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.
The bakers did not bake the cake, so their rights, as they see them, remained intact.
No, Rights remaining intact would be without penalty.
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.