist and a craftsman? And why should it matter?
In the realm of law as applied to this issue, there is none. It does not matter one whit whether what a business makes is art or just your typical widget.
It is nobody's business what the business owner makes and neither does a person have the right to demand the business make them a certain, special product.
Discrimination is being refused service given to other people.  This is not this case.  The baker was perfectly willing to sell the homosexual couple his standard wedding cake.
However, if I advertise that I make cakes for all legally determined married couples and refuse to bake one for a homosexual couple (or black, brown, whatever), then I am discriminating.
If I advertise I only make certain types of designed cakes, and am willing to sell them to a homosexual couple, I am not discriminating. They can take it or leave it.
If a homosexual-owned business say they only make items designed for homosexuals, that is their right. I do not have the right to force them to make items for heterosexuals. And to be sure, I'm willing to bet there numerous businesses that cater to special sexual types and will not make things for other groups. Do people think Victoria's Secret would be discriminating or "bigoted" if they refused to make Christian Holy Communion outfits? Of course not. 
But if the homosexual couple can claim discrimination, then I could claim discrimination if they refused to make one for my child
The people on this forum are championing the "right" of the homosexual to get a specially designed cake are championing tyranny.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: goatprairie on January 02, 2018, 01:17:31 PM

Making a custom cake is creating a work of art. It is an artist endeavor like painting a portrait
Would you require a working artist to also create art  work that violated his conscience? Absurd.
Don't go down the "art" road. It does not matter one whit whether what the baker makes is art or not. It is the baker's right to bake whatever he or she wants to bake. All businesses have the right to make/create whatever they want without being forced to make something they don't want to make.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 02, 2018, 01:22:47 PM
Don't go down the "art" road. It does not matter one whit whether what the baker makes is art or not. It is the baker's right to bake whatever he or she wants to bake. All businesses have the right to make/create whatever they want without being forced to make something they don't want to make.

Really?  So I can start a car company and make a car that doesn’t meet mandatory safety requirements because those safety requirements are cramping my style and messing with the aesthetic design of my car?

So I can start a residential construction company and build houses that don’t meet the relevant building code?  After all, the building code forces me to build something in a way I might disagree with. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 02, 2018, 01:29:21 PM
But nobody is being refused service. What is at issue here is the right of a business to make/create items it wants to make without being forced (at gunpoint) to make what it does not want to make.
The cake baker didn't refuse service to the homosexual couple. It simply used its constitutional right to refuse to make something it didn't want to make. The homosexual couple were free to purchase any item in the bakery. Or a standard wedding cake of the business owner's idea.
It doesn't matter if it's a trivial item or not, no one has the right to force a business to make something it doesn't want to make. To do otherwise is entering into tyranny.

I have no objection to any of that.   But those aren't the facts at hand.    No baker is forced to make wedding cakes if it doesn't want to.  He can always stick to buns and rolls.   But this baker wanted to bake wedding cakes, and enjoy the profits therefrom - as well as the right to discriminate among its customers.   Sorry, you can't have it both ways.  Don't bake wedding cakes.  But if you trumpet to the general public  that you do, then stay true to your word, and serve your customers without regard to their sexual orientation.

For suggesting this simple code of common decency, I'm being accused of bigotry and tyranny?   Ridiculous.     
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: truth_seeker on January 02, 2018, 01:41:22 PM
Don't go down the "art" road. It does not matter one whit whether what the baker makes is art or not. It is the baker's right to bake whatever he or she wants to bake. All businesses have the right to make/create whatever they want without being forced to make something they don't want to make.
In California a real estate agent cannot discriminate for any reason. Not for race, religion, ethnic or national origin, handicap, or sexual orientation etc.

If I hold myself to be "open for business," and I am approached by a same-sex couple, I will get sued if I refuse them service.

I believe that is true, for many/most professions, businesses, in most if not all states.

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: verga on January 02, 2018, 01:51:35 PM
(http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk247/vergatt/pattern_1.jpg) (http://s282.photobucket.com/user/vergatt/media/pattern_1.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: goatprairie on January 02, 2018, 01:52:44 PM
In California a real estate agent cannot discriminate for any reason. Not for race, religion, ethnic or national origin, handicap, or sexual orientation etc.

If I hold myself to be "open for business," and I am approached by a same-sex couple, I will get sued if I refuse them service.

I believe that is true, for many/most professions, businesses, in most if not all states.
But it's not the same thing. The cake baker was not denying service...he was refusing to bake a certain kind of cake.
If I am a realtor and a homosexual couple asks me to find them a home,  I'll gladly do my best to find them a home.
But if the homosexual couple demands that I find them a certain type of home or they'll sue me, then we have a case similar to the cake baker issue.
The realtor will do his or her best to find any couple a home.  It  is not the realtor's problem if the homosexual couple (or any couple) do not like what the realtor finds.
It's a two way street. A customer is under no obligation to buy something when he enters a store, and the store owner is under no obligation to provide a special whatever for the customer. That's called freedom...both sides win.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 02, 2018, 01:55:43 PM
The "right of association" does not generally apply to commercial enterprises.  If it were, then none of the anti-discrimination laws would be constitutional.

None of them are constitutional.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 02, 2018, 02:04:07 PM
Commercial speech receives less protection than non-commercial speech, and no matter how “artistic” it may be, if it’s done for profit as part of a business, it’s commercial speech, at most.

Herein lies the camel's nose of governmental censorship.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 02, 2018, 02:05:23 PM
It's a two way street. A customer is under no obligation to buy something when he enters a store, and the store owner is under no obligation to provide a special whatever for the customer. That's called freedom...both sides win.

Correct.  Except that the baker advertised that he sold wedding cakes.  Yes, state law requires that he not discriminate, but the core reason for his obligation is his word.   I'd like to think that conservatives (and Christians) of all stripes would agree that staying true to one's word is a virtue.

And that pointing such a simple and basic thing out is not grounds for being branded a bigot and a tyrant.     
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 02, 2018, 02:06:18 PM
Why is it "immoral" for the community to require that a baker provide the services that he advertises to provide?

Because every sale is in fact a contract, and no one should be made to enter a contract against his will.

Contracts are mutually agreeable, or they are not contracts.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 02, 2018, 02:08:23 PM
Herein lies the camel's nose of governmental censorship.

 Exaggerate much?  After all, what we're arguing about is a simple rule that a businessman be true to his word.  This isn't "censorship", of even the camel's nose variety.   
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 02, 2018, 02:10:18 PM
But it's not the same thing. The cake baker was not denying service...he was refusing to bake a certain kind of cake.
If I am a realtor and a homosexual couple asks me to find them a home,  I'll gladly do my best to find them a home.
But if the homosexual couple demands that I find them a certain type of home or they'll sue me, then we have a case similar to the cake baker issue.
The realtor will do his or her best to find any couple a home.  It  is not the realtor's problem if the homosexual couple (or any couple) do not like what the realtor finds.
It's a two way street. A customer is under no obligation to buy something when he enters a store, and the store owner is under no obligation to provide a special whatever for the customer. That's called freedom...both sides win.

It’s exactly the same thing.  It’s just like things like redlining, where real estate agents used to not show certain types of houses in certain neighborhoods to blacks and other disfavored people. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 02, 2018, 02:11:55 PM
Because every sale is in fact a contract, and no one should be made to enter a contract against his will.

Contracts are mutually agreeable, or they are not contracts.

That isn't how it works in the context of a retail store or other public accommodation.  The shopowner decides what he will sell, advertises his wares and posts his prices.   The customer's acceptance of those terms represents the contract.   Here, the customer didn't know he'd get the bum's rush until after he'd entered the store and requested the advertised service.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: txradioguy on January 02, 2018, 02:13:57 PM
Exaggerate much?  After all, what we're arguing about is a simple rule that a businessman be true to his word.  This isn't "censorship", of even the camel's nose variety.

The Liberalism in your DNA blinds you to the very simple fact that if the Federal Government can force you to bake a cake that goes against your beliefs...in very short order they can and will force you to produce things whether it's a cake or a something else whether you want to or not.

That is the very definition of tyranny.  And you're all for tyranny in all it's many flavors.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 02, 2018, 02:15:50 PM
The Liberalism in your DNA blinds you to the very simple fact that if the Federal Government can force you to bake a cake that goes against your beliefs...in very short order they can and will force you to produce things whether it's a cake or a something else whether you want to or not.

That is the very definition of tyranny.  And you're all for tyranny in all it's many flavors.

It’s not the Federal government, it’s the state government of Oregon, and the states, unlike the federal government, possess full police power except to the extent taken away or limited by the Constitution.  And the police power includes the power to set the terms under which business will be done.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 02, 2018, 02:17:32 PM
What is the difference between an artist and a craftsman? And why should it matter?

Artistry and craftsmanship are beside the point.

No one... NO ONE should be forced into a contract against their will. Doesn't matter if it's art, or craft, or widgets, or groceries.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: driftdiver on January 02, 2018, 02:20:36 PM
Artistry and craftsmanship are beside the point.

No one... NO ONE should be forced into a contract against their will. Doesn't matter if it's art, or craft, or widgets, or groceries.

@roamer_1
If someone doesn't want to sell you a cake, and edible cake, why would you want to force them to buy it.   Why would you put a wedding cake in their hands.  Something that could turn your wedding day into a disaster?

Why would you choose to do that?   Unless of course it wasn't about cake in the first place.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 02, 2018, 02:24:46 PM
Exaggerate much?  After all, what we're arguing about is a simple rule that a businessman be true to his word.  This isn't "censorship", of even the camel's nose variety.

There is no exaggeration. This is grievous censorship under the color of law.
This is nothing to do with a businessman being true to his word - His word has not been given. There is no contract. Once there is a contract, THEN you have a point. But there is no contract - no agreement, and therefore, no word.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: txradioguy on January 02, 2018, 02:27:09 PM
Refusing to bake a cake is discriminatory because Oregon made it so and imposed penalties for violating the proscription.  If Oregon makes it illegal to deny service for lack of shoes or a shirt, then that would be illegal. As of now, it’s not.

And their discriminating against the many to satisfy the political agenda of the very few.  You can go into any restaurant in the state...hell anywhere in the country and find the No Shoes sign.

The fact of the matter is there is purposeful targeting of specific bakeries in order to punish them for their beliefs.  Oregon is a very Liberal gay friendly state.  You're telling me this is the ONLY bakery capable of making this cake?

No it's not.

This is turning out to be another case like Colorado where the bakery was targeted from what I can tell.  The gay mafia got wind that this was a bare run by a Christian and they decided to make an example out of the owner.

That how the brutal fist of tyranny works and they try to camouflage it under the moronic guise of "inclusiveness".

No business should be forced to make anything that violates their religious or moral beliefs.

Should a sign and banner maker who caters mostly to churches and christian organizations be forced to make a banner for a LGBTQRXMDP "pride" parade?

Again the answer is no.

Should a Kosher butcher be forced to sell Halal meats?

What about a Muslim baker making a Bah Mitzvah cake?


Should those people be forced to violate their religious beliefs and tenets just because someone wants to create a issue on purpose?

Quote
If you know the Constitution as well as you claim, then you understand the difference between strict scrutiny, which applies to state laws that infringe on noncommercial speech, and intermediate scrutiny, which applies to state laws that infringe on commercial speech, and under which the state only has to show that the infringing law addresses a substantial interest, and directly and materially advances that interest by means no more extensive than necessary.  Discrimination against a significant portion of the community on an irrelevant basis is a substantial interest and prohibiting such discrimination by businesses is generally a direct means of advancing the goal of preventing that discrimination that is not an extensive overreach.  The punitive damages penalty is, by contrast, excessive and if anything is most likely to be struck down.

Funny...I never ready that in the 1St Amendment.  Like the 2nd it's pretty clear in what it says.

And for commercial speech it must be able to withstand intermediate scrutiny not have it's 1st Amendment rights completely obliterated just because someone makes a profit from it.  And in this case as in Colorado no protected classes are being harmed in any way by this particular baker's refusal to make a stupid cake.

When it comes down to it this is more about the free exercise of religious beliefs not speech. 

Quote
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Right now the state of Oregon and it's Liberal courts system are in violation of the Free Exercise clause by preventing this baker from exercising his religious beliefs.

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: txradioguy on January 02, 2018, 02:28:32 PM
There is no exaggeration. This is grievous censorship under the color of law.
This is nothing to do with a businessman being true to his word - His word has not been given. There is no contract. Once there is a contract, THEN you have a point. But there is no contract - no agreement, and therefore, no word.


Well said.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 02, 2018, 02:30:01 PM
That isn't how it works in the context of a retail store or other public accommodation. 

YES, IN FACT, it is. It is the basis of every sale, of every kind.

The point of sale is the point of contract. If the business owner does not enter into the agreement, there is no agreement. PERIOD.

Quote
The shopowner decides what he will sell, advertises his wares and posts his prices.   The customer's acceptance of those terms represents the contract.   Here, the customer didn't know he'd get the bum's rush until after he'd entered the store and requested the advertised service.

Not at all. This is analogous to getting your money back on a complaint fo poor food or service that you have not purchased yet.
You have no right to legal complaint against a hot dog vendor until you have actually bought a hot dog. If his product or service is unacceptable, THAT is when you get to complain.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 02, 2018, 02:32:37 PM
@roamer_1
If someone doesn't want to sell you a cake, and edible cake, why would you want to force them to buy it.   Why would you put a wedding cake in their hands.  Something that could turn your wedding day into a disaster?

Why would you choose to do that?   Unless of course it wasn't about cake in the first place.

OF COURSE it isn't about the cake.
It's about grinding the face of a man who lives according to his conscience.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: txradioguy on January 02, 2018, 02:35:34 PM
It’s not the Federal government, it’s the state government of Oregon, and the states, unlike the federal government, possess full police power except to the extent taken away or limited by the Constitution.  And the police power includes the power to set the terms under which business will be done.

By turning a blind eye to a willful violation of the free exercise class of the 1st Amendment the Federal Government is complicit in the state's tyranny.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 02, 2018, 02:38:05 PM
It won't end at just cakes despite the insistences of the meddlesome tyrants and perversion-pushers.  The goal is to FORCE acceptance and celebration of deviant behavior. 

The same insipid arguments of discrimination made in favor of forcing someone to bake a cake to celebrate homosexual sex making a mockery of matrimony - will be made to force churches to marry perverts.

Wickedness is never content to co-exist, despite it's calls for equality - wickedness will always seek to dominate and snuff out any opposition to it's absolute dominance in all things.

We have simply arrived at the point whereby it is our duty to refuse to comply with such tyrannical orders.  When the agents of tyranny come to force compliance, we would do well to remember our forbears who were faced with less overtly heinous affronts to liberty.


Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 02, 2018, 02:40:53 PM
And their discriminating against the many to satisfy the political agenda of the very few.  You can go into any restaurant in the state...hell anywhere in the country and find the No Shoes sign.

The fact of the matter is there is purposeful targeting of specific bakeries in order to punish them for their beliefs.  Oregon is a very Liberal gay friendly state.  You're telling me this is the ONLY bakery capable of making this cake?

No it's not.

This is turning out to be another case like Colorado where the bakery was targeted from what I can tell.  The gay mafia got wind that this was a bare run by a Christian and they decided to make an example out of the owner.

That how the brutal fist of tyranny works and they try to camouflage it under the moronic guise of "inclusiveness".

No business should be forced to make anything that violates their religious or moral beliefs.

Should a sign and banner maker who caters mostly to churches and christian organizations be forced to make a banner for a LGBTQRXMDP "pride" parade?

Again the answer is no.

Should a Kosher butcher be forced to sell Halal meats?

What about a Muslim baker making a Bah Mitzvah cake?


Should those people be forced to violate their religious beliefs and tenets just because someone wants to create a issue on purpose?

Funny...I never ready that in the 1St Amendment.  Like the 2nd it's pretty clear in what it says.

And for commercial speech it must be able to withstand intermediate scrutiny not have it's 1st Amendment rights completely obliterated just because someone makes a profit from it.  And in this case as in Colorado no protected classes are being harmed in any way by this particular baker's refusal to make a stupid cake.

When it comes down to it this is more about the free exercise of religious beliefs not speech. 

Right now the state of Oregon and it's Liberal courts system are in violation of the Free Exercise clause by preventing this baker from exercising his religious beliefs.



There is no prohibition of the free exercise of religion.  There is not one word in the Oregon law that says anything about religion.  So at most you have an as-applied infringement on the bakers religious beliefs, and that is generally permissible if the law otherwise passed intermediate scrutiny.  This law will most likely pass intermediate scrutiny except with respect to the level of the penalty, which is so outrageously disproportionate that it is probably unconstitutional all by itself. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 02, 2018, 02:41:25 PM
YES, IN FACT, it is. It is the basis of every sale, of every kind.

The point of sale is the point of contract. If the business owner does not enter into the agreement, there is no agreement. PERIOD.

Not at all. This is analogous to getting your money back on a complaint fo poor food or service that you have not purchased yet.
You have no right to legal complaint against a hot dog vendor until you have actually bought a hot dog. If his product or service is unacceptable, THAT is when you get to complain.

The hot dog vendor posts his price - $1.00 - for a hot dog.    The customer requests a hot dog, and has the dollar to pay for it.  But the vendor refuses because the customer is black.   That's analogous to the bigotry practiced by the baker.   It's disgraceful,  and crying religion as the reason for the refusal of service is an insult to decent Christians.

And it also happens to be against the law.     
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: driftdiver on January 02, 2018, 02:43:10 PM
The hot dog vendor posts his price - $1.00 - for a hot dog.    The customer requests a hot dog, and has the dollar to pay for it.  But the vendor refuses because the customer is black.   That's analogous to the bigotry practiced by the baker.   It's disgraceful,  and crying religion as the reason for the refusal of service is an insult to decent Christians.

And it also happens to be against the law.   

OH BS, the guy was selling wedding cakes.   For the last 200 years in America that was understood to be  a wedding between a man and a woman.   only recently has that traditional meaning been perverted.

Your bigotry is disgusting.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Bigun on January 02, 2018, 02:43:51 PM
Guess which side of this argument I come down on.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: DCPatriot on January 02, 2018, 02:48:26 PM
There is no exaggeration. This is grievous censorship under the color of law.
This is nothing to do with a businessman being true to his word - His word has not been given. There is no contract. Once there is a contract, THEN you have a point. But there is no contract - no agreement, and therefore, no word.

One would think Judge Roberts would agree with you.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Wingnut on January 02, 2018, 02:48:45 PM
Guess which side of this argument I come down on.

The right side.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: goatprairie on January 02, 2018, 02:49:00 PM
It’s exactly the same thing.  It’s just like things like redlining, where real estate agents used to not show certain types of houses in certain neighborhoods to blacks and other disfavored people.
Most of that redlining was simply a case of people with poor credit ratings being denied loans. As the subprime cirise proved, banks and other lending institutions had good reasons to create credit rating systems. People with poor credit ratings tended to default on their loans a lot more than people with good credit ratings.
Once again I'll repeat this until maybe you get the point....nobody is being denied a service. Nobody can demand a business make them a certain kind of product.
A Satanist cannot go to a business that makes strictly Christian-related items  and demand the business make them a whole slew of Satanist items.  Even though being a Satanist is perfectly legal.
You still fail to understand the distinction between a business refusing service and refusing to make/create something.  It does not matter if the couple were heterosexual hedonists/nudists and demanded  a wedding  cake with nude figurines on top engaging in sexual congress.  Hedonism/nudism is perfectly legal.
If I sell wedding cakes,  the hedonists/nudists do not have the right to have me make them what I consider to be a lewd cake. Even if I don't think it's lewd, I still reserve the right to bake the cake the way I see fit.  The hedonists are free to alter the cake after they've purchased it.
The basic principle of a business having the right to make/create whatever it wants is at stake here.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 02, 2018, 02:49:22 PM
The hot dog vendor posts his price - $1.00 - for a hot dog.    The customer requests a hot dog, and has the dollar to pay for it.  But the vendor refuses because the customer is black.   That's analogous to the bigotry practiced by the baker.   It's disgraceful,  and crying religion as the reason for the refusal of service is an insult to decent Christians.

Bullshit. And so what? Let the market decide. That is the way of commerce.

If someone is a bigot - Let him. If someone sells shoddy work, again, let him. if someone imports crappy chinese shit, let him. The market always corrects that sort of thing.

If someone thinks he can make a buck selling to nazis, that is his right.

Quote
And it also happens to be against the law.   

The law is bullshit.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Bigun on January 02, 2018, 02:49:31 PM
The right side.

 888high58888
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: txradioguy on January 02, 2018, 02:51:59 PM
Quote
The hot dog vendor posts his price - $1.00 - for a hot dog.    The customer requests a hot dog, and has the dollar to pay for it.  But the vendor refuses because the customer is black.

Apples and oranges analogy.

Gay is not a race.  It's not a genetic mix of chromosomes and DNA that determines your skin color and facial and body features.

It's a sexual preference that a person consciously decides upon.

You don't wake up one day and decide to be black...no matter what some idiot like Rachel Dozeal tries to say.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: goatprairie on January 02, 2018, 02:59:52 PM
The hot dog vendor posts his price - $1.00 - for a hot dog.    The customer requests a hot dog, and has the dollar to pay for it.  But the vendor refuses because the customer is black.   That's analogous to the bigotry practiced by the baker.   It's disgraceful,  and crying religion as the reason for the refusal of service is an insult to decent Christians.

And it also happens to be against the law.   
It is not remotely analogous. The cake bakers are not refusing to sell a cake to the homosexual couple..they are refusing to bake/make a certain kind of cake.
But you know this...this has been explained to you ad nauseam. Yet you persist in claiming it's a case of a homosexual couple being denied service.
My cable tv company puts on a lot of shows I don't like, and very little I do. There are certain types of shows I'd love to see much more than what is now available to me.
I can request my cable tv company provide these things to me, but I cannot, by force of law, demand they do so.
However, I am free to go to another cable tv outfit.
But even if there are no cable tv companies that can provide what I want, I cannot demand some tv company provide me with what I want. I can only request.
That's how freedom works.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 02, 2018, 03:01:43 PM
Apples and oranges analogy.

Gay is not a race.  It's not a genetic mix of chromosomes and DNA that determines your skin color and facial and body features.

It's a sexual preference that a person consciously decides upon.

You don't wake up one day and decide to be black...no matter what some idiot like Rachel Dozeal tries to say.

You are correct, it's an inappropriate analogy.  Race is an immutable characteristic, while "gayness" cannot be determined by mere physical examination.  We are constantly told, and I agree, that "Gaydar" is a myth.

Oh, for @Jazzhead's reference, this is the dictionary definition of "immutable."  Please refer to this next time you wish to compare "race" to "gay":

im·mu·ta·ble
i(m)ˈmyo͞odəb(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: immutable

    unchanging over time or unable to be changed.
    "an immutable fact"
    synonyms:   fixed, set, rigid, inflexible, permanent, established, carved in stone;
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Wingnut on January 02, 2018, 03:01:56 PM
Apples and oranges analogy.



You don't wake up one day and decide to be black...no matter what some idiot like Rachel Dozeal tries to say.

Or her Brother Shawn King
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Bigun on January 02, 2018, 03:02:26 PM
A free market system is an economic system based solely on demand and supply, and there is little or no government regulation. In a free market system, a buyer and a seller transact freely only when they voluntarily agree on the price of a good or a service.

See if you can find the key word there.



Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: txradioguy on January 02, 2018, 03:02:51 PM
Or her Brother Shawn King

Yeah him too.   :beer:
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 02, 2018, 03:03:17 PM
The hot dog vendor posts his price - $1.00 - for a hot dog.    The customer requests a hot dog, and has the dollar to pay for it.  But the vendor refuses because the customer is black.   That's analogous to the bigotry practiced by the baker.

Not analogous - but completely disingenuous, bullshit and ridiculous on it's face to make such an assertion.  Only a tyrannical moron intent on pushing homosharia equates skin color and gender with BEHAVIOR. 

Yours is the seriously perverted morality that would push to penalize a business for restricting a grown man from being enrolled in a daycare because he self-identifies as a little girl.

And then in short order, Christians will be subject to accommodate every sort of lewd and deviant behavior that is deemed to require anti-discriminatory special privileges, while other 'approved' religions and tribes are exempt from enforcement requirements.

It's disgraceful,  and crying religion as the reason for the refusal of service is an insult to decent Christians.

You can keep attempting to redefine what a 'decent Christian' is based on your own twisted and warped definition, but those sheep who hear His voice know you do not represent the One you claim to follow.

And it also happens to be against the law.   

You can shove your "law".  We refuse to comply.

It will be interested to see how many tyrants are willing to risk their lives to enforce it.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 02, 2018, 03:04:01 PM
It is not remotely analogous. The cake bakers are not refusing to sell a cake to the homosexual couple..they are refusing to bake/make a certain kind of cake

Doesn't matter. Any purchase is a contract, and no one can be made to enter a contract against his will - In a perfect world (and the way it was here) for any reason under the sun.

"Sell me this"

"No."

Done.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: truth_seeker on January 02, 2018, 03:18:05 PM
Most of that redlining was simply a case of people with poor credit ratings being denied loans. As the subprime cirise proved, banks and other lending institutions had good reasons to create credit rating systems. People with poor credit ratings tended to default on their loans a lot more than people with good credit ratings.
Once again I'll repeat this until maybe you get the point....nobody is being denied a service. Nobody can demand a business make them a certain kind of product.
A Satanist cannot go to a business that makes strictly Christian-related items  and demand the business make them a whole slew of Satanist items.  Even though being a Satanist is perfectly legal.
You still fail to understand the distinction between a business refusing service and refusing to make/create something.  It does not matter if the couple were heterosexual hedonists/nudists and demanded  a wedding  cake with nude figurines on top engaging in sexual congress.  Hedonism/nudism is perfectly legal.
If I sell wedding cakes,  the hedonists/nudists do not have the right to have me make them what I consider to be a lewd cake. Even if I don't think it's lewd, I still reserve the right to bake the cake the way I see fit.  The hedonists are free to alter the cake after they've purchased it.
The basic principle of a business having the right to make/create whatever it wants is at stake here.
Sorry but sticking with just real estate, "redlining" also had to do with agents only showing homes to blacks, in areas where blacks lived.

IOW it was the previous real estate practice to preserve segregation by race. Until it was made illegal.

In the marriage sphere, it was illegal to marry across racial lines, until it was made legal.

If you are a real estate agent or a baker, you are bound to not discriminate on bases of race, religion, ethic or national background, sexual preference etc.

It is the law, and if a person can't follow the laws, best just find some solitary work.

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: driftdiver on January 02, 2018, 03:30:55 PM
Sorry but sticking with just real estate, "redlining" also had to do with agents only showing homes to blacks, in areas where blacks lived.

IOW it was the previous real estate practice to preserve segregation by race. Until it was made illegal.

In the marriage sphere, it was illegal to marry across racial lines, until it was made legal.

If you are a real estate agent or a baker, you are bound to not discriminate on bases of race, religion, ethic or national background, sexual preference etc.

It is the law, and if a person can't follow the laws, best just find some solitary work.

@truth_seeker

They wern't discriminating against the cake buyers.   They wanted a wedding cake.  The baker makes wedding cakes but since a wedding is between a man and  woman they wanted something he didnt offer.

Wedding is a religious term, has been for a long long time.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: goatprairie on January 02, 2018, 03:31:24 PM
Sorry but sticking with just real estate, "redlining" also had to do with agents only showing homes to blacks, in areas where blacks lived.

IOW it was the previous real estate practice to preserve segregation by race. Until it was made illegal.

In the marriage sphere, it was illegal to marry across racial lines, until it was made legal.

If you are a real estate agent or a baker, you are bound to not discriminate on bases of race, religion, ethic or national background, sexual preference etc.

It is the law, and if a person can't follow the laws, best just find some solitary work.
Okay fine.....punish the real estate broker if he or she breaks the law.
The cake baker is not breaking the law.  If the cake baker, in your estimation, is breaking the law, virtually all businesses  break the law if they refuse to provide an exact service to a customer.
The facts  are businesses have the right to create a particular kind of business....ACCORDING TO HOW THEY WANT TO SET IT UP
If I create a house building business, no customer has the right to order me to build him or her a certain kind of house. I will show the customer the kinds of houses I build, and they are free to buy or decline.  That is the principle here.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: driftdiver on January 02, 2018, 03:33:46 PM
So they gay coffee shop owner who kicked the Christians out should be fined.   right?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 02, 2018, 03:34:57 PM
A free market system is an economic system based solely on demand and supply, and there is little or no government regulation. In a free market system, a buyer and a seller transact freely only when they voluntarily agree on the price of a good or a service.

See if you can find the key word there.





Every free market requires government regulation.  What else do you think courts are, where the rules of contract law are invented and applied, or the sheriffs and police who enforce the judgments of those courts. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 02, 2018, 03:36:03 PM
Sorry but sticking with just real estate, "redlining" also had to do with agents only showing homes to blacks, in areas where blacks lived.

IOW it was the previous real estate practice to preserve segregation by race. Until it was made illegal.

In the marriage sphere, it was illegal to marry across racial lines, until it was made legal.

If you are a real estate agent or a baker, you are bound to not discriminate on bases of race, religion, ethic or national background, sexual preference etc.

It is the law, and if a person can't follow the laws, best just find some solitary work.



:thumbsup:
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: goatprairie on January 02, 2018, 03:41:40 PM
Every free market requires government regulation.  What else do you think courts are, where the rules of contract law are invented and applied, or the sheriffs and police who enforce the judgments of those courts.
Let me ask you a direct question: do you believe a customer, any customer, has the right to force a business owner to make them a particular, specially made product that the business owner does not normally make?
If I make widgets of only certain colors/designs, does a customer have the right to force me to make him or her a widget of a color/design I do not like to put on my widgets?
Remember, I am not refusing to sell the customer one of my widgets, I am only refusing to sell him or her a widget with a color/design I don't like to use.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 02, 2018, 03:47:21 PM
Let me ask you a direct question: do you believe a customer, any customer, has the right to force a business owner to make them a particular, specially made product that the business owner does not normally make?
If I make widgets of only certain colors/designs, does a customer have the right to force me to make him or her a widget of a color/design I do not like to put on my widgets?
Remember, I am not refusing to sell the customer one of my widgets, I am only refusing to sell him or her a widget with a color/design I don't like to use.

It doesn’t matter what I think personally.  What matters is whether the Oregon law is constitutional or not. 

If it were up to me, I would not enact such a law because I think it’s stupid, but stupid is not the same thing as unconstitutional, and the matter isn’t up for my decision.  Unless the Constitution curtails Oregon’s right to enact this sort of stupid law, the people of Oregon are stuck with it and the baker has to follow it. 

As far as constitutionality goes, with the exception of the penalty, which I think is so out of line that it is unconstitutional by itself, I think this law, stupid as it is, passes muster under the Supreme Court’s intermediate scrutiny jurisprudence. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 02, 2018, 03:49:33 PM
So they gay coffee shop owner who kicked the Christians out should be fined.   right?

Oh no, he is to be applauded and accoladed for discriminating against  'intolerant bigots'.  Medal of honor winner to be sure.

Discrimination laws are to only be applied in one direction, in favor of whatever constituency the "law" is designed to promote and advance to the detriment of the other.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: txradioguy on January 02, 2018, 03:51:18 PM
So they gay coffee shop owner who kicked the Christians out should be fined.   right?

More like sued in court for "damages".
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 02, 2018, 03:54:14 PM
Oh no, he is to be applauded and accoladed for discriminating against  'intolerant bigots'.  Medal of honor winner to be sure.

Discrimination laws are to only be applied in one direction, in favor of whatever constituency the "law" is designed to promote and advance to the detriment of the other.

Our liberal friend would say the Christians who were kicked out were "being jerks," and are therefore not protected by the law like homosexuals who attempt to buy wedding cakes from people who can't sell them, for the express purpose of generating a complaint.

He wrote that upthread.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 02, 2018, 03:58:52 PM
So they gay coffee shop owner who kicked the Christians out should be fined.   right?

I don't know the facts of the case, but, sure, arbitrary discrimination is just as pernicious as practiced against Christians as any other protected classification of individuals.   Or is it your view that Christians ought to have no protection against discrimination because they have chosen to be Christians?     

Now were the Christians proselytizing in the store?    If they were kicked out for that, that's not unlawful discrimination.  Causing a disturbance in the store is grounds for removal, just as coming in with no shoes or shirt.   

It is the arbitrary denial of service for the very product the seller has advertised to provide that is at stake in these cases.    The law in Oregon proscribes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.   That being the case, the baker's discrimination is just as illegal as the hot dog vendor's refusal to sell his wares to a black customer.     
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Bigun on January 02, 2018, 04:00:41 PM
Every free market requires government regulation.  What else do you think courts are, where the rules of contract law are invented and applied, or the sheriffs and police who enforce the judgments of those courts.

BZZZZZ! you missed!  The key word is "Voluntary"
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 02, 2018, 04:02:14 PM
BZZZZZ! you missed!  The key word is "Voluntary"

/snicker

So courts to enforce voluntary contracts are just more unnecessary government regulation?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 02, 2018, 04:11:12 PM
Now were the Christians proselytizing in the store?    If they were kicked out for that, that's not unlawful discrimination.  Causing a disturbance in the store is grounds for removal, just as coming in with no shoes or shirt.   

By all accounts, even the owner of the coffee shop's, they were not proselytizing in the store.  They were doing so on the sidewalk away from the store prior, and the only way the store owner knew about it was because he walked by their demonstration and it made him mad.  He could not believe his good fortune when they came into the store, because he was furious and wanted to take it out on the rotten Christians.  There is a video of it.  It's a pity you missed the story, it was posted on TBR some time ago.

The Christians who were ejected from the store declined to file a complaint because they were not jerks, as were the homosexuals in all the stories you so love to come lecture us about.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on January 02, 2018, 04:18:55 PM
It’s not the Federal government, it’s the state government of Oregon, and the states, unlike the federal government, possess full police power except to the extent taken away or limited by the Constitution.  And the police power includes the power to set the terms under which business will be done.
Then the state of Oregon failed miserably to enact its mission statement by the State Bureau of Labor and Industry(BOLI) who pursued this business with this obvious tie-him-to-the-stake witch hunt against the baker.

Here's the mission statement on the website of BOLI 
The mission of the Bureau of Labor and Industries is to protect employment rights, advance employment opportunities, and protect access to housing and public accommodations free from discrimination.  http://www.oregon.gov/boli/Pages/about_us.aspx (http://www.oregon.gov/boli/Pages/about_us.aspx)

Since you declared this is the state of Oregon's place to pursue this, please tell us where on that mission statement is it correct for BOLI to pursue an anti-discrimination grievance like it did?




Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 02, 2018, 04:20:44 PM
Then the state of Oregon failed miserably to enact its mission statement by the State Bureau of Labor and Industry(BOLI) who pursued this business with this obvious tie-him-to-the-stake witch hunt against the baker.

Here's the mission statement on the website of BOLI 
The mission of the Bureau of Labor and Industries is to protect employment rights, advance employment opportunities, and protect access to housing and public accommodations free from discrimination.  http://www.oregon.gov/boli/Pages/about_us.aspx (http://www.oregon.gov/boli/Pages/about_us.aspx)

Since you declared this is the state of Oregon's place to pursue this, please tell us where on that mission statement is it correct for BOLI to pursue an anti-discrimination grievance like it did?






/snicker

Go find me a case where a “mission” statement is a legally binding restriction on what an agency can do. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 02, 2018, 04:24:30 PM
Then the state of Oregon failed miserably to enact its mission statement by the State Bureau of Labor and Industry(BOLI) who pursued this business with this obvious tie-him-to-the-stake witch hunt against the baker.

Here's the mission statement on the website of BOLI 
The mission of the Bureau of Labor and Industries is to protect employment rights, advance employment opportunities, and protect access to housing and public accommodations free from discrimination.  http://www.oregon.gov/boli/Pages/about_us.aspx (http://www.oregon.gov/boli/Pages/about_us.aspx)

Since you declared this is the state of Oregon's place to pursue this, please tell us where on that mission statement is it correct for BOLI to pursue an anti-discrimination grievance like it did?

Oceander has made it quite clear that he opposes the monetary penalty imposed on the baker.    I do as well.   The status of the baker's acts as unlawful was unclear, and to exact a punitive sanction in such a context is immoral and, well, just plain lousy.   Have the baker pay the plaintiffs' attorney's fees and promise not to do it again.  That would be justice.  Not running the baker out of business.   
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 02, 2018, 04:26:23 PM
A free market system is an economic system based solely on demand and supply, and there is little or no government regulation. In a free market system, a buyer and a seller transact freely only when they voluntarily agree on the price of a good or a service.

See if you can find the key word there.

I see it right now, I bet...
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: driftdiver on January 02, 2018, 04:31:04 PM
I see it right now, I bet...

Funny how the left is all about the "LAW" when they've got it twisted to their favor.   But when the law isn't what they want they ignore the heck out of it.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 02, 2018, 04:40:24 PM
Funny how the left is all about the "LAW" when they've got it twisted to their favor.   But when the law isn't what they want they ignore the heck out of it.

Some pigs are more equal than others, and all that...  **nononono*
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 02, 2018, 04:40:56 PM
BZZZZZ! you missed!  The key word is "Voluntary"

YEP
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: driftdiver on January 02, 2018, 04:45:01 PM
/snicker

So courts to enforce voluntary contracts are just more unnecessary government regulation?

@Oceander @Bigun
The courts aren't necessary for the voluntary agreement or trade to take place.   They are only necessary when one side defaults on the agreement in some way.   They really aren't even required then most of the time as reasonable people can usually find a way to correct the situation.

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 02, 2018, 04:47:53 PM
Oceander has made it quite clear that he opposes the monetary penalty imposed on the baker.    I do as well.   The status of the baker's acts as unlawful was unclear, and to exact a punitive sanction in such a context is immoral and, well, just plain lousy.  Have the baker pay the plaintiffs' attorney's fees and promise not to do it again.  That would be justice.  Not running the baker out of business.   

You didn't say that when it was the exact same case being made in Colorado.  You said the baker was a bigot and deserved to be put out of business.

I'd think maybe you were becoming reasonable, but then I remember all the times before when you came across as "being reasonable," only to double back to the leftist position you always take.  It's a tactic.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 02, 2018, 04:53:11 PM
You didn't say that when it was the exact same case being made in Colorado.  You said the baker was a bigot and deserved to be put out of business.

I'd think maybe you were becoming reasonable, but then I remember all the times before when you came across as "being reasonable," only to double back to the leftist position you always take.  It's a tactic.

Tyrants always try to make themselves appear as angels of light, reasonable, tolerant, all for fairness and equality for the people.

They deceive and beguile with syrupy sentiments while injecting poison from their fangs when their true nature is revealed.

It is why we are told not to be ignorant of the Devil's devices and methods.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 02, 2018, 04:55:32 PM

The courts aren't necessary for the voluntary agreement or trade to take place.   They are only necessary when one side defaults on the agreement in some way.   They really aren't even required then most of the time as reasonable people can usually find a way to correct the situation.

@driftdiver

Not precisely true - Weights and measures, content guarantee, truth in advertising... All of these are legitimate functions of regulation
But until now, they had no bearing until the contract was made. No one as standing without an action causing damages.
This guy is being forced to pay damages for not entering the contract in the first place. That's the difference. Penalization for *not* doing something. Not a matter of negligence, which would be actionable, but rather, non-participation. Refusing to contract.

The damage this does is immense. It is the precedence for governmental fiat and favoritism - to make you sell, and make you buy, against your will. There is literally no end to it.

@Oceander
@Bigun
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 02, 2018, 04:55:32 PM
You didn't say that when it was the exact same case being made in Colorado.  You said the baker was a bigot and deserved to be put out of business.

I'd think maybe you were becoming reasonable, but then I remember all the times before when you came across as "being reasonable," only to double back to the leftist position you always take.  It's a tactic.

Could you find the quote, please?   Sure, I think the baker is a bigot but I can't think of any reason off the top of my head why Phillips' case is more or less egregious than this Oregon case.   Justice should be the goal, not a punitive flogging for failing to discern the state of the law.     
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 02, 2018, 04:56:19 PM
Tyrants always try to make themselves appear as angels of light, reasonable, tolerant, all for fairness and equality for the people.

They deceive and beguile with syrupy sentiments while injecting poison from their fangs when their true nature is revealed.

It is why we are told not to be ignorant of the Devil's devices and methods.

I'm not going to go as far as saying he's the Devil, that would be an undeserved promotion, but he proffers a lot of dishonest arguments that do not reflect his true beliefs.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 02, 2018, 04:58:19 PM
Tyrants always try to make themselves appear as angels of light, reasonable, tolerant, all for fairness and equality for the people.

They deceive and beguile with syrupy sentiments while injecting poison from their fangs when their true nature is revealed.

It is why we are told not to be ignorant of the Devil's devices and methods.

Bigotry remains bigotry sir.   
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 02, 2018, 04:58:37 PM
Could you find the quote, please?   Sure, I think the baker is a bigot but I can't think of any reason off the top of my head why Phillips' case is more or less egregious than this Oregon case.   Justice should be the goal, not a punitive flogging for failing to discern the state of the law.     

Nope.  Not going to sift thousands of your posts doing research, I have better things to do with my time.  I'm braiding my hair right now.  Regular readers of your posts know what you have said on this subject.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 02, 2018, 05:00:49 PM
I'm not going to go as far as saying he's the Devil, that would be an undeserved promotion, but he proffers a lot of dishonest arguments that do not reflect his true beliefs.

My "true beliefs" are as I state them.   And I assume the same goes for you.   That is the common courtesy and expectation in a message board community.   
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 02, 2018, 05:03:55 PM
Nope.  Not going to sift thousands of your posts doing research, I have better things to do with my time.  I'm braiding my hair right now.  Regular readers of your posts know what you have said on this subject.

Then show the good grace to retract the accusation.   I don't favor either the Oregon baker or the Colorado baker being driven out of business.   That would be a miscarriage of justice.   The Colorado baker does not in fact sell custom wedding cakes anymore.   He is an honorable man, willing to follow the law.   
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 02, 2018, 05:08:36 PM
Bigotry remains bigotry sir.

Well until useful idiots for tyranny make that a capital offense punishable by imprisonment and death - I shall wholeheartedly practice what you deem bigotry, and do so with extreme prejudice and with all vigor.

You're welcome to be stupid enough to try and stop me.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: driftdiver on January 02, 2018, 05:09:22 PM
Then show the good grace to retract the accusation.   I don't favor either the Oregon baker or the Colorado baker being driven out of business.   That would be a miscarriage of justice.   The Colorado baker does not in fact sell custom wedding cakes anymore.   He is an honorable man, willing to follow the law.   

@Jazzhead
I think you mean beaten into submission.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 02, 2018, 05:16:04 PM
I'm not going to go as far as saying he's the Devil, that would be an undeserved promotion, but he proffers a lot of dishonest arguments that do not reflect his true beliefs.

He's just a puppet parroting the talking points from the Adversary.

Anyone with a foundational understanding of scripture that has read his opinions on this board, recognizes what spirit he speaks from.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: driftdiver on January 02, 2018, 05:17:22 PM
Bigotry remains bigotry sir.

@Jazzhead
Yes and you are a stellar example of anti-Christian bigotry.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 02, 2018, 05:17:45 PM
@Oceander @Bigun
The courts aren't necessary for the voluntary agreement or trade to take place.   They are only necessary when one side defaults on the agreement in some way.   They really aren't even required then most of the time as reasonable people can usually find a way to correct the situation.



Ahhh.  So you’re saying that courts are just an unnecessary government interference in the true world of voluntary free markets.  That would make contract law equally untenable as nothing more than unwarranted government interference. 

You don’t want free markets, you want anarchy.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: thackney on January 02, 2018, 05:18:59 PM
Could you find the quote, please?   Sure, I think the baker is a bigot but I can't think of any reason off the top of my head why Phillips' case is more or less egregious than this Oregon case.   Justice should be the goal, not a punitive flogging for failing to discern the state of the law.     

IMO, the case against Phillips was worse as same-sex marriage was illegal in Colorado at the time.  The state prosecuted him for the same "discrimination" they were doing themselves.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: thackney on January 02, 2018, 05:39:14 PM
You didn't say that when it was the exact same case being made in Colorado.  You said the baker was a bigot and deserved to be put out of business....

Could you find the quote, please?   Sure, I think the baker is a bigot but I can't think of any reason off the top of my head why Phillips' case is more or less egregious than this Oregon case.   Justice should be the goal, not a punitive flogging for failing to discern the state of the law.     

@Jazzhead
@Cyber Liberty

I've got to defend Jazzhead on this one.  I followed this discussion quite a bit.  I saw him state just the opposite.

With link back to the original post:
...A baker arbitrarily refusing service to his customer is wrong, but using a lawsuit to drive him out of business is appalling....
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Smokin Joe on January 02, 2018, 05:40:41 PM
It's very simple:  if you engage in a commercial enterprise, you follow reasonable rules or regulations, even if they violate your personal subjective beliefs, or you get penalized for it.

If the baker's personal religious beliefs were so damned precious to them, then they would have quit the cake-baking business.  That they did not, simply demonstrates that those beliefs aren't nearly as precious to them as they are now claiming.

There is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees complete freedom to do whatever the hell you want, and even less so when it comes to commercial activities, which have always received less protection than purely private noncommercial activities.

I know you don't like it, but that's only because you hate bleep and want the untrammelled right to discriminate against them.
Essentially, by what you propose, you get a choice: Be Christian or make a living.
This was predicted.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: goatprairie on January 02, 2018, 05:54:31 PM
It's very simple:  if you engage in a commercial enterprise, you follow reasonable rules or regulations, even if they violate your personal subjective beliefs, or you get penalized for it.

If the baker's personal religious beliefs were so damned precious to them, then they would have quit the cake-baking business.  That they did not, simply demonstrates that those beliefs aren't nearly as precious to them as they are now claiming.

There is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees complete freedom to do whatever the hell you want, and even less so when it comes to commercial activities, which have always received less protection than purely private noncommercial activities.

I know you don't like it, but that's only because you hate bleep and want the untrammelled right to discriminate against them.
If the customer demands it, the business must do exactly as the customer demands....the business must obey every customer request..... gotcha. Welcome to tyranny.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 02, 2018, 06:00:16 PM
If the customer demands it, the business must do exactly as the customer demands....the business must obey every customer request..... gotcha. Welcome to tyranny.

Oh, lighten up Francis.   The customer "demanded" no more and no less than what the baker advertised to provide.   

It's not tyranny to live up to one's word.   
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 02, 2018, 06:00:51 PM
@thackney -  thanks!    :beer:
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Smokin Joe on January 02, 2018, 06:05:55 PM
Oh, lighten up Francis.   The customer "demanded" no more and no less than what the baker advertised to provide.   

It's not tyranny to live up to one's word.
I can provide custom services, and decline to provide them to anyone. If I advertise that I provide custom landscaping, but decline to produce what, in effect would be an outline of genitalia on the ground when viewed from the air, would the peckernazis come after me? Sue me? You don't even have a clue what a can of worms is getting served up with this crap.

IMHO, no one should be forced to provide a service they find offensive to anyone, regardless of whether they provide similar services which they do not find offensive to others.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: truth_seeker on January 02, 2018, 06:12:53 PM
Essentially, by what you propose, you get a choice: Be Christian or make a living.
This was predicted.
Isn't it just one particular Christian denomination that you mean to say?

Because several Christian denominations are okay with same sex unions.

I do know that during America's debate over slavery, and the Civil War.....the Southern Baptist denomination found Biblical justification for slavery, and supported it.

OTOH at that same time, many denominations opposed slavery.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Smokin Joe on January 02, 2018, 06:16:57 PM
Isn't it just one particular Christian denomination that you mean to say?

Because several Christian denominations are okay with same sex unions.

I do know that during America's debate over slavery, and the Civil War.....the Southern Baptist denomination found Biblical justification for slavery, and supported it.

OTOH at that same time, many denominations opposed slavery.
Christian denominations accept homosexuality?

False prophets were predicted, too.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 02, 2018, 06:20:26 PM
@Jazzhead
@Cyber Liberty

I've got to defend Jazzhead on this one.  I followed this discussion quite a bit.  I saw him state just the opposite.

With link back to the original post:

He calls all these people (except the coffee shop owner who threw some Christians out of his shop) "Bigots."  That's a very strong term to me, and it's morally inconsistent to say they are "bigots" but only deserve "minimal punishment."  That's like saying "Sure he tortures and shoots puppies, but he's not so bad we should lock him up."

I am not impressed to hear him say, "But we shouldn't put them out of business."  Hey, if they're bigots, why the Hell not?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: goatprairie on January 02, 2018, 06:24:20 PM
Oh, lighten up Francis.   The customer "demanded" no more and no less than what the baker advertised to provide.   

It's not tyranny to live up to one's word.
You appear to have a very thick cranium. The bakery made wedding cakes. It offered to bake one of their typical cakes for the homosexual couple. The homosexual couple wanted a special kind of cake.
It is not the right of the customer to have all their demands met. No customer can demand that a business make something exactly as they want it. If the business does not want to satisfy a special request, it does not have to do so.
That is until tyrants began dictating law in certain states. Welcome to the side of tyranny amigo.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: goatprairie on January 02, 2018, 06:25:36 PM
I can provide custom services, and decline to provide them to anyone. If I advertise that I provide custom landscaping, but decline to produce what, in effect would be an outline of genitalia on the ground when viewed from the air, would the peckernazis come after me? Sue me? You don't even have a clue what a can of worms is getting served up with this crap.

IMHO, no one should be forced to provide a service they find offensive to anyone, regardless of whether they provide similar services which they do not find offensive to others.
Yes, thank you....maybe your explanation can get through to our tyranny-loving friends.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 02, 2018, 06:28:06 PM
Live your own life as your conscience requires.   Just don't impose your moral edicts on others.

In fact this is exactly what you are advocating @Jazzhead, imposing your own moral edicts on others.

The bakers aren't trying to impose moral edicts, in that they make no attempt to prevent anyone from purchasing a wedding cake; they simply seek to operate their businesses as their conscience requires.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 02, 2018, 06:32:08 PM
Commercial speech receives less protection than non-commercial speech, and no matter how “artistic” it may be, if it’s done for profit as part of a business, it’s commercial speech, at most.

@Oceander

So an artist who paints portraits for a living is legally not permitted to refuse to paint a particular portrait?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 02, 2018, 06:34:48 PM
Yes, thank you....maybe your explanation can get through to our tyranny-loving friends.

Not a chance in Hell.  You mentioned a "thick cranium" in the earlier post.  He's so proud of that cranium I call him "Richard Cranium."
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Neverdul on January 02, 2018, 06:39:22 PM
Again, the big “L” libertarian in me says that the free market should rule and alone decide the winners and losers and that no one should be forced to engage in any business transaction or in employment, hiring decisions for that matter, with anyone they don’t want to engage with or object to and for whatever reason.  I would think that businesses who blatantly discriminates against enough groups will probably not be in business very long or will have only a limited clientele. But if that’s their choice then so be it.

But with that, understand that if Christians can decide who and who they will not do business with based on their religious beliefs and objecting to others who do not hold to their same beliefs, then others of other religions or those of no religion should also then be able to decide not to do business with Christians.

The small “l” libertarian in me says that’s not probably going to work.

For instance, today you can’t discriminate based solely on race nor IMO should you.  I certainly wouldn’t patronize a business like a restaurant that hung a “Whites Only” sign on their door. And to be honest, I’m not so sure I’d patronize a bakery that chooses to only serve Christians, not to mention only “certain types” of Christians. Should a bakery run by evangelicals be allowed to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a Mormon or Catholic wedding?  Well perhaps they should, in a Libertarian fairyland.

And what if one of the Christian bakers who doesn’t bake cakes for gay couples, has a supplier of cake decorating supplies who says “based on your policies with which I disagree, I no longer want to sell supplies to you anymore”? Is that OK? Or is that persecution?

Perhaps we can institute some sort of signage to be displayed in front of every business and in their advertising sort of like we do with signage on trucks that indicate what sort of hazardous materials they are hauling to indicate who they will or will not do business with.

An anti-gay business might display a rainbow flag with an X through it and a pro-gay, a rainbow flag without the X. And a business that doesn’t want to serve Blacks or Jews, they could have their sign too (no wait, I think we had those before).

A business that doesn’t want to serve evangelical Christians would display a different sign, like an image of Jesus with an X through it, a Catholic business could display a crucifix indicating they only want to do business with other Catholics and a Muslim owned business could display a sign with a woman wearing a burka to indicate they don’t serve unmarried women unaccompanied by a male relative while another could display a sign with a burka with an X through it, an Atheist business a Darwin Fish to indicate they don’t want creationists as customers, an Elephant to indicate we only serve Republicans, a Donkey to indicate we only serve Democrats, a Pepe the Frog to indicate we hate pretty much everyone, and so on and so on, but that signage could end up getting quite large.

But that surely won’t work when protestant Christians who are still the vast majority in the US, object to being discriminated against.

Understand that if one business is allowed to discriminate against someone you don’t like and you are fine with that, understand that you may be one day on the receiving end of similar discrimination from someone who doesn’t like you. If you are OK with that, fine and perhaps we all should be fine with that if we really believe in freedom of religion and of free association, but I doubt many are when they end up on the receiving end.

In other words, “sometimes you’re the windshield, sometimes you’re the bug”.

! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_rbjg2k6cI#)

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 02, 2018, 06:43:28 PM
Wedding cakes made by a commercial baker are not the same as the Sistine Chapel and are not entitled to the same protections.  It’s just that simple, and if you can’t see it, that’s because you don’t want to see it.

@Oceander

Did you not argue in this thread, reply #49 : "...no matter how “artistic” it may be, if it’s done for profit as part of a business, it’s commercial speech, at most."

Is it your position that Michelangelo was not compensated for the Sistine Chapel, or that he was not routinely paid for commissioned work?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 02, 2018, 06:46:35 PM
@Oceander

So an artist who paints portraits for a living is legally not permitted to refuse to paint a particular portrait?

Is that what Oregon state law says?  Quote it chapter and verse, kiddo, or stop playing with straw men and grow up. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 02, 2018, 06:52:28 PM
Oh, lighten up Francis.   The customer "demanded" no more and no less than what the baker advertised to provide.   

It's not tyranny to live up to one's word.

It's tyranny to force someone to provide a product or service to celebrate an evil behavior.

I advertise graphic design work for marketing.  Everything from TV commercials to T-shirts.

When my business would be forced to design T-shirts for a Gay Pride parade, or make advertisements for such an event when I refuse to provide such services for those events and that behavior, is in fact - TYRANNY.





Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 02, 2018, 07:04:31 PM
Is that what Oregon state law says?  Quote it chapter and verse, kiddo, or stop playing with straw men and grow up.

I'll bet a dollar the word "baker" or "bakery" doesn't appear in the law either. Yet, here we are.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 02, 2018, 07:06:57 PM
Is that what Oregon state law says?  Quote it chapter and verse, kiddo, or stop playing with straw men and grow up.

@Oceander

I didn't cite Oregon state law, I cited you, chapter and verse.  So unless you're willing to out *yourself* as a straw man, perhaps you should answer the question.

Can an artist legally refuse a specific commission?

Is that grown up enough for you?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 02, 2018, 07:07:16 PM
It's tyranny to force someone to provide a product or service to celebrate an evil behavior.

I advertise graphic design work for marketing.  Everything from TV commercials to T-shirts.

When my business would be forced to design T-shirts for a Gay Pride parade, or make advertisements for such an event when I refuse to provide such services for those events and that behavior, is in fact - TYRANNY.

Better not tell him where your business is, because he'll have some Lavender Mafia types over to your place to scream "Bigot, but I don't want to put you out of business!" then sue you for $250K.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: goatprairie on January 02, 2018, 07:11:47 PM
@Oceander

So an artist who paints portraits for a living is legally not permitted to refuse to paint a particular portrait?
That is the crux of the matter.  The business is not refusing to sell an item to a customer...the business is refusing to make an item exactly to the specifications of the customer.
And that is the business's absolute right.
Our tyranny-loving friends here on TBR don't know what a can of worms they're opening.
If I had Bill Gates kind of money, I'd have lawsuits opened around the country against all the  liberal-owned businesses that refused to make something I demand they make. Some liberal artist only paints pro-liberal agenda items....he or she will now have to paint some pro conservative stuff.  A big picture of Trump clobbering Hillary over the head...yeah.. Just to see how they like being tyrannized.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: DCPatriot on January 02, 2018, 07:21:47 PM

It's tyranny to force someone to provide a product or service to celebrate an evil behavior.

I advertise graphic design work for marketing.  Everything from TV commercials to T-shirts.

When my business would be forced to design T-shirts for a Gay Pride parade, or make advertisements for such an event when I refuse to provide such services for those events and that behavior, is in fact - TYRANNY.


Each year now it seems, it's not "evil behavior" to more and more of the population.  (Or so, we're told).

Atheists claim to be the most intelligent/pragmatic.

And, it seems, proud, type-A devout Christians claim to be genetic experts/mavens.

Since homosexuality is not exclusive to humanity, but rather found in virtually every species on the planet...on what basis is it "evil behavior"?

Why should a human be forced to go against his/her nature for the religious beliefs of another?

Make the ***king cake.     

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: goatprairie on January 02, 2018, 07:25:45 PM
Each year now it seems, it's not "evil behavior" to more and more of the population.  (Or so, we're told).

Atheists claim to be the most intelligent/pragmatic.

And, it seems, proud, type-A devout Christians claim to be genetic experts/mavens.

Since homosexuality is not exclusive to humanity, but rather found in virtually every species on the planet...on what basis is it "evil behavior"?

Why should a human be forced to go against his/her nature for the religious beliefs of another?

Make the ***king cake.   
"Make the ***king cake. "
The bakery would make them a cake. The homosexual couple didn't like it....they wanted something special. You appear to agree with them that the bakery must be forced to make the special cake. Welcome to tyranny.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 02, 2018, 07:30:45 PM

Why should a human be forced to go against his/her nature for the religious beliefs of another?


The bakers are not even asking, and certainly not forcing, anyone to go against their nature.  The question is whether the bakers can be forced to make statements which conflict with their own religious beliefs.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: DCPatriot on January 02, 2018, 07:36:45 PM
"Make the ***king cake. "
The bakery would make them a cake. The homosexual couple didn't like it....they wanted something special. You appear to agree with them that the bakery must be forced to make the special cake. Welcome to tyranny.

Don't get me wrong.  On this basis, "No-shirts, No shoes, No Service" is unconstitutional too!

If I advertised "custom orders" on cakes...., I'm obligated.

"Tyranny", used here, is a Strawman.   

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: DCPatriot on January 02, 2018, 07:38:40 PM
The bakers are not even asking, and certainly not forcing, anyone to go against their nature. The question is whether the bakers can be forced to make statements which conflict with their own religious beliefs.

My post was referring to @INVAR 's personal POV on the matter, and not the case law.   ^-^
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 02, 2018, 07:44:22 PM
Don't get me wrong.  On this basis, "No-shirts, No shoes, No Service" is unconstitutional too!

If I advertised "custom orders" on cakes...., I'm obligated.

"Tyranny", used here, is a Strawman.   

Is that, indeed, what the baker advertised?

Another poster who agrees with you made that argument about the Colorado case, but was never able to produce the advertisement when asked.  I haven't seen one in this case, either.  Not saying it doesn't exist, but if one is going to make the "He advertised it so he should produce it" argument, one should be prepared to prove he, in fact, advertised it.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 02, 2018, 07:48:09 PM
My post was referring to @INVAR 's personal POV on the matter, and not the case law.   ^-^

The distinction between law and opinion is certainly real and significant.  However you seemed (to me) to advocate a specific action by the bakers, not by @INVAR; perhaps I was mistaken.  Apologies if I misunderstood you @DCPatriot.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: DCPatriot on January 02, 2018, 07:50:56 PM
Is that, indeed, what the baker advertised?

Another poster who agrees with you made that argument about the Colorado case, but was never able to produce the advertisement when asked.  I haven't seen one in this case, either.  Not saying it doesn't exist, but if one is going to make the "He advertised it so he should produce it" argument, one should be prepared to prove he, in fact, advertised it.

I've seen the argument several times here on the forum...and scanned the threads.

Nobody rebuts the charge that the bakers refused a request for a "special cake".   It was implied that a sign was on the premises that advertised they could accommodate special orders.

You're correct.   I haven't seen it, but the poster didn't have a motive to make it up.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: DCPatriot on January 02, 2018, 07:54:34 PM
The distinction between law and opinion is certainly real and significant.  However you seemed (to me) to advocate a specific action by the bakers, not by @INVAR; perhaps I was mistaken.  Apologies if I misunderstood you @DCPatriot.


Nope, you're right.  My bad.   I'm conflicted as hell on this.   

It's why I dropped by, wondering what in the world the Supreme Court knew about the case for them to rule against the Christian bakers.

I figured if you advertise the service, you're obligated to the point you can't refuse on religious/sexual beliefs.  So bake the cake.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 02, 2018, 08:03:26 PM

It's not tyranny to live up to one's word.

Again, no word was given.
If I advertise lawn maintenance services, that does not mean I must take every lawn job that comes along - for whatever reason at all. The word is given when terms are agreed to, and not before.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 02, 2018, 08:04:02 PM
I've seen the argument several times here on the forum...and scanned the threads.

Nobody rebuts the charge that the bakers refused a request for a "special cake".   It was implied that a sign was on the premises that advertised they could accommodate special orders.

You're correct.   I haven't seen it, but the poster didn't have a motive to make it up.

To tell the truth, I'm conflicted too, if there was some sort of advertisement, but it's odd one has not been produced.  Of course, we're not privy to all the evidence, but it bothers me a little what's not available.  In both these cases, all sorts of claims have been made about what was advertised, and what was said to the complainants, yet there are no pictures of ads on the walls, and no videos (or audio) of these encounters. 

I find that a little difficult to believe when it's patently obvious the aggrieved parties sought out these businesses to entrap them.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: DCPatriot on January 02, 2018, 08:05:30 PM
To tell the truth, I'm conflicted too, if there was some sort of advertisement, but it's odd one has not been produced.  Of course, we're not privy to all the evidence, but it bothers me a little what's not available.  In both these cases, all sorts of claims have been made about what was advertised, and what was said to the complainants, yet there are no pictures of ads on the walls, and no videos (or audio) of these encounters. 

I find that a little difficult to believe when it's patently obvious the aggrieved parties sought out these businesses to entrap them.

Amen! 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on January 02, 2018, 08:05:31 PM
/snicker

Go find me a case where a “mission” statement is a legally binding restriction on what an agency can do.
So you fail, the Oregon govt fails, and this is a trumped up event, like we all know it is.

You know, acting stupid is not the best way to actually win an argument.  It, well, makes you look stupid.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 02, 2018, 08:06:49 PM

Nope, you're right.  My bad.   I'm conflicted as hell on this.

   

@DCPatriot

I respect a man who can recognize and admit his own uncertainty.  Something I struggle with at times.

Quote

I figured if you advertise the service, you're obligated to the point you can't refuse on religious/sexual beliefs.  So bake the cake.


While I disagree on this point, I believe your position is not unreasonable.

I generally hate the emojis, but in this case I'll make an exception as an offer of good will :  :beer:

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 02, 2018, 08:07:54 PM
Isn't it just one particular Christian denomination that you mean to say?

Because several Christian denominations are okay with same sex unions.

Liberal apostate churches accept homos.

Any orthodox Christian denomination denounces homosexuality by definition. To include Catholic, Orthodox, and every Protestant flavor.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on January 02, 2018, 08:08:17 PM
Oceander has made it quite clear that he opposes the monetary penalty imposed on the baker.    I do as well.   The status of the baker's acts as unlawful was unclear, and to exact a punitive sanction in such a context is immoral and, well, just plain lousy.   Have the baker pay the plaintiffs' attorney's fees and promise not to do it again.  That would be justice.  Not running the baker out of business.   
You also failed to read the mission statement..  No where can one find that agency has the authority to pursue such an event.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 02, 2018, 08:12:00 PM
Amen!

 :beer:

I've learnt to be suspicious of dogs that don't bark...I wish more courts would read more Sherlock Holmes some days....
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on January 02, 2018, 08:12:35 PM
Oh, lighten up Francis.   The customer "demanded" no more and no less than what the baker advertised to provide.   

It's not tyranny to live up to one's word.
Why is it you continue to think the Pope is writing the messages on this forum?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Right_in_Virginia on January 02, 2018, 08:12:46 PM
I've seen the argument several times here on the forum...and scanned the threads.  Nobody rebuts the charge that the bakers refused a request for a "special cake".   It was implied that a sign was on the premises that advertised they could accommodate special orders.  ....

Actually, based on the testimony before the SC, it appears the baker did not refuse a "special (or customized) cake" but a cake for an occasion (same sex marriage) that he did not support for religious reasons.

Quote
<snip>

The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. In 2012, a same-sex couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, was denied a wedding cake by Lakewood, Colo., baker Jack Phillips. The baker said he would sell the gay couple other kinds of cakes, but he could not in good conscience sell them a wedding cake, since same-sex weddings violate his religious beliefs.

The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which found that the cakeshop violated the state’s anti-discrimination law. When the state’s Supreme Court agreed with the gay couple, the baker appealed to the Supreme Court.

<snip>

At the heart of the baker’s case, his lawyers argue, is a battle over expression: not religious, per se, but artistic.

“Phillips is willing to serve any and all customers. He objects only to expressing certain messages through his custom art,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jim Campbell in a statement. “Jack should have that basic freedom.”

Any law that would otherwise compel him is bad for artists, said ADF’s Kristen Waggoner. Such “laws are being used not only to silence, not only to punish, but to ruin creative professionals that don’t agree with the government’s ideology on marriage.”

As both parties have maintained, the couple left Phillips’s bakery before discussing the cake’s design, including any language they would have wanted included. But Waggoner says the act of crafting a cake that would be used during a same-sex wedding ceremony is an act of expression.


More: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/12/05/wedding-cake-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-highly-anticipated-supreme-court-ruling/?utm_term=.b3f1b83c7211 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/12/05/wedding-cake-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-highly-anticipated-supreme-court-ruling/?utm_term=.b3f1b83c7211)
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 02, 2018, 08:13:08 PM
Better not tell him where your business is, because he'll have some Lavender Mafia types over to your place to scream "Bigot, but I don't want to put you out of business!" then sue you for $250K.

I'm mindful of my surroundings.

Idiots who think they can attempt a mugging are not going to like the reaction.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Right_in_Virginia on January 02, 2018, 08:15:34 PM
FWIW, the Department of Justice filed a brief on behalf of baker Jack Phillips  ...

More: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/in-major-supreme-court-case-justice-dept-sides-with-baker-who-refused-to-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple/2017/09/07/fb84f116-93f0-11e7-89fa-bb822a46da5b_story.html?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.72ebed5be350 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/in-major-supreme-court-case-justice-dept-sides-with-baker-who-refused-to-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple/2017/09/07/fb84f116-93f0-11e7-89fa-bb822a46da5b_story.html?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.72ebed5be350)
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 02, 2018, 08:16:18 PM
Again, the big “L” libertarian in me says that the free market should rule and alone decide the winners and losers and that no one should be forced to engage in any business transaction or in employment, hiring decisions for that matter, with anyone they don’t want to engage with or object to and for whatever reason.  I would think that businesses who blatantly discriminates against enough groups will probably not be in business very long or will have only a limited clientele. But if that’s their choice then so be it.

^^ This, exactly.

Quote
But with that, understand that if Christians can decide who and who they will not do business with based on their religious beliefs and objecting to others who do not hold to their same beliefs, then others of other religions or those of no religion should also then be able to decide not to do business with Christians.

Of course - I am fine with that. I don't do business with folks that don't want to - I walk off and find someone who likes my money.

THAT'S HOW IT WORKS.

I don't get buttsore about it, I just go find another vendor.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on January 02, 2018, 08:17:25 PM
@Oceander

So an artist who paints portraits for a living is legally not permitted to refuse to paint a particular portrait?
Actually, do not expect a coherent response.  He throws mud around to see what sticks.  Like saying there is some constitutional difference between a 'commercial' enterprise vs a 'non-commericial' enterprise.

It sounds so important and legal, but is simply garbage.  And since I think he believes he is a lawyer, he knows it.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 02, 2018, 08:19:16 PM
I'm mindful of my surroundings.

Idiots who think they can attempt a mugging are not going to like the reaction.

I'm not talking about a physical mugging.  I'm talking about the kind of mugging these bakers are getting.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 02, 2018, 08:20:53 PM
^^ This, exactly.

Of course - I am fine with that. I don't do business with folks that don't want to - I walk off and find someone who likes my money.

THAT'S HOW IT WORKS.

I don't get buttsore about it, I just go find another vendor.

You aren't a SJW trying to push a higher agenda, either.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 02, 2018, 08:23:01 PM
Since homosexuality is not exclusive to humanity, but rather found in virtually every species on the planet...on what basis is it "evil behavior"?

OK FINE. Let's extend that out to cannibalism, theft of property, theft of mate, territory defined by strength, and all the other things animals do. That'll be friggin peachy.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 02, 2018, 08:25:22 PM
Each year now it seems, it's not "evil behavior" to more and more of the population.  (Or so, we're told).

I don't care if I am the last person in the country who finds that behavior evil.  My morality is not based on public barometers.

Make the ***king cake.   

Get bent.  Put a gun in my face to try and get me to bake an effing cake celebrating homosex - you'll get one shoved right back up into yours.

You want a cake or sign or ad or poster or billboard or TV commercial celebrating faggotry?  Go find a business that will gladly do so for your money. There's plenty out there where money is all that matters.    But if you think you can force me to make any of those things to celebrate perversion, you got another thing coming. 

People have gone to war for far less intrusion and overt despotism in this country than what is advocated by Homosharia advocates.

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 02, 2018, 08:26:34 PM
If I advertised "custom orders" on cakes...., I'm obligated.

The hell you say, I advertise and do custom work all the time - I am under NO obligation to take on ANY job, PERIOD.

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 02, 2018, 08:27:27 PM
Actually, do not expect a coherent response.  He throws mud around to see what sticks.  Like saying there is some constitutional difference between a 'commercial' enterprise vs a 'non-commericial' enterprise.

It sounds so important and legal, but is simply garbage.  And since I think he believes he is a lawyer, he knows it.

Thanks @IsailedawayfromFR.  I've gotten one deflection already, mildly seasoned with personal insult, which I take as a subconscious indicator of intellectual fear and insecurity.  I've responded but received no further reply yet.  We'll see.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 02, 2018, 08:27:41 PM
I'm not talking about a physical mugging.  I'm talking about the kind of mugging these bakers are getting.

Same difference.

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on January 02, 2018, 08:29:13 PM
The hell you say, I advertise and do custom work all the time - I am under NO obligation to take on ANY job, PERIOD.
Yep, we are either free or a slave.  There really is no in-between.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 02, 2018, 08:31:45 PM
Same difference.

If it was my own business (as you suggest), I'd be compelled to agree with you on that.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Bigun on January 02, 2018, 08:32:56 PM
Yep, we are either free or a slave.  There really is no in-between.

@IsailedawayfromFR

Pretty simple isn't it?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 02, 2018, 08:37:31 PM
That is the crux of the matter.  The business is not refusing to sell an item to a customer...the business is refusing to make an item exactly to the specifications of the customer.
And that is the business's absolute right.
.

But those aren't the facts of the case before the Supreme Court.   Jack Phillips held no discussion with his customer about the specifics of the project,  he simply refused service.   This wasn't about crafting a penis cake.   This wasn't even about putting a rainbow flag on a cake.   The subject of customization didn't arise before he had refused them service because the cake was for a civil wedding of which he did not approve.   He cited his conscience, but his sign said he sold wedding cakes.   Justice must be done,  but not at the price of his ruination.     
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: goodwithagun on January 02, 2018, 08:38:06 PM
Make the ***king cake.   

Indeed.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 02, 2018, 08:41:08 PM
But those aren't the facts of the case before the Supreme Court.   Jack Phillips held no discussion with his customer about the specifics of the project,  he simply refused service.   This wasn't about crafting a penis cake.   This wasn't even about putting a rainbow flag on a cake.   The subject of customization didn't arise before he had refused them service because the cake was for a civil wedding of which he did not approve.   He cited his conscience, but his sign said he sold wedding cakes.

So, you really do have a tape proving the claim!  Good news.  Now show it to us.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 02, 2018, 08:42:36 PM
So what stops a homo from claiming discrimination any damn time they are refused, regardless of the reason?

Some guy wants my services, I truthfully say I am too busy and turn the job down... What's to stop him from saying I did it for a different reason, and tearing me down?

Maybe he's a bleep and in a fit of pique I say "GTFO, A$$hole - Don't let the door hit you in your fat ass." (which is often my wont) without even knowing he's a turd-burglar?

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 02, 2018, 08:45:47 PM
So what stops a homo from claiming discrimination any damn time they are refused, regardless of the reason?

Some guy wants my services, I truthfully say I am too busy and turn the job down... What's to stop him from saying I did it for a different reason, and tearing me down?

Maybe he's a bleep and in a fit of pique I say "GTFO, A$$hole - Don't let the door hit you in your fat ass." (which is often my wont) without even knowing he's a turd-burglar?

Have a cigar, you just won the thread.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: bigheadfred on January 02, 2018, 08:46:07 PM
When did you say you need that cake? Oh. Sorry, we are booked solid through that date. Seeyaluvyabye
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 02, 2018, 08:47:52 PM
So what stops a homo from claiming discrimination any damn time they are refused, regardless of the reason?

Nothing.  They will do as the BLMs and Grievance Classes do by claiming 'racism' at every turn and attempting to extort money out of imposed-guilt.

HomoSharia will simply scream 'Discrimination!" every single time they want to extort money or destroy a target.

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: bigheadfred on January 02, 2018, 08:47:59 PM
So what stops a homo from claiming discrimination any damn time they are refused, regardless of the reason?

Some guy wants my services, I truthfully say I am too busy and turn the job down... What's to stop him from saying I did it for a different reason, and tearing me down?

Maybe he's a bleep and in a fit of pique I say "GTFO, A$$hole - Don't let the door hit you in your fat ass." (which is often my wont) without even knowing he's a turd-burglar?

Exactly what I was thinking and didn't see your post when I was reviewing mine.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 02, 2018, 08:48:56 PM
Yep, we are either free or a slave.  There really is no in-between.

Of course there is.  There's a whole range of in-betweens;  political philosphers have debated the matter for millennia.

Why the haste to overdramatize at the expense of sounding ridiculous?   
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 02, 2018, 08:49:19 PM
But those aren't the facts of the case before the Supreme Court.   Jack Phillips held no discussion with his customer about the specifics of the project,  he simply refused service.   This wasn't about crafting a penis cake.   This wasn't even about putting a rainbow flag on a cake.   The subject of customization didn't arise before he had refused them service because the cake was for a civil wedding of which he did not approve.   He cited his conscience, but his sign said he sold wedding cakes.

Yet he was willing to sell them anything else already prepared in his shop, with no concern for whether they served those items at their wedding.  He did not refuse to do business with homosexuals and he did not refuse to sell them goods for their ceremony; he refused to prepare a custom item, and he confirmed that refusal later when the request was repeated by the (heterosexual) mother of one of the men.  The argument that no discussion had yet occurred on specifics of decoration is specious; any reasonable person expects a wedding cake to be customized and he would have been intellectually dishonest to discuss further specifics.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 02, 2018, 08:50:04 PM
When did you say you need that cake? Oh. Sorry, we are booked solid through that date. Seeyaluvyabye

You friggin bigot.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 02, 2018, 08:53:27 PM
You friggin bigot.

Somebody should put him outta bidniss.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 02, 2018, 08:56:00 PM
Somebody should put him outta bidniss.

You were there, right? You heard what he said...
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 02, 2018, 08:57:13 PM
You were there, right? You heard what he said...

Yup.  And I saw the advertisement, too.

Enjoying the cigar?  Sorry it's not a Cuban.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: bigheadfred on January 02, 2018, 08:57:17 PM
You friggin bigot.

"I didn't know how many it would take to kick my azz...."
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on January 02, 2018, 08:57:32 PM
Of course there is.  There's a whole range of in-betweens;  political philosphers have debated the matter for millennia.

Why the haste to overdramatize at the expense of sounding ridiculous?
Ahh, looking for the famous 'gray area', just like all those 'gray areas' of the constitution that get plucked out of nothingness.

Please reread the Declaration of Independence if you wish to stay the overdramatic.  It is a solid document for people who attempt to trivialize what freedom in this country truly means.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 02, 2018, 09:00:45 PM
Ahh, looking for the famous 'gray area', just like all those 'gray areas' of the constitution that get plucked out of nothingness.

Please reread the Declaration of Independence if you wish to stay the overdramatic.  It is a solid document for people who attempt to trivialize what freedom in this country truly means.

They have a name for the grey crayon in the Crayola box:  "Emanated Penumbra Grey."
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 02, 2018, 09:04:06 PM
"I didn't know how many it would take to kick my azz...."

 :beer:
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: 240B on January 02, 2018, 09:06:38 PM
B double E double R U N
Goddammit, it is cold. I mean like seriously cold.


I want to get some beer. But dammit, it is freakin cold.


shit man. A man has to do what a man has to do.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 02, 2018, 09:07:35 PM
Yup.  And I saw the advertisement, too.

Isn't your sister in law a lawyer???

Quote
Enjoying the cigar?  Sorry it's not a Cuban.

Actually, considering the subject matter, I am afraid of where it might have been...  :shrug: :whistle:
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: bigheadfred on January 02, 2018, 09:09:41 PM
Isn't your sister in law a lawyer???

Actually, considering the subject matter, I am afraid of where it might have been...  :shrug: :whistle:

That is a terrible thing to say about his sister. Even if she is a lawyer.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 02, 2018, 09:12:18 PM
That is a terrible thing to say about his sister. Even if she is a lawyer.

Sister-in-law  -Totally different thing.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 02, 2018, 09:12:41 PM
That is a terrible thing to say about his sister. Even if she is a lawyer.

He needs that mouth washed out with soap.  Now I'm glad it wasn't a Cuban.  Pity, because what he said really nailed it.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 02, 2018, 09:13:44 PM
Sister-in-law  -Totally different thing.

You got it.  If it was my sister I wouldn't give a rat's patootie.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 02, 2018, 09:14:23 PM
Nothing.  They will do as the BLMs and Grievance Classes do by claiming 'racism' at every turn and attempting to extort money out of imposed-guilt.

HomoSharia will simply scream 'Discrimination!" every single time they want to extort money or destroy a target.

Nothing left but to get some lycra and a wig, and declare myself a woman.
Nobody wants to see that.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: bigheadfred on January 02, 2018, 09:14:24 PM
Sister-in-law  -Totally different thing.

You friggin bigot.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 02, 2018, 09:16:22 PM
You got it.  If it was my sister I wouldn't give a rat's patootie.

You know that implies that you have a rat's patootie to give...
That is a rather odd collectible.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 02, 2018, 09:18:00 PM
You friggin bigot.

Sorry, I'm a girl in a man's body now... And if I have to, I will vote Democrat. So I can't be a bigot.

Go bake a cake.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 02, 2018, 09:19:14 PM
No really. Bake me a damn cake now.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: bigheadfred on January 02, 2018, 09:19:42 PM
You know that implies that you have a rat's patootie to give...
That is a rather odd collectible.

It is odd. Most people collect the flying ones.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 02, 2018, 09:20:18 PM
You know that implies that you have a rat's patootie to give...
That is a rather odd collectible.

I keep it between my OJ Simpson autographed football and my autographed boxing mitt from Muhammad Ali.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 02, 2018, 09:20:59 PM
It is odd. Most people collect the flying ones.

I'm an oddball, Fred.  What can I say?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 02, 2018, 09:20:59 PM
It is odd. Most people collect the flying ones.

Easier to do... you just scrape em off the wall.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: driftdiver on January 02, 2018, 09:21:33 PM
Don't get me wrong.  On this basis, "No-shirts, No shoes, No Service" is unconstitutional too!

If I advertised "custom orders" on cakes...., I'm obligated.

"Tyranny", used here, is a Strawman.   

@DCPatriot

But its not just a cake.  Regardless who cares.   If they don't want my money who cares.   Go find someone who does.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: bigheadfred on January 02, 2018, 09:21:37 PM
No really. Bake me a damn cake now.

Fine. But this ain't Burger King.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 02, 2018, 09:22:16 PM
I keep it between my OJ Simpson autographed football and my autographed boxing mitt from Muhammad Ali.

I've got a cigar you can add to your collection... But I dunno where it's been...
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: bigheadfred on January 02, 2018, 09:22:31 PM
I'm an oddball, Fred.  What can I say?

woof woof woof???
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 02, 2018, 09:23:21 PM
Fine. But this ain't Burger King.

WAIT... Burger King has CAKE?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: bigheadfred on January 02, 2018, 09:25:15 PM
WAIT... Burger King has CAKE?

NO. I said this AIN'T BK. You get it my way or you don't get the effing thing at all.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 02, 2018, 09:26:47 PM
WAIT... Burger King has CAKE?

Oreo cheese cake from....BURGER KING!

(http://www.bk.com/sites/default/files/BK_Web_OREOCHEESECAKE_500x540px%255b2%255d.png)
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 02, 2018, 09:27:39 PM
I may have just stumbled upon the answer...

I'll just put this here...

(http://www.incrediblethings.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/urinal-cakes-3.jpg)
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 02, 2018, 09:30:00 PM
I've got a cigar you can add to your collection... But I dunno where it's been...

Hey!  I'll have you know it was dipped in Sherry....

(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1340573.1368211276!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/161629595-web.jpg)
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 02, 2018, 09:31:34 PM
I may have just stumbled upon the answer...

I'll just put this here...

(http://www.incrediblethings.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/urinal-cakes-3.jpg)

(https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/500x/66981555/heres-the-cake-lawyers-demanded-i-bake-go-ahead-eat-it.jpg)
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: goodwithagun on January 02, 2018, 09:32:07 PM
What if the bakers claimed they really wanted to, but they identify as conservative Christians and therefore cannot. It’s not like they can help it, they were born that way.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: bigheadfred on January 02, 2018, 09:33:45 PM
Hey!  I'll have you know it was dipped in Sherry....

(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1340573.1368211276!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/161629595-web.jpg)

Hope you kept it hermetically sealed in a mayonnaise jar.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 02, 2018, 09:33:46 PM
Oreo cheese cake from....BURGER KING!

(http://www.bk.com/sites/default/files/BK_Web_OREOCHEESECAKE_500x540px%255b2%255d.png)

WHAAAAT?

Ah crap... they're south of town, and now I have to go there.

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 02, 2018, 09:35:40 PM
Hey!  I'll have you know it was dipped in Sherry....

(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1340573.1368211276!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/161629595-web.jpg)

Bill, is that you?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 02, 2018, 09:37:29 PM
What if the bakers claimed they really wanted to, but they identify as conservative Christians and therefore cannot. It’s not like they can help it, they were born REBORN that way.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: bigheadfred on January 02, 2018, 09:41:08 PM


Exactly. What is the difference between being reborn and coming out of the closet? Legal definition.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 02, 2018, 09:44:28 PM
Exactly. What is the difference between being reborn and coming out of the closet? Legal definition.

See here:

(https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Yxme5vnosMN9sG661nDLbAHaFj&pid=15.1&P=0&w=223&h=168)
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: bigheadfred on January 02, 2018, 09:53:45 PM
See here:

(https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Yxme5vnosMN9sG661nDLbAHaFj&pid=15.1&P=0&w=223&h=168)

Maybe this has been discussed already. The bakers claiming their refusal is based on THEIR sexual orientation--hetero monogamy.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: goodwithagun on January 02, 2018, 09:54:29 PM
Exactly. What is the difference between being reborn and coming out of the closet? Legal definition.

With the added benefit of turning their false logic on its head.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 02, 2018, 10:00:44 PM
Anything beyond this argument is flat wrong. and I don't care who you are.

(http://renohealingmassage.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/refuse-service.png)
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 02, 2018, 10:06:05 PM
Oh, wait...

(http://www.artandsciencegraphics.com/wp-content/uploads/Refuse-Service-Sign.jpg)
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: goodwithagun on January 02, 2018, 10:06:22 PM
Anything beyond this argument is flat wrong. and I don't care who you are.

(http://renohealingmassage.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/refuse-service.png)

Completely agree. I even stand by a muslim baker refusing to bake a bacon cake. If I don’t do that, I can’t support a Jewish baker for refusing to bake a bacon cake.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 02, 2018, 10:08:00 PM
Completely agree. I even stand by a muslim baker refusing to bake a bacon cake. If I don’t do that, I can’t support a Jewish baker for refusing to bake a bacon cake.

That's right.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 02, 2018, 10:30:40 PM
@Oceander

I didn't cite Oregon state law, I cited you, chapter and verse.  So unless you're willing to out *yourself* as a straw man, perhaps you should answer the question.

Can an artist legally refuse a specific commission?

Is that grown up enough for you?

No, it's not.  It's childish, and an attempt to dodge the issue.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 02, 2018, 10:33:02 PM
In addition to the flamboyant hatred on display here, there is abundant evidence of a classic error:  that which is stupid is not for that reason unconstitutional.  One of the "benefits" of a representative system is that the people get to choose how they're governed, and that means they can make some wicked stupid choices.  Well, this is one of those wicked stupid choices that is, despite its stupidity, constitutional (other than, in my view, the amount of the penalty, which is excessive).
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 02, 2018, 11:18:12 PM
One of the "benefits" of a representative system is that the people get to choose how they're governed, and that means they can make some wicked stupid choices. 

In what possible way does judicial fiat under the color of law express the will of the people and a representative system?
Were this actually enacted by law, according to the states, this problem wouldn't even be here.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 02, 2018, 11:43:31 PM
In what possible way does judicial fiat under the color of law express the will of the people and a representative system?
Were this actually enacted by law, according to the states, this problem wouldn't even be here.

Perception being reality and the fact that none of the other branches have lifted a finger to restrain lawlessness, the Judiciary IS the Law and can make 'law' by fiat.

Which is how you get a populace that believes that Separation of Church and State is the entirety of the First Amendment and that Gay Marriage and Abortion are enumerated and inviolable Rights.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 02, 2018, 11:55:25 PM
No, it's not.  It's childish, and an attempt to dodge the issue.

It *is* the issue.

You've taken the position @Oceander that any speech for which one is compensated can be compelled, yet you refuse to defend the obvious implications of that position.  Instead you hide behind the false bravado of puerile "kiddo" and "grow up" replies.  So yes, there is a childish attempt at a dodge in play here, but everyone reading this thread can clearly see that the attempt is yours.

I'll ask you again, can the state of Oregon compel an artist to accept a commission?  Can it compel a musician to write a song, or a newspaper editor to write an editorial in a particular way?  All those people are paid to express.  How is their expression different from that of the baker?

In fairness to you, I see you arguing in 136 and 279 that you find the law stupid but constitutional; you defend its fundamental legality but not its content.  If you really disagree with the law's content then why not simply provide an honest answer to my question, rather than dodging it with insults and contentions which are clearly indefensible?

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Frank Cannon on January 03, 2018, 12:01:15 AM
12 pages on this stupid topic? I'll bet a dollar that this baker made the shittiest cakes around and deserves to be out of business.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 03, 2018, 12:04:35 AM
12 pages on this stupid topic? I'll bet a dollar that this baker made the shittiest cakes around and deserves to be out of business.

Then let the market decide that.

Not government and their courts empowered by the Gay mafia.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Frank Cannon on January 03, 2018, 12:09:09 AM
Then let the market decide that.

Not government and their courts empowered by the Gay mafia.

Meh. I got the govt' up my ass on who I can rent to or not. No one is crying the blues for the slumlords of the nation. Don't give a shit about a baker hiding behind his bible.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: truth_seeker on January 03, 2018, 12:48:19 AM
In what possible way does judicial fiat under the color of law express the will of the people and a representative system?
Were this actually enacted by law, according to the states, this problem wouldn't even be here.

The subject law was enacted by the duly elected representatives of the citizens of Oregon.

The judges are merely saying yes, follow that law or suffer the legal consequences. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 03, 2018, 03:30:00 AM
The subject law was enacted by the duly elected representatives of the citizens of Oregon.

The judges are merely saying yes, follow that law or suffer the legal consequences.

No, it is being interpreted that way.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: verga on January 03, 2018, 05:49:01 AM
Completely agree. I even stand by a muslim baker refusing to bake a bacon cake. If I don’t do that, I can’t support a Jewish baker for refusing to bake a bacon cake.
@goodwithagun  :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Right_in_Virginia on January 03, 2018, 08:09:26 AM
Anything beyond this argument is flat wrong. and I don't care who you are.

(http://renohealingmassage.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/refuse-service.png)

The 1950's called ... they want their sign back.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 03, 2018, 08:24:37 AM
No, it is being interpreted that way.

It is, and the silence among the Legislators who passed this is deafening.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on January 03, 2018, 08:47:57 AM
The subject law was enacted by the duly elected representatives of the citizens of Oregon.

The judges are merely saying yes, follow that law or suffer the legal consequences.
The state Bureau of Labor and Industries enacted on the complaint filed with it.  That agency does not have the authority or mission to handle such a complaint.

So the 'law' was trashed in order to appease those who filed a complaint.

Wherein is the 'subject law was enacted by the duly elected representatives of the citizens of Oregon.' you speak of with such dignity?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: sneakypete on January 03, 2018, 08:51:04 AM
Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Washington Post, Dec 28, 2017, Steven Dubois | AP



Their lawyers said Avakian and the state Bureau of Labor and Industries violated the Kleins’ rights as artists to free speech, their rights to religious freedom and their rights as defendants to a due process.


@Right_in_Virginia

I agree with their lawyers. This was a POLITICAL ruling,not a legal one.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on January 03, 2018, 08:51:04 AM
In addition to the flamboyant hatred on display here, there is abundant evidence of a classic error:  that which is stupid is not for that reason unconstitutional.  One of the "benefits" of a representative system is that the people get to choose how they're governed, and that means they can make some wicked stupid choices. Well, this is one of those wicked stupid choices that is, despite its stupidity, constitutional (other than, in my view, the amount of the penalty, which is excessive).
Is it?  The BOLI enacted on a complaint in which it had no jurisdiction, so how is that 'constitutional'?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: sneakypete on January 03, 2018, 08:54:00 AM
@Oceander

I didn't cite Oregon state law, I cited you, chapter and verse.  So unless you're willing to out *yourself* as a straw man, perhaps you should answer the question.

Can an artist legally refuse a specific commission?


@HoustonSam   @Oceander

Of course. He's an artist,not a slave. Free people have rights.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 03, 2018, 09:04:48 AM

I figured if you advertise the service, you're obligated to the point you can't refuse on religious/sexual beliefs.  So bake the cake.

That's basically correct.   Remember - and this is crucial - this is all taking place in the context of a public accommodation -  a business that by its nature deals with customers who enter off the street in response to a menu of posted services.    This is not a matter of an "artist refusing a specific commission" - such artists don't typically function as public accommodations, and contract individually with clients.   

The specter of discrimination with respect to public accommodations has its genesis, of course, in the Jim Crow south,  where white-only lunch counters were in some places the norm - and defended on religious grounds!   The community has determined that if you open yourself to the general public and post a menu of services, then you cannot arbitrarily discriminate on the basis of race, religion or - in Oregon - sexual orientation.

So the baker clearly violated the law and the victims of his discrimination are entitled to justice.  But - again - I strongly believe the monetary damages were excessive, especially in the context where the law's application has heretofore been unclear.   Justice does not demand the ruination of this business.   
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on January 03, 2018, 09:13:32 AM
That's basically correct.   Remember - and this is crucial - this is all taking place in the context of a public accommodation -  a business that by its nature deals with customers who enter off the street in response to a menu of posted services.    This is not a matter of an "artist refusing a specific commission" - such artists don't typically function as public accommodations, and contract individually with clients.   

The specter of discrimination with respect to public accommodations has its genesis, of course, in the Jim Crow south,  where white-only lunch counters were in some places the norm - and defended on religious grounds!   The community has determined that if you open yourself to the general public and post a menu of services, then you cannot arbitrarily discriminate on the basis of race, religion or - in Oregon - sexual orientation.

So the baker clearly violated the law and the victims of his discrimination are entitled to justice.  But - again - I strongly believe the monetary damages were excessive, especially in the context where the law's application has heretofore been unclear.   Justice does not demand the ruination of this business.
So allowing an entity like BOLI to enact a ruling outside its legal jurisdiction in your mind is 'Justice'?

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 03, 2018, 09:29:03 AM
That's basically correct.   Remember - and this is crucial - this is all taking place in the context of a public accommodation -  a business that by its nature deals with customers who enter off the street in response to a menu of posted services.    This is not a matter of an "artist refusing a specific commission" - such artists don't typically function as public accommodations, and contract individually with clients.   

The specter of discrimination with respect to public accommodations has its genesis, of course, in the Jim Crow south,  where white-only lunch counters were in some places the norm - and defended on religious grounds!   The community has determined that if you open yourself to the general public and post a menu of services, then you cannot arbitrarily discriminate on the basis of race, religion or - in Oregon - sexual orientation.

So the baker clearly violated the law and the victims of his discrimination are entitled to justice.  But - again - I strongly believe the monetary damages were excessive, especially in the context where the law's application has heretofore been unclear.   Justice does not demand the ruination of this business.

This is precisely a case of an artist refusing a specific commission.  They asked for an individual contract to produce a single, specific, custom item.  Whether or not they made that request within a walk-in shop does not change the nature of the request.

The Jim Crow lunch counters refused service to black people period; the baker engaged in no such refusal.  He was completely willing to sell them anything else in his shop.  He was unwilling to prepare a custom item which expressed a value with which he disagreed.

Now I'm not arguing that a court must agree with me; given the plastic definition of "Constitutional", I refrain from predictions about specific legal outcomes.  But I won't refrain from comment on the illogic or inconsistency of such outcomes.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 03, 2018, 09:38:44 AM
This is precisely a case of an artist refusing a specific commission.  They asked for an individual contract to produce a single, specific, custom item.  Whether or not they made that request within a walk-in shop does not change the nature of the request.

The Jim Crow lunch counters refused service to black people period; the baker engaged in no such refusal.  He was completely willing to sell them anything else in his shop.  He was unwilling to prepare a custom item which expressed a value with which he disagreed.

Now I'm not arguing that a court must agree with me; given the plastic definition of "Constitutional", I refrain from predictions about specific legal outcomes.  But I won't refrain from comment on the illogic or inconsistency of such outcomes.

It's not that simple.   First,  this is in the context of a public accommodation. Second, the facts are that the refusal of service had nothing to do with the customization or artistry required.   The baker wouldn't do any custom cake for any gay wedding.  The refusal of service took place before any discussion of message or decoration had taken place.   Despite the fact that the baker's store clearly advertised wedding cakes to the general public. 

Gay citizens have the same rights, as members of the general public, as anyone else, including the right under the law to request advertised services from a public accommodation without arbitrary humiliation.    (You'll recall that, in addition to refusing service,  the baker told his customer that the reason therefore was that her lesbian relationship was an abomination.)

 
Quote
  When told there was no groom, Klein said he was sorry but the bakery did not make cakes for same-sex weddings. According to documents from the case, Rachel and her mother left the shop, but returned a short time later. As Rachel remained in the car, in tears, her mother went in to speak with Klein.

The mother told Klein she had once thought like him, but her “truth had changed” when she had two gay children. Klein responded by quoting Leviticus: “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.” 


 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 03, 2018, 09:38:57 AM
"Justice does not demand the ruination of this business.

What a crock of Shinola.  These bakers have been called "bigots" at every turn, and to my puny brain, a bigot is about the lowest form of subhuman there is.  Bigots do things like Genocide.  If they are truly bigots, justice demands they be put out of business and maybe forced to wear ankle monitors as well, lest they take the tiny extra step and start killing the objects of their ire.  Moral consistency demands it.

It would appear, from the size of the fines levied against these miscreants, the bureaucrats agree with me.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: txradioguy on January 03, 2018, 09:45:52 AM
So allowing an entity like BOLI to enact a ruling outside its legal jurisdiction in your mind is 'Justice'?

@IsailedawayfromFR

It is "justice" to a select few as long as it supports their particular favorite protected group.

Had the same board ruled in favor of the baker we'd have heard shrieks of judicial overreach and griping about legislating from the bench.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: sneakypete on January 03, 2018, 09:47:22 AM


Quote
The specter of discrimination with respect to public accommodations has its genesis, of course, in the Jim Crow south,  where white-only lunch counters were in some places the norm - and defended on religious grounds!
   

It was wrong then,it is wrong now. Other than for life-threatening emergencies,NO business is legally or morally required to provide services the owner objects to,or serve people the owner doesn't want to serve.

Quote
The community has determined that if you open yourself to the general public and post a menu of services, then you cannot arbitrarily discriminate on the basis of race, religion or - in Oregon - sexual orientation.


"The Community" can kiss my big red ass,comrade! This is supposed to be a FREE STATE,not a freaking commune!

Quote
so the baker clearly violated the law and the victims of his discrimination are entitled to justice. 

Once again,you,"The Commune",and the so-called "victums" can kiss my big red ass. Please leave the US immediately afterwards,and move to some place like North Korea or Venezuela,where there are no free people,only puppets of the government.

Quote
But - again - I strongly believe the monetary damages were excessive, especially in the context where the law's application has heretofore been unclear.   Justice does not demand the ruination of this business.

JUSTICE would demand the alleged victims pay HIM monetary damages to his business,his reputation,and compensation for all the money he has had to spend to fight their damn-fool claim.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: txradioguy on January 03, 2018, 09:51:58 AM
Quote
Gay citizens have the same rights, as members of the general public, as anyone else, including the right under the law to request advertised services from a public accommodation without arbitrary humiliation.


Their rights weren't violated.  Having a cake baked...or not baked is not a violation of any right Constitutional or otherwise.


Quote
(You'll recall that, in addition to refusing service,  the baker told his customer that the reason therefore was that her lesbian relationship was an abomination.)

And he was right...their relationship IS an abomination in the eyes of God.

But then that couple knew that the backer felt that way before they went in their now didn't they?

And gay businesses refuse to serve straight customers...to the point of verbally harassing them and embarrassing them in a loud and threatening manner.

Should they be able to sue that business owner as well?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 03, 2018, 09:52:04 AM
Glad you feel so strongly about bigotry, CL.  Now the task is getting you to recognize it.

My view is that the fine is so excessive as to be punitive, and the facts of the case do not justify a punitive sanction.  The debate on this thread alone proves that the legal positions of the baker and customer, as applied to these facts, is hardly clear.    Those legal positions will eventually become clear, and when they do, it may be appropriate to punish a scofflaw.  But this baker isn't, IMO,  a scofflaw - I assume he thought his declination of service was lawful (and the issue is still in doubt, pending the resolution of the Masterpiece Cakeshop case). 

So justice demands that he change his practices and pay the plaintiffs' counsel fees.  Not that he also pay a monetary penalty in excess of $100,000 for his customer's "emotional distress".    That's a shakedown, and wholly divorced from the morality of justice.  IMO.     
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: txradioguy on January 03, 2018, 09:54:58 AM
Glad you feel so strongly about bigotry, CL.  Now the task is getting you to recognize it.

My view is that the fine is so excessive as to be punitive, and the facts of the case do not justify a punitive sanction.  The debate on this thread alone proves that the legal positions of the baker and customer, as applied to these facts, is hardly clear.    Those legal positions will eventually become clear, and when they do, it may be appropriate to punish a scofflaw.  But this baker isn't, IMO,  a scofflaw - I assume he thought his declination of service was lawful (and the issue is still in doubt, pending the resolution of the Masterpiece Cakeshop case). 

So justice demands that he change his practices and pay the plaintiffs' counsel fees.  Not that he also pay a monetary penalty in excess of $100,000 for his customer's "emotional distress".    That's a shakedown, and wholly divorced from the morality of justice.  IMO.   

Definition of bigotry

plural bigotries
1 : obstinate or intolerant devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices : the state of mind of a bigot overcoming his own bigotry

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigotry (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigotry)


Hmmm seems you fit the dictionary definition of that which you accuse everyone here of when they don't agree with your Liberal world view.

 :whistle:
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 03, 2018, 09:55:15 AM
Glad you feel so strongly about bigotry, CL.  Now the task is getting you to recognize it.

My view is that the fine is so excessive as to be punitive, and the facts of the case do not justify a punitive sanction.  The debate on this thread alone proves that the legal positions of the baker and customer, as applied to these facts, is hardly clear.    Those legal positions will eventually become clear, and when they do, it may be appropriate to punish a scofflaw.  But this baker isn't, IMO,  a scofflaw - I assume he thought his declination of service was lawful (and the issue is still in doubt, pending the resolution of the Masterpiece Cakeshop case). 

So justice demands that he change his practices and pay the plaintiffs' counsel fees.  Not that he also pay a monetary penalty in excess of $100,000 for his customer's "emotional distress".    That's a shakedown, and wholly divorced from the morality of justice.  IMO.   

Considering how tiny you think the punishment should be, we don't agree on the definition, not even a little bit.  It makes sense you would accuse me of not recognizing it.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 03, 2018, 09:55:20 AM
   

It was wrong then,it is wrong now. Other than for life-threatening emergencies,NO business is legally or morally required to provide services the owner objects to,or serve people the owner doesn't want to serve.
 

"The Community" can kiss my big red ass,comrade! This is supposed to be a FREE STATE,not a freaking commune!

Once again,you,"The Commune",and the so-called "victums" can kiss my big red ass. Please leave the US immediately afterwards,and move to some place like North Korea or Venezuela,where there are no free people,only puppets of the government.

JUSTICE would demand the alleged victims pay HIM monetary damages to his business,his reputation,and compensation for all the money he has had to spend to fight their damn-fool claim.

Thanks for your opinion,  SP.   It bears, of course, absolutely no relationship with the law.   
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Restored on January 03, 2018, 10:02:03 AM
One problem I see is that all these cases were deliberately targeting Christian businesses which implies bigotry on the part of the people suing the businesses. If they had thrown in a Muslim bakery, that could show some proof of fairness. But we all know why they didn't target a Muslim bakery.
The War on Christianity continues.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: txradioguy on January 03, 2018, 10:06:11 AM
One problem I see is that all these cases were deliberately targeting Christian businesses which implies bigotry on the part of the people suing the businesses. If they had thrown in a Muslim bakery, that could show some proof of fairness. But we all know why they didn't target a Muslim bakery.
The War on Christianity continues.

And unless you do some serious digging...the bolded part will never be known to most people in any of the media reports.

Can't do anything to disrupt the narrative.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 03, 2018, 10:23:15 AM
Gay citizens have the same rights, as members of the general public, as anyone else, including the right under the law to request advertised services from a public accommodation without arbitrary humiliation. 

Bullshit.  Self-admitted bleep have exercised the right to publicly humiliate and kick people out of their coffee shops and refuse to serve them for being nothing more than Christians that they despise.  Homosexuals do not have the same rights the rest of us do. They have SPECIAL, ARBITRARY RIGHTS granted to flaunt their behavior and force acceptance of it by the courts.

Unlike tyranny advocates such as yourself - I'm perfectly fine with a private owner refusing service to anyone for any reason they want.

There are plenty of other establishments that are happy to take my money and I am not so helpless that I cannot seek them out myself.

Using government to force a private owner to cater to behaviors abhorrent to their person is the highest form of meddlesome tyranny and deserves nothing but resistance and refusal to comply.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: DCPatriot on January 03, 2018, 10:31:32 AM

Bullshit.  Self-admitted bleep have exercised the right to publicly humiliate and kick people out of their coffee shops and refuse to serve them for being nothing more than Christians that they despise.  Homosexuals do not have the same rights the rest of us do. They have SPECIAL, ARBITRARY RIGHTS granted to flaunt their behavior and force acceptance of it by the courts.


Hmmm...I've read where Trump voters wearing MAGA hats were thrown out.   Never, Christians...for their religion.

Please provide a link.

And "homosexuals" are currently a protected class....and will remain so until little Johnny, in Montessori school becomes a daddy himself.

It's necessary...because people with 'your' thinking need to die off.


Quote

Unlike tyranny advocates such as yourself - I'm perfectly fine with a private owner refusing service to anyone for any reason they want.

There are plenty of other establishments that are happy to take my money and I am not so helpless that I cannot seek them out myself.

Using government to force a private owner to cater to behaviors abhorrent to their person is the highest form of meddlesome tyranny and deserves nothing but resistance and refusal to comply.


I agree with your premise..., there's always another baker down the street, etc..

Why don't you hire an ambulance chaser on a contingency basis, and find a Muslim bakery?  'Force' them to decorate a cake in the shape of a sex toy to include figurines of the same sex doing 'unnatural' acts.

...then get back to us.    *****rollingeyes*****

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on January 03, 2018, 10:40:19 AM
Glad you feel so strongly about bigotry, CL.  Now the task is getting you to recognize it.

My view is that the fine is so excessive as to be punitive, and the facts of the case do not justify a punitive sanction.  The debate on this thread alone proves that the legal positions of the baker and customer, as applied to these facts, is hardly clear.    Those legal positions will eventually become clear, and when they do, it may be appropriate to punish a scofflaw.  But this baker isn't, IMO,  a scofflaw - I assume he thought his declination of service was lawful (and the issue is still in doubt, pending the resolution of the Masterpiece Cakeshop case). 

So justice demands that he change his practices and pay the plaintiffs' counsel fees.  Not that he also pay a monetary penalty in excess of $100,000 for his customer's "emotional distress".    That's a shakedown, and wholly divorced from the morality of justice.  IMO.   
What irony you twist into those words, linking 'morality' with the 'justice' of being gay and driving home challenges to those who disagree.

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 03, 2018, 10:56:30 AM
What irony you twist into those words, linking 'morality' with the 'justice' of being gay and driving home challenges to those who disagree.

Why shouldn't religious bigots be challenged?   Why should bigots be able to hide behind their Bibles?   

The rules for public accommodations are simple - if you choose to advertise a service, provide it to your customers without regard to race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.   That's what the community requires -  and it is hardly unreasonable.   
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: driftdiver on January 03, 2018, 10:59:17 AM
Why shouldn't religious bigots be challenged?   Why should bigots be able to hide behind their Bibles?   

The rules for public accommodations are simple - if you choose to advertise a service, provide it to your customers without regard to race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.   That's what the community requires -  and it is hardly unreasonable.

@Jazzhead
Why do you only target Christians?

Muslims are throwing gays off rooftops and yet you focus on a cake.   Its almost like you have a hidden agenda.

hmmmmmm
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on January 03, 2018, 11:00:48 AM
Why shouldn't religious bigots be challenged?   Why should bigots be able to hide behind their Bibles?   

The rules for public accommodations are simple - if you choose to advertise a service, provide it to your customers without regard to race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.   That's what the community requires -  and it is hardly unreasonable.
Dredging 'rules for public accommodations' from where?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: thackney on January 03, 2018, 11:06:13 AM
Dredging 'rules for public accommodations' from where?

Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.403 (https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.403)

The question can be whether the public accommodation is limited to the items for sale in the store only, or special orders created on demand.

I wonder if making custom orders by appointment only would resolve the issue?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: txradioguy on January 03, 2018, 11:09:50 AM
@Jazzhead
Why do you only target Christians?

Muslims are throwing gays off rooftops and yet you focus on a cake.   Its almost like you have a hidden agenda.

hmmmmmm

@driftdiver

IIRC he's admitted to having gay neighbors and Muslim friends.

You do the math LOL!
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 03, 2018, 11:10:26 AM
Why shouldn't religious bigots be challenged?   Why should bigots be able to hide behind their Bibles?   

Why shouldn't tyranny advocates be challenged?  Why should SJW Tyrants hide behind bogus assertions of 'fairness' and 'equality'?

Wars have been started for far less.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: txradioguy on January 03, 2018, 11:14:33 AM
From the Justice Department amicus brief in the Colorado case:

Quote
“Forcing Phillips to create expression for and participate in a ceremony that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs invades his First Amendment rights."

Something tells me that this quote will be used when this stupid appeals court ruling in Oregon goes to the next level in the judicial food chain.

As well it should. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Restored on January 03, 2018, 11:18:38 AM
Why should it be against the law to dislike people for their behavior?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: thackney on January 03, 2018, 11:21:53 AM
I wonder if making custom orders by appointment only would resolve the issue?

@Jazzhead

What would be your opinion of a baker or other service provider who supplied custom work only for those that first joined their private "club", signing a statement of beliefs?

It would obviously be limiting in the custom work that would be provided, which seems to be the intent of the bakers of these cases.

Reference:
Place of public accommodation defined
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.400 (https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.400)

(2) A place of public accommodation does not include:
...(e) An institution, bona fide club or place of accommodation that is in its nature distinctly private.

In some dry counties, I've seen restaurants able to serve alcohol by asking guest to first join their club, paying a dollar membership fee and sign their form.  This seems to be a similar idea.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 11:36:08 AM
Dredging 'rules for public accommodations' from where?

The Oregon statutes.  ORS 659A.400 defines “place of public accommodation” broadly enough to include the bakery.  A point the bakery never disputed in court.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 03, 2018, 11:37:32 AM
Second, the facts are that the refusal of service had nothing to do with the customization or artistry required.   The baker wouldn't do any custom cake for any gay wedding.

Your statements here contradict each other.  It is exactly the case that the baker would not do any custom cake for any gay wedding, so the refusal of service was exactly due to the request for customization.  He was willing to sell them anything else, non custom, in his shop.  It doesn't matter whether the specifics of the customization had been discussed; that they would not buy what he had already prepared means they wanted customization, whether in the form of decoration, ingredients, flavor, color of icing, etc.

Quote
Gay citizens have the same rights, as members of the general public, as anyone else, including the right under the law to request advertised services from a public accommodation without arbitrary humiliation.    (You'll recall that, in addition to refusing service,  the baker told his customer that the reason therefore was that her lesbian relationship was an abomination.)

There simply is no such right.  One can reasonably argue that the baker was unnecessarily provocative and rude, and I would agree, but no one has the right to be free from offense.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Right_in_Virginia on January 03, 2018, 11:39:54 AM
Why shouldn't religious bigots be challenged?   Why should bigots be able to hide behind their Bibles?   


Or their Koran.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 03, 2018, 11:45:35 AM
Hmmm...I've read where Trump voters wearing MAGA hats were thrown out.   Never, Christians...for their religion.

Please provide a link.

And "homosexuals" are currently a protected class....and will remain so until little Johnny, in Montessori school becomes a daddy himself.

It's necessary...because people with 'your' thinking need to die off.


I agree with your premise..., there's always another baker down the street, etc..

Why don't you hire an ambulance chaser on a contingency basis, and find a Muslim bakery?  'Force' them to decorate a cake in the shape of a sex toy to include figurines of the same sex doing 'unnatural' acts.

...then get back to us.    *****rollingeyes*****

I'll have to go looking for it.  There was a VERY long TBR thread about the gay coffee shop owner who went on a pissy fit and kicked some horrible Christians out of his place of business.  The thread was long because Jazz was on his jazz throughout the thread after having redirected it onto the cake-baker story.  I'll post it up if I can find it.  I think there was a link to the video there.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Right_in_Virginia on January 03, 2018, 12:13:04 PM
Here's the clearest explanation of the motive behind the baker's decision I could find.  It also explains why this is not a case of  "discrimination" but a challenge against both creative/artistic and religious freedoms.  It really shouldn't be a tough decision (5/4) for the Supremes to make.

Quote
On Monday, Phillips explained in a USA Today op-ed why he declined to create a cake that openly celebrated something against his beliefs:

Quote
I’m happy to sell a cake to anyone, whatever his or her sexual identity. People should be free to make their own moral choices. I don’t have to agree with them...

Designing a wedding cake is a very different thing from, say, baking a brownie. When people commission such a cake, they’re requesting something that’s designed to express something about the event and about the couple.

What I design is not just a tower of flour and sugar, but a message tailored to a specific couple and a specific event — a message telling all who see it that this event is a wedding and that it is an occasion for celebration.

In this case, I couldn’t. What a cake celebrating this event would communicate was a message that contradicts my deepest religious convictions, and as an artist, that’s just not something I’m able to do, so I politely declined.

But this wasn’t just a business decision. More than anything else, it was a reflection of my commitment to my faith. My religious convictions on this are grounded in the biblical teaching that God designed marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

***
More:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/u.s.-supreme-court-hears-arguments-against-forcing-baker-to-make-gay-weddin (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/u.s.-supreme-court-hears-arguments-against-forcing-baker-to-make-gay-weddin)
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on January 03, 2018, 12:16:40 PM
The Oregon statutes.  ORS 659A.400 defines “place of public accommodation” broadly enough to include the bakery.  A point the bakery never disputed in court.
These statutes you reference are not 'rules of public accommodation'.  Instead they define what public accommodations are.  The 'rules' are not within your link.

What interestingly within your link is that there is not any difference from the perspective of a commercial vs non-commercial enterprise in the public arena, making your own point in this http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,296957.msg1560110.html#msg1560110 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,296957.msg1560110.html#msg1560110)
invalid.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: sneakypete on January 03, 2018, 12:21:10 PM
Thanks for your opinion,  SP.   It bears, of course, absolutely no relationship with the law.

@Jazzhead

Then clearly the law is wrong,as it often is these days.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on January 03, 2018, 12:24:20 PM
I'll have to go looking for it.  There was a VERY long TBR thread about the gay coffee shop owner who went on a pissy fit and kicked some horrible Christians out of his place of business.  The thread was long because Jazz was on his jazz throughout the thread after having redirected it onto the cake-baker story.  I'll post it up if I can find it.  I think there was a link to the video there.
I recall the story.  Those Christians went and found another establishment that served them rather than pressing a discrimination case against the coffee shop/

They were not agitators like the bleep who wish to make the rest of us recognize the queer world by pursuing lawsuits.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 12:25:35 PM
These statutes you reference are not 'rules of public accommodation'.  Instead they define what public accommodations are.  The 'rules' are not within your link.

What interestingly within your link is that there is not any difference from the perspective of a commercial vs non-commercial enterprise in the public arena, making your own point in this http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,296957.msg1560110.html#msg1560110 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,296957.msg1560110.html#msg1560110)
invalid.

Bull. 

You just don’t want to accept the reality that is there before your very nose. 

Oregon law defines a public accommodation in a way that includes this bakery.  It then forbids discrimination on the basis of, amongst other things, sexual orientation by the proprietor of a public accommodation.  Very simple. 

The bakery cannot under Oregon law discriminate against someone on the basis of sexual orientation, which is what they did when they refused to bake a cake, any cake at all, for a lesbian wedding. 

The question is whether the law amounts to an unconstitutional infringement of the bakers’ right to freedom of expression and freedom of religion, and under intermediate scrutiny, it does not, according to the Oregon court, in a well written opinion that does acknowledge the closeness of the issue. 

Issues of compelled speech in similar circumstances have been mitigated before, and have generally been upheld.  So the bakers face an uphill battle.

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 03, 2018, 12:25:59 PM
Hmmm...I've read where Trump voters wearing MAGA hats were thrown out.   Never, Christians...for their religion.

Please provide a link.


@DCPatriot

I eventually found the link to the TBR thread about the gay Seattle coffee shop owner who booted out some terrible Christians.  I had forgotten he kept saying he thought Jesus what "hot" and wanted to do things to his rear end, along with his boyfriend.

The original post on this thread was gacked by the database crash we had, so I also located an article that referenced the story (with a link to the video).

TBR Thread:
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,284739.0.html (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,284739.0.html)

HuffPost Article:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/seattle-coffee-shop-anti-choice-activists_us_59dbd39de4b0b34afa5b77d9 (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/seattle-coffee-shop-anti-choice-activists_us_59dbd39de4b0b34afa5b77d9)
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: sneakypete on January 03, 2018, 12:30:27 PM
And unless you do some serious digging...the bolded part will never be known to most people in any of the media reports.

Can't do anything to disrupt the narrative.

@txradioguy

I don't have a clue how anyone could go about proving that,but I also believe it to be the case that they specifically targeted a Christia-owned bakery in order to gain a little fame and a lot of money.  Otherwise if all they wanted was their homo-specific cake, they would have just gone to a bakery that didn't care to have their cake baked.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 03, 2018, 12:34:32 PM
Or their Koran.

Yes, or their Koran.   But there are likely fewer Muslims in this country than homosexuals,  so I have less immediate concern over their religious extremism in the conduct of commerce. 

I tend to sympathize with those who object to folks running off to court to challenge the myriad affronts of everyday life.   For most,  the answer is to patronize another business, or perhaps post bad reviews for places run by bigots.
Combine a lawsuit-happy culture and the embrace of identity politics by both left and right,  and you don't have a very harmonious situation.   Still,  I am pleased that Masterpiece Cakeshop made it to the Supreme Court, so we can learn once and for all what the rules are respecting religious prejudice in the conduct of everyday commerce.   Can knowledge of the rules be the first step toward reconciliation?   Likely not - identity politics are just too intoxicating for that.  But I can always hope.   
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: sneakypete on January 03, 2018, 12:35:33 PM
Quote
Bullshit.  Self-admitted bleep have exercised the right to publicly humiliate and kick people out of their coffee shops and refuse to serve them for being nothing more than Christians that they despise.  Homosexuals do not have the same rights the rest of us do. They have SPECIAL, ARBITRARY RIGHTS granted to flaunt their behavior and force acceptance of it by the courts.


@INVAR

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Homosexuals have the SAME EXACT RIGHTS AS THE REST OF US.

They also have the SAME OBLIGATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES.

IF the Christian baker can be sued to force him to bake a cake that personally offends him,which I don't believe is Constitutional,any homosexual bakery that tries to run off Christians should be sued by those Christians.

Turn about is fair play,as well as a warning to be careful what you ask for.
 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: DCPatriot on January 03, 2018, 12:36:01 PM
@DCPatriot

I eventually found the link to the TBR thread about the gay Seattle coffee shop owner who booted out some terrible Christians.  I had forgotten he kept saying he thought Jesus what "hot" and wanted to do things to his rear end, along with his boyfriend.

The original post on this thread was gacked by the database crash we had, so I also located an article that referenced the story (with a link to the video).

TBR Thread:
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,284739.0.html (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,284739.0.html)

HuffPost Article:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/seattle-coffee-shop-anti-choice-activists_us_59dbd39de4b0b34afa5b77d9 (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/seattle-coffee-shop-anti-choice-activists_us_59dbd39de4b0b34afa5b77d9)

He didn't throw them out of the shop because they were Christians.  They didn't have name and denomination tags on their chests.

What they DID have were pics of aborted fetuses on signs they held when marching.

"Tastelessness", in a 'privately' owned establishment is not covered under "Thou shall not discriminate...[race, religion, sexual ...preference]

This is FAKE NEWS as far their being tossed because they were Christians.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 03, 2018, 12:43:41 PM
And unless you do some serious digging...the bolded part will never be known to most people in any of the media reports.

Can't do anything to disrupt the narrative.

@txradioguy

See, that's one of the things that really bugs me about this story:  The dearth of evidence.  I'm of the belief these fellows most certainly targeted the bakery (In this case and in Colorado).   Even that other poster does not dispute this.  What bothers me is the fact that none of these "customers" did the slightest evidence gathering to support their cases, that I know of.  Where are the pictures of the advertisements we keep hearing about?  Screen shots?  And why on Earth would these fellows go through all this trouble and not record their interactions with the bakery staff, either video or audio?

We'd be seeing the ads and video, if they were detrimental to the bakeries, as we have in the story I linked about the coffee shop.  But we're not.  Nothing.

The dog didn't bark.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 03, 2018, 12:45:55 PM
He didn't throw them out of the shop because they were Christians.  They didn't have name and denomination tags on their chests.

What they DID have were pics of aborted fetuses on signs they held when marching.

"Tastelessness", in a 'privately' owned establishment is not covered under "Thou shall not discriminate...[race, religion, sexual ...preference]

This is FAKE NEWS as far their being tossed because they were Christians.

They were demonstrating in the street, not his shop.  I think they had the right to do that.  I am not going to relitigate the coffee shop incident.  I really don't understand why you are excusing the conduct of this guy.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 12:46:16 PM
@txradioguy

See, that's one of the things that really bugs me about this story:  The dearth of evidence.  I'm of the belief these fellows most certainly targeted the bakery (In this case and in Colorado).   Even that other poster does not dispute this.  What bothers me is the fact that none of these "customers" did the slightest evidence gathering to support their cases, that I know of.  Where are the pictures of the advertisements we keep hearing about?  Screen shots?  And why on Earth would these fellows go through all this trouble and not record their interactions with the bakery staff, either video or audio?

We'd be seeing the ads and video, if they were detrimental to the bakeries, as we have in the story I linked about the coffee shop.  But we're not.  Nothing.

The dog didn't bark.

You should read the Oregon court’s opinion, because it does describe the facts. Apparently, they went to this bakery because they had baked a cake for the wedding of the mother of one of the two people involved.  So they were not just targeting a Christian-run bakery. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: DCPatriot on January 03, 2018, 12:49:10 PM
They were demonstrating in the street, not his shop.  I think they had the right to do that.  I am not going to relitigate the coffee shop incident.  I really don't understand why you are excusing the conduct of this guy.

IMO, it's no different than "No Shoes, No Shirt....No service!"

If I were the owner, seeing potential/regular customers avoid the demonstration, hurting my bottom line....and then having them come and park their asses inside??

Not on my shift, buddy.   
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 03, 2018, 12:51:42 PM
You should read the Oregon court’s opinion, because it does describe the facts. Apparently, they went to this bakery because they had baked a cake for the wedding of the mother of one of the two people involved.  So they were not just targeting a Christian-run bakery.

You and Jazz have both made the case that "The bakery has to provide services advertised," but nobody has produced any evidence of what was advertised.  According to the part of your post I underlined, the advertising here was word-of-mouth.  The baker was to be forced to bake the cake because he did so for the mother of one of them.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 12:55:28 PM
You and Jazz have both made the case that "The bakery has to provide services advertised," but nobody has produced any evidence of what was advertised.  According to the part of your post I underlined, the advertising here was word-of-mouth.  The baker was to be forced to bake the cake because he did so for the mother of one of them.

Nope.  They held themselves out to the public as being willing to bake wedding cakes for pay. 

Read the opinion.  Stop being so afraid of the truth. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 03, 2018, 12:56:26 PM
IMO, it's no different than "No Shoes, No Shirt....No service!"

If I were the owner, seeing potential/regular customers avoid the demonstration, hurting my bottom line....and then having them come and park their asses inside??

Not on my shift, buddy.

I happen to agree with you, it may surprise, but the entire point of the story was the hypocrisy of the situation.  What is being forced all the way to the Supreme Court in this case is not even being touched in the other case.

What is key to this is it's because the Christians in the coffee shop are not "jerks," as it was put upthread a long ways.  They just did what any normal person such as you or I would have done:  They took their business elsewhere.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 03, 2018, 12:57:43 PM
Nope.  They held themselves out to the public as being willing to bake wedding cakes for pay. 

Read the opinion.  Stop being so afraid of the truth.

Sure.  And you can stop accusing me of being afraid of the truth.  Ad hominems don't become you.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Right_in_Virginia on January 03, 2018, 12:58:05 PM
Yes, or their Koran.   But there are likely fewer Muslims in this country than homosexuals,  so I have less immediate concern over their religious extremism in the conduct of commerce. 

 9999what

Quote
...  Can knowledge of the rules be the first step toward reconciliation?   Likely not - identity politics are just too intoxicating for that.  But I can always hope.   

You don't understand the fundamentals of the case.  You're giving me kneejerk liberal reflex here.   **nononono*


Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: driftdiver on January 03, 2018, 01:00:31 PM
You and Jazz have both made the case that "The bakery has to provide services advertised," but nobody has produced any evidence of what was advertised.  According to the part of your post I underlined, the advertising here was word-of-mouth.  The baker was to be forced to bake the cake because he did so for the mother of one of them.

Sell them muffins.   Wedding cakes are for marriages according to my definition of what a marriage is.   I use the bibles definition.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 03, 2018, 01:02:50 PM
RIV,  I recognize the threat that Islamic extremism poses to the safety of us all.   But if there's a problem in this country with Muslim-owned businesses refusing commerce with non-Muslims, I'm not aware of it.   
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 01:04:58 PM
Sure.  And you can stop accusing me of being afraid of the truth.  Ad hominems don't become you.

Here is the statement of facts from the Oregon Supreme Court's opinion (I added the emphasis):

Quote
As part of the wedding planning, Rachel and her mother, Cheryl, attended a Portland bridal show.2  Melissa Klein had a booth at that bridal show, and she advertised wedding cakes made by her bakery business, Sweetcakes.  Rachel and Cheryl visited the booth and told Melissa that they would like to order a cake from her.  Rachel and Cheryl were already familiar with Sweetcakes; two years earlier, Sweetcakes had designed, created, and decorated a wedding cake for Cheryl’s wedding, paid for by Rachel.

Here's a link to the opinion itself:  http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A159899.pdf (http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A159899.pdf)

So, in sum:

(i) the bakery advertised to the general public that it made wedding cakes, and

(ii) the complainants were already familiar with the bakery because they were familiar with the cakes that it baked, since the mother of one had purchased a cake from the bakery before for the mother's own wedding.

Them's the facts, jack.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 01:05:33 PM
9999what

You don't understand the fundamentals of the case.  You're giving me kneejerk liberal reflex here.   **nononono*




He understands them much better than just about anyone else here does.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Right_in_Virginia on January 03, 2018, 01:08:30 PM
RIV,  I recognize the threat that Islamic extremism poses to the safety of us all.   But if there's a problem in this country with Muslim-owned businesses refusing commerce with non-Muslims, I'm not aware of it.   

I usually support your opinions as clear, rational and well thought-out.  Can't do it here or on this topic in general @Jazzhead .

There's a motivator to these posts that I'd rather not dissect. Let's just say it's your right to have this apparent prejudice and my right to disagree with it.  And let's leave it there.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Right_in_Virginia on January 03, 2018, 01:09:33 PM
He understands them much better than just about anyone else here does.

Says his number one cheerleader.  Big whoop.  :shrug:
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 03, 2018, 01:11:12 PM
RIV,  I recognize the threat that Islamic extremism poses to the safety of us all.   But if there's a problem in this country with Muslim-owned businesses refusing commerce with non-Muslims, I'm not aware of it.   

Maybe it's because you haven't looked, or it hasn't been spooned to you?  I dunno. **nononono*

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/5/video-puts-muslim-bakeries-florists-in-gay-rights-/ (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/5/video-puts-muslim-bakeries-florists-in-gay-rights-/)

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/3/video-muslim-bakers-points-double-standard-gay-wed/ (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/3/video-muslim-bakers-points-double-standard-gay-wed/)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/why-do-muslims-get-to-ignore-the-same-laws-used-to-prosecute-christian-businesses/article/1034681 (http://www.weeklystandard.com/why-do-muslims-get-to-ignore-the-same-laws-used-to-prosecute-christian-businesses/article/1034681)

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-at-muslim-bakery/ (https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-at-muslim-bakery/)
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 03, 2018, 01:17:14 PM
Here is the statement of facts from the Oregon Supreme Court's opinion (I added the emphasis):

Here's a link to the opinion itself:  http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A159899.pdf (http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A159899.pdf)

So, in sum:

(i) the bakery advertised to the general public that it made wedding cakes, and

(ii) the complainants were already familiar with the bakery because they were familiar with the cakes that it baked, since the mother of one had purchased a cake from the bakery before for the mother's own wedding.

Them's the facts, jack.

Sounds like Sweet Cakes advertised.  Not sure that's the case at hand, but the principle you described certainly applies to Sweet Cakes.

No fear here, except of a government using its bureaucracy to force people to do things. 

If they did things to bring it on themselves, I guess that's their problem.  But I disagree that they should have small punishments.  Every time the other poster you like mentions any of the Christians in these stories, they're "bigots."  You have called them and posters on this forum who support them "hateful."  Seems to me that if they are that evil they should receive enough punishment to put them out of business, and the bureaucracies involved seem to think so too.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 03, 2018, 01:19:23 PM
I usually support your opinions as clear, rational and well thought-out.  Can't do it here or on this topic in general @Jazzhead .

There's a motivator to these posts that I'd rather not dissect. Let's just say it's your right to have this apparent prejudice and my right to disagree with it.  And let's leave it there.

No problem, RIV.  I usually support your opinions as well, and for similar reasons.   

I'm not sure what "apparent prejudice" you're referring to.   Is it that I'm prejudiced against Christians or prejudiced in favor of Muslims?   I think neither is accurate - my real prejudice is against the infection of identity politics and its increasing embrace by the right as well as the left.    To make America great again we need to return to the idea that we're a melting pot, not a mosaic.   
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: goatprairie on January 03, 2018, 01:23:30 PM
Here is the statement of facts from the Oregon Supreme Court's opinion (I added the emphasis):

Here's a link to the opinion itself:  http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A159899.pdf (http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A159899.pdf)

So, in sum:

(i) the bakery advertised to the general public that it made wedding cakes, and

(ii) the complainants were already familiar with the bakery because they were familiar with the cakes that it baked, since the mother of one had purchased a cake from the bakery before for the mother's own wedding.

Them's the facts, jack.
"(i) the bakery advertised to the general public that it made wedding cakes, and

(ii) the complainants were already familiar with the bakery because they were familiar with the cakes that it baked, since the mother of one had purchased a cake from the bakery before for the mother's own wedding"

A manufacturer/business advertises to the general public that it makes  certain types of widgets.
A customer goes to the business and asks the manufacturer to make a different kind of widget. The business says it only makes a particular type of widget, and the customer is free to buy any of those.
The customer demands that the manufacturer make them a special kind of widget whether the business wants to make it or  not.
The business says it reserves the constitutional right to make whatever types of widgets it wants to make. Like every business has done since the founding of the country and before.
The customer sues and uses the force of the gov. i.e men with guns to force the business to make them a specially designed widget.
Them's the facts Jack.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: driftdiver on January 03, 2018, 01:24:24 PM
Here is the statement of facts from the Oregon Supreme Court's opinion (I added the emphasis):

Here's a link to the opinion itself:  http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A159899.pdf (http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A159899.pdf)

So, in sum:

(i) the bakery advertised to the general public that it made wedding cakes, and

(ii) the complainants were already familiar with the bakery because they were familiar with the cakes that it baked, since the mother of one had purchased a cake from the bakery before for the mother's own wedding.

Them's the facts, jack.

What has the term 'wedding' meant for the last 200 years in America?  Legally and practically
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 03, 2018, 01:32:25 PM
"(i) the bakery advertised to the general public that it made wedding cakes, and

(ii) the complainants were already familiar with the bakery because they were familiar with the cakes that it baked, since the mother of one had purchased a cake from the bakery before for the mother's own wedding"

A manufacturer/business advertises to the general public that it makes  certain types of widgets.
A customer goes to the business and asks the manufacturer to make a different kind of widget. The business says it only makes a particular type of widget, and the customer is free to buy any of those.
The customer demands that the manufacturer make them a special kind of widget whether the business wants to make it or  not.
The business says it reserves the constitutional right to make whatever types of widgets it wants to make. Like every business has done since the founding of the country and before.
The customer sues and uses the force of the gov. i.e men with guns to force the business to make them a specially designed widget.
Them's the facts Jack.

No, the analogy is inaccurate.   The customer asked for exactly what the baker advertised to provide - a cake for a wedding.   The baker's services weren't limited to cakes for only weddings his religion approved of - and the customer placed no artistic demands whatsoever on the baker before service was refused. 

Litigation is such matters is unfortunate, but there should be no mistake regarding who has been victimized here.   The customer didn't ask for a "special kind of widget",  but the same exact kind of widget the baker said he made.  And service was refused for no other reason than the customer said she wanted a cake for her own wedding.     
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 03, 2018, 01:44:21 PM
I'd like to point out the case under discussion is NOT about "Sweet Cakes" bakery, which was introduced in this argument as a result of my questions. 

This case being so well defined does not apply.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Restored on January 03, 2018, 01:44:57 PM
If the bakery owner condemned homosexuality while denying the order, that is clearly discrimination so long as he knew the customer was a homosexual. It would be similar to refusing to bake a cake for a mixed-race couple.
If the bakery owner disagreed politically with the order, that is not discrimination because their sexual orientation is irrelevant in the matter. That's no different than refusing to bake a cake with a swastika on it. If a homosexual had asked for the swastika cake, their sexuality would be irrelevant.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: goatprairie on January 03, 2018, 01:49:39 PM
No, the analogy is inaccurate.   The customer asked for exactly what the baker advertised to provide - a cake for a wedding.   The baker's services weren't limited to cakes for only weddings his religion approved of - and the customer placed no artistic demands whatsoever on the baker before service was refused. 

Litigation is such matters is unfortunate, but there should be no mistake regarding who has been victimized here.   The customer didn't ask for a "special kind of widget",  but the same exact kind of widget the baker said he made.  And service was refused for no other reason than the customer said she wanted a cake for her own wedding.   
It doesn't matter one g-damned difference what if the business didn't specify it didn't make certain kinds of widgets. It can make whatever it wants to make without being told to make one by a customer.
Let me repeat: A CUSTOMER HAS ABSOLUTELY NO G-DAMNED RIGHT TO TELL A BUSINESS HOW TO MAKE THEIR PRODUCTS!!! Is that clear enough for you?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 03, 2018, 01:51:56 PM
If the bakery owner condemned homosexuality while denying the order, that is clearly discrimination so long as he knew the customer was a homosexual. It would be similar to refusing to bake a cake for a mixed-race couple.
If the bakery owner disagreed politically with the order, that is not discrimination because their sexual orientation is irrelevant in the matter. That's no different than refusing to bake a cake with a swastika on it. If a homosexual had asked for the swastika cake, their sexuality would be irrelevant.

Agreed.   Political ideology is not a protected classification.   That's probably why the coffee shop owner could, legally if rather obnoxiously, refuse service to customers who had been distributing pictures of aborted fetuses.     
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: txradioguy on January 03, 2018, 01:55:27 PM
@txradioguy

See, that's one of the things that really bugs me about this story:  The dearth of evidence.  I'm of the belief these fellows most certainly targeted the bakery (In this case and in Colorado).   Even that other poster does not dispute this.  What bothers me is the fact that none of these "customers" did the slightest evidence gathering to support their cases, that I know of.  Where are the pictures of the advertisements we keep hearing about?  Screen shots?  And why on Earth would these fellows go through all this trouble and not record their interactions with the bakery staff, either video or audio?

We'd be seeing the ads and video, if they were detrimental to the bakeries, as we have in the story I linked about the coffee shop.  But we're not.  Nothing.

The dog didn't bark.

Agree 100%.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 03, 2018, 01:56:25 PM
Let me repeat: A CUSTOMER HAS ABSOLUTELY NO G-DAMNED RIGHT TO TELL A BUSINESS HOW TO MAKE THEIR PRODUCTS!!! Is that clear enough for you?

And the customer at issue made no such demand.  She made no demand to affix same-sex wedding toppers, no demand to create a rainbow flag out of icing, no demand to affix a slogan offensive to the baker's religion.  All she wanted was a cake - the same wedding cake the baker advertised to provide.  Her sin was to state that the cake was for her own wedding, to which the baker arbitrarily objected. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: goatprairie on January 03, 2018, 01:57:03 PM
If the bakery owner condemned homosexuality while denying the order, that is clearly discrimination so long as he knew the customer was a homosexual. It would be similar to refusing to bake a cake for a mixed-race couple.
If the bakery owner disagreed politically with the order, that is not discrimination because their sexual orientation is irrelevant in the matter. That's no different than refusing to bake a cake with a swastika on it. If a homosexual had asked for the swastika cake, their sexuality would be irrelevant.
But the bakery DIDN'T refuse to bake a cake, it refused to bake a cake to a customer's wishes. That is right reserved to any business to make or not make their product.
For the same reason I can't order my cable tv company to put on the shows I want. I can only go to another cable or satellite tv business.
Bigotry has nothing to do with it.  It's irrelevant (or should be) in all legal cases.  The right of a business to manufacture what it wants to manufacture should be inviolate.
If bigotry were a legal consideration, then any business that makes racist articles could be sued out of existence. They can't be.  They have the right to be bigoted, racist, jerks, whatever.  The customer has the right to not purchase something from the bigoted, racist business. That's how freedom works.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: txradioguy on January 03, 2018, 01:57:07 PM
I'd like to point out the case under discussion is NOT about "Sweet Cakes" bakery, which was introduced in this argument as a result of my questions. 

This case being so well defined does not apply.

The only way it does apply is the fact that in that Colorado case the DoJ stepped in on the side of the bakery being targeted.

The defendants in the Oregon...if their lawyer is even marginally decent...can take the Fed's amicus brief and use their words as evidence in his case to get the appeals court ruling in Oregon overturned.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: txradioguy on January 03, 2018, 01:58:54 PM
@txradioguy

I don't have a clue how anyone could go about proving that,but I also believe it to be the case that they specifically targeted a Christia-owned bakery in order to gain a little fame and a lot of money.  Otherwise if all they wanted was their homo-specific cake, they would have just gone to a bakery that didn't care to have their cake baked.

It's somewhere in the legal transcripts.  Those kinds of important facts come out in discovery before anything goes to trial...when the plaintiffs as well as the defendants are deposed by the lawyers.

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: txradioguy on January 03, 2018, 02:00:19 PM
You and Jazz have both made the case that "The bakery has to provide services advertised," but nobody has produced any evidence of what was advertised.  According to the part of your post I underlined, the advertising here was word-of-mouth.  The baker was to be forced to bake the cake because he did so for the mother of one of them.

@Cyber Liberty at the end of the day this is a case dealing with contractual law.

And no one can be forced to enter a contract against their will.  The law is very plain on that.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 02:03:06 PM
I'd like to point out the case under discussion is NOT about "Sweet Cakes" bakery, which was introduced in this argument as a result of my questions. 

This case being so well defined does not apply.

Actually, it does.  Sweetcakes is the Oregon bakery in question. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 02:04:29 PM
It’s amazing how many people are so afraid of the facts. Read the court’s opinion to find out exactly what the baker offered to the public: customized wedding cakes. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 03, 2018, 02:06:31 PM
Actually, it does.  Sweetcakes is the Oregon bakery in question.

Yes, I got crossed up because there are so many cases headed to court at once.  I'm just going to sit out for awhile....
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 03, 2018, 02:08:09 PM
It’s amazing how many people are so afraid of the facts. Read the court’s opinion to find out exactly what the baker offered to the public: customized wedding cakes.

These court things are not always because of fear to see facts.  Courts have become highly unpredictable to us regular folks, and it's become a matter of distrust, not fear.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: goatprairie on January 03, 2018, 02:10:38 PM
And the customer at issue made no such demand.  She made no demand to affix same-sex wedding toppers, no demand to create a rainbow flag out of icing, no demand to affix a slogan offensive to the baker's religion.  All she wanted was a cake - the same wedding cake the baker advertised to provide.  Her sin was to state that the cake was for her own wedding, to which the baker arbitrarily objected.
Then the baker is still baking a special cake. The article has not yet been made. For the same reason I wouldn't bake a cake for a wedding of two avowed Nazis. Neither would you. Nazism is legal by the way. So is communism, Satanism, and a whole slew of other objectionable  behaviors.
They can buy whatever is present in the shop, but I wouldn't bake something special for them.
Hard to believe the happy couple didn't want something on the cake.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Restored on January 03, 2018, 02:15:41 PM
Let me repeat: A CUSTOMER HAS ABSOLUTELY NO G-DAMNED RIGHT TO TELL A BUSINESS HOW TO MAKE THEIR PRODUCTS!!! Is that clear enough for you?

And a business has no right refusing service to someone because of their race or religion.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: txradioguy on January 03, 2018, 02:20:06 PM
And a business has no right refusing service to someone because of their race or religion.

Being gay isn't a race...and it certainly flies in the face of religion and religious teachings.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 03, 2018, 02:20:08 PM
Hard to believe the happy couple didn't want something on the cake.

Maybe they did, maybe they didn't.   We'll never know, because service was denied before any discussion of customization or artistry could take place.   

I keep coming back to this because I think it's crucial to resolution of the case.  If the customer had asked for an offensive message to be placed on the cake,  I'm sure all would agree that it was within the baker's right to refuse.   
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 03, 2018, 02:30:04 PM
Maybe they did, maybe they didn't.   We'll never know, because service was denied before any discussion of customization or artistry could take place.   

I keep coming back to this because I think it's crucial to resolution of the case.  If the customer had asked for an offensive message to be placed on the cake,  I'm sure all would agree that it was within the baker's right to refuse.   

Offensive to whom?  The entire concept of the ceremony was offensive to the baker, which is why the baker refused.  Who gets to decide what is offensive enough to enable the baker to refuse service?

The proposed cake was by definition custom because it had not yet been created but was to be discussed specifically, not as a standard item already in the baker's shop.  Anything already in the shop was not custom and was available for the homosexual couple to purchase; anything they needed to specify would by definition be custom, without regard for any specific message on the cake, whether or not such a message had been discussed.

Or is it your position that the baker could have legally refused once the customers had requested a specific message on the cake?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: goatprairie on January 03, 2018, 02:33:52 PM
And a business has no right refusing service to someone because of their race or religion.
What race or religion is being refused service? If the baker refused to sell an item already baked and for sale in the store, then the complainants would have a point.
But when you request that a business make you something special for them, they have the right to refuse to do so.
If a business cannot turn down a customer for any reason, then many businesses would be forced to accommodate people/groups they despise.
If you owned a business that rented out buildings/rooms for parties and the Nazi Party called and said it wanted to rent out one of your rooms, would you accommodate them? I wouldn't.
Because something is legal and many people  approve of a certain behavior, it doesn't mean everybody has to agree and go along.  I believe homosexuality is a mental disorder, and I'm certainly not going to do something to promote or encourage it.
Baking a cake for a homosexual wedding would be encouraging it.
It would have to be a business that provided basics for survival. Therefore, if I owned a grocery store, I'm not going to deny food to anybody even if they're people I despise. (BTW I don't hate homosexuals or liberals. I do know more than a few of both.)  Hospitals should not turn down anybody even nasty people for treatment. They do have the right to exist.
But weddings, parties, gatherings and other non-essential for survival events are different. Despite what you feel, people and businesses do have the right to discriminate in certain matters.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 02:33:52 PM
Being gay isn't a race...and it certainly flies in the face of religion and religious teachings.

Yes, but Oregon law forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  That makes it illegal. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 02:34:43 PM
What race or religion is being refused service? If the baker refused to sell an item already baked and for sale in the store, then the complainants would have a point.
But when you request that a business make you something special for them, they have the right to refuse to do so.
If a business cannot turn down a customer for any reason, then many businesses would be forced to accommodate people/groups they despise.
If you owned a business that rented out buildings/rooms for parties and the Nazi Party called and said it wanted to rent out one of your rooms, would you accommodate them? I wouldn't.
Because something is legal and many people  approve of a certain behavior, it doesn't mean everybody has to agree and go along.  I believe homosexuality is a mental disorder, and I'm certainly not going to do something to promote or encourage it.
Baking a cake for a homosexual wedding would be encouraging it.
It would have to be a business that provided basics for survival. Therefore, if I owned a grocery store, I'm not going to deny food to anybody even if they're people I despise. (BTW I don't hate homosexuals or liberals. I do know more than a few of both.)  Hospitals should not turn down anybody even nasty people for treatment. They do have the right to exist.
But weddings, parties, gatherings and other non-essential for survival events are different. Despite what you feel, people and businesses do have the right to discriminate in certain matters.

No, the business does not.  Not in this case under Oregon state law. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 02:35:55 PM
What race or religion is being refused service? If the baker refused to sell an item already baked and for sale in the store, then the complainants would have a point.
But when you request that a business make you something special for them, they have the right to refuse to do so.
If a business cannot turn down a customer for any reason, then many businesses would be forced to accommodate people/groups they despise.
If you owned a business that rented out buildings/rooms for parties and the Nazi Party called and said it wanted to rent out one of your rooms, would you accommodate them? I wouldn't.
Because something is legal and many people  approve of a certain behavior, it doesn't mean everybody has to agree and go along.  I believe homosexuality is a mental disorder, and I'm certainly not going to do something to promote or encourage it.
Baking a cake for a homosexual wedding would be encouraging it.
It would have to be a business that provided basics for survival. Therefore, if I owned a grocery store, I'm not going to deny food to anybody even if they're people I despise. (BTW I don't hate homosexuals or liberals. I do know more than a few of both.)  Hospitals should not turn down anybody even nasty people for treatment. They do have the right to exist.
But weddings, parties, gatherings and other non-essential for survival events are different. Despite what you feel, people and businesses do have the right to discriminate in certain matters.

You really should read the Oregon law first, then decide what it is that a business that is subject to Oregon law can and cannot do.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: goatprairie on January 03, 2018, 02:36:20 PM
Yes, but Oregon law forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  That makes it illegal.
Maybe the Oregon law was made by fascists.  It certainly looks to be that way considering the cake business they destroyed with deliberate malice.  Not all laws are moral or constitutional. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 03, 2018, 02:36:28 PM

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Homosexuals have the SAME EXACT RIGHTS AS THE REST OF US.

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'.



any homosexual bakery that tries to run off Christians should be sued by those Christians.

Turn about is fair play,as well as a warning to be careful what you ask for.

You and I both know that is not how extortion from the Grievance Industry works. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 03, 2018, 02:39:09 PM
But there are likely fewer Muslims in this country than homosexuals,  so I have less immediate concern over their religious extremism in the conduct of commerce.   

But surely Constitutional issues are not merely numeric.  If only one person's rights are violated, and that violation occurs at the hands of a small minority, are you unconcerned about that one person's right to legal recourse?

My sense is that complete acceptance of homosexuality is very rapidly becoming the norm in the United States.  At some point there might be only a very small number of Christian businesses who would refuse custom service to homosexuals on First Amendment grounds.  What number of such Christian businesses is small enough that you would no longer be concerned about their discrimination against homosexuals?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 03, 2018, 02:43:06 PM
The customer asked for exactly what the baker advertised to provide - a cake for a wedding.


Wedding cakes are for marriages, which according to civilization, tradition and scripture - is between a man and woman.  I don't give two shits some fruit in a black robe decides people can 'marry' the same sex, young children, their siblings, pets and parents.  It's NOT a 'wedding' I have to recognize just because perverts in society demand I do. 

King George the III never even came close to the imposition of barbarity upon conscience that you advocates of tyranny do.  Wars were begun over much, much less.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: thackney on January 03, 2018, 02:46:59 PM
You and Jazz have both made the case that "The bakery has to provide services advertised," but nobody has produced any evidence of what was advertised.  According to the part of your post I underlined, the advertising here was word-of-mouth.  The baker was to be forced to bake the cake because he did so for the mother of one of them.

This is a silly claim.  Yes, they advertised for wedding cakes.  Yes, Waybackmachine.com has record of that.

Both for the Sweet Cakes by Melissa in Oregon and Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120128121324/http://masterpiececakes.com/ (https://web.archive.org/web/20120128121324/http://masterpiececakes.com/)

https://web.archive.org/web/20130205182208/http://www.sweetcakesweb.com (https://web.archive.org/web/20130205182208/http://www.sweetcakesweb.com)

There are real problems with the claim of bigotry and the rights to not be forced to make a product they don't produce.  We don't need to make up others.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 03, 2018, 02:47:01 PM
The 1950's called ... they want their sign back.

As if the sophistry of this age is some sort of improvement?
That sign says it all.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 03, 2018, 02:48:54 PM
But surely Constitutional issues are not merely numeric.  If only one person's rights are violated, and that violation occurs at the hands of a small minority, are you unconcerned about that one person's right to legal recourse?

My sense is that complete acceptance of homosexuality is very rapidly becoming the norm in the United States.  At some point there might be only a very small number of Christian businesses who would refuse custom service to homosexuals on First Amendment grounds.  What number of such Christian businesses is small enough that you would no longer be concerned about their discrimination against homosexuals?

My concern is that the law be applied fairly and without favoritism.   Discrimination with respect to the conduct of a public accommodation is against the law whether the bigot is Christian, or Muslim, or atheist, or homosexual.    My reply was in response to a comment that I don't appear to criticize the bigotry practiced by (some) Muslims in the same way that I criticize bigotry as practiced by (some) Christians.   Well,  that's only because I have yet to come across a thread on this board where the majority defended Muslim religious bigotry.   
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 03, 2018, 02:49:41 PM
I tend to sympathize with those who object to folks running off to court to challenge the myriad affronts of everyday life.   For most,  the answer is to patronize another business, or perhaps post bad reviews for places run by bigots.
Combine a lawsuit-happy culture and the embrace of identity politics by both left and right,  and you don't have a very harmonious situation.   Still,  I am pleased that Masterpiece Cakeshop made it to the Supreme Court, so we can learn once and for all what the rules are respecting religious prejudice in the conduct of everyday commerce.   Can knowledge of the rules be the first step toward reconciliation?   Likely not - identity politics are just too intoxicating for that.  But I can always hope.   

I commend you for these sentiments @Jazzhead and I join you in them.  My pessimism is probably greater than yours however, in that I don't believe the Federal Judiciary is likely to reach conclusions which bear up to complete, intellectually honest scrutiny.

Like you, I believe identity politics are proving very harmful, but I believe citizens do have the right to maintain their identities as they choose, while having no right to force other citizens to respect those identities.  My sense is that equality requires government to treat all citizens equally, while liberty requires that private citizens have no such obligation.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: thackney on January 03, 2018, 02:51:24 PM
Maybe they did, maybe they didn't.   We'll never know, because service was denied before any discussion of customization or artistry could take place.   

I keep coming back to this because I think it's crucial to resolution of the case. If the customer had asked for an offensive message to be placed on the cake,  I'm sure all would agree that it was within the baker's right to refuse.   

There in lies the problem.  We don't agree on what is offensive.  It appears you agree with the concept, but not where to draw the line.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: txradioguy on January 03, 2018, 02:52:35 PM
Yes, but Oregon law forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  That makes it illegal.

There was no discrimination.  This guy won't make cakes for a Pagan Solstice celebration or a birthday cake for an Atheist.

Discriminating would be if he made those cakes for the other two groups and didn't for the lesbian couple.

That is discriminating against one group over another.

The bakers religious beliefs dictate that he doesn't make a cake for any group or person that goes against his beliefs.

He's applying his business standards in an equal manner.

Only Liberals and RINO's believe he was discriminating or that there was discrimination going on here.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 03, 2018, 03:05:19 PM
My concern is that the law be applied fairly and without favoritism.   Discrimination with respect to the conduct of a public accommodation is against the law whether the bigot is Christian, or Muslim, or atheist, or homosexual.    My reply was in response to a comment that I don't appear to criticize the bigotry practiced by (some) Muslims in the same way that I criticize bigotry as practiced by (some) Christians.   Well,  that's only because I have yet to come across a thread on this board where the majority defended Muslim religious bigotry.

Yet you cited the relative number of Muslims and homosexuals in the United States.  Perhaps I am not understanding you here, if so I apologize. But here you seem to be saying that your position is based at least as much on the comments shared on this forum, as on the facts of the case, or maybe a more fair statement of your position is that it's based to some extent on the relative number of Christians, Muslims, and homosexuals in the United States.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth here, I'm actually trying to understand your position.  Do you believe that relative numbers of people in these categories are legitimately a part of the analysis?  Certainly the practical consequences of a given policy will be influenced by the number of people affected on either side, but it's hard for me to see how that should influence our vision of Constitutional government treating everyone fairly.

Again, I apologize if I'm misunderstanding you.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 03:11:27 PM
There was no discrimination.  This guy won't make cakes for a Pagan Solstice celebration or a birthday cake for an Atheist.

Discriminating would be if he made those cakes for the other two groups and didn't for the lesbian couple.

That is discriminating against one group over another.

The bakers religious beliefs dictate that he doesn't make a cake for any group or person that goes against his beliefs.

He's applying his business standards in an equal manner.

Only Liberals and RINO's believe he was discriminating or that there was discrimination going on here.

Under Oregon state law there was discrimination:  they refused to make any sort of cake for a lesbians’ wedding.  If you’d read the opinion you would know that they decided not to make the cake even before any particular design or message was discussed.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 03, 2018, 03:14:02 PM
This is a silly claim.  Yes, they advertised for wedding cakes.  Yes, Waybackmachine.com has record of that.

Both for the Sweet Cakes by Melissa in Oregon and Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120128121324/http://masterpiececakes.com/ (https://web.archive.org/web/20120128121324/http://masterpiececakes.com/)

https://web.archive.org/web/20130205182208/http://www.sweetcakesweb.com (https://web.archive.org/web/20130205182208/http://www.sweetcakesweb.com)

There are real problems with the claim of bigotry and the rights to not be forced to make a product they don't produce.  We don't need to make up others.

Good points.  I'm tired of the thread because I'm tired of the claims "bigot" and "hatred" being bandied about by people who confess they don't want to wipe out the businesses of those they accuse of the bigotry and hatred.  If it's no big deal to them, then it's of no concern to me either.   :shrug:

The courts are going to do what they are going to do.  I can only hope somebody can stop the runaway bureaucracies that are wreaking havoc on what's left of our society.  That reminds me of what I am most tired of about this:  Too many people think what the bureaucracies are doing is just grand.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 03, 2018, 03:29:49 PM
Under Oregon state law there was discrimination:  they refused to make any sort of cake for a lesbians’ wedding.  If you’d read the opinion you would know that they decided not to make the cake even before any particular design or message was discussed.

No doubt they would have arbitrarily refused to make any sort of cake for a Wiccan wedding too. Or a Satanic wedding - Both of which invariably would be against Christian belief.

And rightfully so.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 03, 2018, 03:39:29 PM

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth here, I'm actually trying to understand your position.  Do you believe that relative numbers of people in these categories are legitimately a part of the analysis? 

No,  HS,  unlawful discrimination is actionable regardless of the number of persons affected (or the number of persons in the identity group to which they belong).   Religion does not provide an excuse for unlawful discrimination with respect to a business that serves the general public (a public accommodation).     
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 03, 2018, 03:50:16 PM
No,  HS,  unlawful discrimination is actionable regardless of the number of persons affected (or the number of persons in the identity group to which they belong).   Religion does not provide an excuse for unlawful discrimination with respect to a business that serves the general public (a public accommodation).   

Then what did you mean when you said in 332 : "But there are likely fewer Muslims in this country than homosexuals,  so I have less immediate concern over their religious extremism in the conduct of commerce. "

If it's not a question of numbers, why does religious extremism in commerce by one group, whom you believe to be outnumbered by homosexuals, concern you less than religious extremism in commerce by another group?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 03:54:22 PM
No doubt they would have arbitrarily refused to make any sort of cake for a Wiccan wedding too. Or a Satanic wedding - Both of which invariably would be against Christian belief.

And rightfully so.

If such discrimination is actionable under Oregon law, then they’d be in violation for that as well. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 03, 2018, 03:55:50 PM
Religion does not provide an excuse for unlawful discrimination with respect to a business that serves the general public (a public accommodation).   

Oh yeah?  Just watch me.  I do it on a daily basis.

God does not provide an excuse for men to nullify His Laws to accommodate an evil and call it good.

Any "law" that contravenes God's Law governing my life is null and void and I will forever ignore it.

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on January 03, 2018, 03:56:36 PM
Maybe the Oregon law was made by fascists.  It certainly looks to be that way considering the cake business they destroyed with deliberate malice.  Not all laws are moral or constitutional.

The baker's remedy was rather simple.

Stop making wedding cakes. That way, they wouldn't find themselves between the rock and the hard place created by their personal religious beliefs and the laws of the State where their licensed business operates in.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 03:58:04 PM
The baker's remedy was rather simple.

Stop making wedding cakes. That way, they wouldn't find themselves between the rock and the hard place created by their personal religious beliefs and the laws of the State where their licensed business operates in.

Or move the business to a different state. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 03, 2018, 04:07:19 PM
The baker's remedy was rather simple.

Stop making wedding cakes. That way, they wouldn't find themselves between the rock and the hard place created by their personal religious beliefs and the laws of the State where their licensed business operates in.

@Luis Gonzalez

Pretty much their only solution.  In fact, I expect to see a lot of bakeries do this preemptively all around the country.  All "wedding cakes" will be made by some protected group.  I disagree moving the business to another state would make them safe, I think all States have some law that can be bastardized enough to find a tort.  Lawyers can be pretty resourceful that way.

(Hey, Merry Christmas to youse guys!)
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on January 03, 2018, 04:10:25 PM
Rand Paul said it best in regards to Obama care. This is nothing more than slavery, you are requiring a person to perform work agaisnt their will.

That's a bit over the top.

They chose to enter into the bakery business on their own, in one of (if not the most) liberal State in the Union and accepted a business license based on agreeing to adhere to all pertaining laws, statutes and codes as a requirement of conducting business in that State, then decided (again on their own volition) to demand that their business be allowed to violate the State's Constitution other applicable laws.

How does reaching decisions freely time and time again translate into slavery? 

If you decide to die on the Cross for your beliefs, you should stop complaining about the nails being too big.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: driftdiver on January 03, 2018, 04:28:03 PM
That's a bit over the top.

They chose to enter into the bakery business on their own, in one of (if not the most) liberal State in the Union and accepted a business license based on agreeing to adhere to all pertaining laws, statutes and codes as a requirement of conducting business in that State, then decided (again on their own volition) to demand that their business be allowed to violate the State's Constitution other applicable laws.

How does reaching decisions freely time and time again translate into slavery? 

If you decide to die on the Cross for your beliefs, you should stop complaining about the nails being too big.

Just because a state passes a law doesn't make it right.

in this case they didn't even pass a law.

but I guess we know how sincerely you hold your freedoms
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 03, 2018, 04:28:09 PM
@Luis Gonzalez

Pretty much their only solution.  In fact, I expect to see a lot of bakeries do this preemptively all around the country. 

That's what Masterpiece Cakeshop did - they say on their website that they do not take orders for custom wedding cakes.

There may be a more palatable solution, depending on how extreme your beliefs are in relation to your desire to transact profitable business.     Make wedding cakes for all couples,  but reserve the right to decline to render specific messages on the cake deemed offensive.  No same sex wedding toppers, no pro-gay messages or messages that suggest religious sanction.   Correct me if I'm wrong, but the typical fancy wedding cake doesn't contain words like a birthday cake but rather is merely an elaborate, artistic construction.   I'd guess the vast majority of same-sex wedding cakes would be visually indistinguishable from their opposite-sex counterparts.   
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: driftdiver on January 03, 2018, 04:29:41 PM
That's what Masterpiece Cakeshop did - they say on their website that they do not take orders for custom wedding cakes.

There may be a more palatable solution, depending on how extreme your beliefs are in relation to your desire to transact profitable business.     Make wedding cakes for all couples,  but reserve the right to decline to render specific messages on the cake deemed offensive.  No same sex wedding toppers, no pro-gay messages or messages that suggest religious sanction.   Correct me if I'm wrong, but the typical fancy wedding cake doesn't contain words like a birthday cake but rather is merely an elaborate, artistic construction.   I'd guess the vast majority of same-sex wedding cakes would be visually indistinguishable from their opposite-sex counterparts.

@Jazzhead
Holding true to beliefs that have been around for 2000 years and were the law of the land here until a very short time ago is not extreme

Your bigotry is so tiresome
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 04:34:48 PM
Just because a state passes a law doesn't make it right.

in this case they didn't even pass a law.

but I guess we know how sincerely you hold your freedoms

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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 03, 2018, 04:36:34 PM
@Jazzhead
Holding true to beliefs that have been around for 2000 years and were the law of the land here until a very short time ago is not extreme

Your bigotry is so tiresome

"Holding true to beliefs" means not engaging in homosexual acts.  Not imposing your religious beliefs on others.   You say you make wedding cakes, then make wedding cakes.   You're not saving your customers from the devil, just engaging in self-indulgent egotism.

As for tiresome, you've called me a bigot at least five times on this thread just for voicing my very mainstream opinion.   I get your point - I'm a bigot.   Now give it, and your obsession with identity politics, a rest.     
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: DCPatriot on January 03, 2018, 04:39:44 PM
Good points.  I'm tired of the thread because I'm tired of the claims "bigot" and "hatred" being bandied about by people who confess they don't want to wipe out the businesses of those they accuse of the bigotry and hatred.  If it's no big deal to them, then it's of no concern to me either.   :shrug:

The courts are going to do what they are going to do.  I can only hope somebody can stop the runaway bureaucracies that are wreaking havoc on what's left of our society.  That reminds me of what I am most tired of about this:  Too many people think what the bureaucracies are doing is just grand.

WHAT IF.....

...at that booth at the fair, where she advertised custom cakes, there included an asterisk(*) we see in every auto lease or cruise ticket spot.

"Restrictions apply"  Tastycakes reserves the right to decline any order deemed inappropriate. 
Tastycakes, and/or their agents shall have sole discretion as to what is deemed, "inappropriate". 
Purchaser(s) sole remedy shall be a total refund of any monies previously tendered as good faith deposit(s).
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 03, 2018, 04:42:46 PM
"Holding true to beliefs" means not engaging in homosexual acts.  Not imposing your religious beliefs on others.   You say you make wedding cakes, then make wedding cakes.   You're not saving your customers from the devil, just engaging in self-indulgent egotism.

The bakers didn't impose their religious beliefs on anyone.  They never compelled the homosexual couples to participate in any belief, ceremony, or ritual, nor did they they inhibit the homosexual couples from participating in their own relationships, or from holding a wedding ceremony, or from procuring a wedding cake elsewhere.

The bakers did not impose, but they were imposed upon.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 04:44:17 PM
The bakers didn't impose their religious beliefs on anyone.  They never compelled the homosexual couples to participate in any belief, ceremony, or ritual, nor did they they inhibit the homosexual couples from participating in their own relationships, or from holding a wedding ceremony, or from procuring a wedding cake elsewhere.

The bakers did not impose, but they were imposed upon.

An imposition they voluntarily accepted when they voluntarily continued to bake cakes for profit in Oregon and to hold themselves out to the public as engaged in that business. 

They cannot have their cake, and eat it, too. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 04:45:27 PM
WHAT IF.....

...at that booth at the fair, where she advertised custom cakes, there included an asterisk(*) we see in every auto lease or cruise ticket spot.

"Restrictions apply"  Tastycakes reserves the right to decline any order deemed inappropriate. 
Tastycakes, and/or their agents shall have sole discretion as to what is deemed, "inappropriate". 
Purchaser(s) sole remedy shall be a total refund of any monies previously tendered as good faith deposit(s).


If the refusal was based on a protected category, like sexual orientation, then it would be ineffective. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: DCPatriot on January 03, 2018, 04:49:23 PM
If the refusal was based on a protected category, like sexual orientation, then it would be ineffective.

Got it.   
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Suppressed on January 03, 2018, 04:50:17 PM
An imposition they voluntarily accepted when they voluntarily continued to bake cakes for profit in Oregon and to hold themselves out to the public as engaged in that business. 

They cannot have their cake, and eat it, too.

But they didn't discriminate. They'd have denied that cake even if the people wanting it were straight.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 03, 2018, 04:56:04 PM
An imposition they voluntarily accepted when they voluntarily continued to bake cakes for profit in Oregon and to hold themselves out to the public as engaged in that business. 

They cannot have their cake, and eat it, too.

Just like every artist in Oregon voluntarily accepts when offering to paint portraits for pay, and every musician in Oregon voluntarily accepts when they get paid to write and perform songs, and every newspaper editor in Oregon voluntarily accepts when they get paid to write editorials.  All can be compelled by the state of Oregon to paint specific portraits, and to write specific songs, and to pen specific editorials, because they voluntarily went into those businesses for pay in Oregon.

Right, kiddo?

Oh but what am I thinking, you never responded to the question.  So why exactly do you think this law is stupid?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 04:58:03 PM
But they didn't discriminate. They'd have denied that cake even if the people wanting it were straight.

No, they discriminated. They sat down with one of the women and her mother to discuss a cake.  One of the first questions was who the bride and groom were.  When told that there was no groom, only two brides, the baker point blank refused to make a cake for such a wedding.  The mother and daughter returned to their car, and when the mother then went back to the store to try and reason with them, was told that it was an abomination.  In other words, they were already to make a cake until they learned the sexual orientation of the two women, at which point they refused to provide the service they were only too happy to provide when they thought there was a groom as well as a bride. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Right_in_Virginia on January 03, 2018, 04:58:05 PM
There was no discrimination.  This guy won't make cakes for a Pagan Solstice celebration or a birthday cake for an Atheist. ....

Using your example, I agree there would be no discrimination against atheists because this baker would create a cake for an atheist ... celebrating the birthday.  He would not create a cake for the atheist celebrating atheism. 

Just as this baker would create a cake celebrating the birthdays of homosexuals, and did not create a cake celebrating the marriage of homosexuals.

It's not a denial based on who is doing the cake ordering, but on the purpose for which the baker's talent and creativity would be used.

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 05:00:01 PM
Just like every artist in Oregon voluntarily accepts when offering to paint portraits for pay, and every musician in Oregon voluntarily accepts when they get paid to write and perform songs, and every newspaper editor in Oregon voluntarily accepts when they get paid to write editorials.  All can be compelled by the state of Oregon to paint specific portraits, and to write specific songs, and to pen specific editorials, because they voluntarily went into those businesses for pay in Oregon.

Right, kiddo?

Oh but what am I thinking, you never responded to the question.  So why exactly do you think this law is stupid?

You can deny reality all you like, but that doesn’t change the fact that Oregon state law very clearly makes it illegal for a business that offers its goods and services to the public to refuse those goods or services to someone because of that person’s sexual orientation. 

Got it, kiddo?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 03, 2018, 05:02:07 PM
"Holding true to beliefs" means not engaging in homosexual acts.  Not imposing your religious beliefs on others.   

No on both counts.

In the first, Any true Christian will be able to tell you that we are not to associate ourselves with sin. We are not to incline toward it, nor abide it in any fashion. Acceptance is apostasy, by definition, and one becomes complicit in the sin. If you had ever really read a Bible, you would know that.

Acceptance and mercy come with repentance - not in coddling sinful acts.

And in the second, it is the homos that are imposing, not the Christian.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 03, 2018, 05:02:50 PM
The bakers didn't impose their religious beliefs on anyone.  They never compelled the homosexual couples to participate in any belief, ceremony, or ritual, nor did they they inhibit the homosexual couples from participating in their own relationships, or from holding a wedding ceremony, or from procuring a wedding cake elsewhere.

The bakers did not impose, but they were imposed upon.

In the twisted mindset of today's tyranny advocates, the refusal to accommodate, serve, celebrate, participate and acknowledge deviant behaviors is in itself an imposition of intolerable and illegal Christian religious beliefs.

We are not permitted to hold beliefs or exercise our rights that others find offensive and intolerant.  Just ask any Christian Conservative on a university campus.

We must be forced by the end of a gun to participate in acknowledging and serving protected deviancies and perverted behaviors the State and their courts have now made of superior status.

Refusal to serve state-protected, sanctioned and encouraged deviant behaviors is actionable, with the loss of livelihoods, wealth and property to be confiscated with the full assistance and weight of the state and their courts.

Once "laws" are decreed that demand churches must 'marry' same sex people, children, pets and household items - that too will enjoin the same justifications we read regarding the legal imposition of this meddlesome tyranny.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 03, 2018, 05:07:19 PM
You can deny reality all you like, but that doesn’t change the fact that Oregon state law very clearly makes it illegal for a business that offers its goods and services to the public to refuse those goods or services to someone because of that person’s sexual orientation. 

Got it, kiddo?

I don't deny that the law actually says that, I maintain that it leads to the conclusions I've identified and that those conclusions are indefensible, which you have not denied.  In fairness to you perhaps I've not been adequately clear on my position.

You have stated that you find the law stupid.  Why do you find it so?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: goatprairie on January 03, 2018, 05:22:45 PM
That's a bit over the top.

They chose to enter into the bakery business on their own, in one of (if not the most) liberal State in the Union and accepted a business license based on agreeing to adhere to all pertaining laws, statutes and codes as a requirement of conducting business in that State, then decided (again on their own volition) to demand that their business be allowed to violate the State's Constitution other applicable laws.

How does reaching decisions freely time and time again translate into slavery? 

If you decide to die on the Cross for your beliefs, you should stop complaining about the nails being too big.
really? If you owned a business renting rooms for parties/business/etc. and some Nazis wanted to use/rent your rooms for a rally, would you turn them down?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: goatprairie on January 03, 2018, 05:24:38 PM
The bakers didn't impose their religious beliefs on anyone.  They never compelled the homosexual couples to participate in any belief, ceremony, or ritual, nor did they they inhibit the homosexual couples from participating in their own relationships, or from holding a wedding ceremony, or from procuring a wedding cake elsewhere.

The bakers did not impose, but they were imposed upon.
"The bakers did not impose, but they were imposed upon."
Exactly.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on January 03, 2018, 05:27:53 PM
Just because a state passes a law doesn't make it right.

in this case they didn't even pass a law.

but I guess we know how sincerely you hold your freedoms

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Equality_Act

State Law since 2007.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

We are free to disobey those laws that we consider unjust, we are not however, free from the consequences of doing so.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: txradioguy on January 03, 2018, 05:28:25 PM
"Holding true to beliefs" means not engaging in homosexual acts.  Not imposing your religious beliefs on others.   You say you make wedding cakes, then make wedding cakes.

They didn't impose their beliefs on anyone else.  They didn't tell the couple they'd back the cake if they gave up the gay lifestyle and became devout Christians.

THAT would be imposing ones beliefs. 

You're not saving your customers from the devil, just engaging in self-indulgent egotism.

Your lack of knowledge of biblical teachings once again proves stunning.

That and you don't seem to grasp the ideal of principals and personal responsibility...or morals.

Quote
As for tiresome, you've called me a bigot at least five times on this thread just for voicing my very mainstream opinion.   I get your point - I'm a bigot.   Now give it, and your obsession with identity politics, a rest.     

That's rich coming from you.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 05:28:48 PM
I don't deny that the law actually says that, I maintain that it leads to the conclusions I've identified and that those conclusions are indefensible, which you have not denied.  In fairness to you perhaps I've not been adequately clear on my position.

You have stated that you find the law stupid.  Why do you find it so?

The conclusions are not indefensible.  You may not like them, the bakers may not like them, but the only options are lobbying for an exception, to permit religious-based discrimination, or else cease selling custom wedding cakes in Oregon.  It’s exactly the same as a real estate agent who is prohibited from red-lining blacks, or a construction company that doesn’t want to follow the building code. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 05:31:13 PM
really? If you owned a business renting rooms for parties/business/etc. and some Nazis wanted to use/rent your rooms for a rally, would you turn them down?

If they have the money, and adequate reliable insurance that would cover all damage, sure. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Frank Cannon on January 03, 2018, 05:35:56 PM
really? If you owned a business renting rooms for parties/business/etc. and some Nazis wanted to use/rent your rooms for a rally, would you turn them down?

I'm in that business. You can't deny people access to renting a property that you would allow to others just over beliefs or skin color. About the only thing left that you can discriminate on is sex offenders and violent felons.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: goatprairie on January 03, 2018, 05:39:32 PM
I'm in that business. You can't deny people access to renting a property that you would allow to others just over beliefs or skin color. About the only thing left that you can discriminate on is sex offenders and violent felons.
I wouldn't rent or sell anything  for Nazi Party purposes. They can sue me.
I'm  not refusing to rent/sell just because the people are Nazis....I'm refusing to rent my space for Nazi Party purposes. Party rallies etc.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: truth_seeker on January 03, 2018, 05:42:15 PM
Being gay isn't a race...and it certainly flies in the face of religion and religious teachings.

Not too long ago, mixed race unions were illegal in many states. Then they weren't

Same goes for same sex unions. Then they weren't.

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Frank Cannon on January 03, 2018, 05:45:30 PM
I wouldn't rent or sell anything  for Nazi Party purposes. They can sue me.
I'm  not refusing to rent/sell just because the people are Nazis....I'm refusing to rent my space for Nazi Party purposes. Party rallies etc.

Good luck with getting sued. Even if you win you will be out thousands of dollars on the low side.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: txradioguy on January 03, 2018, 05:47:35 PM
(https://scontent-dft4-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/26114082_1765268926824711_2845050283590556060_n.jpg?oh=b6b5410c65e64feb32c4d4fe8f6db809&oe=5AF34942)
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: goatprairie on January 03, 2018, 05:48:19 PM
Good luck with getting sued. Even if you win you will be out thousands of dollars on the low side.
If I get known for turning down Nazis, I get the feeling I might make up for the financial penalties in other ways. Maybe not, I'm not in your business. But I'll take my lumps rather than rent anything for a Nazi function.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Frank Cannon on January 03, 2018, 05:55:50 PM
If I get known for turning down Nazis, I get the feeling I might make up for the financial penalties in other ways. Maybe not, I'm not in your business. But I'll take my lumps rather than rent anything for a Nazi function.

Making financial decisions that make you feel good and hoping for the best is a bad business model. I know plenty of guys living in a van down by the river now who tried it.

Bottom line: If you don't want to deal with human debris, don't start a career in a people related field.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 05:56:03 PM
I wouldn't rent or sell anything  for Nazi Party purposes. They can sue me.
I'm  not refusing to rent/sell just because the people are Nazis....I'm refusing to rent my space for Nazi Party purposes. Party rallies etc.

If you’re in Oregon, the statute in question would not prevent discrimination based on political views, so you would be free to refuse to rent to Nazis for a party rally. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on January 03, 2018, 05:59:21 PM
It’s amazing how many people are so afraid of the facts. Read the court’s opinion to find out exactly what the baker offered to the public: customized wedding cakes.
yes he did, but not EVERY type of customized wedding cake.

You and Jazz are riding a horse that won't go far in our legal system cause you cannot put on any brakes.

Still waiting to hear from you on whether BOLI acted within its authority to process this complaint.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 06:08:14 PM
yes he did, but not EVERY type of customized wedding cake.

You are Jazz are riding a horse that won't go far in our legal system cause you cannot put on any brakes.

Still waiting to hear from you on whether BOLI acted within its authority to process this complaint.

:bigsilly:

You so desperately hate gay people.  What a shame; it’s not worth the effort.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on January 03, 2018, 06:09:28 PM
If such discrimination is actionable under Oregon law, then they’d be in violation for that as well.
wow.  You just confirmed to us all what a stupid, immoral and outrageous law you support.

Thanks for the heads up, counselor.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on January 03, 2018, 06:13:46 PM
@Jazzhead
Holding true to beliefs that have been around for 2000 years and were the law of the land here until a very short time ago is not extreme

Your bigotry is so tiresome
bravo.  It hurts them when they are outed.

These mostly lawyers arguing for legal remedies forget there are moral implications.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on January 03, 2018, 06:19:43 PM
If they have the money, and adequate reliable insurance that would cover all damage, sure.
Bingo.  He won the question on immorality.  You win, let's see, what did the Bible say, a trip somewhere.....
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 06:20:20 PM
yes he did, but not EVERY type of customized wedding cake.

You are Jazz are riding a horse that won't go far in our legal system cause you cannot put on any brakes.

Still waiting to hear from you on whether BOLI acted within its authority to process this complaint.

ORS 659A grants BOLI authority to deal with discrimination claims, including ones like this that fall under ORS 659A.403. So contrary to your uneducated assertion, BOLI does have authority to pursue these bakers for violating this law.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 03, 2018, 06:22:53 PM
:bigsilly:

You so desperately hate gay people.  What a shame; it’s not worth the effort.

There you go again....
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on January 03, 2018, 06:26:49 PM
ORS 659A grants BOLI authority to deal with discrimination claims, including ones like this that fall under ORS 659A.403. So contrary to your uneducated assertion, BOLI does have authority to pursue these bakers for violating this law.
Ok, so you proved their mission state ment on their website is a lie.

I wonder where else they have lied?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on January 03, 2018, 06:28:16 PM
:bigsilly:

You so desperately hate gay people.  What a shame; it’s not worth the effort.
I hate immorality as defined by God. 

I know what it is.
Do you?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 06:31:15 PM
Ok, so you proved their mission state ment on their website is a lie.

I wonder where else they have lied?

Did they say that they did NOT investigate and prosecute discrimination in public accommodations?  If they didn’t, then they didn’t lie. 

Actually, I just checked it myself, and they say that part of their mission is to protect access to public accommodations free fron discrimination, so not only did they not lie, they expressly covered this case.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 03, 2018, 06:31:26 PM
The conclusions are not indefensible.  You may not like them, the bakers may not like them, but the only options are lobbying for an exception, to permit religious-based discrimination, or else cease selling custom wedding cakes in Oregon.  It’s exactly the same as a real estate agent who is prohibited from red-lining blacks, or a construction company that doesn’t want to follow the building code.

Then defend them.  Explain to us why the state of Oregon can in fact compel an artist, musician, or editorialist to make a statement with which they disagree, just because those people get paid to make statements.

The bakers' situations are not at all like a real estate agent red-lining blacks, because the bakers were willing to do business with the homosexual couples, nor is it like a construction company not following building code, because there is no allegation the bakers were in violation of health regulations in preparing food.  Just because some regulation is reasonable and necessary does not mean all regulation is reasonable and necessary.

And you still haven't explained your own objections to the law.  Do you in fact have any?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Frank Cannon on January 03, 2018, 06:32:09 PM
I hate immorality as defined by God. 

I know what it is.
Do you?

Double parking when there is a space half a block down.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 06:44:01 PM
There you go again....

There is no other reasonable explanation for the blanket refusal to accept the obvious. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: edpc on January 03, 2018, 06:45:13 PM
I hate immorality as defined by God. 

I know what it is.
Do you?


Getting drunked up and boffing your daughters after fleeing a wicked city?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 06:47:51 PM
Then defend them.  Explain to us why the state of Oregon can in fact compel an artist, musician, or editorialist to make a statement with which they disagree, just because those people get paid to make statements.

The bakers' situations are not at all like a real estate agent red-lining blacks, because the bakers were willing to do business with the homosexual couples, nor is it like a construction company not following building code, because there is no allegation the bakers were in violation of health regulations in preparing food.  Just because some regulation is reasonable and necessary does not mean all regulation is reasonable and necessary.

And you still haven't explained your own objections to the law.  Do you in fact have any?

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. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 06:48:58 PM
I hate immorality as defined by God. 

I know what it is.
Do you?

Give you a gun, and you’re no better than ISIS. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 03, 2018, 06:57:49 PM
There is no other reasonable explanation for the blanket refusal to accept the obvious.

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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 03, 2018, 06:58:53 PM
Give you a gun, and you’re no better than ISIS.

I'll bet he has one.  Where's the mass grave?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 07:00:18 PM
I'll bet he has one.  Where's the mass grave?

Just wait ......
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 07:01:57 PM
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?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Frank Cannon on January 03, 2018, 07:10:42 PM
bleep. Why did I even get involved in this thread?

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

(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/0d/c3/41/0dc341d2c80912e359f79f0bb42082ba--engagement-cakes-engagement-parties.jpg)
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 03, 2018, 07:13:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: edpc on January 03, 2018, 07:14:31 PM
bleep. Why did I even get involved in this thread?


Because you're a symphorophiliac?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 03, 2018, 07:15:23 PM
Because nothing is more important than gays and an effing cake.

(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/0d/c3/41/0dc341d2c80912e359f79f0bb42082ba--engagement-cakes-engagement-parties.jpg)

Is that the cake Lawyers forced you make, Frank?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 03, 2018, 07:15:57 PM
bleep. Why did I even get involved in this thread?

Same reason I did.  You got sucked in.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Frank Cannon on January 03, 2018, 07:16:46 PM
Is that the cake Lawyers forced you make, Frank?

No, but it is the one I dream about for my gay wedding.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 03, 2018, 07:18:00 PM

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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 03, 2018, 07:18:29 PM
No, but it is the one I dream about for my gay wedding.

Looks more like your dream for a gay wedding night.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Frank Cannon on January 03, 2018, 07:21:47 PM
Looks more like your dream for a gay wedding night.

No. That would be this cake....

(http://beccasafan.github.io/rbb/content/media//tweets/2016/02/cake//tweet.jpg)
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: edpc on January 03, 2018, 07:25:26 PM
Looks more like your dream for a gay wedding night.

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

(https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/G4MialSyA7bvlnaGXYw4JA--~B/YXBwaWQ9eWlzZWFyY2g7Zmk9Zml0O2dlPTAwNjYwMDtncz0wMEEzMDA7aD00MDA7dz01MDA-/http://ymuncensored.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/gay-cake-topper.jpg.cf.jpg)
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 03, 2018, 07:29:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 07:44:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: sneakypete on January 03, 2018, 07:50:57 PM
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!
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 07:51:42 PM
@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:
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: sneakypete on January 03, 2018, 07:53:27 PM
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?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 07:56:54 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: sneakypete on January 03, 2018, 07:58:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 07:59:09 PM
@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. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 08:00:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: sneakypete on January 03, 2018, 08:02:27 PM
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?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: sneakypete on January 03, 2018, 08:05:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 08:07:47 PM
@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
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: sneakypete on January 03, 2018, 08:10:05 PM
I wouldn't rent or sell anything  for Nazi Party purposes. They can sue me.
I'm  not refusing to rent/sell just because the people are Nazis....I'm refusing to rent my space for Nazi Party purposes. Party rallies etc.

@goatprairie

A prime example of a fine distinction.

Not that you should have to defend your decision on who to rent YOUR property to in a FREE country. You SHOULD be able to stand up on your hind feet and just flat-out tell them,"I'm not renting to to any freaking Nazi's! Take your retarded ass down the road and find somebody that does if you want a room,but you are not getting one here!"
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: sneakypete on January 03, 2018, 08:14:37 PM
Same reason I did.  You got sucked in.

@Cyber Liberty

@RoosGirl

Sometimes it's not strickly about winning as much as it is sticking up for what is right against what is wrong.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: edpc on January 03, 2018, 08:15:44 PM

Take your retarded ass down the road and find somebody that does if you want a room, but you are not getting one here!


Sorry - that’s a clear violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act Of 1990.

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: sneakypete on January 03, 2018, 08:19:01 PM
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

So what? There were also laws that allowed Priests to boil people to death in pots of boiling oil for questioning the Pope. Maybe you want to bring them back,too?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: sneakypete on January 03, 2018, 08:20:55 PM

Sorry - that’s a clear violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act Of 1990.

@edoc

BLEEP the BLEEPING Americans with Disabilities Act,and the freaking lawyers that rode in on it.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 03, 2018, 08:22:35 PM
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.

Pretty sure a court will not permit a straight couple standing if the many counter-activist efforts to get homo bakeries to make cakes they disagree with are evident.

If a homo bakery denied making me a cake for a normal wedding, unlike those thugs who live to punish those who do not think and act as they do - I respect private property and liberty enough for them to tell me to get the f*ck out of their store and go somewhere else to spend my money.  I have the liberty to go elsewhere and get a cake I want made.  Pansies and thugs that use the courts and government to extort a business to provide services for celebrations of sexual behavior are the most reprehensible of tyrants.

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 08:22:41 PM

@Oceander

So what? There were also laws that allowed Priests to boil people to death in pots of boiling oil for questioning the Pope. Maybe you want to bring them back,too?

Even if I wanted to that is clearly unconstitutional. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 08:24:07 PM
Pretty sure a court will not permit a straight couple standing if the many counter-activist efforts to get homo bakeries to make cakes they disagree with are evident.

If a homo bakery denied making me a cake for a normal wedding, unlike those thugs who live to punish those who do not think and act as they do - I respect private property and liberty enough for them to tell me to get the f*ck out of their store and go somewhere else to spend my money.  I have the liberty to go elsewhere and get a cake I want made.  Pansies and thugs that use the courts and government to extort a business to provide services for celebrations of sexual behavior are the most reprehensible of tyrants.



What many counter efforts are these?  Post links. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Frank Cannon on January 03, 2018, 08:24:50 PM
Even if I wanted to that is clearly unconstitutional.

Of course it is. Oil is bad for the environment.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 08:26:39 PM
Of course it is. Oil is bad for the environment.

Depends on the type and quantity of oil.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 03, 2018, 08:30:11 PM
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.

This is not a defense.  The question is not whether the opinion says this, the question is whether the opinion is reasonable, that is, internally consistent and consistent with principles of social and legal interaction on which consensus is clear; one cannot demonstrate that it's reasonable merely by citing or summarizing it any more than one can logically defend The Bible by citing The Bible.  Also you have still not described your own objections to the law which you have described as "stupid", nor have you defended the idea that those who are paid to create expressions can be compelled to do so.

Merely stating that it's the law confuses indicative with subjunctive and is not a valid logical defense, else Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson, not to mention the Spanish Inquisition, the Divine Right of Kings, and the Levitical Code, would still be in effect.

Readers will reach their own conclusions.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 08:32:17 PM
This is not a defense.  The question is not whether the opinion says this, the question is whether the opinion is reasonable, that is, internally consistent and consistent with principles of social and legal interaction on which consensus is clear; one cannot demonstrate that it's reasonable merely by citing or summarizing it any more than one can logically defend The Bible by citing The Bible.  Also you have still not described your own objections to the law which you have described as "stupid", nor have you defended the idea that those who are paid to create expressions can be compelled to do so.

Merely stating that it's the law confuses indicative with subjunctive and is not a valid logical defense, else Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson, not to mention the Spanish Inquisition, the Divine Right of Kings, and the Levitical Code, would still be in effect.

Readers will reach their own conclusions.

Whatever.  You clearly do not want to accept the result and no amount of argument will change your mind.  Too bad. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on January 03, 2018, 08:34:34 PM
The bakers didn't impose their religious beliefs on anyone.  They never compelled the homosexual couples to participate in any belief, ceremony, or ritual, nor did they they inhibit the homosexual couples from participating in their own relationships, or from holding a wedding ceremony, or from procuring a wedding cake elsewhere.

The bakers did not impose, but they were imposed upon.

The secured a business license in a State where applicable laws outlaws denying people goods or services as a result of their sexual orientation.

They broke the law and they will pay fines etc. as a result of their actions.

It's really crystal clear.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: edpc on January 03, 2018, 08:35:03 PM
Depends on the type and quantity of oil.

Plus, it cannot contain transfats, but transsexuals are OK.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on January 03, 2018, 08:43:12 PM
Using your example, I agree there would be no discrimination against atheists because this baker would create a cake for an atheist ... celebrating the birthday.  He would not create a cake for the atheist celebrating atheism. 

Just as this baker would create a cake celebrating the birthdays of homosexuals, and did not create a cake celebrating the marriage of homosexuals.

It's not a denial based on who is doing the cake ordering, but on the purpose for which the baker's talent and creativity would be used.

Denying goods or services to anyone based on their sexual orientation is illegal in Oregon, irrespective of whether or not you feel justified in doing so.

You are free to refuse to obey the law, but you're not free from the consequences of your decision to do so.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 03, 2018, 08:43:50 PM
Whatever.  You clearly do not want to accept the result and no amount of argument will change your mind.  Too bad.

Impossible to say until you present some actual argument, some basis other than Appeal to Authority for accepting the proposition that expressions can be compelled.

I'm OK with simply agreeing to disagree; you've identified a position which is fundamentally reasonable to me - the Oregon law is stupid but Constitutional -  although I'm disappointed that you haven't developed the "stupid" part of your position.  Our shared participation in this board suggests we probably agree on a number of other subjects, and I have no ill will toward you.  Perhaps we'll collaborate on the next topic.........

.........kiddo.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on January 03, 2018, 08:44:58 PM
They cannot have their cake, and eat it, too.

 000hehehehe
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 08:50:06 PM
Impossible to say until you present some actual argument, some basis other than Appeal to Authority for accepting the proposition that expressions can be compelled.

I'm OK with simply agreeing to disagree; you've identified a position which is fundamentally reasonable to me - the Oregon law is stupid but Constitutional -  although I'm disappointed that you haven't developed the "stupid" part of your position.  Our shared participation in this board suggests we probably agree on a number of other subjects, and I have no ill will toward you.  Perhaps we'll collaborate on the next topic.........

.........kiddo.

I am citing to the court’s opinion for the argument contained therein.  That is not mere appeal to authority.

The people of Oregon, through their duly elected representatives, decided that retail businesses in their state should not be permitted to refuse service to people on the basis of their sexual orientation.  That is a reasonable goal for a community to pursue.  The statute in question simply implements that democratic determination by penalizing such discrimination.  That’s a reasonable way to accomplish a reasonable goal. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Right_in_Virginia on January 03, 2018, 08:51:48 PM
The secured a business license in a State where applicable laws outlaws denying people goods or services as a result of their sexual orientation.

They broke the law and they will pay fines etc. as a result of their actions.  It's really crystal clear.

It really isn't crystal clear @Luis Gonzalez --- hence the "debate".

The baker did not deny a service he provides because the couple was gay.  Had this same couple ordered a cake to celebrate a birthday, the cake would have been provided.  What the baker did was decline to use his talent to create a cake to celebrate an occasion he cannot celebrate based on his religious beliefs.

Again .... the creation of that one cake, for that one occasion was denied --- any other cake for the same gay couple would have been provided.

Finding actual discrimination without trampling on the first amendment is the challenge before the Supreme Court.



Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 03, 2018, 08:56:38 PM
The secured a business license in a State where applicable laws outlaws denying people goods or services as a result of their sexual orientation.

They broke the law and they will pay fines etc. as a result of their actions.

It's really crystal clear.

Perhaps it is.  My statement that you cite was in response to the assertion that the bakers should not impose their religious beliefs on others - they didn't - not in response to a statement about the content of the Oregon law.  And as I have argued beyond most people's patience with Oceander, what the law in fact says has no bearing on what it should say.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Sighlass on January 03, 2018, 09:00:49 PM
And Elijah came near to all the people and said, “How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him.”

The government has made it's choice. Now time to force that choice on Christians.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 09:10:24 PM
It really isn't crystal clear @Luis Gonzalez --- hence the "debate".

The baker did not deny a service he provides because the couple was gay.  Had this same couple ordered a cake to celebrate a birthday, the cake would have been provided.  What the baker did was decline to use his talent to create a cake to celebrate an occasion he cannot celebrate based on his religious beliefs.

Again .... the creation of that one cake, for that one occasion was denied --- any other cake for the same gay couple would have been provided.

Finding actual discrimination without trampling on the first amendment is the challenge before the Supreme Court.





No, it’s pretty clear.  Once the bakers found out the couple was lesbian they refused to make a cake.  It never even got to the point of discussing what sort of cake.  Once one reads the facts it becomes pretty clear that it was outright discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Right_in_Virginia on January 03, 2018, 09:26:08 PM
No, it’s pretty clear.  Once the bakers found out the couple was lesbian they refused to make a cake.  It never even got to the point of discussing what sort of cake.  Once one reads the facts it becomes pretty clear that it was outright discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

I'm going to need a link to this @Oceander   Because my understanding of the case file is the (still gay) couple had originally talked about a birthday cake.  It's only when they wanted to talk about wedding cake designs that the baker stopped them.

So it is not clear the baker's actions were motivated by a discrimination against gays and a refusal to serve them, period --- or a decision not to use his talent to create a cake for a celebration he cannot support based on his religious beliefs, solely.

It's not simple and clear cut.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 09:28:34 PM
I'm going to need a link to this @Oceander   Because my understanding of the case file is the (still gay) couple had originally talked about a birthday cake.  It's only when they wanted to talk about wedding cake designs that the baker stopped them.

So it is not clear the baker's actions were motivated by a discrimination against gays and a refusal to serve them, period --- or a decision not to use his talent to create a cake for a celebration he cannot support based on his religious beliefs, solely.

It's not simple and clear cut.

Google Oregon baker court opinion
And you should get it. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Right_in_Virginia on January 03, 2018, 09:36:38 PM
Google Oregon baker court opinion
And you should get it.

LOL.  I did that ... and found the references to the birthday cake.

But thanks. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: goodwithagun on January 03, 2018, 10:32:09 PM
The secured a business license in a State where applicable laws outlaws denying people goods or services as a result of their sexual orientation.

They broke the law and they will pay fines etc. as a result of their actions.

It's really crystal clear.

Just because something is law doesn’t make it right. Read Thoreau’s “Resistance to Civil Government”. It’s one of my favorite essays.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Suppressed on January 03, 2018, 10:50:37 PM
No, they discriminated. They sat down with one of the women and her mother to discuss a cake.  One of the first questions was who the bride and groom were.  When told that there was no groom, only two brides, the baker point blank refused to make a cake for such a wedding.  The mother and daughter returned to their car, and when the mother then went back to the store to try and reason with them, was told that it was an abomination.  In other words, they were already to make a cake until they learned the sexual orientation of the two women, at which point they refused to provide the service they were only too happy to provide when they thought there was a groom as well as a bride.

Different cake. They'd agreed to a wedding cake.  Not a lesbian wedding cake.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on January 03, 2018, 10:55:11 PM
Did they say that they did NOT investigate and prosecute discrimination in public accommodations?  If they didn’t, then they didn’t lie. 

Actually, I just checked it myself, and they say that part of their mission is to protect access to public accommodations free fron discrimination, so not only did they not lie, they expressly covered this case.
Are you possibly arguing that an omission is a right?

How could you possibly come to such an inescapably wrong, boneheaded conclusion?

Wait,  You could be a lawyer.  Or a liberal.

Ok, which is it?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on January 03, 2018, 10:57:08 PM
Give you a gun, and you’re no better than ISIS.
If that is all the defense you have, I an truly sorry what you will report when the time comes.

It will not be good for you.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on January 03, 2018, 11:02:37 PM
@Cyber Liberty

@RoosGirl

Sometimes it's not strickly about winning as much as it is sticking up for what is right against what is wrong.
Exactly.

There is no way in hell that any idiot who backs this castration of a baker and his liberty will ever be accepted by me.

And many are like me, they just do not pronounce it.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on January 03, 2018, 11:04:40 PM
Whatever.  You clearly do not want to accept the result and no amount of argument will change your mind.  Too bad.
A clear avoidance.

@HoustonSam  beat you, and badly.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on January 03, 2018, 11:06:20 PM
The secured a business license in a State where applicable laws outlaws denying people goods or services as a result of their sexual orientation.

They broke the law and they will pay fines etc. as a result of their actions.

It's really crystal clear.
Is it really crystal clear?

Did the law come before or after them securing a license?

Or did you just whip that little tidbit up out of the air to make a statement?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 03, 2018, 11:18:12 PM
Is it really crystal clear?

Did the law come before after them securing a license?

Or did you just whip that little tidbit up out of the air to make a statement?

I doesn't matter when or whom decrees such "laws" or whom 'passes' them into "law".

Any "law" that contravenes the Supreme Laws of God and the foundational precepts of the biblical religions that were foundational to our covenants of governance since the Mayflower Compact - is no "law" any Christian or person of biblical faith and adherence is obligated to follow or obey.

He is duty-bound to disobey such "laws".

Sure there will be 'consequences' for refusal to obey evil as commanded.  I am certain the advocates and pushers of such tyranny are not going to like them at all.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on January 03, 2018, 11:25:34 PM
Bull. 

You just don’t want to accept the reality that is there before your very nose. 

Oregon law defines a public accommodation in a way that includes this bakery.  It then forbids discrimination on the basis of, amongst other things, sexual orientation by the proprietor of a public accommodation.  Very simple. 

The bakery cannot under Oregon law discriminate against someone on the basis of sexual orientation, which is what they did when they refused to bake a cake, any cake at all, for a lesbian wedding. 

The question is whether the law amounts to an unconstitutional infringement of the bakers’ right to freedom of expression and freedom of religion, and under intermediate scrutiny, it does not, according to the Oregon court, in a well written opinion that does acknowledge the closeness of the issue. 

Issues of compelled speech in similar circumstances have been mitigated before, and have generally been upheld.  So the bakers face an uphill battle.
You still failed to say how the mission statement of a public entity decided to engage in practice outside its own mission statement on its own website.

Can you not say that is a failed entity?

Wow, silence.  For once.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on January 03, 2018, 11:34:51 PM
It really isn't crystal clear @Luis Gonzalez --- hence the "debate".

The baker did not deny a service he provides because the couple was gay.  Had this same couple ordered a cake to celebrate a birthday, the cake would have been provided.  What the baker did was decline to use his talent to create a cake to celebrate an occasion he cannot celebrate based on his religious beliefs.

Again .... the creation of that one cake, for that one occasion was denied --- any other cake for the same gay couple would have been provided.

Finding actual discrimination without trampling on the first amendment is the challenge before the Supreme Court.

There is no debate really. There's just a bunch of people not willing to accept the outcome of the orderly and Constitutional system of due process.

The law in Oregon is clear... there will be no sexual orientation-based discrimination in Oregon.

The process was clear and all involved were recipients of their Constitutionally-guaranteed rights to due process and equity under the laws.

The bakers were found guilty of breaking the law.

Whether we agree or disagree with a law is irrelevant and will not protect us from being subject to it.

We're either a nation of laws, or a chaotic, anarchist society where everyone is governed by their own ideas and emotions. 

As an individual who identifies with right-of-center political ideology, I believe that we should be a nation of laws.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Frank Cannon on January 03, 2018, 11:35:56 PM
(http://img.viralnova.com/000/054/810/desktop-1406688672.png)
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on January 03, 2018, 11:39:22 PM

Any "law" that contravenes the Supreme Laws of God and the foundational precepts of the biblical religions that were foundational to our covenants of governance since the Mayflower Compact - is no "law" any Christian or person of biblical faith and adherence is obligated to follow or obey.


So then, every year that these bakers renewed their business license after the anti sexual orientation laws were passed, they were willfully committing fraud. 

is that the Christian thing to do?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on January 03, 2018, 11:43:10 PM
Is it really crystal clear?

Did the law come before or after them securing a license?

Or did you just whip that little tidbit up out of the air to make a statement?

Irrelevant.

You can't be grandfathered into disregarding laws.

P.S. Business licenses are renewed yearly, and in renewing your license you agree to conduct your business according to all current and applicable laws.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on January 03, 2018, 11:45:23 PM
Just because something is law doesn’t make it right. Read Thoreau’s “Resistance to Civil Government”. It’s one of my favorite essays.

I've read it several times.

Thoreau went to jail.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 11:48:09 PM
You still failed to say how the mission statement of a public entity decided to engage in practice outside its own mission statement on its own website.

Can you not say that is a failed entity?

Wow, silence.  For once.

/snicker

You didn’t even bother reading that mission statement.  It clearly states that part of BOLI’s mission is enforcing the law against discrimination in public accommodations, which is precisely what it was doing when it pursued the bakers. 

Try reading instead of assuming it means what you want it to mean. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 11:49:35 PM
A clear avoidance.

@HoustonSam  beat you, and badly.

/snicker

From the “man” who can’t even read a simple mission statement on BOLI’s website. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on January 03, 2018, 11:49:47 PM
Irrelevant.

You can't be grandfathered into disregarding laws.

P.S. Business licenses are renewed yearly, and in renewing your license you agree to conduct your business according to all current and applicable laws.
That is NOT what you said.

You said directly that "The secured a business license in a State where applicable laws outlaws denying people goods or services as a result of their sexual orientation."

Now you deviate to say it makes no difference.

So why make a statement that you cannot back up?  Why?

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 03, 2018, 11:50:02 PM
Whether we agree or disagree with a law is irrelevant and will not protect us from being subject to it.

And the Nazis passed 'laws' to criminalize the Jews, seize their property, consign them to ghettos and euthanize 'the unproductive'.

The Crown passed 'Laws" to seize the arms of the Colonists.

No "law" that contravenes the covenant laws of scripture that undergird every covenant this nation has agreed to is a 'law' any obedient follower of God has to obey.

When government usurps God's authority to redefine marriage and force acceptance of behavior His Word declares evil, such government has voided any legitimate authority a Christian is obligated to render it.  Jonathan Mayhew made that argument clear from the scriptures in the lead-up to to the Declaration of Independence itself.

So then, every year that these bakers renewed their business license after the anti sexual orientation laws were passed, they were willfully committing fraud. 

is that the Christian thing to do?

You can make that argument for getting Christians to accept the mark of the Beast all you like.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 03, 2018, 11:51:43 PM
Different cake. They'd agreed to a wedding cake.  Not a lesbian wedding cake.

Nope.  They sold wedding cakes, without hyphenation or qualification.  They aren’t Christians, they’re close-minded bigots who misuse Christianity to justify their own prejudices and think that puts them above the law. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on January 03, 2018, 11:54:42 PM
/snicker

From the “man” who can’t even read a simple mission statement on BOLI’s website.
For the obvious person on this thread who cannot read, here's a second chance for you:

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,296957.msg1560633.html#msg1560633 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,296957.msg1560633.html#msg1560633)

Where on this mission statement do you, the challenged reader, read that BOLI's job is to pursue discrimination in a business/customer relationship?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on January 04, 2018, 12:02:53 AM
Nope.  They sold wedding cakes, without hyphenation or qualification.  They aren’t Christians, they’re close-minded bigots who misuse Christianity to justify their own prejudices and think that puts them above the law.
Wow, the self-proclaimed Dork has passed the judgement upon them.

Let us all cower so the Dork can continue to persecute all who stand in his way.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 12:05:56 AM
For the obvious person on this thread who cannot read, here's a second chance for you:

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,296957.msg1560633.html#msg1560633 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,296957.msg1560633.html#msg1560633)

Where on this mission statement do you, the challenged reader, read that BOLI's job is to pursue discrimination in a business/customer relationship?

It is part of its mission to prevent discrimination in public accommodations, and the bakery in this case is a “public accommodation” as defined in the Oregon statutute.

Try understanding what you read; it’ll help.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 12:06:48 AM
Wow, the self-proclaimed Dork has passed the judgement upon them.

Let us all cower so the Dork can continue to persecute all who stand in his way.


:bigsilly:

Thanks for conceding.  You lose. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 04, 2018, 07:21:16 AM
Nope.  They sold wedding cakes, without hyphenation or qualification.  They aren’t Christians, they’re close-minded bigots who misuse Christianity to justify their own prejudices and think that puts them above the law.

Bingo.   The good Christians I know would have served this couple like any other. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: DCPatriot on January 04, 2018, 08:05:08 AM
Bingo.   The good Christians I know would have served this couple like any other.

Eggsactly!   There are 'extremes' practiced in every ideology.

We have members here that never hesitate to rub our faces in their biblical 'goodness'

Say a rosary. 

Then bake the damned cake.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 04, 2018, 08:07:58 AM
Eggsactly!   There are 'extremes' practiced in every ideology.

We have members here that never hesitate to rub our faces in their biblical 'goodness'

Say a rosary. 

Then bake the damned cake.

Then make it the last cake you ever bake for anybody.  With any luck at all, wedding cakes will be a thing of the past.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: DCPatriot on January 04, 2018, 08:48:39 AM
Then make it the last cake you ever bake for anybody.  With any luck at all, wedding cakes will be a thing of the past.

The answer is to compile a beautiful catalogue of your work (cakes).

And then, don't wander too far off your creative reservation.    ^-^

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 04, 2018, 09:05:45 AM
The answer is to compile a beautiful catalogue of your work (cakes).

And then, don't wander too far off your creative reservation.    ^-^

Create a catalog for posterity, to show what used to be, then never make a cake again, for anybody.  Break the molds.  Then nobody you don't want to bake a cake for can make you do it.  Eventually the notion of "wedding cakes" will be nothing more than a quaint memory.  Society is already doing that with the concept of "marriage" anyway.  Look at the divorce rate.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: txradioguy on January 04, 2018, 09:15:12 AM
Create a catalog for posterity, to show what used to be, then never make a cake again, for anybody.  Break the molds.  Then nobody you don't want to bake a cake for can make you do it.  Eventually the notion of "wedding cakes" will be nothing more than a quaint memory.  Society is already doing that with the concept of "marriage" anyway.  Look at the divorce rate.

@Cyber Liberty

It's not just the divorce rate it's the whole notion of gay "marriage" in general.  If the left and the gay "mafia" were truly interested in allowing gay couples to share property...pass on things in their will and have visitation in the hospital...all things the left has said they want out of their version of marriage...then civil unions would be fine.

If they were truly about tolerance and inclusion in this issue they wouldn't sue the lone backer in a city that refuses to bake them a cake when there are several others that will.

What this is really about is tyranny disguised as tolerance and acceptance.  Through coercion, indoctrination or at the point of a gun...literal or otherwise force people to bend to your will even when they know what you're forcing them to do isn't right constitutional or ethical.

Those morals and ethics are an anathema to the left.


Their goal is to break down the civil society we've known since this country was founded and rebuild it into the Marxist/Leninist idea of utopia.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 04, 2018, 09:26:35 AM
@Cyber Liberty

It's not just the divorce rate it's the whole notion of gay "marriage" in general.  If the left and the gay "mafia" were truly interested in allowing gay couples to share property...pass on things in their will and have visitation in the hospital...all things the left has said they want out of their version of marriage...then civil unions would be fine.

If they were truly about tolerance and inclusion in this issue they wouldn't sue the lone backer in a city that refuses to bake them a cake when there are several others that will.

What this is really about is tyranny disguised as tolerance and acceptance.  Through coercion, indoctrination or at the point of a gun...literal or otherwise force people to bend to your will even when they know what you're forcing them to do isn't right constitutional or ethical.

Those morals and ethics are an anathema to the left.


Their goal is to break down the civil society we've known since this country was founded and rebuild it into the Marxist/Leninist idea of utopia.

With courts now being the final arbiter of all things social (to the applause of the usual suspects), that train already left the station.  People will form their own Marriage compacts in the churches left behind that haven't knuckled under, and if cakes are to be baked, they'll be done by family members not subject to Commercial Enterprise restrictions.

A return to the way things should have been.

And for those who remain wistful, they will know who to blame.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 04, 2018, 09:50:16 AM
Eggsactly!   There are 'extremes' practiced in every ideology.

We have members here that never hesitate to rub our faces in their biblical 'goodness'

Say a rosary. 

Then bake the damned cake.

How ironic, what with you all up on your high horse and all, telling folks what they have to do.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Bigun on January 04, 2018, 09:50:49 AM
With courts now being the final arbiter of all things social (to the applause of the usual suspects), that train already left the station.

Sooner or later that idiocy will end. One way or another.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 09:54:38 AM
LOL.  I did that ... and found the references to the birthday cake.

But thanks. 

@Right_in_Virginia

Then you didn't find the case concerning the Oregon bakers.

Here is the statement of facts in that case:

Quote
The complainants, Rachel Bowman-Cryer and Laurel Bowman-Cryer, met in 2004 and had long considered themselves a couple. In 2012, they decided to marry.

As part of the wedding planning, Rachel and her mother, Cheryl, attended a Portland bridal show.  Melissa Klein had a booth at that bridal show, and she advertised wedding cakes made by her bakery business, Sweetcakes.  Rachel and Cheryl visited the booth and told Melissa that they would like to order a cake from her.  Rachel and Cheryl were already familiar with Sweetcakes; two years earlier, Sweetcakes had designed, created, and decorated a wedding cake for Cheryl’s wedding, paid for by Rachel.

After the bridal show, on January 17, 2013, Rachel and Cheryl visited the Sweetcakes bakery shop in Gresham for a cake-tasting appointment, intending to order a wedding cake. At the time of the appointment, Melissa was at home providing childcare, so her husband, Aaron, conducted the tasting.

During that tasting, Aaron asked for the names of the bride and groom. Rachel told him that there were two brides and that their names were Rachel and Laurel. At that point, Aaron stated that he was sorry, but that Sweetcakes did not make wedding cakes for same-sex ceremonies because of his and Melissa’s religious convictions. Rachel began crying, and Cheryl took her by the arm and walked her out of the shop. On the way to their car, Rachel became “hysterical” and kept apologizing to her mother, feeling that she had humiliated her.

Cheryl consoled Rachel once they were in their car, and she assured her that they would find someone to make the wedding cake.  Cheryl drove a short distance away, but then turned around and returned to Sweetcakes. This time, Cheryl reentered the shop by herself to talk with Aaron.  During their conversation, Cheryl told Aaron that she had previously shared his thinking about homosexuality, but that her “truth had changed” as a result of having “two gay children.”  In response, Aaron quoted a Bible passage from the Book of Leviticus, stating, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”  Cheryl left and returned to the car, where Rachel had remained, “holding [her] head in her hands, just bawling.”

When Cheryl returned to the car, she told Rachel that Aaron had called her “an abomination,” which further upset Rachel. Rachel later said that “t made me feel like they were saying God made a mistake when he made me, that I wasn’t supposed to be, that I wasn’t supposed to love or be loved or have a family or live a good life and one day go to heaven.”

Where is the reference to the birthday cake you mentioned?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: DCPatriot on January 04, 2018, 09:59:26 AM
How ironic, what with you all up on your high horse and all, telling folks what they have to do.

I'm not doing that at all.

Simply speaking as somebody that ran/owned business all my life....that in order to stay out of legal trouble,...in this cake advertising special order wedding cakes...that you may have to check your personal set of morals/beliefs at the door.

It's a simple concept.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Smokin Joe on January 04, 2018, 10:05:05 AM
Again, the big “L” libertarian in me says that the free market should rule and alone decide the winners and losers and that no one should be forced to engage in any business transaction or in employment, hiring decisions for that matter, with anyone they don’t want to engage with or object to and for whatever reason.  I would think that businesses who blatantly discriminates against enough groups will probably not be in business very long or will have only a limited clientele. But if that’s their choice then so be it.

But with that, understand that if Christians can decide who and who they will not do business with based on their religious beliefs and objecting to others who do not hold to their same beliefs, then others of other religions or those of no religion should also then be able to decide not to do business with Christians.

The small “l” libertarian in me says that’s not probably going to work.

For instance, today you can’t discriminate based solely on race nor IMO should you.  I certainly wouldn’t patronize a business like a restaurant that hung a “Whites Only” sign on their door. And to be honest, I’m not so sure I’d patronize a bakery that chooses to only serve Christians, not to mention only “certain types” of Christians. Should a bakery run by evangelicals be allowed to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a Mormon or Catholic wedding?  Well perhaps they should, in a Libertarian fairyland.

And what if one of the Christian bakers who doesn’t bake cakes for gay couples, has a supplier of cake decorating supplies who says “based on your policies with which I disagree, I no longer want to sell supplies to you anymore”? Is that OK? Or is that persecution?

Perhaps we can institute some sort of signage to be displayed in front of every business and in their advertising sort of like we do with signage on trucks that indicate what sort of hazardous materials they are hauling to indicate who they will or will not do business with.

An anti-gay business might display a rainbow flag with an X through it and a pro-gay, a rainbow flag without the X. And a business that doesn’t want to serve Blacks or Jews, they could have their sign too (no wait, I think we had those before).

A business that doesn’t want to serve evangelical Christians would display a different sign, like an image of Jesus with an X through it, a Catholic business could display a crucifix indicating they only want to do business with other Catholics and a Muslim owned business could display a sign with a woman wearing a burka to indicate they don’t serve unmarried women unaccompanied by a male relative while another could display a sign with a burka with an X through it, an Atheist business a Darwin Fish to indicate they don’t want creationists as customers, an Elephant to indicate we only serve Republicans, a Donkey to indicate we only serve Democrats, a Pepe the Frog to indicate we hate pretty much everyone, and so on and so on, but that signage could end up getting quite large.

But that surely won’t work when protestant Christians who are still the vast majority in the US, object to being discriminated against.

Understand that if one business is allowed to discriminate against someone you don’t like and you are fine with that, understand that you may be one day on the receiving end of similar discrimination from someone who doesn’t like you. If you are OK with that, fine and perhaps we all should be fine with that if we really believe in freedom of religion and of free association, but I doubt many are when they end up on the receiving end.

In other words, “sometimes you’re the windshield, sometimes you’re the bug”.

! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_rbjg2k6cI#)
Let's try this again.

If I owned a custom T-shirt shop, and made T-shirts, would I then have the option to not make T-shirts with the word F**K on them? (spelled out?) or would I be imposing on someone's (someone else's) First Amendment Right to Freedom of Expression by refusing?

If I refuse to put your design on the shirt, but will sell you a shirt on which you can put your own design, is that okay? Or will I be sued for not putting what you want on the shirt, emotional distress (really???) etc.?

Because that's what is happening here. These Bakers would sell them a cake, they just wouldn't custom decorate it with the message they wanted (the message which makes it a wedding cake).

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: driftdiver on January 04, 2018, 10:07:49 AM
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.

@Oceander
Which sounds like tyranny to me.  Forcing someone to do something regardless.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: driftdiver on January 04, 2018, 10:10:23 AM
I'm not doing that at all.

Simply speaking as somebody that ran/owned business all my life....that in order to stay out of legal trouble,...in this cake advertising special order wedding cakes...that you may have to check your personal set of morals/beliefs at the door.

It's a simple concept.

@DCPatriot
Setting aside your personal freedoms in order to exist in the public square is not a simple concept.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 04, 2018, 10:19:51 AM
I'm not doing that at all.
Sure you are.

Quote
Simply speaking as somebody that ran/owned business all my life....that in order to stay out of legal trouble,...in this cake advertising special order wedding cakes...that you may have to check your personal set of morals/beliefs at the door.

It's a simple concept.

Funny, as I have owned my own (several, often multiple) successfully since high school. Never have set my morals aside, and don't do much business with those who do. Principle things and all that.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: DCPatriot on January 04, 2018, 10:21:07 AM

Let's try this again.

Because that's what is happening here. These Bakers would sell them a cake, they just wouldn't custom decorate it with the message they wanted (the message which makes it a wedding cake).



LOL!  You're absolutely right.

IMO, this was nothing but an episode of Reality TV, played to the highest court.

Build up the aggrieved, at the hands AND expense of a devout Christian.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: DCPatriot on January 04, 2018, 10:23:50 AM
Sure you are.

Funny, as I have owned my own (several, often multiple) successfully since high school. Never have set my morals aside, and don't do much business with those who do. Principle things and all that.

We'll just agree to disagree here, if that okay with you.   :patriot:
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 04, 2018, 10:26:33 AM
Quote
When Cheryl returned to the car, she told Rachel that Aaron had called her “an abomination,” which further upset Rachel. Rachel later said that “t made me feel like they were saying God made a mistake when he made me, that I wasn’t supposed to be, that I wasn’t supposed to love or be loved or have a family or live a good life and one day go to heaven.”

And such are the wages of religious bigotry.   

A real Christian would have helped this woman celebrate the start of her new family.   A real Christian would have created the most beautiful cake in the world for this woman. 

Was the court's upholding of the monetary penalty justice?   I remain uncomfortable with it, but I will decry until I am silenced the wicked use of God's glorious message to justify intolerance.       
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: DCPatriot on January 04, 2018, 10:28:56 AM
@DCPatriot
Setting aside your personal freedoms in order to exist in the public square is not a simple concept.

Your 'freedom' wasn't withheld. 

It was exercised when you refused to make the penis cake with the blond and brunette figures depicting Kama Sutra.

How much that conflicts with your publicly posted restrictive guidelines hanging near the cash register depends upon you.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: driftdiver on January 04, 2018, 10:30:14 AM
And such are the wages of religious bigotry.   

A real Christians would have helped this woman celebrate the start of her new family.   A real Christian would have created the most beautiful cake in the world for this woman.   

@Jazzhead
Such are the foibles of those who seek to avoid the costs of sin.    Your bigotry against Christians blinds you.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: driftdiver on January 04, 2018, 10:31:31 AM
Your 'freedom' wasn't withheld. 

It was exercised when you refused to make the penis cake with the blond and brunette figures depicting Kama Sutra.

How much that conflicts with your publicly posted restrictive guidelines hanging near the cash register depends upon you.

If you cannot exercise your religion in public then your freedom is indeed withheld.    if you're willing to sell your "sincerely" held religious beliefs for a few bucks then they must not be very sincere.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 04, 2018, 10:35:33 AM
@Jazzhead
Such are the foibles of those who seek to avoid the costs of sin.    Your bigotry against Christians blinds you.

So it's bigotry, then, to fight against bigotry?  Then I'll wear your ridiculous label proudly.   What possibly gave this shit-for-brains baker the moral authority to call this poor woman an abomination?   

No one on this board is more blind than you.   God cannot possibly be pleased at those defending REAL and CRUEL bigotry by invoking His name.   
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 04, 2018, 10:37:22 AM
If you cannot exercise your religion in public then your freedom is indeed withheld.    if you're willing to sell your "sincerely" held religious beliefs for a few bucks then they must not be very sincere.

How is acting like a cruel and bigoted jerk towards an innocent girl the "exercise of religion"?   
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: DCPatriot on January 04, 2018, 10:37:54 AM
If you cannot exercise your religion in public then your freedom is indeed withheld.    if you're willing to sell your "sincerely" held religious beliefs for a few bucks then they must not be very sincere.

I agree with you, buddy.

But to protect oneself from the fringe kook-social justice warriors backed by BIG $$$, a public notice spelling out the limits is a good idea.

....even though @Oceander suggested it wouldn't offer protection.

And IMO, if the order was simply a wedding tiered cake with same sex figures holding hands or smooching, the Christian baker should leave the figures off the cake and let the party place them.

We don't know the details here.   Supposedly, the very thought of homosexuality freaked her out....a perfect target for the Gay Crowd.

It's why I came to the thread....wondering what the heck actually transpired to make the SUPREME COURT rule against the shop owner.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: driftdiver on January 04, 2018, 10:38:16 AM
So it's bigotry, then, to fight against bigotry?  Then I'll wear your ridiculous label proudly.   What possibly gave this shit-for-brains baker the moral authority to call this poor woman an abomination?   

No one on this board is more blind than you.   God cannot possibly be pleased at those defending REAL and CRUEL bigotry by invoking His name.   

@Jazzhead
Following Gods law is not bigotry.   Or are you calling God a bigot?   After all his word does use the word abomination when referring to homosexual behavior.   God is please by people following his law.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Restored on January 04, 2018, 10:42:29 AM
How is acting like a cruel and bigoted jerk towards an innocent girl the "exercise of religion"?

She sued him, not the other way around. She was being a bigoted jerk because she was intolerant of his beliefs.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 10:52:14 AM
Let's try this again.

If I owned a custom T-shirt shop, and made T-shirts, would I then have the option to not make T-shirts with the word F**K on them? (spelled out?) or would I be imposing on someone's (someone else's) First Amendment Right to Freedom of Expression by refusing?

If I refuse to put your design on the shirt, but will sell you a shirt on which you can put your own design, is that okay? Or will I be sued for not putting what you want on the shirt, emotional distress (really???) etc.?

Because that's what is happening here. These Bakers would sell them a cake, they just wouldn't custom decorate it with the message they wanted (the message which makes it a wedding cake).



Not true.  As per the court’s opinion, all of the cakes they sell are customized, so they generally don’t just slap some layers together with icing and call it a day. 

They refused to provide the same full services and goods to a lesbian couple that they provide to everyone else.  That is discrimination and, under Oregon state law, is illegal. 

If the bakers can’t deal with that, and cannot stand the idea that something they baked might show up at a lesbian or gay wedding, then they need to stop selling wedding cakes completely.  Tough.

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: sneakypete on January 04, 2018, 10:56:52 AM
The bakers didn't impose their religious beliefs on anyone.  They never compelled the homosexual couples to participate in any belief, ceremony, or ritual, nor did they they inhibit the homosexual couples from participating in their own relationships, or from holding a wedding ceremony, or from procuring a wedding cake elsewhere.

The bakers did not impose, but they were imposed upon.

@HoustonSam

BINGO!  888high58888
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 04, 2018, 11:01:00 AM
@Jazzhead
Following Gods law is not bigotry.   Or are you calling God a bigot?   After all his word does use the word abomination when referring to homosexual behavior.   God is please by people following his law.

Let God be the judge of a human being's merits for salvation.   That's not your responsibility, nor the responsibility of this damn-fool baker.   For a baker to abuse his innocent customer by calling her an abomination isn't "following God's law",  it's acting like a cruel and heartless ABOMINATION of a Christian.

A real Christian, obedient to God's message, would serve this customer like he would any other.   Stop spouting your arrogant nonsense that you and you alone know what pleases God.     
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: driftdiver on January 04, 2018, 11:07:09 AM
Let God be the judge of a human being's merits for salvation.   That's not your responsibility, nor the responsibility of this damn-fool baker.   For a baker to abuse his innocent customer by calling her an abomination isn't "following God's law",  it's acting like a cruel and heartless ABOMINATION of a Christian.

A real Christian, obedient to God's message, would serve this customer like he would any other.   Stop spouting your arrogant nonsense that you and you alone know what pleases God.   

@Jazzhead
The baker wasn't judging.  The baker was saying its against my religion to engage in that behavior because according to Gods law their behavior is an abomination.

Telling someone their sin is good is not Christian.

Please turn away from your bigotry and hatred.  Jesus died for your sins and would welcome you to the fold.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 04, 2018, 11:08:17 AM
And such are the wages of religious bigotry.   

A real Christians would have helped this woman celebrate the start of her new family.   A real Christian would have created the most beautiful cake in the world for this woman.   

Actually @Jazzhead you aren't the arbiter of "real" Christianity.  You are of course free to advocate and practice your own interpretation of it, but some of us strive to accept what we understand to be the revealed Word of God in its entirety, including the first chapter of Romans.  Love for others is not the same thing as niceness to others, particularly if that niceness avoids hard truths.  There are hard truths in The Word that I don't like either, but "real" Christianity actually means accepting that God is sovereign, not me, so whether or not those hard truths hurt my feelings is simply not relevant to faith.

Nor are hurt feelings relevant to policy.  I'll agree that the baker's comment to the woman was unnecessarily provocative, but he didn't call her an abomination and he is not accountable for her belief that his faith is somehow about making her feel bad.  In fact his faith is not about her at all.  You've argued, persuasively and effectively, that identity politics are harmful, and I join you in that conclusion.  Perhaps the first step in repealing identity politics is not hoping for a clear decision from the Supreme Court, but instead recognizing that identity politics are to a large extent merely solipsism writ large, the self-absorbed insistence that everyone else's beliefs and values are somehow about me.  Soothing the corresponding hurt feelings is not an effective basis for establishing policy, and certainly not an effective basis for preserving ordered liberty.  We seem to be trying to build the edifice of law upon a foundation of emotion.  It is simply not going to work.

"Real" Christianity is actually about humbling one's self to remain within God's will, as Christ did, and the real test is when His will includes some things we don't like; perhaps the baker failed at this in his remarks.  Using the instruments of law to compel others to demonstrate respect for us fails as well, and I would argue even worse so.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Restored on January 04, 2018, 11:08:29 AM
Quote
For a baker to abuse his innocent customer by calling her an abomination isn't "following God's law",  it's acting like a cruel and heartless ABOMINATION of a Christian.

He never called her an Abomination so your self-righteous virtue signaling is unmerited.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: driftdiver on January 04, 2018, 11:10:32 AM
How is acting like a cruel and bigoted jerk towards an innocent girl the "exercise of religion"?

@Jazzhead
Again, following Gods law is not bigoted or cruel.

The 'girls' were not innocent, they were living in sin.   While we are all sinners Jesus urged us to turn away from sin and not to revel in it.

That's what marriage is, its a public profession of the bonding of two people.  Before God and the community. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 04, 2018, 11:34:43 AM
Actually @Jazzhead you aren't the arbiter of "real" Christianity.

Thanks, HS.  The act of being the arbiter of what constitutes Christianity in particular, and conservatism in general, has been wearing really thin on me lately.  I'm a little tired of being lectured on what conservatives think by one who isn't remotely conservative, and on what Christianity is by someone who's beliefs can be charitably described as a definition of "Christian" that I was previously unfamiliar with.

You said what I've been thinking, but in a much more eloquent way than I could.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: thackney on January 04, 2018, 11:38:01 AM
Actually @Jazzhead you aren't the arbiter of "real" Christianity.  You are of course free to advocate and practice your own interpretation of it, but some of us strive to accept what we understand to be the revealed Word of God in its entirety, including the first chapter of Romans.  Love for others is not the same thing as niceness to others, particularly if that niceness avoids hard truths.  There are hard truths in The Word that I don't like either, but "real" Christianity actually means accepting that God is sovereign, not me, so whether or not those hard truths hurt my feelings is simply not relevant to faith.

Nor are hurt feelings relevant to policy.  I'll agree that the baker's comment to the woman was unnecessarily provocative, but he didn't call her an abomination and he is not accountable for her belief that his faith is somehow about making her feel bad.  In fact his faith is not about her at all.  You've argued, persuasively and effectively, that identity politics are harmful, and I join you in that conclusion.  Perhaps the first step in repealing identity politics is not hoping for a clear decision from the Supreme Court, but instead recognizing that identity politics are to a large extent merely solipsism writ large, the self-absorbed insistence that everyone else's beliefs and values are somehow about me.  Soothing the corresponding hurt feelings is not an effective basis for establishing policy, and certainly not an effective basis for preserving ordered liberty.  We seem to be trying to build the edifice of law upon a foundation of emotion.  It is simply not going to work.

"Real" Christianity is actually about humbling one's self to remain within God's will, as Christ did, and the real test is when His will includes some things we don't like; perhaps the baker failed at this in his remarks.  Using the instruments of law to compel others to demonstrate respect for us fails as well, and I would argue even worse so.

Very well said.  Thanks for sharing with us.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Right_in_Virginia on January 04, 2018, 12:04:35 PM
@Right_in_Virginia

Then you didn't find the case concerning the Oregon bakers.

Here is the statement of facts in that case:

Where is the reference to the birthday cake you mentioned?

I  knew you'd ask ... let me try and find it.  When I do, I'll post the link.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 04, 2018, 12:06:50 PM
Actually @Jazzhead you aren't the arbiter of "real" Christianity.  .

I would never claim to be.  My opinions and observations are my own, to be accepted or rejected (or ignored) as you see fit. 

 But the Christians I know would not have responded with the cruelty exhibited by this baker.   The Christians I know would have served this woman like any other.   Why?  Because that is what they promised they would do.   

The quality of one's faith resides in the heart, IMO.

But thanks for your explanation of what being a Christian means to you.   May we both get to the golden shore one fine day.     
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: edpc on January 04, 2018, 12:11:43 PM
May we both get to the golden shore one fine day.

There will be a Fusion GOD dossier on you.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 04, 2018, 12:13:30 PM
A real Christian, obedient to God's message, would serve this customer like he would any other.   

Sayeth the Devil and his pawn engaged in perverting the Word of God to call evil and abomination a good, and the good, an evil.

He does so eagerly because he follows a Christ of his own imagination, and not the One revealed in scripture.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 04, 2018, 12:17:49 PM
Sayeth the Devil and his pawn engaged in perverting the Word of God to call evil and abomination a good, and the good, an evil.

He does so eagerly because he follows a Christ of his own imagination, and not the One revealed in scripture.

The Christ of your imagination I want nothing to do with.   Don't think you know it all.   Hubris is one of the deadly sins.   
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 04, 2018, 12:25:47 PM
I would never claim to be.  My opinions and observations are my own, to be accepted or rejected (or ignored) as you see fit. 

 But the Christians I know would not have responded with the cruelty exhibited by this baker.   The Christians I know would have served this woman like any other.   Why?  Because that is what they promised they would do.   

The quality of one's faith resides in the heart, IMO.

But thanks for your explanation of what being a Christian means to you.   May we both get to the golden shore one fine day.   

Thank you @Jazzhead for a gracious response.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 04, 2018, 12:31:26 PM
The Christ of your imagination I want nothing to do with.   

You have made your abject rejection of scripture and disregard of millennia of Christian doctrine abundantly clear.

You speak with no authority other than the devil and his doctrines that you use to pervert truth so as to beguile as many as possible to the wide gate of destruction.

I tremble for you in that Day of judgment to come.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 04, 2018, 12:39:32 PM
I tremble for you in that Day of judgment to come.

Bullshit.  You've threatened me with violence for my supposedly apostasy.   Look out for yourself on that Day of judgment.  Neither one of us has the ability to fool God.   
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 04, 2018, 12:50:26 PM
You've threatened me with violence for my supposedly apostasy. 

Provide the link with my exact quote where I had 'threatened you with violence' for your religious views.

Or prove yourself an unmitigated LIAR yet again.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 12:52:16 PM
Well this thread is pretty much beat to death.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 04, 2018, 01:20:15 PM
Well this thread is pretty much beat to death.

'Firmtive.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: txradioguy on January 04, 2018, 01:21:58 PM
Bullshit.  You've threatened me with violence for my supposedly apostasy.   Look out for yourself on that Day of judgment.  Neither one of us has the ability to fool God.   

No he hasn't.  That's a lie.  And it's your go to histrionics when he gets the best of you on a thread like this.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 04, 2018, 01:24:48 PM
Well this thread is pretty much beat to death.

Yup.  Having contributed my share towards its demise,  I will bow out.   
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: edpc on January 04, 2018, 01:34:21 PM
Well this thread is pretty much beat to death.

Not until recipes start showing up.....
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: truth_seeker on January 04, 2018, 02:02:29 PM
This has nothing to do with cakes. It has to do with merchants and vendors refusing to provide goods and services, on religious grounds. (Our nation's history included refusal of services on racial bases.) 

More broadly it has to do with religious laws versus civil laws.

In the United States of America, civil laws take precedence over religious laws.
Southern Baptists used biblical scripture, to justify slavery (and later race based discrimination).

In 1967 in Loving v. Virginia a mixed race couple were sentenced to one year in jail, for marriage. Our civil law prevailed over religious law (the outdated basis for viirginia's law of the time).

Warren Jeffs claimed his religion allowed him multiple young brides. Jeff's is in prison.

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: goatprairie on January 04, 2018, 02:20:39 PM
This has nothing to do with cakes. It has to do with merchants and vendors refusing to provide goods and services, on religious grounds. (Our nation's history included refusal of services on racial bases.) 

More broadly it has to do with religious laws versus civil laws.

In the United States of America, civil laws take precedence over religious laws.
Southern Baptists used biblical scripture, to justify slavery (and later race based discrimination).

In 1967 in Loving v. Virginia a mixed race couple were sentenced to one year in jail, for marriage. Our civil law prevailed over religious law (the outdated basis for viirginia's law of the time).

Warren Jeffs claimed his religion allowed him multiple young brides. Jeff's is in prison.
It is the difference between selling something and making something...pure and simple. If I open a shop anything on the shelves or displayed can be purchased by anybody who comes in, I don't care who they are.
But if some person requests me to make them something special i.e. the homosexual couple, I am free to decline. Even if I make the same things for other people. I cannot be forced to make something for persons or groups I don't want to make them for.
Contrary to what either Oceander or Jazz claimed an article I read yesterday stated that  the homosexual couple were demanding a customized cake. Sorry, I don't do that.
If a business/bakery/manufacturer can be forced to make/create something for a certain customer, no customer's demands can be declined.
I must bake the homosexual custom cake. I must paint the Satanic painting. I must photograph the nudist wedding.  I  must make the Nazi regalia.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 04, 2018, 02:21:25 PM

More broadly it has to do with religious laws versus civil laws.

In the United States of America, civil laws take precedence over religious laws.
Southern Baptists used biblical scripture, to justify slavery (and later race based discrimination).


Society can decide on it's own that pedophelia is perfectly good, moral and legal, or the murder of girls up until the age of 5 years old is permissible, or that white males may not own property or that people can marry their pets.  We are already on the path to total moral and social anarchy.

Does not make it right, or moral or good.  It only legalizes evil by the hand of the state.

When 'civil laws' force individuals to violate God's laws - then civil law no longer has any moral authority a Christian is obligated to follow.  All such a society has at that point is guns their agents will use to put to the heads of those they intend to force into compliance.

Which is tyranny, plain and simple.

Some of us will refuse to comply - and then it will become a question of whom is willing to suffer and die for their faith - and whom is willing to die to impose tyranny.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 04, 2018, 02:33:27 PM
Society can decide on it's own that pedophelia is perfectly good, moral and legal, or the murder of girls up until the age of 5 years old is permissible, or that white males may not own property or that people can marry their pets.  We are already on the path to total moral and social anarchy.

Does not make it right, or moral or good.  It only legalizes evil by the hand of the state.

When 'civil laws' force individuals to violate God's laws - then civil law no longer has any moral authority a Christian is obligated to follow.  All such a society has at that point is guns their agents will use to put to the heads of those they intend to force into compliance.

Which is tyranny, plain and simple.

Some of us will refuse to comply - and then it will become a question of whom is willing to suffer and die for their faith - and whom is willing to die to impose tyranny.

When doing evil is a requirement of doing business, that's when we move into the "Mark of the Beast" territory.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 04, 2018, 02:39:01 PM
When doing evil is a requirement of doing business, that's when we move into the "Mark of the Beast" territory.

We are already well on the way towards that, and you can readily see how eager so many are to ensure that becomes reality in short order.

Think and act as the Beast commands, or one will not be permitted to make a living.

It is already amazing how many are willing to accept that mark while calling it a good thing.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 02:39:11 PM
When doing evil is a requirement of doing business, that's when we move into the "Mark of the Beast" territory.

That’s a stretch: equating baking a cake with the mark of the beast.   It does your credibility no good. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: driftdiver on January 04, 2018, 02:41:10 PM
That’s a stretch: equating baking a cake with the mark of the beast.   It does your credibility no good.

 :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly:
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 04, 2018, 02:43:00 PM
That’s a stretch: equating baking a cake with the mark of the beast.   It does your credibility no good.

I think you already think I don't so we're cool.   :cool:  I have not been accused of being a serious poster lately.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: DCPatriot on January 04, 2018, 02:45:20 PM

Society can decide on it's own that pedophelia is perfectly good, moral and legal, or the murder of girls up until the age of 5 years old is permissible, or that white males may not own property or that people can marry their pets.  We are already on the path to total moral and social anarchy.

Does not make it right, or moral or good.  It only legalizes evil by the hand of the state.

When 'civil laws' force individuals to violate God's laws - then civil law no longer has any moral authority a Christian is obligated to follow.  All such a society has at that point is guns their agents will use to put to the heads of those they intend to force into compliance.

Which is tyranny, plain and simple.

Some of us will refuse to comply - and then it will become a question of whom is willing to suffer and die for their faith - and whom is willing to die to impose tyranny.


@INVAR

If you carried it THAT far, your headstone would read that you "....died from stupidity"!   

Seriously, IMO, a lack of social/business "belly to belly" experience must account for otherwise nice people suddenly appearing as 'bigots'.

For example, I'd be proud to have you live next door....but the staggered Cypress hedges are going in first thaw.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 04, 2018, 02:54:20 PM
This has nothing to do with cakes. It has to do with merchants and vendors refusing to provide goods and services, on religious grounds. (Our nation's history included refusal of services on racial bases.) 

More broadly it has to do with religious laws versus civil laws.

In the United States of America, civil laws take precedence over religious laws.
Southern Baptists used biblical scripture, to justify slavery (and later race based discrimination).

In 1967 in Loving v. Virginia a mixed race couple were sentenced to one year in jail, for marriage. Our civil law prevailed over religious law (the outdated basis for viirginia's law of the time).

Warren Jeffs claimed his religion allowed him multiple young brides. Jeff's is in prison.

Civil law in this country includes First Amendment rights to Freedom of Religion and to Freedom of Expression; the question is whether those rights apply in commerce.  And that very civil law is nothing more than an agreed expression of shared ethical and moral values, which, in this country, are primarily Judeo-Christian in their origin.  So while we refuse to create religious tests for public office or to impede people's ability to believe and worship, or not, as they choose, it is not possible completely to separate the underlying basis of civil law from civil law itself.  In fact Loving v. Virginia overturned not a religious belief, but a civil law.

Our western belief in equality has certainly been practiced imperfectly for centuries; neither philosophy nor law nor scripture prevent us from erring.  You are quite right that my Southern Baptist forbears (I'm an ordained deacon btw....) historically interpreted scripture in ways that we now reject; other Christians used scripture as the basis for their belief in abolition.  So I question whether we would ever have settled on the belief in equality before the law had it not been for the belief in equality before God, as given to us in the third chapter of Galatians and the book of Philemon.

We can, and should, repair the foundation of a building when necessary, but we cannot improve the building by discarding the foundation.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 04, 2018, 03:01:08 PM
@Cyber Liberty @thackney

Thank you.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 04, 2018, 03:02:19 PM
@INVAR

If you carried it THAT far, your headstone would read that you "....died from stupidity"!   

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." - I Corinthians 1:18

The wisdom of the world is nothing but foolishness to God.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 03:14:34 PM
Anybody got any decent recipes they can share?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: edpc on January 04, 2018, 03:22:33 PM
Anybody got any decent recipes they can share?

Well, since the thread is partly about cake........

Mama's German Chocolate Cake

http://www.myrecipes.com/recipe/mamas-german-chocolate-cake (http://www.myrecipes.com/recipe/mamas-german-chocolate-cake)
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: truth_seeker on January 04, 2018, 03:23:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 04, 2018, 03:27:51 PM
--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.

 :amen:

We have enough troubles without arrogant religious folks insisting their "beliefs" be ours.   
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 03:28:57 PM
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.


:thumbsup:
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 03:29:18 PM
Well, since the thread is partly about cake........

Mama's German Chocolate Cake

http://www.myrecipes.com/recipe/mamas-german-chocolate-cake (http://www.myrecipes.com/recipe/mamas-german-chocolate-cake)

Yum!
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 04, 2018, 03:31:39 PM
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.

How about if you don't like "bigots", then don't do business with them.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: edpc on January 04, 2018, 03:36:09 PM
Yum!

Joke's on you.  The recipe for Mama's German Chocolate Cake came from Heather..... :laugh:


(https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/6JPDcoJBR7UhAMr6kvM8Tg--~B/YXBwaWQ9eWlzZWFyY2g7Zmk9Zml0O2dlPTAwNjYwMDtncz0wMEEzMDA7aD00MTI7dz00MDA-/http://prodimage.images-bn.com/pimages/9780763690427_p0_v1_s1200x630.jpg.cf.jpg)
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 04, 2018, 03:37:41 PM
--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.

Don't use the state to force me, my family and my business to recognize evil as good, or be made to serve such sin and abomination and we do not have a problem.

Use the state to force a Christian to violate their conscience by serving sinful behavior, the state ceases to have any moral authority the Believer has to afford it.  The State is engaged in forcing a Believer to serve behaviors that will earn Eternal Death at which point the state then ceases to have any legitimacy I have to recognize as being 'lawful'.  At that point - all your state has is guns their agents will put to our heads to force compliance - which is the very definition of a tyranny and of heinousness not even the Crown of England visited upon the forbears of the nation.

Wickedness and tyranny will not tolerate beliefs contrary to theirs.  It is why the state is being empowered to destroy the property and livelihoods of those who refuse to acknowledge evil as a good.  We have gone to war over much, much less.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 04, 2018, 03:39:48 PM
:amen:

We have enough troubles without arrogant religious folks insisting their "beliefs" be ours.

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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 03:42:13 PM
Don't use the state to force me, my family and my business to recognize evil as good, or be made to serve such sin and abomination and we do not have a problem.

Use the state to force a Christian to violate their conscience by serving sinful behavior, the state ceases to have any moral authority the Believer has to afford it.  The State is engaged in forcing a Believer to serve behaviors that will earn Eternal Death at which point the state then ceases to have any legitimacy I have to recognize as being 'lawful'.  At that point - all your state has is guns their agents will put to our heads to force compliance - which is the very definition of a tyranny and of heinousness not even the Crown of England visited upon the forbears of the nation.

Wickedness and tyranny will not tolerate beliefs contrary to theirs.  It is why the state is being empowered to destroy the property and livelihoods of those who refuse to acknowledge evil as a good.  We have gone to war over much, much less.

ISIS could not have said it better. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 03:42:37 PM
Joke's on you.  The recipe for Mama's German Chocolate Cake came from Heather..... :laugh:


(https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/6JPDcoJBR7UhAMr6kvM8Tg--~B/YXBwaWQ9eWlzZWFyY2g7Zmk9Zml0O2dlPTAwNjYwMDtncz0wMEEzMDA7aD00MTI7dz00MDA-/http://prodimage.images-bn.com/pimages/9780763690427_p0_v1_s1200x630.jpg.cf.jpg)

So?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 04, 2018, 03:48:26 PM
How about if you don't like "bigots", then don't do business with them.

That's no fun, you can't wage Social Justice War on them that way.  Gotta make these damnable rednecks toe the line, don'tcha know.  Sharpen 'em up like a #2 pencil.  If you say they're bigots, then get the fools at the Legislature to pass a law so you can force them to make widgets the way you want.

You'll have the towering approval of many.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: truth_seeker on January 04, 2018, 03:50:04 PM
How about if you don't like "bigots", then don't do business with them.
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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 04, 2018, 03:52:58 PM
Anybody got any decent recipes they can share?

I've been spending the holidays making batches of my Fudge.  Everybody in my extended family loves the stuff, can't get enough of it.  However, considering the nature of the original topic of this thread, I think I'll be keeping that one to myself.  Besides, it's a common recipe, been in the Better Homes and Garden cookbook since forever.

Stuff has enough sugar to rot the teeth right outta your face in one sitting.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: edpc on January 04, 2018, 03:53:30 PM
So?

So perhaps it should be this instead....

http://allrecipes.com/recipe/7349/devils-food-cake-i/ (http://allrecipes.com/recipe/7349/devils-food-cake-i/)
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 04, 2018, 03:54:59 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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 04, 2018, 03:59:10 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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 04, 2018, 03:59:19 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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: edpc on January 04, 2018, 04:00:53 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.....

(https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/295FqpLc_FpqwbJB84344g--~B/YXBwaWQ9eWlzZWFyY2g7Zmk9Zml0O2dlPTAwNjYwMDtncz0wMEEzMDA7aD00MDA7dz03MTE-/https://lesbianmuslim.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/gina_gershon_12.jpg.cf.jpg)
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 04:03:15 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. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: edpc on January 04, 2018, 04:09:39 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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 04, 2018, 04:12:50 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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 04, 2018, 04:15:00 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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: jpsb on January 04, 2018, 04:26:41 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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 04:33:28 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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 04:36:58 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. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on January 04, 2018, 04:57:15 PM
:bigsilly:

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

It is God's and BTW, you lose.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 05:02:37 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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 04, 2018, 05:10:09 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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on January 04, 2018, 05:29:48 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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on January 04, 2018, 05:35:03 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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 04, 2018, 05:42:01 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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 04, 2018, 05:43:14 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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on January 04, 2018, 05:48:05 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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 05:49:31 PM
only an immoral person of this world would make such an outlandish statement.

So Saint Thomas Aquinas is an immoral person?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 05:51:50 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. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on January 04, 2018, 05:55:09 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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 05:56:12 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. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 05:57:48 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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: goatprairie on January 04, 2018, 06:00:58 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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 04, 2018, 06:07:26 PM
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.

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on January 04, 2018, 06:09:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 04, 2018, 06:09:16 PM
How about if you don't like "bigots", then don't do business with them.

Gee, that seems awful simple don't it?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on January 04, 2018, 06:14:42 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 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
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 04, 2018, 06:16:43 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.

The absolutist in this case is the homo.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 06:22:24 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 04, 2018, 06:24:10 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 (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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 06:24:35 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 04, 2018, 06:25:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 06:26:01 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 04, 2018, 06:26:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 06:28:30 PM
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?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Frank Cannon on January 04, 2018, 06:28:45 PM
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?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 04, 2018, 06:30:30 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?

That is breach of contract - Money has changed hands. Different story.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 06:31:58 PM
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?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 06:33:14 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 04, 2018, 06:35:18 PM
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.

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 04, 2018, 06:42:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 04, 2018, 06:43:56 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. 

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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: DCPatriot on January 04, 2018, 06:45:50 PM
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!   ^-^
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 06:47:19 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 04, 2018, 06:50:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 06:50:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: edpc on January 04, 2018, 06:50:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 06:51:40 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 04, 2018, 06:53:02 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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 04, 2018, 06:53:48 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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 04, 2018, 06:57:09 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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 06:57:36 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).
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 06:59:50 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?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 07:01:33 PM
Gotta love the Christian snowflakes here. Want their little safe spaces and exemption from laws they don’t like, just like the liberal snowflakes. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 04, 2018, 07:01:55 PM

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?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: edpc on January 04, 2018, 07:06:49 PM
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?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 04, 2018, 07:07:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 04, 2018, 07:16:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 04, 2018, 07:18:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 07:26:06 PM
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”.

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 07:28:48 PM
.......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
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 04, 2018, 07:31:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 04, 2018, 07:34:05 PM
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.

(https://i.imgur.com/wRwcLMu.gif)
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 04, 2018, 07:36:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 04, 2018, 07:36:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 07:38:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 04, 2018, 07:40:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 04, 2018, 07:41:12 PM

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?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 07:42:19 PM
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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 07:42:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 04, 2018, 07:44:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 07:48:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 04, 2018, 07:49:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 07:51:01 PM
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.

Neither are you.  I’m sitting on the train home with nothing else to do and most of the other threads are just boring. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: edpc on January 04, 2018, 07:51:05 PM
I guess you never heard of Nineveh then.

I have, but I've also heard of Revelations 21:1, so there's no correlation.  There won't be an Earth, much less a United States to spare.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 04, 2018, 07:51:26 PM
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.

Not the point.
The bias held against me is not a protected class. That's the difference.
Not that I would do such a thing in the first place, but that they can and I can't is the actual inequality.
They are not simply getting treated like everyone else, nor is that their aim, in aggregate.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 07:53:12 PM
Not the point.
The bias held against me is not a protected class. That's the difference.
Not that I would do such a thing in the first place, but that they can and I can't is the actual inequality.
They are not simply getting treated like everyone else, nor is that their aim, in aggregate.

Actually, it is their aim, in the aggregate.  If you treated them like people instead of like subhuman monsters, you’d know that.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 04, 2018, 07:53:38 PM
I have, but I've also heard of Revelations 21:1, so there's no correlation.  There won't be an Earth, much less a United States to spare.

You are surely reading that one wrong.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 04, 2018, 07:54:08 PM
Being denied service because of some irrelevant characteristic that goes to the core of who you are is not just “hurt feelings”.

Let's examine the two things.  If you sell me real estate, then take the money and don't give me title, I go to the Fraud section at the police department where they are waiting with handcuffs for you as soon as I swear out a complaint.  At which department do I show up if the core of who I am is hurt?

Dood, you analogy is off, and I suggest you leave it and find another.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 04, 2018, 07:55:27 PM
I have, but I've also heard of Revelations 21:1, so there's no correlation.  There won't be an Earth, much less a United States to spare.

That doesn't give us license to accept the Mark of evil in our thoughts or actions by serving behaviors that lead to eternal death.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 04, 2018, 07:56:08 PM
Neither are you.  I’m sitting on the train home with nothing else to do and most of the other threads are just boring.

They are.  I could cough up a nice gravy recipe you might like, but then we'd bore everybody else.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 04, 2018, 08:03:00 PM
Actually, it is their aim, in the aggregate.  If you treated them like people instead of like subhuman monsters, you’d know that.

No, it is not. Their aim in aggregate is to impose their morality, by any means necessary - The same as the feminists, and every other liberal sect, The very thing you accuse Christians of.
Watch and see.

And I treat them as I do anyone else. It is their agenda that I rise against. That is a hard thing for a liberal mind to dissect.

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on January 04, 2018, 08:04:13 PM
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.
Glad you finally realized that.  This is not the first thread where his prejudice rears its head, hence our automatic reflex to bump back, and hard.  If it seems unnecessary, so be it, as myself and others rebut him in order to ensure what he says does not stand without challenge.

And BTW, someone who calls himself 'Chief Dork' establishes his position in any argument as combative.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 08:04:25 PM
No, it is not. Their aim in aggregate is to impose their morality, by any means necessary - The same as the feminists, and every other liberal sect, The very thing you accuse Christians of.
Watch and see.

And I treat them as I do anyone else. It is their agenda that I rise against. That is a hard thing for a liberal mind to dissect.



No, it’s not.  Something you would know if you treated them as individuals and as people instead of as subhuman monsters. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: jpsb on January 04, 2018, 08:04:43 PM
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.

Arguing with big gov liberals (Marxists) is pretty much a waste of time.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 08:05:52 PM
Arguing with big gov liberals (Marxists) is pretty much a waste of time.

:bigsilly:
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 04, 2018, 08:07:07 PM
No, it’s not.  Something you would know if you treated them as individuals and as people instead of as subhuman monsters.

Like I said, a hard thing for a liberal mind to dissect.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 04, 2018, 08:08:41 PM
Like I said, a hard thing for a liberal mind to dissect.

Whatever, snowflake.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: edpc on January 04, 2018, 08:08:59 PM
That doesn't give us license to accept the Mark of evil in our thoughts or actions by serving behaviors that lead to eternal death.

No, but it should give those who don't subscribe to it license to be free from the oppression of those that do.  You're all set, so you don't need to be concerned with this temporary world.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 04, 2018, 08:20:11 PM
Glad you finally realized that.  This is not the first thread where his prejudice rears its head, hence our automatic reflex to bump back, and hard.  If it seems unnecessary, so be it, as myself and others rebut him in order to ensure what he says does not stand without challenge.

And BTW, someone who calls himself 'Chief Dork' establishes his position in any argument as combative.

@IsailedawayfromFR @jpsb

It seems only fair to give people a chance to make their case, and I don't spend enough time here to have a reasonable basis to anticipate someone's position or their tendencies in discussion; I'm willing to let someone run on a bit, and to recognize that we all choose our words and our arguments ineffectively at times.  That in itself doesn't make one a bad person.

But there are limits to my intellectual indulgence.  Compounding non-sequitur with name calling is one of those limits because it demonstrates that the other guy is simply not up to speed, whether morally or mentally I can't tell.  At some point you have to call it what it seems to be.

I appreciate that some are willing to continue a response to prejudice and illogic, I'm not sure I care that much.  People can see it for what it is.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: goodwithagun on January 04, 2018, 08:29:57 PM
No, it’s not.  Something you would know if you treated them as individuals and as people instead of as subhuman monsters.

It’s difficult to treat homosexuals as individuals when they identify based on their group. Much like other liberals, they identify as lgbtqrstuvwxyz-American. Everything with liberal groups is hyphenated American. In the case of homosexuals, they put the bedroom before the hyphen. I’ve never “identified” as a heterosexual-American, a Caucasian-American, a teacher-American, etc. That’s because I don’t need my “group” to determine my “individuality,” which is an impossibility. Groups don’t determine individuality. Individuals do.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Smokin Joe on January 05, 2018, 03:36:20 AM
How is acting like a cruel and bigoted jerk towards an innocent girl the "exercise of religion"?
ENOUGH!

QUIT CALLING PEOPLE BIGOTS FOR SAYING THEY BELIEVE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE DOING IS WRONG.
We didn't make up the rules which say so. Ancient writings say so, biology says so (homosexuality is nonprocreative--nothing to further the species), anatomy and physiology demonstrate how the human body was not designed to be used in certain ways. Asserting otherwise until you turn blue will not change what is.
It is as if we are branded bigots for saying, no, Jazzhead, two plus three does not equal seven.

No name you call me or anyone else, no force you exert will ever change the fact that it is wrong.
(http://i.imgur.com/sksqLmJ.jpg)
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on January 05, 2018, 06:13:13 AM
When doing evil is a requirement of doing business, that's when we move into the "Mark of the Beast" territory.

To a Muslim, doing evil is defined as drawing cartoons of Muhammad, an their duty in the face of such evil is to kill the evil doer.

To French people drawing cartoons of Muhammad giving oral sex to another man is defined as freedom and a right.

How does your statement apply to the obvious dichotomy above?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: verga on January 05, 2018, 06:13:36 AM
ENOUGH!

QUIT CALLING PEOPLE BIGOTS FOR SAYING THEY BELIEVE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE DOING IS WRONG.
We didn't make up the rules which say so. Ancient writings say so, biology says so (homosexuality is nonprocreative--nothing to further the species), anatomy and physiology demonstrate how the human body was not designed to be used in certain ways. Asserting otherwise until you turn blue will not change what is.
It is as if we are branded bigots for saying, no, Jazzhead, two plus three does not equal seven.

No name you call me or anyone else, no force you exert will ever change the fact that it is wrong.
(http://i.imgur.com/sksqLmJ.jpg)
@Smokin Joe  :thumbsup: This should also have been addressed to Oceander as well. I had to put both of them on ignore over this topic, their responses are to nuts. At first i thought they were both just jerking some chain, but now I am convinced they actually believe the nonsense they are spewing.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on January 05, 2018, 07:09:44 AM
@Luis Gonzalez

Pretty much their only solution.  In fact, I expect to see a lot of bakeries do this preemptively all around the country.  All "wedding cakes" will be made by some protected group.  I disagree moving the business to another state would make them safe, I think all States have some law that can be bastardized enough to find a tort.  Lawyers can be pretty resourceful that way.

(Hey, Merry Christmas to youse guys!)

And a Happy New Year to you and yours!

Here's the thing.

I can't walk into a Kosher caterer and ask that BLTs be served in my wedding then accuse the caterers of doing something unlawful, because they don't sell bacon to anyone.

This bakery baked wedding cakes. To say hat they wouldn't make one for a same-sex couple is unlawful in Oregon. The bakers had the choice to NOT bake the cake and violate the law, but that doesn't protect them from the legal consequences of their decision.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 05, 2018, 07:54:19 AM
And a Happy New Year to you and yours!

Here's the thing.

I can't walk into a Kosher caterer and ask that BLTs be served in my wedding then accuse the caterers of doing something unlawful, because they don't sell bacon to anyone.

This bakery baked wedding cakes. To say hat they wouldn't make one for a same-sex couple is unlawful in Oregon. The bakers had the choice to NOT bake the cake and violate the law, but that doesn't protect them from the legal consequences of their decision.

The store in question doesn't anymore, and in a few years nobody will.  They're fattening anyway, and the diet nannies will be thrilled at the win they get without firing a shot.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 05, 2018, 08:16:34 AM
ENOUGH!

QUIT CALLING PEOPLE BIGOTS FOR SAYING THEY BELIEVE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE DOING IS WRONG.
We didn't make up the rules which say so. Ancient writings say so, biology says so (homosexuality is nonprocreative--nothing to further the species), anatomy and physiology demonstrate how the human body was not designed to be used in certain ways. Asserting otherwise until you turn blue will not change what is.
It is as if we are branded bigots for saying, no, Jazzhead, two plus three does not equal seven.

No name you call me or anyone else, no force you exert will ever change the fact that it is wrong.


It's just an admission of defeat.

When "bigot" is the primary premise that defeat is a forfeit, when "snowflake" is the conclusion babbled from a tantrum that defeat is a rout.  Either way when someone resorts to labeling people rather than testing ideas, they reveal that they know they've lost, or that they are not competent even to recognize it.

Enjoy the victory lap.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on January 05, 2018, 08:29:54 AM
@IsailedawayfromFR @jpsb

It seems only fair to give people a chance to make their case, and I don't spend enough time here to have a reasonable basis to anticipate someone's position or their tendencies in discussion; I'm willing to let someone run on a bit, and to recognize that we all choose our words and our arguments ineffectively at times.  That in itself doesn't make one a bad person.

But there are limits to my intellectual indulgence.  Compounding non-sequitur with name calling is one of those limits because it demonstrates that the other guy is simply not up to speed, whether morally or mentally I can't tell.  At some point you have to call it what it seems to be.

I appreciate that some are willing to continue a response to prejudice and illogic, I'm not sure I care that much.  People can see it for what it is.
Thanks for the mature thoughts.  I'll start the new year trying a bit harder, although it is tough.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 05, 2018, 08:33:43 AM
Thanks for the mature thoughts.  I'll start the new year trying a bit harder, although it is tough.

Oh I didn't mean to criticize your position, you've got plenty experience to justify it.  I'm just acknowledging that I lack that experience so I have to take a different approach.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 05, 2018, 09:03:06 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.

Of course there is no principled distinction between acceptance of the community's law that restricts the "freedom" of builders to use the cheapest materials and rejection of its law that restricts the "freedom" of bakers to deny service on the basis of sexual orientation. 

Of course, there's the unprincipled distinction, and explanation - bigotry.   
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: sneakypete on January 05, 2018, 09:07:17 AM
ENOUGH!

QUIT CALLING PEOPLE BIGOTS FOR SAYING THEY BELIEVE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE DOING IS WRONG.
We didn't make up the rules which say so. Ancient writings say so, biology says so (homosexuality is nonprocreative--nothing to further the species), anatomy and physiology demonstrate how the human body was not designed to be used in certain ways. Asserting otherwise until you turn blue will not change what is.
It is as if we are branded bigots for saying, no, Jazzhead, two plus three does not equal seven.

No name you call me or anyone else, no force you exert will ever change the fact that it is wrong.
(http://i.imgur.com/sksqLmJ.jpg)

@Smokin Joe

QUIT CALLING LEFTISTS "LIBERALS!

When you call them "liberals",you are helping them spread their propaganda and win the votes of the ignorant.

Was Hitler "liberal"?

What about Stalin?

Castro?

Che?

Nelson "burning man" Mandela?

Ho Chi Minh?

Mussolini?

Call them what they are,not what the WANT PEOPLE TO THINK THEY ARE SO THEY CAN SELL THEIR LIES TO THE IGNORANT.

They are NOT "liberals",they are FASCISTS!

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 05, 2018, 09:07:43 AM
It’s difficult to treat homosexuals as individuals when they identify based on their group. Much like other liberals, they identify as lgbtqrstuvwxyz-American. Everything with liberal groups is hyphenated American. In the case of homosexuals, they put the bedroom before the hyphen. I’ve never “identified” as a heterosexual-American, a Caucasian-American, a teacher-American, etc. That’s because I don’t need my “group” to determine my “individuality,” which is an impossibility. Groups don’t determine individuality. Individuals do.

You're peeing into the wind.   Modern conservatives have embraced identity politics as vehemently as liberals have.   It's tribe against tribe against tribe.   Conservatives who favored the American melting pot,  and revered individual liberty outside the context of tribalism, are gone with the wind.   
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 05, 2018, 09:31:43 AM
Of course there is no principled distinction between acceptance of the community's law that restricts the "freedom" of builders to use the cheapest materials and rejection of its law that restricts the "freedom" of bakers to deny service on the basis of sexual orientation. 

Of course, there's the unprincipled distinction, and explanation - bigotry.   

The principled distinction has been delineated on this thread, more than once by me - building codes protect the public from physical harm.  No allegation of physical harm to the public has been made regarding the bakers' demurral to prepare custom wedding cakes supporting values they reject.

Is it your position that a builder can be legally required to build a custom building for a purpose with which he disagrees on religious grounds?  Can a Muslim contractor be compelled legally to build a pork processing plant?  That is the analogy, not a reference to building codes.

Or let's just cut to the chase here : can an advertising agency owned by a homosexual be legally compelled to prepare collateral for a Southern Baptist Church that prominently advocates against same sex marriage?  If the agency advertises itself to the general public as preparing such custom collateral, can it be compelled legally to do so for a Church which teaches doctrine the agency finds repugnant?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 05, 2018, 09:59:30 AM
The principled distinction has been delineated on this thread, more than once by me - building codes protect the public from physical harm.  No allegation of physical harm to the public has been made regarding the bakers' demurral to prepare custom wedding cakes supporting values they reject.

Is it your position that a builder can be legally required to build a custom building for a purpose with which he disagrees on religious grounds?  Can a Muslim contractor be compelled legally to build a pork processing plant?  That is the analogy, not a reference to building codes.

The law at issue here is limited to public accommodations.   A builder isn't a public accommodation.   A bakery shop is - the general public enters the store in response to the shop's posted services.   If it advertises wedding cakes, then it is obliged to conform to the community's rules prohibiting arbitrary discrimination,  and stay true to its word.

This is such a simple concept - rooted in neighborliness and common decency -  that it amazes me that folks get so worked up every time the subject is brought up.   The only explanation that has ever made any sense to me is plain and simple bigotry/hatred toward homosexuals.         
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 05, 2018, 10:10:08 AM
ENOUGH!

QUIT CALLING PEOPLE BIGOTS FOR SAYING THEY BELIEVE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE DOING IS WRONG.
We didn't make up the rules which say so. Ancient writings say so, biology says so (homosexuality is nonprocreative--nothing to further the species), anatomy and physiology demonstrate how the human body was not designed to be used in certain ways. Asserting otherwise until you turn blue will not change what is.
It is as if we are branded bigots for saying, no, Jazzhead, two plus three does not equal seven.

No name you call me or anyone else, no force you exert will ever change the fact that it is wrong.
(http://i.imgur.com/sksqLmJ.jpg)

:facepalm2:
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 05, 2018, 10:13:01 AM
The law at issue here is limited to public accommodations.   A builder isn't a public accommodation.   A bakery shop is - the general public enters the store in response to the shop's posted services.   If it advertises wedding cakes, then it is obliged to conform to the community's rules prohibiting arbitrary discrimination,  and stay true to its word.

This is such a simple concept - rooted in neighborliness and common decency -  that it amazes me that folks get so worked up every time the subject is brought up.   The only explanation that has ever made any sense to me is plain and simple bigotry/hatred toward homosexuals.       

So you acknowledge that there is a principled distinction between building codes and custom wedding cakes, and that your contention in 701 is entirely false and without any logical merit?

Is the root of your contention the fact of a physical shop, or the fact of advertising?  If the baker maintains a physical shop and advertises that he'll make custom wedding cakes but not for homosexual marriages, is he on safe legal ground in your thinking?  If he maintains no physical shop and operates out of his house, how does that change your analysis?

@Jazzhead you are free to label people bigots and haters if that somehow clarifies your cognition, but don't expect people to react to that graciously, particularly when you conclude from it that they can be compelled to act in ways that violate their principles.

Now you might notice I modified the post to which you just replied : Can an advertising agency owned by a homosexual, operating as a public accommodation, be compelled legally to prepare collateral material for a Southern Baptist church which prominently advocates against homosexual marriage?  The agency holds out its services to the general public as preparing custom marketing collateral.  The church decides it needs such collateral as part of its outreach.  Can the agency be compelled legally to prepare collateral which advocates values the agency finds repugnant?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 05, 2018, 10:30:27 AM
Can an advertising agency owned by a homosexual, operating as a public accommodation, be compelled legally to prepare collateral material for a Southern Baptist church which prominently advocates against homosexual marriage? 

Discrimination laws only operate to the benefit of the specific groups towards whom the "law" is protecting.  It does not apply to those groups and persons Jazzhead has decreed to be bigots.

Some animals are more equal in his worldview.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 05, 2018, 10:34:53 AM
Discrimination laws only operate to the benefit of the specific groups towards whom the "law" is protecting.  It does not apply to those groups and persons Jazzhead has decreed to be bigots.

Some animals are more equal in his worldview.

Now now, let's give him a fair chance to respond.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 05, 2018, 11:20:22 AM
Now now, let's give him a fair chance to respond.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/ToMjGpz81S7usvTIM8w/giphy-downsized-large.gif)

(I've been waiting to use this for the past week....)
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 05, 2018, 11:25:28 AM
(I've been waiting to use this for the past week....)

Hey it's a weekday, a fellow has to take time to do his job.

But if we don't get an answer I'll re-post to this thread a couple of other questions I've posed which were also ignored.  Then readers will be able to draw their own conclusions.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 05, 2018, 12:08:35 PM
Hey it's a weekday, a fellow has to take time to do his job.

But if we don't get an answer I'll re-post to this thread a couple of other questions I've posed which were also ignored.  Then readers will be able to draw their own conclusions.

Yeah.  I work, too, so I probably jumped the gun a bit.  I like your questions, and it's likely they will be dodged or ignored, to the shock of us all.  :thud:
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 05, 2018, 12:21:18 PM
Hey it's a weekday, a fellow has to take time to do his job.

But if we don't get an answer I'll re-post to this thread a couple of other questions I've posed which were also ignored.  Then readers will be able to draw their own conclusions.

I am indeed in the middle of my workday.  But feel free to post all your questions in one spot if you like.   Keep in mind -  the requirement of non-discrimination is unique to businesses that are deemed "public accommodations"  that open their doors to the general public.  Architects, advertising consultants and similar purveyors of customized or specialized services aren't covered by these laws,  so they can pick and choose their clients as they wish.

I understand that the baker, although subject to the rules for public accommodations,  maintains that he's a cake "artiste" who should not be forced to "create" against his will (notwithstanding that it was his free choice to offer wedding cakes to the general public).   But, as has been pointed out before,  he didn't refuse a particular customization request.   As soon as he heard that his potential customers were gay,  he decline to provide any custom service of any sort whatsoever.    Remember -  service was refused before ANY DISCUSSION REGARDING THE DESIGN OR MESSAGE ON THE CAKE HAD TAKEN PLACE.   That is the inconvenient fact that proves, to my mind, that his claims of artistic expression are disingenuous and that his refusal to provide service was rooted in plain and simple bigotry.   

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 05, 2018, 12:34:58 PM
I am indeed in the middle of my workday.  But feel free to post all your questions in one spot if you like.   Keep in mind -  the requirement of non-discrimination is unique to businesses that are deemed "public accommodations"  that open their doors to the general public.  Architects, consultants and similar purveyors of customized or specialized services aren't covered by these laws,  so they can pick and choose their clients as they wish.

I understand that the baker, although subject to the rules for public accommodations,  maintains that he's a cake "artiste" who should not be forced to "create" against his will (notwithstanding that it was his free choice to offer wedding cakes to the general public).   But, as has been pointed out before,  he didn't refuse a particular customization request.   As soon as he heard that his potential customers were gay,  he decline to provide any custom service of any sort whatsoever.    Remember -  service was refused before ANY DISCUSSION REGARDING THE DESIGN OR MESSAGE ON THE CAKE HAD TAKEN PLACE.   That is the inconvenient fact that proves, to my mind, that his claims of artistic expression are disingenuous and that his refusal to provide service was rooted in plain and simple bigotry.

Well one of the questions I asked you was whether the baker would be on safe ground had he continued the discussion *until* specific same-sex marriage decoration was requested.  Is it actually significant that he did not react to a *specific* decoration request, or would you still maintain that he has no moral basis for refusing the request because he was discriminating against homosexuals?

In fair regard for your work schedule I am not asking you to respond to this here.  In fairness to my own work schedule I'll include my other questions in a post later this afternoon.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 05, 2018, 12:59:25 PM
Well one of the questions I asked you was whether the baker would be on safe ground had he continued the discussion *until* specific same-sex marriage decoration was requested.  Is it actually significant that he did not react to a *specific* decoration request, or would you still maintain that he has no moral basis for refusing the request because he was discriminating against homosexuals?


The law permits discrimination with respect to the message,  just not discrimination with respect to who the customer is.    A baker can certainly refuse to place a swastika on a cake, and I think he'd have the same right to decline to place an offensive message or design (like a penis) on a wedding cake, whether or not requested by a homosexual.  He's under no obligation to stock same sex wedding toppers. 

One practical solution may be to supply the customer with the materials he/she needs, but not to affix the requested message.  If the customer wants an offensive message placed on the cake,  bake the cake and provide the customer with an icing bag and let him/her affix his/her own message.    The idea is to distinguish between lawful discrimination on the basis of the item or message requested and unlawful discrimination based on who the customer is.   
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 05, 2018, 01:37:03 PM
The law permits discrimination with respect to the message,  just not discrimination with respect to who the customer is.    A baker can certainly refuse to place a swastika on a cake, and I think he'd have the same right to decline to place an offensive message or design (like a penis) on a wedding cake, whether or not requested by a homosexual.  He's under no obligation to stock same sex wedding toppers. 

One practical solution may be to supply the customer with the materials he/she needs, but not to affix the requested message.  If the customer wants an offensive message placed on the cake,  bake the cake and provide the customer with an icing bag and let him/her affix his/her own message.    The idea is to distinguish between lawful discrimination on the basis of the item or message requested and unlawful discrimination based on who the customer is.   

So, the only difference is who actually puts the message on the cake?  Not being nasty or picky here (which feels odd for me...lol) but what if my penmanship is terrible?  That's a serious question because mine is, and I wouldn't want my cake to look like a cave man did it. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 05, 2018, 01:43:50 PM
So, the only difference is who actually puts the message on the cake?  Not being nasty or picky here (which feels odd for me...lol) but what if my penmanship is terrible?  That's a serious question because mine is, and I wouldn't want my cake to look like a cave man did it.

You should have married a woman who went to Catholic school.  That's how to address bad penmanship in the family. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 05, 2018, 01:49:06 PM
You should have married a woman who went to Catholic school.  That's how to address bad penmanship in the family.

I did.  I Married up!   888high58888
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 05, 2018, 01:52:40 PM
I did.  I Married up!   888high58888

There's nothing like marrying a Catholic girl.  To paraphrase Dylan, they cook and sew and make flowers grow.   And write oh so beautifully!   

 :beer: 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 05, 2018, 01:53:37 PM
There's nothing like marrying a Catholic girl.  To paraphrase Dylan, they cook and sew and make flowers grow.   And write oh so beautifully!   

 :beer:

She can do all that, and more!

 :beer:
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 05, 2018, 02:01:03 PM
The law permits discrimination with respect to the message,  just not discrimination with respect to who the customer is.    A baker can certainly refuse to place a swastika on a cake, and I think he'd have the same right to decline to place an offensive message or design (like a penis) on a wedding cake, whether or not requested by a homosexual.  He's under no obligation to stock same sex wedding toppers. 

One practical solution may be to supply the customer with the materials he/she needs, but not to affix the requested message.  If the customer wants an offensive message placed on the cake,  bake the cake and provide the customer with an icing bag and let him/her affix his/her own message.    The idea is to distinguish between lawful discrimination on the basis of the item or message requested and unlawful discrimination based on who the customer is.   

Are you sure about that?  Being willing to write a customers requested wording on a cake, except if the customer is gay, is refusing a service otherwise provided to the public because of the customers sexual orientation.  I don’t think the baker gets off by handing her a bag of icing and saying “ you want what?  Here, write it yourself”.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 05, 2018, 02:17:13 PM
Are you sure about that?  Being willing to write a customers requested wording on a cake, except if the customer is gay, is refusing a service otherwise provided to the public because of the customers sexual orientation.  I don’t think the baker gets off by handing her a bag of icing and saying “ you want what?  Here, write it yourself”.

That's not what he's suggesting.  He's suggesting don't write anything on the cake, and supply it in kit form so the customer can put whatever he/she/it wants on it.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 05, 2018, 02:18:17 PM
Are you sure about that?  Being willing to write a customers requested wording on a cake, except if the customer is gay, is refusing a service otherwise provided to the public because of the customers sexual orientation.  I don’t think the baker gets off by handing her a bag of icing and saying “ you want what?  Here, write it yourself”.

Note that I haven't yet tried to define "offensiveness".   It has to be a reasonable standard, and not a proxy for mere bigotry.   A baker may, for example, generally refuse to write political slogans or symbols on cakes, and such a policy could extend, I suppose, to placing a rainbow flag on a cake.  But refusing to write "Congratulations, Jack and Bob" is likely unreasonable since the baker wouldn't refuse such a message in any other context. 

And even so,  I think the baker would be doing his legal position a favor by, if he declines to write a message, supplying the customer with the icing bag to write it himself.  I recall that hospitals that won't provide abortions often protect themselves by being willing to advise their patient of those hospitals that will.   Call it CYA, but it's better than getting hit with a punitive fine.     

Common sense ought to be the watchword, applied to the basic principle that what is prohibited is discrimination on the basis of who the customer is.   
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 05, 2018, 03:09:59 PM
This business retains the right to refuse any customer and message, advertising vehicle, marketing effort, promotional specialty, commercial, artwork, or request to produce or craft any item, service or project that acknowledges, celebrates, promotes or depicts any form of deviant sexual behavior, including adultery, wife swapping, homosexuality, homosexual unions or behaviors, creeds and opinions of belief deemed offensive by the owner and management.

Go somewhere else if you need something done to promote the above-mentioned deviant behavior.  We do not want that kind of business and refuse to serve any request that depicts or serves those behaviors listed above.

Thank you for your attention.

These Premises Protected by Smith & Wesson.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 05, 2018, 03:10:20 PM
That's not what he's suggesting.  He's suggesting don't write anything on the cake, and supply it in kit form so the customer can put whatever he/she/it wants on it.

Unless you do the same thing to every customer, you’re still discriminating.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 05, 2018, 03:37:11 PM
This business retains the right to refuse any customer and message, advertising vehicle, marketing effort, promotional specialty, commercial, artwork, or request to produce or craft any item, service or project that acknowledges, celebrates, promotes or depicts any form of deviant sexual behavior, including adultery, wife swapping, homosexuality, homosexual unions or behaviors, creeds and opinions of belief deemed offensive by the owner and management.

Go somewhere else if you need something done to promote the above-mentioned deviant behavior.  We do not want that kind of business and refuse to serve any request that depicts or serves those behaviors listed above.

Thank you for your attention.

These Premises Protected by Smith & Wesson.

I think @Jazzhead is describing in 715 and 723 his understanding of what the law *actually* allows; he might be incorrect, but I think he is at least trying to share an understanding of fact.  @INVAR I think you are replying with your belief of what the law *should* allow; you are sharing a particular value belief.

I'm more closely aligned with you @INVAR and I think the discussion of what the law *should* allow is more interesting and more effective in trying to test ideas.  But if we can maintain a clear distinction between the two - what the law in fact says versus what we think it should say - maybe we can take some animosity out of this.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Smokin Joe on January 05, 2018, 03:48:58 PM
@Smokin Joe

QUIT CALLING LEFTISTS "LIBERALS!

When you call them "liberals",you are helping them spread their propaganda and win the votes of the ignorant.

Was Hitler "liberal"?

What about Stalin?

Castro?

Che?

Nelson "burning man" Mandela?

Ho Chi Minh?

Mussolini?

Call them what they are,not what the WANT PEOPLE TO THINK THEY ARE SO THEY CAN SELL THEIR LIES TO THE IGNORANT.

They are NOT "liberals",they are FASCISTS!
Actually, I borrowed the graphic. I didn't generate it.

I much prefer "Totalitarians", but some people have trouble pronouncing that, and then there is the ever popular "statist", but some aren't sure which state they are in, in so many ways.

The bottom line is they want what they want regardless of anyone else, whatever it is (at the time) and they want others to pay and/or bleed to provide it. The phrase "spoiled brat" comes to mind, but it appears mommy caved instead of taking their hindparts to the woodshed, and the rest of us are reaping the rewards of those failures at parenting.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Smokin Joe on January 05, 2018, 03:58:42 PM
You're peeing into the wind.   Modern conservatives have embraced identity politics as vehemently as liberals have.   It's tribe against tribe against tribe.   Conservatives who favored the American melting pot,  and revered individual liberty outside the context of tribalism, are gone with the wind.
Republicans perhaps.
The extent of Conservative identity politics is that we are Conservatives.
There are a host of cheap imitations who have put a prefix in front of that, as if there is a multiflavor option menu or something.
When you have to hyphenate to fit, you aren't. You put something else first.
There's the 'identity' tribalism, in so many labels.
If you are Conservative, you really should need no modifiers.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 05, 2018, 04:01:08 PM
Unless you do the same thing to every customer, you’re still discriminating.

What @Jazzhead said:

Quote
One practical solution may be to supply the customer with the materials he/she needs, but not to affix the requested message.  If the customer wants an offensive message placed on the cake,  bake the cake and provide the customer with an icing bag and let him/her affix his/her own message.    The idea is to distinguish between lawful discrimination on the basis of the item or message requested and unlawful discrimination based on who the customer is.   

I infer from that, everybody gets the same cake and the same "kit."  I asked him for clarification about my lousy penmanship, and it seems that's indeed what he meant.  Other than the penmanship issue, it sounds like a pretty good solution.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 05, 2018, 04:13:04 PM
What @Jazzhead said:

I infer from that, everybody gets the same cake and the same "kit."  I asked him for clarification about my lousy penmanship, and it seems that's indeed what he meant.  Other than the penmanship issue, it sounds like a pretty good solution.

If everyone gets the same, no matter what the message is, then that should be fine.  Except that most people expect the message to be written by the cake maker, so I doubt if a lot of people would go for it.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 05, 2018, 04:17:20 PM
If everyone gets the same, no matter what the message is, then that should be fine.  Except that most people expect the message to be written by the cake maker, so I doubt if a lot of people would go for it.

I wouldn't care, except my handwriting looks like something from a shithouse wall.  I am blessed, Mrs. Liberty has beautiful handwriting.

All that said, it's the sort of compromise that would keep people legal, unless the baker really really thinks crafting a cake is the problem, in which case I really don't have a lot of sympathy for him.  He should get out of the business.   :shrug:
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 05, 2018, 04:25:13 PM
I'm more closely aligned with you @INVAR and I think the discussion of what the law *should* allow is more interesting and more effective in trying to test ideas.  But if we can maintain a clear distinction between the two - what the law in fact says versus what we think it should say - maybe we can take some animosity out of this.

Not possible.  The courts deciding on their own that discrimination extends to deviant sexual behaviors has delegitimized any moral authority 'the law' would have.  This isn't about tangible absolutes such as skin color or gender, deviancy has been defined down to incorporate sexual behavior as well as other choices related to perverted and abhorrent behavior.

It's intended consequences are to compel and force those who view deviant behavior as sinful to be forced to accommodate, serve, create, craft, acknowledge and celebrate said sinful behavior, or face punishment.  It is being used for that exact purpose in all these cases.

It is nothing less than the state being used to impose mandated labor to serve a deviant sexual religion. 

All that said, it's the sort of compromise that would keep people legal, unless the baker really really thinks crafting a cake is the problem, in which case I really don't have a lot of sympathy for him.  He should get out of the business.

And that is exactly how the Mark of the Beast will work and operate.

Think and act as the Beast demands, or you cannot make a living, period.  Satan's wrath on the remnant of the people of God.

Of greater consequence is that those who do have that mark, will suffer the full weight of the Wrath of God without mercy (Rev. 14: 9-10).

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 05, 2018, 04:33:49 PM

Not possible.  ....

It is nothing less than the state being used to impose mandated labor to serve a deviant sexual religion. 


I mean @INVAR if we can maintain the conceptual distinction in our discussion between what the law says and what we think it should say, we might take animosity out of our discussion.  I'm not asking you to change what you believe nor am I condemning it.  I would just like to get to a more effective discussion.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 05, 2018, 04:53:53 PM

How does your statement apply to the obvious dichotomy above?

In this context, if you don't like what the Muslim has in his shop, go see the Frenchman. No fault, no foul.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: sneakypete on January 05, 2018, 05:00:15 PM
Actually, I borrowed the graphic. I didn't generate it.

I much prefer "Totalitarians", but some people have trouble pronouncing that, and then there is the ever popular "statist", but some aren't sure which state they are in, in so many ways.

The bottom line is they want what they want regardless of anyone else, whatever it is (at the time) and they want others to pay and/or bleed to provide it. The phrase "spoiled brat" comes to mind, but it appears mommy caved instead of taking their hindparts to the woodshed, and the rest of us are reaping the rewards of those failures at parenting.

@Smokin Joe

"Fascist" best describes them because that IS what they are even though they do their best to hide it by calling their political polar opposites "fascists". Since even THEY know that "Fascist" is a dirty word  and they are hiding from it,let's hang that sign around their necks.

ANYTIME you are in an argument with someone else and allow THEM to define the terms,you are going to lose the argument regardless of how right you may be.

We need to quit playing their game out of politeness. There is nothing the least bit polite about them. They are after world domination and a leftist police state.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 05, 2018, 05:04:01 PM
I mean @INVAR if we can maintain the conceptual distinction in our discussion between what the law says and what we think it should say, we might take animosity out of our discussion.  I'm not asking you to change what you believe nor am I condemning it.  I would just like to get to a more effective discussion.

I don't find that attempting to reason with what is unreasonable is a worthwhile endeavor.

The blunt reality of where I stand is sufficient now at this juncture.  I don't really care who or what disagrees with it or finds it offensive.

Believe it or not I think Pete's sentiments sum up mine most efficiently:


ANYTIME you are in an argument with someone else and allow THEM to define the terms,you are going to lose the argument regardless of how right you may be.

We need to quit playing their game out of politeness. There is nothing the least bit polite about them. They are after world domination and a leftist police state.


Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on January 05, 2018, 05:16:51 PM
The store in question doesn't anymore, and in a few years nobody will.  They're fattening anyway, and the diet nannies will be thrilled at the win they get without firing a shot.

Here's the most pertinent question of all about this "debate".

Did the bakers bake the same-sex wedding cake?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 05, 2018, 05:18:34 PM

I don't find that attempting to reason with what is unreasonable is a worthwhile endeavor.


I certainly feel that way myself about some things and some people.  But if you've fully reached that conclusion, then let me ask you, why are you here?  All we can really do in a forum where people communicate is to attempt to reason.  We're not physically present with each other so we can't physically fight, all we can do is talk.  Does it really accomplish anything for @Oceander and @Jazzhead to call you a bigot, and for you to reply that they are defending unGodly perversity, over and over and over again?  Does something good come of the effort you put into that?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Suppressed on January 05, 2018, 05:21:39 PM

"Fascist" best describes them because that IS what they are even though they do their best to hide it by calling their political polar opposites "fascists".

No, they aren't fascists. Fascism is rooted in nationalism, and they have no patriotism or loyalty to this country.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 05, 2018, 05:34:25 PM
I certainly feel that way myself about some things and some people.  But if you've fully reached that conclusion, then let me ask you, why are you here?  All we can really do in a forum where people communicate is to attempt to reason.  We're not physically present with each other so we can't physically fight, all we can do is talk.  Does it really accomplish anything for @Oceander and @Jazzhead to call you a bigot, and for you to reply that they are defending unGodly perversity, over and over and over again?  Does something good come of the effort you put into that?

Good points.  I apologize for losing my temper a bit last night. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on January 05, 2018, 05:35:25 PM
In this context, if you don't like what the Muslim has in his shop, go see the Frenchman. No fault, no foul.

In the context of the question as I posed it and of this case in general, the Muslim has a right to kill the Frenchman, because that is what his religious beliefs call for, and if a Christian baker gets to live by his beliefs, unobstructed by any laws other than the higher law of His God, then so does a Muslim.

In my question, if one is arguing that a Christian baker should be allowed to violate laws that stand against their religious beliefs, as it's been suggested here, then every other citizen has that same natural right, and the Muslim can kill the French cartoonist with impunity.

Our society is governed by secular laws, and that has been the case since the inception of the Republic, and as a Republic, the people of Oregon can make a law which disallows discrimination in goods and services based on sexual orientation, without any religious exceptions to the law. 

The bakers did not bake the cake, so their rights, as they see them, remained intact.

They violated the secular law, and a secular Court imposed a fine for their actions.

That's simply the way things work.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Smokin Joe on January 05, 2018, 05:40:43 PM
I am indeed in the middle of my workday.  But feel free to post all your questions in one spot if you like.   Keep in mind -  the requirement of non-discrimination is unique to businesses that are deemed "public accommodations"  that open their doors to the general public.  Architects, advertising consultants and similar purveyors of customized or specialized services aren't covered by these laws,  so they can pick and choose their clients as they wish.

I understand that the baker, although subject to the rules for public accommodations,  maintains that he's a cake "artiste" who should not be forced to "create" against his will (notwithstanding that it was his free choice to offer wedding cakes to the general public).   But, as has been pointed out before,  he didn't refuse a particular customization request.   As soon as he heard that his potential customers were gay,  he decline to provide any custom service of any sort whatsoever.    Remember -  service was refused before ANY DISCUSSION REGARDING THE DESIGN OR MESSAGE ON THE CAKE HAD TAKEN PLACE.   That is the inconvenient fact that proves, to my mind, that his claims of artistic expression are disingenuous and that his refusal to provide service was rooted in plain and simple bigotry.
Because as "everyone knows",this is not a work of art:

(http://bakeshop.carlosbakery.com/media/gallery/Recently-Added/Wedding/W502_t.jpg)

Oh wait, it is a work of art!

I do no know Carlo's policies, one way or the other, but for the person creating such a work of art, they are indeed an artist. They are an artist regardless of their deeply held beliefs, and whether you agree with those beliefs or not.

You don't get to decide arbitrarily which media are and are not included in "art" or the "creation"
 thereof.  There are many artistic works I find, well, obscene or repulsive. I would not own them, regardless of value, I would not intentionally create anything resembling them, but that does not strip them of the label "art", regardless of my approval, nor their creator of the label "artist", regardless of how repulsive I find their work.
To deprive someone of the appellation "artist" because they refuse to create that which they find repulsive, but of which you approve, reeks of totalitarian inclinations we have seen all too often in history.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 05, 2018, 06:01:52 PM
Here's the most pertinent question of all about this "debate".

Did the bakers bake the same-sex wedding cake?

I'd guess not, otherwise they wouldn't have had the snot fined out of them....
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 05, 2018, 06:06:29 PM
I certainly feel that way myself about some things and some people.  But if you've fully reached that conclusion, then let me ask you, why are you here? 

The majority of the membership here are not unreasonable Leftists that lie about who and what they are while vehemently advocating policies anathema to Conservatism, while pretending to claim what they are not.

  We're not physically present with each other so we can't physically fight, all we can do is talk. 

We can cut bullshit down to size and call ideas hostile to liberty what they are without playing the pretend game that we can be reasonable with evil and despotism disguised as tolerance and magnanimity. 

Does it really accomplish anything for @Oceander and @Jazzhead to call you a bigot, and for you to reply that they are defending unGodly perversity, over and over and over again?  Does something good come of the effort you put into that?

I don't care what they call me.  I don't suffer bullies, I put them in their place, call their totalitarian, evil positions what they are.   They can call good, evil and evil good as the day is long - I will remain to set the record straight in the face of despotic bullshit.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Smokin Joe on January 05, 2018, 06:22:09 PM
If everyone gets the same, no matter what the message is, then that should be fine.  Except that most people expect the message to be written by the cake maker, so I doubt if a lot of people would go for it.
Well, if you want a work of art, go to an artist, but no artist should be compelled to produce art which they find morally or otherwise offensive. And here we are, back at the starting line.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 05, 2018, 06:34:16 PM
7
Our society is governed by secular laws, and that has been the case since the inception of the Republic, and as a Republic, the people of Oregon can make a law which disallows discrimination in goods and services based on sexual orientation, without any religious exceptions to the law. 


No. that is absolutely untrue. The very basis of Judicial precedent in this country comes from two sources: English Common Law as defined in Blackstone, and the Holy Bible - Neither of which is secular. Both require obedience under God, whether king, lord, serf, or slave... That basis continued unabridged until the rise of multiculturalism and moral relativity in the near past.

In FACT our law has always been seen through the prism of Judeo-Christian ethics and morality, secular or not, and it is in fact, the only way we will continue to adhere together as a nation.

A Muslim killing a Frenchman is certainly not ok, and the Muslims had no problem with that, as free Muslims have been here since the get-go. But that is an inapt analogy - Killing someone is an ACTION. This is an inaction, more in line with a Muslim butcher refusing to slaughter a pig for the Frenchman.

Quote
The bakers did not bake the cake, so their rights, as they see them, remained intact.

No, Rights remaining intact would be without penalty.

Quote
They violated the secular law, and a secular Court imposed a fine for their actions.

No, your secular court DESTROYED the man. Even if I were to admit fault on the baker's part (which I most adamantly do not), the fine is well beyond any reason wrt the level of infraction. Light years beyond. There is no damage whatsoever.

But that is without regard, as there is no basis with which to deny the baker his guaranteed first amendment enumerated rights to freedom of speech, association, and religion - all of which were grievously violated, and on his own property to boot.

This is tyranny, coercing behavior antithetical to the Constitution -  Force under the color of law. And it is utterly reprehensible.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 05, 2018, 06:38:57 PM
Good points.  I apologize for losing my temper a bit last night.

Accepted @Oceander.  I'm not reluctant to argue a position aggressively, but I don't enjoy upsetting people.  If I hit some sensitive personal button without realizing it let me know.

I'm sure glad I've never lost my temper ...........................
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 05, 2018, 06:47:13 PM
Well, if you want a work of art, go to an artist, but no artist should be compelled to produce art which they find morally or otherwise offensive. And here we are, back at the starting line.

Then they shouldn’t hold themselves out as offering a service to the general public in a state that they know has made it illegal to discriminate in public accommodations.

It’s just that simple. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 05, 2018, 06:59:18 PM
The majority of the membership here are not unreasonable Leftists that lie about who and what they are while vehemently advocating policies anathema to Conservatism, while pretending to claim what they are not.

We can cut bullshit down to size and call ideas hostile to liberty what they are without playing the pretend game that we can be reasonable with evil and despotism disguised as tolerance and magnanimity. 

I don't care what they call me.  I don't suffer bullies, I put them in their place, call their totalitarian, evil positions what they are.   They can call good, evil and evil good as the day is long - I will remain to set the record straight in the face of despotic bullshit.

I'm with you @INVAR, let's fight the good fight.  When I say "reasonable", I actually mean "rational", I don't mean compromising.  In my opinion I was reasonable with @Oceander last night, in that IMO I was rational, but I damn sure didn't compromise with him; to his credit he's offered me an olive branch this evening which I've accepted, and I hope he and I will find some common ground somewhere, if not on this issue then on the next.

But we can't fight the good fight and cut bullshit down to size by just yelling back and forth at each other.  We do actually have to listen and understand, and we have to distinguish when someone is explaining what they understand to be factual, from when they are advocating what they believe.  My honest opinion is that a lot of belligerency is occurring here because one person will explain what they understand to be factually true, and another person will reply with what they think should be true.  People talk past each other because even this fundamental of reasoning seems to be overlooked.

So I'll gladly join with you in confronting what I find to be faulty reasoning or even sound reasoning that would deny essential liberty.  But we'll have to be reasonable ourselves in order to accomplish it.

Are you with me?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Smokin Joe on January 05, 2018, 07:26:07 PM
@Smokin Joe

"Fascist" best describes them because that IS what they are even though they do their best to hide it by calling their political polar opposites "fascists". Since even THEY know that "Fascist" is a dirty word  and they are hiding from it,let's hang that sign around their necks.

ANYTIME you are in an argument with someone else and allow THEM to define the terms,you are going to lose the argument regardless of how right you may be.

We need to quit playing their game out of politeness. There is nothing the least bit polite about them. They are after world domination and a leftist police state.
Regardless of where their economic philosophy falls otherwise, they seek the imposition of the State to demand what they want.
Especially given the spoiled brat nature of the coming crop of snowflakes out there, it would be in the best interest of the human race to quit catering to the deviant whim (and calling it a "Right") of every person out there who wants yet another law or action with the force thereof. It is obvious such people are frauds, for they do not value Liberty with the exception of their 'freedom' to impose their personal will on others, whatever that may be.

Freedom is not freedom if it does not include the freedom to not do something as well as the freedom to do it.

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 05, 2018, 07:28:31 PM
But that is without regard, as there is no basis with which to deny the baker his guaranteed first amendment enumerated rights to freedom of speech, association, and religion - all of which were grievously violated, and on his own property to boot.

This is tyranny, coercing behavior antithetical to the Constitution -  Force under the color of law. And it is utterly reprehensible.

Are we surprised when we have a majority in this country that see government as God, Arbiter of fairness, infallible in their court judgments and in whom all trust and empowerments made to impose punishment upon those your neighbors do not trust with liberty, property or wealth. The majority having been led to believe that the greatest evils are perpetrated by white-skinned Southern religious zealots who eschew evil sexual behavior that everyone else celebrates as a holy good?

Once the 'law' impedes and infringes upon the foundational moral and biblical construct of what was once the basis for law in this country - it no longer governs, but has disbarred itself any moral legitimacy any Christian has to obey or respect.  As Mayhew argued successfully, the Sovereign Law unkings itself by it's lawlessness and is of no more effect for an obedient servant of The Lord.   We are duty-bound to disobey such lawlessness as our Courts we are beholden are above those of men and any "law" that impels us to sin and surrender ourselves to serving is no law at all - only tyranny.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 05, 2018, 07:34:56 PM
Are we surprised when we have a majority in this country that see government as God, Arbiter of fairness, infallible in their court judgments and in whom all trust and empowerments made to impose punishment upon those your neighbors do not trust with liberty, property or wealth. The majority having been led to believe that the greatest evils are perpetrated by white-skinned Southern religious zealots who eschew evil sexual behavior that everyone else celebrates as a holy good?

Once the 'law' impedes and infringes upon the foundational moral and biblical construct of what was once the basis for law in this country - it no longer governs, but has disbarred itself any moral legitimacy any Christian has to obey or respect.  As Mayhew argued successfully, the Sovereign Law unkings itself by it's lawlessness and is of no more effect for an obedient servant of The Lord.   We are duty-bound to disobey such lawlessness as our Courts we are beholden are above those of men and any "law" that impels us to sin and surrender ourselves to serving is no law at all - only tyranny.

I'll bump the hell out of every single word of that!
 888high58888
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: goatprairie on January 05, 2018, 07:45:19 PM
In the context of the question as I posed it and of this case in general, the Muslim has a right to kill the Frenchman, because that is what his religious beliefs call for, and if a Christian baker gets to live by his beliefs, unobstructed by any laws other than the higher law of His God, then so does a Muslim.

In my question, if one is arguing that a Christian baker should be allowed to violate laws that stand against their religious beliefs, as it's been suggested here, then every other citizen has that same natural right, and the Muslim can kill the French cartoonist with impunity.

Our society is governed by secular laws, and that has been the case since the inception of the Republic, and as a Republic, the people of Oregon can make a law which disallows discrimination in goods and services based on sexual orientation, without any religious exceptions to the law. 

The bakers did not bake the cake, so their rights, as they see them, remained intact.

They violated the secular law, and a secular Court imposed a fine for their actions.

That's simply the way things work.
So Luis, if you owned a sign-making business and some Nazis came in and ordered you to make them signs with Nazi symbols on it, would you do it? Remember being a Nazi is perfectly legal.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 05, 2018, 08:03:48 PM
When I say "reasonable", I actually mean "rational", I don't mean compromising.  In my opinion I was reasonable with @Oceander last night, in that IMO I was rational, but I damn sure didn't compromise with him; to his credit he's offered me an olive branch this evening which I've accepted, and I hope he and I will find some common ground somewhere, if not on this issue then on the next.

I do not have an issue with Oceander, except his position on this one issue.  I do not consider him 'unreasonable' as a person, save this issue we obviously have no common ground upon which to stand.  I admit to being a bit baffled, because where he and I agree is that no one can attempt to shame us into voting for someone we find reprehensible of character while constantly being cajoled and flicked with insults and ridicule because we refused to support someone we find unsupportable.  I do not know how that exact framework doesn't translate itself into agreement when attempting to shame, ridicule and threaten our livelihoods by insisting we serve a behavior we find even more reprehensible than that of a politician lofted up as a paragon of virtue.

Others like our resident Leftist, I have absolutely no common ground upon which to stand and as has been exchanged, consider one another an enemy of every single thing the other holds dear in life.

So be it.  I'm very happy to fight and get it over with.

But we can't fight the good fight and cut bullshit down to size by just yelling back and forth at each other. 

Yes we can.   I've done that for decades on various forums, including one I was a moderator of.  I'm not going to stop now.  I call things, ideas and positions what they are.  I don't play games with allowing the heretical and the hostile to frame the debate and argument in the manners that advantage their use of Alinsky- tactics to achieve the shaming into silence and thus the total occupation of the ideological battleground. 

We do actually have to listen and understand, and we have to distinguish when someone is explaining what they understand to be factual, from when they are advocating what they believe. 

No.  Wrong.   We have virtually lost the Republic by that very mode of thinking, granting legitimacy and space to those ideas hostile and antithetical to the very existence of liberty itself.  I do not care if they are True Believers in Democratic Marxism - I'm not granting the time to 'listen' to what they have to advocate - because that bullshit is already self-evident in the devolution of our culture and Republic into the Socialist Mobocracy we have become.

Someone needed to pop them in the face and tell them to back off and sit down a long ass time ago, BEFORE they ended up running the government, the courts and most of the cultural gates of mass media with impunity and abject contempt for anyone who does not embrace their 'remake' of society and government in their 'progressive' image.

People talk past each other because even this fundamental of reasoning seems to be overlooked.

You are welcome to keep talking Sam.  I am past the point of wasting time reasoning with the unreasonable. Like any bully, talking merely delays the pounding they intend to visit upon you anyway.  It's pointless and hands them legitimacy they do not deserve, because they are going to stab your ass in the back the moment they get the chance.

Light has no part with darkness, nor tyranny with liberty.

But we'll have to be reasonable ourselves in order to accomplish it.
Are you with me?

I'm past the point of extending olive branch petitions.  You are welcome to go full John Dickinson and draft as many recipes of amity as sates a zeal of non-confrontation you may have.  I think that course a failure as evidenced by the fact it does not a damn bit of good except empower and enable those whom are hell-bent on diminishing or eradicating liberty. 

I'm a bit more Patrick Henry at this stage of our cultural collapse and takeover by tyrants. I'm of no mind to play nice with such.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: The Ghost on January 05, 2018, 08:15:52 PM
Just an observation. 

This thread has 754 Replies.

3 People replied to promote homosexual agenda.

In a real world this thread should have died on the second page.


Jazzhead wins. 



Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Smokin Joe on January 05, 2018, 08:22:53 PM
Just an observation. 

This thread has 754 Replies.

3 People replied to promote homosexual agenda.

In a real world this thread should have died on the second page.


Jazzhead wins.
Well , what did he win?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 05, 2018, 08:26:40 PM

No, your secular court DESTROYED the man. Even if I were to admit fault on the baker's part (which I most adamantly do not), the fine is well beyond any reason wrt the level of infraction. Light years beyond.

With this I agree.   The amount of the fine is unconscionable,  and the result is that, although the baker broke the law,  the tyranny inherent in the trier's discretion to award such a punitive sum because of, let's face it, a cultural difference of opinion, represents a true injustice. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: The Ghost on January 05, 2018, 08:27:14 PM
Well , what did he win?

The "Why TBR keeps Him Around" Award.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: edpc on January 05, 2018, 08:32:22 PM
It's absolutely fascinating the level of hatred displayed on this thread.


Cake always brings out the worst in people.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: roamer_1 on January 05, 2018, 08:37:57 PM
With this I agree.   The amount of the fine is unconscionable,  and the result is that, although the baker broke the law,  the tyranny inherent in the trier's discretion to award such a punitive sum because of, let's face it, a cultural difference of opinion, represents a true injustice.

In that much, we have agreement.
 :beer:
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 05, 2018, 08:38:11 PM
Just an observation. 

This thread has 754 Replies.

3 People replied to promote homosexual agenda.

In a real world this thread should have died on the second page.


Jazzhead wins.

Ignoring ideas antithetical to liberty and hostile to a Christian culture is precisely how less than 3% of the population can force the rest of the country to cater to deviant sexual behavior as a right that must be acknowledged and serviced to the detriment of one's own faith and beliefs or one cannot make a living.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 05, 2018, 08:40:47 PM
In that much, we have agreement.
 :beer:

Thanks for the :beer:,  roamer.   Right now I'm sipping Irish whiskey, glad to be in out of the cold. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 05, 2018, 08:47:15 PM
Ignoring ideas antithetical to liberty and hostile to a Christian culture is precisely how less than 3% of the population can force the rest of the country to cater to deviant sexual behavior as a right that must be acknowledged and serviced to the detriment of one's own faith and beliefs or one cannot make a living.

Christian (and American) culture is a couple devoted in mutuality and love for life (at least),  paying heed and respect to each other, and together being productive and peaceable members of the community. 

Just like my neighbors.   And doesn't it just make your blood boil that such good people might seek their rights and your respect?   
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: The Ghost on January 05, 2018, 08:53:17 PM
Ignoring ideas antithetical to liberty and hostile to a Christian culture is precisely how less than 3% of the population can force the rest of the country to cater to deviant sexual behavior as a right that must be acknowledged and serviced to the detriment of one's own faith and beliefs or one cannot make a living.

Your fail is this is the internet. A place where less than 3% of the population can force the rest of the country to cater to deviant sexual behavior as a right.  People like Jazzhead lead the revolution.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on January 05, 2018, 08:58:40 PM
Just an observation. 

This thread has 754 Replies.

3 People replied to promote homosexual agenda.

In a real world this thread should have died on the second page.


Jazzhead wins.
How can he win anything when he already bowed out in thread #571.

Someone has been impersonating him.

Give the award to that person,  as he sounds as convincing impersonating Jazz as to fool us all.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 05, 2018, 09:05:15 PM
I am indeed in the middle of my workday.  But feel free to post all your questions in one spot if you like.

Thanks @Jazzhead .  These are my questions.  In fairness I acknowledge that you are completely entitled to ask me similar questions, but not as a substitute for answering these.  If you have answered these already then please accept my apologies for careless reading.

From my reply 707 :

Quote
Now you might notice I modified the post to which you just replied : Can an advertising agency owned by a homosexual, operating as a public accommodation, be compelled legally to prepare collateral material for a Southern Baptist church which prominently advocates against homosexual marriage?  The agency holds out its services to the general public as preparing custom marketing collateral.  The church decides it needs such collateral as part of its outreach.  Can the agency be compelled legally to prepare collateral which advocates values the agency finds repugnant?

From my reply 704, then when you did not respond to the distinction I cited, again from 707 :

Quote
The principled distinction has been delineated on this thread, more than once by me - building codes protect the public from physical harm.  No allegation of physical harm to the public has been made regarding the bakers' demurral to prepare custom wedding cakes supporting values they reject.

So you acknowledge that there is a principled distinction between building codes and custom wedding cakes, and that your contention in 701 is entirely false and without any logical merit?

From my reply 394, which quotes you :

Quote
Quote
No,  HS,  unlawful discrimination is actionable regardless of the number of persons affected (or the number of persons in the identity group to which they belong).   Religion does not provide an excuse for unlawful discrimination with respect to a business that serves the general public (a public accommodation).
 

Then what did you mean when you said in 332 : "But there are likely fewer Muslims in this country than homosexuals,  so I have less immediate concern over their religious extremism in the conduct of commerce. "

If it's not a question of numbers, why does religious extremism in commerce by one group, whom you believe to be outnumbered by homosexuals, concern you less than religious extremism in commerce by another group?

From my reply 374, again which quotes you.  You have already described a possible compromise within the law (the baker prepares the cake but provides the decoration supplies to the customer), but I'm not asking you to describe the law, I'm asking about the significance of your point that no discussion of specific customization occurred.  If you believe the baker could not have legally refused even after specific discussion, then of what significance is the observation that no specific discussion occurred?  :

Quote
Quote
Maybe they did, maybe they didn't.   We'll never know, because service was denied before any discussion of customization or artistry could take place.   

I keep coming back to this because I think it's crucial to resolution of the case.  If the customer had asked for an offensive message to be placed on the cake,  I'm sure all would agree that it was within the baker's right to refuse.
 

Offensive to whom?  The entire concept of the ceremony was offensive to the baker, which is why the baker refused.  Who gets to decide what is offensive enough to enable the baker to refuse service?

The proposed cake was by definition custom because it had not yet been created but was to be discussed specifically, not as a standard item already in the baker's shop.  Anything already in the shop was not custom and was available for the homosexual couple to purchase; anything they needed to specify would by definition be custom, without regard for any specific message on the cake, whether or not such a message had been discussed.

Or is it your position that the baker could have legally refused once the customers had requested a specific message on the cake?


Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 05, 2018, 09:05:52 PM
How can he win anything when he already bowed out in thread #571.

Someone has been impersonating him.

Give the award to that person,  as he sounds as convincing impersonating Jazz as to fool us all.

Sorry, ISAFFR.  I was going to bow out, and then the  thread underwent a spasm of activity overnight.   Figured what the hell. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 05, 2018, 09:12:04 PM
I'm a bit more Patrick Henry at this stage of our cultural collapse and takeover by tyrants. I'm of no mind to play nice with such.

Well @INVAR I do appreciate your clarity.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: The Ghost on January 05, 2018, 09:17:07 PM
Sorry, ISAFFR.  I was going to bow out, and then the  thread underwent a spasm of activity overnight.   Figured what the hell.

In other words you can't shut up.  You don't have the ability.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 05, 2018, 09:19:06 PM
Sam,  I think the basic idea is to be true to the spirit of the law that proscribes discrimination with respect to a public accommodation.   Folks who go to a store that serves the general public from a menu of services have the right, so says the community (acting by means of its elected representatives) to not be refused service based merely on who they are.

The baker argues that he is an artist and his works involve creativity.  Fair enough.  But he hasn't objected to the artistry or customization or even the message to be placed on the cake,  he just won't create a custom cake for a gay wedding.  Period.

Sorry,  that's unlawful discrimination.   It's his choice, his liberty, to make his living selling wedding cakes from a bakery storefront subject to the rules he cannot abide.   As Luis points out,  it is his choice to risk the consequences.   Those consequences should not be punitive,  but rather proportionate and just.   



Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Jazzhead on January 05, 2018, 09:25:33 PM
In other words you can't shut up.  You don't have the ability.

No, just not the inclination.  I bowed out in order to facilitate the thread's demise, but it roared back to life without me, so I figured what the hell.

Lighten up and have fun posting, Ghostie.  I do. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on January 05, 2018, 11:36:37 PM
I'd guess not, otherwise they wouldn't have had the snot fined out of them....

So their religious liberty rights remained intact throughout the entire ordeal.

Insofar as the fine is concerned, it's a far easier penalty to pay for standing by your beliefs than getting eaten by a lion while people cheer the lion on.

Just saying...
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on January 05, 2018, 11:46:35 PM
So Luis, if you owned a sign-making business and some Nazis came in and ordered you to make them signs with Nazi symbols on it, would you do it? Remember being a Nazi is perfectly legal.

"Ordered me"?

No one orders me.

However, if they tried placing an order for those signs I'd have to make a decision.

If there's a law in the State prohibiting discrimination based on political beliefs, I can legally refuse to make the signs. If there IS a State law prohibiting me from denying goods or services based on the customer's political ideology, I can STILL refuse to make them, then prepare to face whatever possible consequences my actions may have.

Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on January 05, 2018, 11:47:41 PM
Not possible.  The courts deciding on their own that discrimination extends to deviant sexual behaviors has delegitimized any moral authority 'the law' would have.  This isn't about tangible absolutes such as skin color or gender, deviancy has been defined down to incorporate sexual behavior as well as other choices related to perverted and abhorrent behavior.

It's intended consequences are to compel and force those who view deviant behavior as sinful to be forced to accommodate, serve, create, craft, acknowledge and celebrate said sinful behavior, or face punishment.  It is being used for that exact purpose in all these cases.

It is nothing less than the state being used to impose mandated labor to serve a deviant sexual religion. 

And that is exactly how the Mark of the Beast will work and operate.

Think and act as the Beast demands, or you cannot make a living, period.  Satan's wrath on the remnant of the people of God.

Of greater consequence is that those who do have that mark, will suffer the full weight of the Wrath of God without mercy (Rev. 14: 9-10).

I would suggest that you move to whatever the country is that you just described.

It's not this one.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on January 05, 2018, 11:50:21 PM
With this I agree.   The amount of the fine is unconscionable,  and the result is that, although the baker broke the law,  the tyranny inherent in the trier's discretion to award such a punitive sum because of, let's face it, a cultural difference of opinion, represents a true injustice.

The amount of the fine is irrelevant.

The fine will be paid without the bakers taking one tin dime out of their pockets.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Frank Cannon on January 05, 2018, 11:52:46 PM
The Baker in question will have died of old age and this shitshow thread is going to keep on going. Swell.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/PYAL5OTn0Mk1i/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: bigheadfred on January 06, 2018, 12:16:00 AM
What it all comes down to is respect. Eff the Constitution. Eff your laws. The homo agenda demands respect, the courts are backing that, but neither one shows any respect. Not one bit. Why should I respect that?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: DCPatriot on January 06, 2018, 08:01:21 AM
What it all comes down to is respect. Eff the Constitution. Eff your laws. The homo agenda demands respect, the courts are backing that, but neither one shows any respect. Not one bit. Why should I respect that?

Yep!  @Frank Cannon is right.   This thread needs to die.

Your post is meant to incite.

And your question has been answered a dozen times here.


Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: sneakypete on January 06, 2018, 08:04:00 AM
No, they aren't fascists. Fascism is rooted in nationalism, and they have no patriotism or loyalty to this country.

@Suppressed

Did you ever try to explain that to Stalin,Hitler,or Mussonlini?

Or maybe you think that Globalism isn't Fascism/Nationalism on steroids?

Fascism is NOT about borders. It is about a police-state government. It has ALWAYS been about global control/One World Government,but prior to the 70's there was a lot of competition about which Maximum Ruler would be THE Maximum Ruler.

Seems to ME,that starting sometime in the 70's the Corporate financiers took control away from the politicians and the politicians are just their employees now,as they seek a Fascist Word Government controlled by a Corporate Board based on the UN model to try to keep the regional corporate boards under control.

Any way you want to cut it,when the dust settles there WILL be a One World Government in control of the only military allowed to exist,and you will only be cogs in the machine,working for the company that controls the area you live in,living in a company house,riding a company bus to work,and shopping in company stores. Like in the old USSR,if you are a model employee who snitches on your co-workers,you may even be allowed to vacation at "drone level" company resorts

You can dress that pig up in an evening gown and even put lipstick on it if you want,but it's still Fascism with capital letters.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 06, 2018, 08:09:47 AM
@Suppressed

Did you ever try to explain that to Stalin,Hitler,or Mussonlini?

Or maybe you think that Globalism isn't Fascism/Nationalism on steroids?

Fascism is NOT about borders. It is about a police-state government. It has ALWAYS been about global control/One World Government,but prior to the 70's there was a lot of competition about which Maximum Ruler would be THE Maximum Ruler.

Seems to ME,that starting sometime in the 70's the Corporate financiers took control away from the politicians and the politicians are just their employees now,as they seek a Fascist Word Government controlled by a Corporate Board based on the UN model to try to keep the regional corporate boards under control.

Any way you want to cut it,when the dust settles there WILL be a One World Government in control of the only military allowed to exist,and you will only be cogs in the machine,working for the company that controls the area you live in,living in a company house,riding a company bus to work,and shopping in company stores. Like in the old USSR,if you are a model employee who snitches on your co-workers,you may even be allowed to vacation at "drone level" company resorts

You can dress that pig up in an evening gown and even put lipstick on it if you want,but it's still Fascism with capital letters.

Fascism is national socialism, a la Hitler and Mussolini, whereas communism is international socialism, a la Stalin. 
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: sneakypete on January 06, 2018, 08:12:29 AM
The majority of the membership here are not unreasonable Leftists that lie about who and what they are while vehemently advocating policies anathema to Conservatism, while pretending to claim what they are not.

 

@INVAR

IMNSHO,it is personal POV causing definition disagreements at the heart of most of the disagreements. Some people identify the word "Conservative" with their religious beliefs associated with how they are required to live their personal lives. Others identify it purely with political beliefs on how to run a government.

There ain't NEVER going to be a middle ground because religious orthodoxy does NOT recognize the word "compromise". They are all about Dogma.

In this respect,there is damn little difference between Christians,Jews,Muslims,Hare Krisnas,etc,etc,etc. because "God doesn't compromise,he dictates."
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: sneakypete on January 06, 2018, 08:17:14 AM
Fascism is national socialism, a la Hitler and Mussolini, whereas communism is international socialism, a la Stalin.

@Oceander

That must be why Hitler never tried to take over any other countries,huh?
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Smokin Joe on January 06, 2018, 09:23:23 AM
Christian (and American) culture is a couple devoted in mutuality and love for life (at least),  paying heed and respect to each other, and together being productive and peaceable members of the community. 

Just like my neighbors.   And doesn't it just make your blood boil that such good people might seek their rights and your respect?
No, but the lack of respect for the deeply held beliefs of those bakers pisses me right off.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: HoustonSam on January 06, 2018, 09:53:13 AM
Just like my neighbors.   And doesn't it just make your blood boil that such good people might seek their rights and your respect?

While it is difficult to get through @INVAR's fire and brimstone, I don't think he has an issue with anyone seeking his respect.  I think he has an issue that you would enlist the implied threat of violence which is inherently part of government authority to extort from him at the cost of his livelihood the form of respect for something he finds repugnant, in order to soothe someone else's hurt feelings.

I have an issue with that also @Jazzhead.

At its root that is what this comes down to : the assertion that the hurt feelings of any particular demographic are more worthy of government protection than the right to one's labor and one's conscience.  You can again describe public accommodations laws and protected classes and call other people names, but you cannot change the fundamental implication of your position.  Had the issue been the right to procure necessities - food, clothing, medical care - then much more than hurt feelings would have been involved, and I would have joined you in advocating government protection of the right to purchase.  But there simply is no right to not have one's feelings hurt.

You've alluded to your neighbors more than once in this thread.  I commend your affirming and supportive impulse toward those neighbors; I'm sure you're a dependable and respectful neighbor who makes your community a better place to live, the kind of man I'd like to have next door to me.  But by referencing your sympathy for your neighbors you're engaging in the same tribalism you rightfully deride in other posts.  Your tribe is simply those for whom you have first-hand sympathy.  Is that not the basis of all tribalism?

Ordered liberty cannot be preserved by appeals to emotion based on personal sympathy.  If hurt feelings truly are more important than property and conscience, this Republic will soon pass.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Suppressed on January 06, 2018, 10:49:44 AM
@Oceander

That must be why Hitler never tried to take over any other countries,huh?

It was always the Germanic peoples ruling. He didn't set up Vichy government for the freedom of the French -- it was for Germany's benefit.

If you want to redefine a term into the opposite of how everyone -- including its originators -- define it, you're going to have a hard time.  It's typically a leftist tactic, to argue by redefinition; it's interesting you propose conservatives try it.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Cyber Liberty on January 06, 2018, 10:58:00 AM
The amount of the fine is irrelevant.

The fine will be paid without the bakers taking one tin dime out of their pockets.

True for large concerns with sizable balance sheets, but a Mom & Pop outfit with a low cash flow can easily be driven into Bankruptcy by a six-figure fine.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: Oceander on January 06, 2018, 11:07:03 AM
@Oceander

That must be why Hitler never tried to take over any other countries,huh?

Don’t be stupid.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: INVAR on January 06, 2018, 12:27:03 PM
There ain't NEVER going to be a middle ground because religious orthodoxy does NOT recognize the word "compromise". They are all about Dogma.

Liberty should never be required to compromise. The moment it is, we no longer have liberty - but license, granted by government that can be rescinded by government any time of its own choosing or at the behest of a mob.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: sneakypete on January 06, 2018, 03:36:25 PM
Quote
It was always the Germanic peoples ruling. He didn't set up Vichy government for the freedom of the French -- it was for Germany's benefit.

@Suppressed

Thank you for agreeing with it. It was a Fascist dictatorship. ALL Fascist governments are dictatorships because it is government from the top down,and the people are little more than slaves following orders.

Quote
If you want to redefine a term into the opposite of how everyone -- including its originators -- define it, you're going to have a hard time.  It's typically a leftist tactic, to argue by redefinition; it's interesting you propose conservatives try it.

ROFLMAO! Do you even read or think about what you write? Here you are,essentially defending Hitler and Fascism,and telling me I am wrong all in the same sentence.
Title: Re: Court rules against Oregon bakers in wedding-cake case
Post by: sneakypete on January 06, 2018, 03:39:15 PM
Don’t be stupid.