Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry, we have laws against discrimination. I suggest you look them up.
And, it's funny how we usually find out just how 'Christian' these companies are. They have religious sensibilities when they feel like it.
I am well aware on how the law, any law can be twisted to fit an agenda. You were just arguing how "discrimination is discrimination" now it's "we have laws" I am aware we have these laws. What's your point?
Funny how liberals are tolerant until you step out of line. Then you'll see how tolerant they really can be.
That right is not absolute, and access to public accommodations trumps people's use of religion to discriminate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringo1
Sorry, we have laws against discrimination. I suggest you look them up.
Did you actually read the Statute or read what Mother Jones said what Oregon's Law says? At bottom of Page 85 here I posted a link to the Horse's Mouth -- Oregon's Statute. Go read it for yourself; INCLUDING Decision Notes..
According to Oregon's Law, taking the order for the Wedding Cake, preparing it, making it -- this is NOT considered public accommodation.
That didn't have to do with a damn thing I said. You ran your mouth about "separation of church and state" I asked you what that had to do with anything and you are now trying to move the goalpost or backtrack.
And come off it. They had no problem backing cakes for this same couple but when they were asked to bake, I.E. labor for a ceremony that went against their religion they couldn't do it. Again, they served this couple before so cut the whole "religious bigots" crap out. Anyone who doesn't toe the liberal line is a bigot, again must the that liberal tolerance. Are we gonna now force holocaust survivors or descendants to labor for Nazis?
Of course you "own two businesses". Everyone on the internet does. Of course you are in complete control , that is why you are backtracking on "separation of church and state". And of course I am the indignant one, that is why I am shouting bigot every other sentence like you. What's your point?
But, like I said since you people can't make an argument you hide behind "the laws of the land". But sometimes it isn't that simple. A couple was refused a cake with their son's Adolf Hitler name on it. It's just a name, the kid isn't actually Hitler himself but that didn't matter. The kid and his parents was discriminated against. Is that bakery an outright "bigot"?
liberals on this thread are feeling pretty full of themselves as if they destroyed these "religious bigots". No, they moved their bakery into their home. So they still get to keep their business without all liberal whack jobs spewing their hate at them and telling them want to do. So you can walk around as if you people accomplished something by getting this bakery shut down when all you people did was show more of more of your liberal intolerance and hate.
You really shouldn't allow me to get you so worked up. It's bad for your heart, and it means I am controlling the conversation with facts.
The statement I made was, "We would even sell to religious bigots if they found their way to us". Nowhere did I mention anything about the bakery owners, but you interpreted it that way to serve your own purposes.
Changing the subject will not work. They dug their own hole by refusing to bake the cake, people found out, and they lost their customers through their own adherence to their "religion", which is obviously situational to begin with. I don't see any losers here. The owners get to practice their religion at home, and the customers can find baked goods from more openly accepting sources.
Did you actually read the Statute or read what Mother Jones said what Oregon's Law says? At bottom of Page 85 here I posted a link to the Horse's Mouth -- Oregon's Statute. Go read it for yourself; INCLUDING Decision Notes..
According to Oregon's Law, taking the order for the Wedding Cake, preparing it, making it -- this is NOT considered public accommodation.
Let's sue them a few times and see how the rulings go. Oh, no need. They have closed. Such a sham. I mean shame.
I am well aware on how the law, any law can be twisted to fit an agenda. You were just arguing how "discrimination is discrimination" now it's "we have laws" I am aware we have these laws. What's your point?
Funny how liberals are tolerant until you step out of line. Then you'll see how tolerant they really can be.
How are those two statements opposing statements? Do you just start typing to see what nonsense you can fling out?
Here is a quote from the linked article above. It really is a discrimination issue. Surely good Christian bakers would balk at baking a cake for the pagan solstice?
To test out which religious convictions would cause the shop to refuse business, Willamette Week called up the shop and asked them to make cakes for divorce, out-of-wedlock children, human stem cell research and a pagan solstice (with a pentacle design requested for the cake). All requests were responded to positively, with price quotes.
No one killed the business. They had lots of support from others. We don't know if they moved because of hostility in the community, or because they feel they can refuse service if they work from home, or for some other reason. Perhaps their lease ran out. Perhaps the demonstrations wore on their retail neighbors.
I think this bears repeating. The good Christians of this bakery were fine with baking a cake for the pagan solstice.
I think this bears repeating. The good Christians of this bakery were fine with baking a cake for the pagan solstice.
If you want to discuss Morality in this case -- that's one thing. If you want to discuss Legality -- that's something different. Good, bad, or indifferent -- being a moron often-times is not against the law.
You are correct though -- since Anti-discrimination Laws are often fighting the 1st Amendment, courts have erred on the Anti-Discrimination's side.
Proposed laws is KY, TN and NH now are going after "public accommodations", like hospitals, for example. A physician will have discretion and may deny to perform a certain procedure on a patient if it conflicts with physician's religion, with of course exceptions, qualifications.
In Baker's case, it seems that the baker knew his rights -- he never denied selling gays products off the shelf. As long as he was selling generic products, he was in "public accommodations." However, when takes an order down, provides a quote to buyer, buyer accepts the quote, Baker makes the custom cake -- baker is no longer operating in a "public accommodations" environment, and therefore Anti-Discrimination Statute does not cover him. Baker knew what he was doing.
In Baker's case, it seems that the baker knew his rights -- he never denied selling gays products off the shelf. As long as he was selling generic products, he was in "public accommodations." However, when takes an order down, provides a quote to buyer, buyer accepts the quote, Baker makes the custom cake -- baker is no longer operating in a "public accommodations" environment, and therefore Anti-Discrimination Statute does not cover him. Baker knew what he was doing.
Which means the case would be dismissed and the baker couldn't be sued. But that has no bearing on what the public perception of that bakery now is, which is what forced them to close. It wasn't the courts that shut them down, it was their customers who decided to no longer patron a hypocritical business.
Which means the case would be dismissed and the baker couldn't be sued. But that has no bearing on what the public perception of that bakery now is, which is what forced them to close. It wasn't the courts that shut them down, it was their customers who decided to no longer patron a hypocritical business.
As I understand baker was partly motivated to close up his store, partly to escape scrutiny from the Civil Rights Division. Only baker knows the true motivation of his move.
I am more interested in -- it looks like Civil Rights Division iis twisting and turning the law to punish the baker for non-compliance with a social trend of our day -- acceptance of gay marriage. Something that Oregon's Legislature itself has not embraced yet; Gay Marriage is not yet legal in Oregon.
This is why I call these acts dictatorial- executive branch is using its power in excess of the law to intimidate and punish non-compliers with their social or political agenda. Laws are so complex nowadays that you can't cross the street without violating about 12 statutes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
