Bakers Accused of Hate Get Emotional Day in Court

Not associating with someone is harm to them? They might have had bad feelings, but you choose your feelings and your reaction to them.

 

The typical thinking of the moral elitist. All others must follow your vastly superior moral views or they are stupid and must be put down and punished by the state. Really, you are no different than the likes of Rick Santorum or Mike Pence, it's just your religion is different.

 

Are you saying that they don't have a right to pick and choose?

Let me ask you. Do you think that adultery is morally right? Do you think it should be illegal? If the answer to the first is yes, and the answer to he second is no, then you are picking and choosing your morality if there are other moral issues you want codified into law.
For instance, you are fine with forcing your morals regarding healthcare onto everyone else.

I think you're being a hypocrite here.

 

Would you have been fine with gays going to jail for being gay because they broke laws and there was every reason to believe they would not change or alter course, or are your superior morals, which ought be codified in law and shoved down the throats of everyone else, based on your subjective sympathies?

 

The issue is can you or I BE forced not only to perform work, that blasts our religious belief system to bits, but forces us out of business.

Forget that this time it is homosexuals. Think were this about slaves. That the cake baker was tasked to make a cake celebrating slavery!!! Are you willing to fine them $135,000 because they are unwilling to celebrate slavery?

We have a right in the constitution to follow our religion as I hope you understand. Keep in mind too that it is possible that in Wyoming or Georgia they might now be multi millionaires.

 

Administrative law is grotesquely unconstitutional and was is a convenient way to get around all those pesky rights defendants are supposed to have including in civil lawsuits.

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

In administrative law you have no right to a jury and the agency is the accuser, the judge and the jury. Anyone who had been up against administrative law knows it is just petty little officials declaring they are total power totalitarian dictators who steal people's money for themselves. It is the most corrupt system that can possibly exist if put into any sense of a fair trial and impartial court.

This summarizes "administrative law:"

1. The agency of the administrative law - whatever level of government that is - can demand any amount of money they want from anyone.
2. If you say you want a trial, they respond that then they want at least 10 times more.
3. The trial consists of asking the agency how much money that want.
4. To be nice about it the administrative judge of that agency MIGHT cut that in half, saying you only have to pay 5 times as much as originally demands - punishment for bother them all with having to hold a hearing that you should have known you can't possibly win, but cutting it in half to claim they are compassionate and fair.

I've only known old business person to win against matters of administrative law, but the tactics so extreme, bizarre - plus powers in other agencies that would involve against the attacking agency - that included options others simply do not have.

It is exorbitantly corrupt. Pure corruption and nothing but shaking people down for money.

 

No you do not have a right to 'follow your religion' but to its free exercise. What that includes and does not is up to courts but none have held that free exercise must include a get out of jail card anytime a Christian wants one. Once again, I do not care why someone does not obey business law in establishing whether or not they did break business law. I don't care about your religion or anyone else's. While you may have a right to excercise your religion, you do not have a right to run a business going afoul of the law. Sometimes to follow your conscience of faith requires sacrifice. Christians and Muslims and Jews have had to sacrifice a lot more than the profits from a business venture over the centuries. Well sacrifice your business license or some of those profits and pray to your hearts content, read any holy book you desire, attend any house of worship you want, and discriminate to your heart's content! You can't discriminate on certain basis while running a business venture. So pick your priority. People pick their priorities all the time in life. Government does not promise us a life without moral or religious dilemmas. Religious people are not going to be handed one either .

 

Do you believe the same way about the restaurant in Hawaii that posted on the front of their business that they would not serve Trump supporters?

Or is this just selective outrage?

 

There should be some consequence for discrimination on the part of the bakers, but $135,000? That's not proportional to the offense IMHO.

 

Word putter's on an anonymous forum won't hurt anyone.

 

It seems so. Discrimination is harm. Flaunting it on social media is harm. The fine proved it was harm.

 

I see government like one might see the octopus. Not ready to enforce the rights of far too many people. Willing to spread it's tentacles. Willing to bite.

 

Except now a 3 judge panel is thinking over if the fine is just.

What harm came to the lesbians? We know the couple were put out of business. Judges may decide that was bad enough.

 

I can't imagine how $135,000 is just for a small bakery in which no one actually got harmed considering Wells Fargo and Volkswagen lied, cheated, committed fraud, harmed thousands, etc. and they both got slaps in the wrist compared to these bakers. Actually, in the case of Wells Fargo they didn't even get a slap on the wrist considering their fine amounted to 0.07% of their market capital.

 

I believe that it is a terrible precedent and a horrible idea and if I saw that sign I would not eat there. I absolutely do not believe that we should have those kinds of divisions in business. I also recognize that it is entirely legal discrimination. Political party affiliation and any offshoot therefrom are not protected classes like race, gender, religion and ethnicity and sometimes orientation.

 

I don't buy the religious angle. Nowhere in any religon does it say not to bake cakes for homos. They were just trying to justify their actions. So their religious beliefs would have been just fine. But no it shouldn't have cost them their business, outside of boycotts putting them out of business.

 

I have a hard time finding any justification for the govt forcing a private business to serve someone. The reasoning doesn't matter to me. The simple fact that the govt has that power is disturbing.

In an oversimplified way, this same thinking went a long way to causing the housing bubble and collapse.

 

I believe they did bake cakes for homos. What they refused to do was be in the wedding party.

 

They bake cakes they don't throw parties.

 

Revealing that while they scream equal protection, they advocate for UNequal protection by design.

 

You have no link..

 

You must understand, that for someone to claim exclusion of providing a service to someone of a particular sin and not all sins, based on religious beliefs, is discrimination...

 

This is being decided by the 3 judge panel.

 

I keep checking for an update since the court heard the case