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

Except this has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

 

It is even more disturbing that hate-mongering sh1tbags gave these two azshats much more money than that in support of their stupidity.

 

Strawman. The bakery violated the law by discriminating against this couple. Period. Let's stick to the facts.

- - - Updated - - -

You think citizens should face legal consequences for being "snobbish?" Thanks, Orwell.

How about this - my shop, my cake mix, my frosting, my rules...

Should a Mexican barber be forced by the government to cut Donald Trump's "hair" ??

 

from any bigots that want to create laws to force a belief in a God or no Gods on the people

 

OK, now you're starting to make a tiny little bit of sense, mistakenly I'd imagine.

This case is not now and has never been about religious freedom or the First Amendment as you have repeatedly claimed. It is about freedom of association and the freedom to engage in commerce. The bakers have every right to refuse to create any damn design that they don't want to for any reason they see fit. Period. End of story.

- - - Updated - - -

Agree that a citizen should be free to not associate with nor engage in commerce with anyone they see fit for any reason. So what's really in play here is the Oregon law - and others like it - that would necessarily compel a citizen to violate this principle.

 

Not really an applicable analogy - the deli doesn't serve ham sandwiches to anyone. In this cake caper, the bakers refused to bake a certain kind of cake - a cake that they had made hundreds of times before. Their reason was that it made them uncomfortable. So they did discriminate against this lesbian couple by refusing them service. The question before us is whether or not they have a legal right to do so. The Oregon law says no. I happen to disagree with that law, but the bottom line here is these proprietors were found in violation of the law and have now suffered the consequences.

- - - Updated - - -

This has nothing to do with anyone's religious freedom. It is about freedom of association and freedom to engage in commerce.

 

All you did was prove religions can have their freedoms. As long as they don't break the laws in the name of religion.
That is what this has always been about.

 

There is both state and federal public accommodation law.

Sorry, but this idea that business owners have the right of discrimination is just a misunderstanding on your part.

 

Did the bakers do that?

 

There is no misunderstanding - it's an opinion.

 

While I'm not "religious" by any stretch, you conveyed exactly what I was trying to.
***** The problem.

 

that is the issue which will be ruled upon as it seems that leftists want to make the gay lifestyle trump the 1A

- - - Updated - - -

A Christian cannot service the celebration of the gay lifestyle

 

Of course!

It's long established law, a part of America's government. So, the right wing believes it can not possibly be successful, even as their congressional leadership states that there OBJECTIVE is to make it fail.

That's how we got Trump as a candidate.

 

If ones religion overrides the law, then aren't ALL laws no more than advisory?

Are you looking for a way to remove the legislative branch of government or do you see some limit to your idea that religion trumps the law?

 

BS.

This has always been about one bakers lazy business practices. They knew the laws of Oregon and they were too lazy to build a business plan
that was in compliance with those laws.

Given that there have been over 30,000 same sex marriages, and just a small handful of lawsuits, it is obvious that other businesses are taking
the time to address these issues.

There have been far more lawsuits involving heterosexual couples and individuals that have resulted in hardships for businesses than those involving
gay couples. There were numerous suits against businesses brought by interracial couples after the repeal of Miscegenation Laws.

Christian all over this country are involved in gay weddings. There are Christian Churches performing gay weddings. There are Christian businesses
serving gay couples. Your posts are inaccurate.

 

I presume you are aware that the original ruling was for far less than the $137K.

But, their response to the ruling was to declare that they fully intended to continue breaking the law and flouting the ruling of the court.

This would be one of the techniques for doubling down on stupid.

 

I'm not seeing how baking a wedding cake, a thing they commonly do for everyone else, somehow interferes with the free exercise of their religion. Does it stop them from going to their church, singing their hymns, praying to their God, or any other religious activity? Unless they go to The First Church of Homophobia, they don't have a case.

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*)

- - - Updated - - -

Oh really? I wasn't aware of that. I thought the fine was excessive but of its four failing to comply they have dug their own graves.

 

I just made a donation to First Liberty Institute.

 

Everybody loves liberty, of course.

But, maybe YOU can answer the question I asked sec a short time ago (so no response yet):



If ones religion overrides the law, then aren't pretty much all laws no more than advisory?


The Arizona legislature passed a bill that defined religious exemptions from law. I read the law, but didn't get a real handle on how broad it was. It certainly included all manner of land use, business practices including employment law, public accommodation law, etc. The bill was vetoed by their governor, so we don't have that as an example today.

They had to have an actual definition of religion. As I remember, that was really loose - certainly not limited to major denominations and more oriented to what an individual declares to be important to himself/herself.

 

The Law shouldn't override the Constitution, from which all laws are derived.

 

Asking two people to do the most basic tasks of their job isn't breaking any law.

And yet our Islam pandering federal thug government saw for to steal money from two employeers and pay it to two people who refused to so their jobs because of some bogus assumption of religious freedom.

Can you show me where in the Quran it says driving a truck or handling a plastic package for all of five seconds is a "sin"?

I'm pretty sure they aren't and yet liberalism acted as if it was some grand offense because the act of doing shows favoritism to Islam.

Now I'm not Chrisitian but I'm pretty sure the Bible does make mention about killing a person being some sort of a sin.

And yet liberlism doesn't want to make any tolerance for Christians when the federal thug government forces them to play a role in the enabling of abortions.

And its all because of one simple fact that liberal voters need to come to terms with.

The liberal party platform (which doesn't mean all liberals) is one of extreme bigotry towards Christianity and it not only encourages it's supporters to adopt that mentality it manipulates them into supporting it regardless of their opinion.

 

Huh? Are we discussing the same topic here?

 

no, they wanted to do it, other bigots are trying to make laws that allow them to do it

the bakers thought that law allowed discriminating based on race or gender, they are finding out just how wrong they were

.

 

Okaaaay.

Does that mean that if you and I live in a cozy little neighborhood, I can rebuild my house as a mosque and start calling worshipers to prayer 5 times a day?

Does it mean that driver's license photos can include full veil?

Does it mean I can refuse to serve African Americans at my lunch counter?

When we show up in court over some civil issue, does my religion trump yours or does your religion trump mine?