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

It is not unlimited. A business can choose to serve people who are only Five feet or shorter, they can choose to server people who are 500 pounds or heavier, they can choose to serve people who only have a coat and a tie. But what they cannot do is discriminate based on sexual orientation, religion (generally), sex, nationality, ethnicity, race, or age (generally). With some laws, they must also have the ability to have access to the disabled even though they choose to serve people who are only five feet or shorter.

 

It's been that way for DECADES and the majority of the right has had NO problem with that, i.e. race. Why do you only have a problem with it when it's gay people?

 

The lesbian went with her mother, yes. So you are wrong there.

And Klein admitted he called them abominations. Read the final judgement. It's available online, you know.

GMAFrigginB.

 

Clearly liberals and Democrats want to eliminate Christianity - or at least control what being a Christian means - by denying income to those who are traditional Christians.

To do this, they habe eliminated the Bill of Rights for Christians. The owners of the bakery was not allowed a jury trial, though the Bill Of Rights specifically says a person has a right to a jury for any fine or controversy over $20. At the top of the list of what liberals/progressives MOST hate is the Bill Of Rights and Constitution. They want a totalitarian government - and for the most part they got it. There is no different in terms of views of government between the radical rightwing and the radical leftwing. They both HATE individual rights and individuality. Rather, they demand government force everyone to act, say and believe exactly what we are told to - or to be severely punished.

 

Not true.

Read the Judgement. One of the lesbian's mother had ordered a cake there. They were not "happy regular customer of theirs" and they did not know her "sexual lifestyle" (smh) beforehand.

Facts matter -- you don't have them.

 

If Klein wants free speech rights he should move to another country. It doesn't exist here anymore.

 

America is entering the dark ages.

View attachment 38403

 

BTW, what about kosher stores.
Are homosexuals served in these stores?

 

The owners were deliberately targeted.

 

What are you talking about?
Where there for decades homosexual weddings?

 

When you choose to conduct a business that serves the public, you accept your responsibility to serve the public without arbitrarily discriminating. You are not allowed to refuse to serve Black customers at your lunch counter, or refuse to bake cakes for Albino customers if you're a baker.

No religion has taboos about seving lunch or baking cakes for anyone.

 

He has free speech rights.

He wasn't fined because he called them abominations.

 

They leased the building that they were in, closed shop, and moved their business. They are also going through the motions of filing for bankruptcy. That being said, this ordeal has lasted two years and the legal firm only came in once the media storm became prevalent. Prior to that, they were paying a legal team some hefty fees for their services.

That money is in an account under their name, but managed by a third party. That third party is also paying for some of the legal fees by that "pro bono" legal team. Although the lawyer's time is free, the court filings are not, which is where that money is being used.

 

You just confirmed what I said and contradicted what you had claimed, sooooo what was I wrong about.

 

I would say this couple's rights under Section 16 of the Oregon Constitution have been violated. Like the 8th Amendment, it is supposed to protect people against cruel and unusual punishment and excessive fines. $135,000 for refusing to bake a cake is clearly an excessive fine, and I would dare say cruel and unusual.

Bottom line, the people who say it's okay to fine someone $135,000 for refusing to bake a cake are saying two wrongs make a right, which is total bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Just because the couple broke the law doesn't mean the government is entitled to break the law, too.

 

No, they weren't.

Read the damn details of the case as detailed in the ruling, and as presented by both parties under oath.

Ms. Cryer visited Sweetcakes by Melissa by appointment, with her mother for a tasting. They met. Aaron Klein, and had no idea of his anti-gay bigotry.

When Klein asked about the names of the couple, the lesbian told him. As soon as he heard that, Boom, appointment ended.

 

They gifted them the $500,000 for suffering the targeted wrath of an angry, blood-thirsty minority.

The pizza shop, who didn't ever refuse anyone, was gifted nearly $1 million.

The gays and libs are fuming over this cash windfall.

$152K at GoFundMe before that one was shut down.
Then the gifts broke a crowd-funding record at another site, with about $360K.

None of which was asked for by the bakers.

Truth is there is a whole lot of support for their decision.

 

Yes, they were deliberately targeted. A floral shop owner in Washington state was also deliberately targeted. Fact.

 

You missed the point. Height, weight, type of shoes, etc are not in the Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Race, religion, sexual orientation, nationality, ethnicity, gender, and one or two others are in Title VII. This is why Big and Tall shops are not sued for discriminating against petite persons.

 

One part of the couple went there. The way it read it "the "couple" didn't even go to the bakery" was that neither did.

I see you quoted it now (I missed it earlier) I understand what you meant now.

But you were wrong about Klein calling them abominations. He denied it at first (which means he's a liar (ya think?) He was forced under oath to admit it.

Read the final judgement.

 

Discrimination should have a price. 135 K is ridiculous unless the Baker refused to not discriminate in the future.

I look at it like this. If we are to allow Discrimination ... then those that discriminate should reap what they sow and be themselves discriminated against.

"Do unto others as you would have them do to you" .... aka The Golden Rule.

Businesses that want to discriminate should themselves be discriminated against by denying them use of public services such as roads, infrastructure and so on.

 

What if a Christian went into a Muslim bakery and ordered a cake with an image of Muhammad on top?

If the baker refused, should the state put the baker out of business?

 

Is there a link to the story that is not so heavily biased and that actually gives the details?

 

^ Fact-less. ^

Stop making **** up.

 

True.

But gays should not go to their bakery anyway as you never know what they might put into that cake out of spite.