Christian Bakers Forced to Pay Nearly $137,000 for Refusing to Make Gay Wedding Cake Up the Ante in

your logic is failed and continues to be

I'm attracted to jumping off of tall buildings. I've never done that but does that make me a building-leaper?

You insist that the logic is sound only when it has to do with the gay lifestyle.

Since there is no medical proof that one is born homosexual, it leaves it to how one has sex. No sex at all, who knows what you are. Straight-sex and you're heterosexual. Gay-sex and you're homosexual.

If you don't steal then you aren't a thief.

 

dude, our First Amendment protects everyone, not just bakers.

 

So, in your mind, what are you if you are in between partners or your partner is away for a prolonged period of time? Is there a time limit or is it simply based on the last gender of sexual activity?

What of teens / young adults that are waiting for marriage or have never had sex?

Your attempts to make orientation a physical act go against the very definition of the word.

 

I don't see a court striking down public accommodation laws; this issue has already been taken to the SCOTUS once; looking at precidence your side has already lost.

The freedom to practice your religion is not absolute - simple evidance of this is that you cannot stone or kill others as called by religious texts.

 

That is what is so wrong with this country
The jack booted federal thugs are interfering with my religious freedom to stone people... And to genitally mutilate girls. It is an abomination to god and our country will suffer divine wrath. It is not what the founders intended. It is not written in our constitution. We are careening down the path of apostasy

 

Did you know that our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land, was both gender and race neutral, from Inception?

 

They broke the law, but apparently some people think they should be above the law based on their religion. I guess then it is OK for other religions to be above the law too, or is this just a Christian vs gay thing?

 

All rights have limits.

 

Just because you keep saying that doesn't mean it does

No, that would make you suicidal.

Excuse me, I never mentioned any lifestyle. I was speaking about a sexual orientation.

Incorrect. It has nothing to do with how. It's everything to do with who. And it's more than sex.

Anybody that asks.

If you aren't attracted to the same sex you aren't homosexual. Same thing.

- - - Updated - - -

The fines did seen extreme to me.

 

It wasn't their free exercise was not interfered with. They can still be Christian. They just can't use their religion as an excuse to break the law. If that was the case, my religion forbids me from driving my car under 100 mph and stopping at red lights. So traffic law over turns the first amendment.

It's also against my religion to pay taxes so tax law over turns the first amendment.

Religion doesn't trump everything if it did we would be in anarchy.

No they won't. The municipal court ordered the fine. The only people to take to court is the municipality

 

Correct. It was about discrimination.

Well, first they were trying to get a cake, not service. And from the transcripts I read there was no activism. If you want to believe that, be my guest. But it's just conjecture. Second it was the city that fined them.

Well when municipal laws are written they normally abide by a minimum to maximum fine. Where I believe $135,000.00 is excessive and needless, they may not be able to get out of it.

The first amendment doesn't give anybody the right to break any law they wish as long as they say they did so for religious reasons.

 

So, now it's not only immoral to be snobbish, it should also be treated as a crime. Government worshipers are as bad as fundamentalist Christians. You both want to shove your morals down the throats of everyone else.

 

No. They never had their day in court. The matter was presented at a hearing before an administrative judge, not a court. Are you aware of the 7th amendment?

"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."

This sort of thing should be of concern to anyone, as it's not a Christian matter but one of overreaching government bureaucrats.

 

True. This is just another perspective (not saying what I think *should be done, as I've never walked in eithers' shoes).
If there's another bakery anywhere near them, I still wonder why they would even want to give the business the $$ and not tell everyone they can reach to boycott? That place is probably making even more $$$ due to the press, people who agree with them traveling from their own towns to support them.

If I walked into a Gayborhood restaurant (there was one in my old city with the best pizza ever, no exaggeration) wearing "I Don't Agree With Gay Lifestyle" shirt and they served me with no reaction, I'd be nuts to expect them to make me their normal pie.

Just can't get around trusting prejudiced people, especially with food -- let alone improving their profit margin. I'd rather know up front that somebody is prejudiced against me, to avoid them like the plague and hit them where it hurts the most, in the wallet via friends, social media, YELP or whatever. JMHO.

 

Lousy customer service is not the same as refusal of service in public accommodation.

I believe it is that simple. Firms are required to make a profit in lucre over the subjective value of morals if not specifically, engaged in Commerce on a not-for-profit basis.

 

A deli sells sandwiches. A Jewish Deli sells sandwiches made out of only kosher meats. Why? Because that is what their religion requires. Are they being discriminatory by not offering a ham sandwich or a BLT? Sure. They are discriminating against the pork eaters. But when pork eater sees the word "Jewish" , or see the Star of David, they go somewhere else to buy their pork butt sandwich. After all, it's common sense.

A bakery sells cakes. Cakes that might be used to celebrate a wedding. The thing to remember is that wedding cakes might be fancy, but they are still generic in appearance. Usually, they don't have the brides and grooms names, and they don't have any catchy phrases on it. So, when a woman went into a goes into a bakery by herself to order a wedding cake, what tipped off the baker that this was going to be a cake for a lesbian wedding? Could it be when she asked to have two brides on the cake? Could it be that she told the baker that the cake was for a lesbian wedding? This woman saw the cross on the wall behind the counter. Her mother had done business with the bakery before. She knew this was a Christian establishment. Yet she chose that particular bakery to have bake her wedding cake. That was as stupid as ordering a ham sandwich in a Jewish Deli. Unless your planning to fleece the bakery.

The First Amendment to the Constitution states that the government may not make laws that impedes the free exercise of religion. A state law that forces Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists...ect, to participate in a ceremony that the state recognizes is a religious ceremony is unconstitutional. No matter how liberals try to spin it, that fact does not change.

 

False analogy pointed out in the posts you quoted.

 

Christians are 80% of the population.

Better be nice.

 

`
It's more accurate to say that 80% "claim" to be Christian. Maybe about 20% actually practice their faith.

 

Snob or not, is not the issue. The issue is placing religious rights over others, that I never agree with, I prefer completely secular govt. I think all public businesses should act like adults no more what, and I don't consider that snobbish.

That being said, I think the payments were too large of a settlement, I agree that the govt errs far too often for my liking on this issues too, but I think not serving someone is beyond ridiculous for whatever reason, on either of your spectrums.

 

You seem to be confusing discrimination based on beliefs of the business owner, which is totally legal, with discrimination based on the beliefs of the customer, which is not.

 

we have a constitution to protect us from the religious bigots

 

Yeah. Spoken like a true American who wants their gun store owner to not bat an eyelash when he sells arms to felons, Muslim extremists, and gang bangers. If he wants to lose money, it should be his right to NOT sell his product.

 

They were not fined for hurting anyone's feelings. They were fined for violating the law. You do yourself and your argument no good by constructing such and easily-defeatable strawman.

This has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

Why would you hope for citizens to be fined for seeking legal relief to which they are entitled under the law? I think your emotions regarding this case are clouding your judgement.

Your beef should be with the State of Oregon. And again, I have to repeat this has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Stop foisting that red herring.

 

As opposed to secular bigots?