Final order: Sweet Cakes bakery must pay $135,000 to lesbian couple

[Luis Gonzalez]

My point was the implied equal status of gay vs true minority.
Did we ever have gay slaves?
Were gays hunted down for bounty?
Were gays ever denied the right to vote?
Then there is the indentured servitude...
The ONLY inconvenience gays have experienced is marriage so they, in my view, are not due equal consideration as true minorities.

Opinion noted.

Changes nothing.

[jmyrlefuller]

Opinion noted.

Changes nothing.

Nothing would change your opinion at this point, would it?

[musiclady]

My point was the implied equal status of gay vs true minority.
Did we ever have gay slaves?
Were gays hunted down for bounty?
Were gays ever denied the right to vote?
Then there is the indentured servitude...
The ONLY inconvenience gays have experienced is marriage so they, in my view, are not due equal consideration as true minorities.

 

There is NO comparison between the treatment of blacks and the treatment of homosexuals.

It's a bogus comparison based on emotion and not reality.

But that's what the left does.....

[Luis Gonzalez]

Did we ever have gay Christian slaves?
Were gays Christians hunted down for bounty?
Were gays Christians ever denied the right to vote?
Then there is the indentured servitude...
The ONLY inconvenience gays Christians have experienced is marriage baking a cake so they, in my view, are not due equal consideration as true minorities for First Amendment violations protection.

Whatever "logic" it is that you use today to justify the denial of rights to others, will be used to deny you your rights in the future.

[EdinVA]

Whatever "logic" it is that you use today to justify the denial of rights to others, will be used to deny you your rights in the future.

My point never had to do with denying anyone's rights just that gays are not as "persecuted" as they claim.
The other side of the coin is, why does government(s) need to know who/what/how many  you are "married" to?  MONEY!
Tax deductions, death benefits, etc, aka Social Engineering, so if the gays want to participate in social engineering, have at it.

BUT, you will not teach my 4th grader that gay is great, you will not get in my face with it and if you do, you deserve what you get.
I don't get into discussions about peoples private lives, none of my business, unless we are pretty close friends.

[Luis Gonzalez]

My point never had to do with denying anyone's rights just that gays are not as "persecuted" as they claim.
The other side of the coin is, why does government(s) need to know who/what/how many  you are "married" to?  MONEY!
Tax deductions, death benefits, etc, aka Social Engineering, so if the gays want to participate in social engineering, have at it.

BUT, you will not teach my 4th grader that gay is great, you will not get in my face with it and if you do, you deserve what you get.
I don't get into discussions about peoples private lives, none of my business, unless we are pretty close friends.

I do business with a rather large chain of charter schools in Florida where parents are fully integrated in the curriculum.

This consortium is the fastest growing set of privately run charter schools in the U.S.

FLorida led the nation in the school choice battle thanks to Jeb Bush. Put your 4th grader in one of our charter schools and you won't have to worry about him or her being indoctrinated by union teachers and liberal administrators.

Jeb 2016.

[Carling]

Not a good thread for Luis.

[DCPatriot]

Not a good thread for Luis.

Don't know about that, but it's another sterling example of how any thread having anything to do with homosexuality and their 'right' not be offended...garners a lot of interest and sniping.     

[EdinVA]

Not a good thread for Luis.

While I disagree with Luis on many things, I applaud his compassion.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Not a good thread for Luis.

Says the guy with a fake name and a bag over his head.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Thanks Ed.

Here's another meme that I'd like to take apart.

There is no gag order in place for these bakers. There is a law that forbids them (as well as all businesses in Oregon) while speaking as or for the business entity known as Sweet Cakes by Melissa from announcing that they will break the law and continue to discriminate. They are free however (and as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution) to speak out, demonstrate, write editorials and explain the reasons why they oppose SSM.

In essence, as an individual who owns a hotel, you can write editorials against interracial marriage, stand on a soap box and rail against it, preach that It is a sin in God's eyes, but you CANNOT hang a "no interracial couples allowed" sign above your front desk, or say that you will never rent rooms to interracial couples in your hotel.

[Luis Gonzalez]

While I disagree with Luis on many things, I applaud his compassion.

Here's anther thing about this idea that these baker's religious convictions are violated by the idea of having to participate in something they believe is against the laws of God.

Matthew 19:9 says "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

There are millions of second and third marriages that go on in the U.S. yearly. Many of them with full Church ceremonies and receptions. No-fault divorce is and has been the law of the land.

So then, why haven't I ever heard of bakers standing on their religious beliefs and denying to bake cakes for divorced people getting remarried?

Jesus was very explicit. The only valid divorce is one resulting from fornication, not no-fault,'and anyone who ends their marriage for any reason other than fornication and marries another or anyone who marries a divorced person whose divorce was caused by anything other than fornication is guilty of adultery as per the specific word of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Why are we so willing to turn a blind eye to our own sins then condemn others for theirs?

To me, singling out homosexuals as objects of religious objection because of their sexual activities while ignoring our own more prevalent sins is hypocrisy.

[truth_seeker]

Here's another meme that I'd like to take apart.

There is no gag order in place for these bakers.

I am really tired of false headlines, and misleading claims like this. Conservatism must stand on the truth.

[Carling]

http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/06/sorry-slate-oregon-did-put-a-gag-order-on-those-christian-bakers/

Sorry, Slate: Oregon Did Put a ‘Gag Order’ on Those Christian Bakers

On Thursday, The Daily Signal published an article about Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) Commissioner Brad Avakian ordering Aaron and Melissa Klein, Christian bakers who had refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple, to pay the couple $135,000 for “emotional” damages and issuing a gag order against the Kleins.

On Monday, Slate published an article criticizing The Daily Signal’s coverage headlined “No, Oregon Did Not ‘Gag’ That Anti-Gay Bakery.”

While that’s a great, provocative headline, Slate’s headline is simply not true.

In fact, the Kleins are now legally required, as a result of the order issued Thursday, “to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication to the effect that any of the accommodations … will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account of their sexual orientation,” as The Daily Signal’s reporter Kelsey Harkness wrote in her article Friday.

Continued at link.

[Luis Gonzalez]

http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/06/sorry-slate-oregon-did-put-a-gag-order-on-those-christian-bakers/

Continued at link.

Not as individuals, but only as spokesmen for the business.

Answer this.

After the alleged "gag order" Melissa Klein posted this on her Facebook page::

"We will NOT give up this fight, and will NOT be silenced. We stand for God's truth, God's word and freedom for ALL americans [sic]. We are here to obey God not man, and we will not conform to this world. If we were to lose everything it would be totally worth it for our Lord who gave his one and only son, Jesus, for us! God will win this fight!"

Why isn't she in jail?

[DCPatriot]

After the alleged "gag order" Melissa Klein posted this on her Facebook page::

"We will NOT give up this fight, and will NOT be silenced. We stand for God's truth, God's word and freedom for ALL americans [sic]. We are here to obey God not man, and we will not conform to this world. If we were to lose everything it would be totally worth it for our Lord who gave his one and only son, Jesus, for us! God will win this fight!"

Why isn't she in jail?

Doesn't the order have more to do with addressing/referring to the plaintiffs specifically?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Why isn't she in jail?



Doesn't the order have more to do with addressing/referring to the plaintiffs specifically?

The Kleins went on radio and said that they would not make cakes for same-sex couples no matter what, then they put up some sort of sign on the bakery's door indicating the same. That's them speaking as a business entity, and that's not allowed under current Colorado law, and that's what they're not allowed to do.

What she posted on Facebook is protected speech because she's speaking as an individual.

What happens with stuff like this is that people are manipulated by social and other media into an opinion on the issue based on bad information, then when the Court system finds that the Kleins broke existing law, everyone will start jumping up and down about the First Amendment being violated.

[DCPatriot]

Yep...and it basically comes down to an activist prosecutor who's going to take his/her time adding up counts.

All she was doing was publicly affirming her faith.   ....which can be off putting to a substantial number of people   

Then I picture the prosecutor as the witch in OZ....I'll get you my pretty, and damned livelihood too!

[famousdayandyear]

Find a leftist baker.  Have them bake this:


[url]


[attachment deleted by admin]

[Luis Gonzalez]

Yep...and it basically comes down to an activist prosecutor who's going to take his/her time adding up counts.

All she was doing was publicly affirming her faith.   ....which can be off putting to a substantial number of people   

Then I picture the prosecutor as the witch in OZ....I'll get you my pretty, and damned livelihood too!

What activist prosecutor?

You'll believe what you wish to believe and whatever suits your predetermined point of view, but there's a sea of difference between saying that interracial marriage is a sin in God's eyes, and putting up a sign out front of your hotel saying that you will not rent rooms to interracial couples because you believe that to be a sin in the eyes of God.

One is an activity protected by the First Amendment, the other is a violation of your business license.

Years ago, back when I was an avid Howard Stern listener, there was this guy that would come on the show (quite frequently) named Daniel Carver.

Carver was a former KKK Grand Dragon and Stern had him on to mock the Klan. Carver's rants were over the over-the-top racist screeds that one would expected from someone like him.

He used every racist name ever used to describe blacks, and his yard was covered in racists signs. He would always come on yelling "Wake up white people!"

He can do all those things with complete impunity, but the one thing he CAN'T do is turn away roofing business due to the race of the customer, and he can't advertise, in any way, that his business and his ideology on blacks and Jews are connected in any way to his business.

If you can't see the difference publicly affirming one's faith, and publicly affirming that because of your faith you will break State laws and discriminate, under the State's statutory definition of discrimination, is only because you don't want top see it.

[DCPatriot]

What activist prosecutor?

You'll believe what you wish to believe and whatever suits your predetermined point of view, but there's a sea of difference between saying that interracial marriage is a sin in God's eyes, and putting up a sign out front of your hotel saying that you will not rent rooms to interracial couples because you believe that to be a sin in the eyes of God.

One is an activity protected by the First Amendment, the other is a violation of your business license.

Years ago, back when I was an avid Howard Stern listener, there was this guy that would come on the show (quite frequently) named Daniel Carver.

Carver was a former KKK Grand Dragon and Stern had him on to mock the Klan. Carver's rants were over the over-the-top racist screeds that one would expected from someone like him.

He used every racist name ever used to describe blacks, and his yard was covered in racists signs. He would always come on yelling "Wake up white people!"

He can do all those things with complete impunity, but the one thing he CAN'T do is turn away roofing business due to the race of the customer, and he can't advertise, in any way, that his business and his ideology on blacks and Jews are connected in any way to his business.

If you can't see the difference publicly affirming one's faith, and publicly affirming that because of your faith you will break State laws and discriminate, under the State's statutory definition of discrimination, is only because you don't want top see it.

I'm waiting for the day, a Muslim caterer gets "the treatment".   Obama would probably grant exemptions.

[DCPatriot]

What activist prosecutor?

You'll believe what you wish to believe and whatever suits your predetermined point of view, but there's a sea of difference between saying that interracial marriage is a sin in God's eyes, and putting up a sign out front of your hotel saying that you will not rent rooms to interracial couples because you believe that to be a sin in the eyes of God.

One is an activity protected by the First Amendment, the other is a violation of your business license.

Years ago, back when I was an avid Howard Stern listener, there was this guy that would come on the show (quite frequently) named Daniel Carver.

Carver was a former KKK Grand Dragon and Stern had him on to mock the Klan. Carver's rants were over the over-the-top racist screeds that one would expected from someone like him.

He used every racist name ever used to describe blacks, and his yard was covered in racists signs. He would always come on yelling "Wake up white people!"

He can do all those things with complete impunity, but the one thing he CAN'T do is turn away roofing business due to the race of the customer, and he can't advertise, in any way, that his business and his ideology on blacks and Jews are connected in any way to his business.

If you can't see the difference publicly affirming one's faith, and publicly affirming that because of your faith you will break State laws and discriminate, under the State's statutory definition of discrimination, is only because you don't want top see it.

I'm not disagreeing with you, Luis.

Tell the truth, I don't give a [blank].     I'll let my children and grandchildren deal with it. 

I'm done trying to save my idea of the U.S.A..  If the yutes don't care, I don't care.  Let them have their zombie apocalypse. 

[famousdayandyear]

I'm waiting for the day, a Muslim caterer gets "the treatment".   Obama would probably grant exemptions

Yep.  I won't hold my breath.  There will be no arguments, he may just use a scimitar on your neck.  See, some animals are more equal than others.

[Paladin]

More nonsense:

Whatever "logic" it is that you use today to justify the denial of rights to others, will be used to deny you your rights in the future.

It is you who is denying the rights of the Kleins, not vice versa. No, not just their freedom of conscience, guaranteed by both the US and OR Constituions, but also their freedom of association. They will associate with those of whom they do not approve or you, via the police power of the state, will force them to do so or face punishment. This vitiation of the right of free association is what is being attacked here and it is one of the more pernicious effects of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Barry Goldwater recognized the coercive nature inherent in the bill and voted against it at the time as unConstitutional.

"As for the proposed public accommodations law, it is unconstitutional and a clear example of a new law which will only hinder, not help the cause of racial tolerance. Such a law could even open the door to a police-state system of enforcement that would eventually threaten the liberty of us all.

http://www.4president.org/brochures/goldwater1964brochure.htm

If some business chooses not to serve me because I am a white, Christian male, I won't begrudge them their choice; nor, like you, would I choose to force them to do what they don't want to do. I am rather of the mind of Ayn Rand who, though she strongly and consistently racism, argued individuals have the right to be racist whether others like it or not. Not only should those who disapprove of the attitude refuse to do business with such an individual, thus causing him to lose income, but should persuade others to do the same, causing the racist individual to go out of business or change his attitude.

That's freedom, Luis (et. al.). Sometimes it produces some unpleasant results, including racism and what is incorrectly termed homophobia; but freedom is a damn sight better than coercion which is what you are advocating, no matter how laudable the goal you seek to obtain.

[musiclady]

Here's anther thing about this idea that these baker's religious convictions are violated by the idea of having to participate in something they believe is against the laws of God.

Matthew 19:9 says "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

There are millions of second and third marriages that go on in the U.S. yearly. Many of them with full Church ceremonies and receptions. No-fault divorce is and has been the law of the land.

So then, why haven't I ever heard of bakers standing on their religious beliefs and denying to bake cakes for divorced people getting remarried?
Jesus was very explicit. The only valid divorce is one resulting from fornication, not no-fault,'and anyone who ends their marriage for any reason other than fornication and marries another or anyone who marries a divorced person whose divorce was caused by anything other than fornication is guilty of adultery as per the specific word of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Why are we so willing to turn a blind eye to our own sins then condemn others for theirs?

To me, singling out homosexuals as objects of religious objection because of their sexual activities while ignoring our own more prevalent sins is hypocrisy.

The answer to your question is obvious, unless you want bakers to have customers fill out questionnaires regarding the circumstances of their divorces.  Did your ex-spouse commit adultery so that your divorce is Biblically supported?  Was your husband/wife abusive and your marriage ended because you were protecting yourself from harm?

Obviously there are many circumstances involved in a second heterosexual marriage that a baker is not privy to, and there is not necessarily sin involved in a second marriage....... Biblically, that is.

And perhaps this couple would refuse to bake a cake for someone whom they knew was a serial adulterer.  We don't know that because there's no heterosexual Gestapo out there targeting small business owners trying to force them to do things that violate their beliefs.  The reason this situation is known to us is because we are being bullied by homosexual activists.

At any rate, with a homosexual couple, for a Bible-following Christian, the violation of God's laws is evident, and forcing a Christian baker/florist/photographer to actively participate in something they find morally wrong is a violation of their religious liberty.