Christian Bakers Who Lost their Business after Homosexual Attack Refuse to Pay $135K

The bakers brought it on themselves.

 

Why do people keep forgetting that Nazism is not a protected class in any state in the union. Neither is being a democrat, a republican or socialist. Employers and entrepreneurs are free to discriminate based on party affiliation, ideology or social status. Just stick to satanic worship. If you don't want to write Hail Satan on a cake, then don't write JESUS LOVES YOU on another and post a non-discriminatory policy describing what phrases you will include in your decorating service. Of course there has to be a line, and it is legislative bodies , beholden to voters and are currently formulating where that line will be drawn in the criteria they choose to include and exclude in civil rights protection. In most states you do get to discriminate against Nazis, Satanists and gay men and women. In about 2/3rds of the states, you can fire or evict a man who marries another man.

You are not entitled to 'run your business as you see fit' because you are not entitled to own or operate a business at all. Government regulates business conduct, licenses it, and tells its proprietors how to pay employees, where to position its fire extinguishers, how close to the sidewalk it can build its extension, where it can plant trees, how big a sign it may have, how it must label its products and what size of print it must use to communicate risks or dangers, what languages it must post in MSDS logs for chemicals, the federal minimum wage and overtime laws. Here it tells stores that if it is going to sell products, it must treat black, white, Jewish, Catholic, disabled, non-disabled, women, men, and veterans and non-veterans as equals. In Oregon, it tells stores they must treat gay and straight customers equally.

This is representative democracy in action, and if sufficient numbers of Oregonians demand the right to discriminate against gays, presumably they know how to pressure legislators and get their way.

 

In this country right now you do if you fall under a protected group unless they are a private club or non-profit church. If you don't like public accommodation laws, work to change them or eliminate them but at the current time you are wrong.

I understand your position, disagree with it, and right now so does the law. If you want to break the law, then suffer the consequences of it. I don't like speed limit laws but if I break them I don't go whining to the judge over it, I pay the fine and move on.

 

The reasonable answer is to, follow the laws of the state you pay for a business license to operate in. If you can't do that, do NOT pay for the license.

- - - Updated - - -

Prove your idiotic post. Slight?????

 

Post those christian laws. As a christian, I'd like to see them.

 

All law is civil or criminal. So your claim is instead there is no right to a jury in a criminal case?

- - - Updated - - -

A nonsensical statement. Homosexual sex by men is condemned repeatedly in both the Old and New Testament of the Bible.

 

I understand you opinion that personal, civil and human rights are abhorrent to you and instead declare that government is god and all staffers in government are god-governments ministers, cops, prosecutors, judges and executioners. I disagree with you.

- - - Updated - - -

So did Jewish merchants, huh?

 

you did not have anything much to say, did you? Be that as it may, YOU do not get to restate my opinion for me. I'll do it myself because I know what it is, better than you do.

 

And not one thing in all of your rejections were because you are gay, black, green, a woman, jewish, muslim, or christian. Rejected by 1 single person, because they didn't like you as a person. Not because you are rejected by society for being different.
Do you see the difference??
NO. Why not?

 

If true, I back track, and say 135K is peanuts.

 

Please cite all the christian laws. Top to bottom. How many christian laws are there? Please give them all, so we can all be on the same page.

 

So just to set the record straight, you have no problem with government interfering with religious convictions based on race but you do have a problem with the government interfering with religious convictions based on someone being homosexual correct? Because there have been people that have said it is against their religion to serve an interracial couple because god meant for the races to be separate according to them.

Care to clarify on those issues?

- - - Updated - - -

Yes and the argument was posed before the SCOTUS that god meant for the races to be separate so you are OK with a business discriminating against an interracial couple right as long as it is against their religion correct?

 

So you won't post those christian laws? Not surprising. You are being nonsensical.

 

New International Version
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
http://biblehub.com/romans/13-1.htm

You also disagrree with the bible. But that is becoming very very apparent.

 

This, not that this fact is relevant to the esteemed Professor as it deflates his "gotta". Most likely will be ignore.

 

No where in the Bible is interracial marriage prohibited, so you have a nice straw-man. An interracial couple is not a genetic cul-de-sac.

 

Before I reply to you and others I want to make one thing clear: My opinion is that a $135,000 fine in this particular case is too harsh, judging on the information I have. For the sake of the discussion I was assuming that A: the source is trustworthy, which I doubt, and B: there were bakeries in the same town who would have been happy to sell to gays, which I have no way of knowing. Now to take up your points:

If gays had to use special restaurant tables, hotel rooms and barbershops for being gay, I would stand there and applaud it if the government came down on businesses like Thor's hammer and make them stop that (*)(*)(*)(*). I know we're talking about a civil lawsuit here, but bear with me. I'm simple.
I really wonder if the situations of gays in 2015 and blacks in 1960 is similar enough to justify such steps.
Also, I have a fundamental problem with the idea of earning $135,000 for emotional distress. I wish sometimes people could just (*)(*)(*)(*)ing grow a pair instead of running to the next best lawyer.

My apologies if I misjudged the situation and the US is really still that backwards in some parts. The OP is about Oregon and I'm constantly being told Oregon's a liberal dystopia.
I'll be honest, I don't know what I would do in that situation. I would probably just buy a regular cake and decorate it myself. I googled worse things. What I would not do is go to a lawyer and start a lawsuit.

To be honest, I'm not surprised. The source website looked like the kind to omit such details.
I wouldn't mind them being fined for that (slander? insult?) but I don't buy the 135k damages, I'm sorry.

Sounds good and right, but then I imagine I had a print shop on main street and some dude comes in and wants me to print posters for his neo-nazi band. And fines me because I kick him out.

I don't care about the law enforcement policy.
The question is not "is it legal", because obviously it is, but "is it justified".
I'm speaking hypothetically here. Hypothetically I would see my responsibility and not shop there, especially since Taxpayer enlightened me that there's more to the story. But within my hypothesis all people are carbon copies of myself.
That reality is different, that's proven by your Apple example.
Do you catch my drift or am I making a complete ass out of myself here?

 

Destroy the lives of two people because of the refuse to bake a cake is idiotic. I think that such actions show that leaderships of USA is the idiots and the situation will be worsen. Come to Russia. Here a lot of problems too, but the leaders of Russia are intelligent people and the life becomes better.

 

Don't care.

 

Of course.... once the laws were better clarified.

They weren't.
They were previous customers, and the baker knew they were gay.
Sold them whatever they wanted. So there goes your claim for "discrimination based on sexual orientation".

The only thing they didn't sell them was a cake for a gay wedding.

It's really not that hard to understand.

Don't know. I didn't call them that.

I referenced gay wedding cakes, and gay wedding flowers. You know... items for gay weddings.

(the topic, in case you're actually lost and not just asking dumb, troll-worthy questions. You're new, so please know we get enough of that here, a you see in the previous response).

The lesbian got a cake for a straight wedding. So she wasn't discriminated against.
No matter how many times you claim otherwise, the bakers' decision was based on the event, not the person.

 

The concept of a protected class is the antithesis of an equal society.

 

Again the concept of a protected class is the antithesis of an equal society.

No I'm not. No law says you have the right to somebody's service.

Some laws are unconstitutional.

Unless you are a lawmaker right? You can make laws that violate conditional rights and that doesn't matter, but if you happen to be a subject in one of these fiefdoms, you must obey right?

Well you don't have a constitutional right to go any speed you want. But you do have a constitutional right to property and to control access to it. So your analogy isn't very good. By the way it was the lesbian couple that went whining to a judge. If they just went to a different bakery we wouldn't be talking about this.

 

Of course I was. I even linked to the lesbian admitting this herself.
If you want to call the lesbian a liar, you should know she's probably not reading.

The court also found OJ "not guilty".

Yes, because they were happy, repeat customers of this baker.
One of them had also bought her mother's wedding cake from them.

Well... principles are nothing if they change because someone else doesn't like them.

I'd lose respect for him if he said otherwise.

That's one opinion.

Of course they do.
They ran their services out of the home and had no problems, moved to a commercial location and ran a successful business just fine, even serving gays.... until one gay got mad and they make the news.
So they moved back into the home where they could serve whom they choose.

Willing to bet they have a better understanding of business than many.

True, but making a cake is a representation of the baker herself.. and her art.

Would a gay couple commission a painter to paint their wedding portrait if they knew the painter was against gay marriage? If so, why would they? Wouldn't they want the results to reflect the respect the artist has for them?

You don't know their beliefs so that's just assumption.
I tend to agree with you based on my beliefs..... but those are my beliefs.

Paying dearly?

Doesn't look like they're paying at all.
Otherwise this thread wouldn't exist.

 

There is no such things as gay weddings. Weddings can't be attracted to other weddings of the sane sex. Only things with sex can be gay.

This is really simple.

 

It does look like they're losing their property because they refused to pay.
Discussed here: http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/427362-moves-seize-property-couple-who-refused-bake-cake-lesbian-wedding.html