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.
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.
LOL...first you went off on "separation of church and state". I asked you how that applied here and you still didn't answer that, instead it was you who changed the subject and here you are claiming I did. Really?
You're not controlling anything other then what's is going on in your little head. And I am the one who is worked up?. Who is the one shouting "bigot" this and "bigot" that? Do you even know what that means?
No, they closed their shop down because people like you who are ready to yell "bigot" at the drop of a hat and started harassing and threaten them. Even though they have served this couple before in the past but they had to stop at this one request and all of a sudden they are extreme religious bigots now.
But it's you people who are the "tolerant" and "accepting" ones?
No, a place of public accommodation, "means any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements or otherwise."
659A.400¹
Place of public accommodation defined
(1) A place of public accommodation, subject to the exclusion in subsection (2) of this section, means any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements or otherwise.
(2) However, a place of public accommodation does not include any institution, bona fide club or place of accommodation which is in its nature distinctly private. [Formerly 30.675]
There is nothing in the Decision Notes that supports your claim.
Can't you see the Decision Notes, 3rd paragraph, on the link that you also provided? I'll copy and paste for you:
Custom builder who constructs homes for those with whom he contracts after bid process and negotia*tion cannot be said to have offered his services to the public within meaning of this sec*tion. Parsons v. Henry, 65 Or App 627, 672 P2d 717 (1983), Sup Ct review denied
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonker
Let me ask, do you think civil rights for protected classes are being defended by those that would oppress said classes?
Define / specify "THOSE" so I can understand your question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonker
Do you think civil rights would just work themselves out without a division?
No, of course not. Every law needs an executive component to enforce it. But that executive Agency needs to be impartial, apolotical, non-partisan, and with allegiance ONLY to the Constitution and the Law of the Land, no?
Oregon's Civil Rights Division does not seem to care much about the law I just quoted above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonker
Or is it that you oppose a fair and polite society?
I love a fair and polite society. I will also add lawful. And I know you would agree with me -- death threats to the baker are not very polite, are they?
But I need to ask you a question too -- Have you heard of the Civil Rights Division ask Law Enforcement to look into the death threats against the baker? Isn't life a Civil Right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
The problems this company is having is because of society right now, not because of the government.
It is the government who is suing the Baker over a stupid cake, like AlfieBoy said, no?
No, They are standing by their beliefs. Not discriminating against them. If their beliefs prohibits them for taking part in something that doesn't automatically means they are in hate and discriminating against whatever it was. Otherwise, they would deny all business with this couple, which isn't the case. They have served this very same gay couple in the past. They just had to deny this one request. They doesn't make them hateful homophones. But to people like you who need constant validation, then I guess any rejection would be seen as hateful or whatever.
Liberals, the ones who shout the loudest about "tolerance" seem to struggle with very concept of it.
Can't you see the Decision Notes, 3rd paragraph, on the link that you also provided? I'll copy and paste for you:
Custom builder who constructs homes for those with whom he contracts after bid process and negotia*tion cannot be said to have offered his services to the public within meaning of this sec*tion. Parsons v. Henry, 65 Or App 627, 672 P2d 717 (1983), Sup Ct review denied
Yes of course I saw the Decision Notes and that paragraph. And as I said, it does not support your claim. Just because you say that "Mother Jones" thinks so, doesn't mean they have a clue what they are talking about. (It's kind of like some Christians who copy and paste a cherry picked verse from the Bible to support their vilification and discrimination towards others - and don't have a clue what they are talking about.)
Here is the legal decision on that 'custom builder' case. Note, that the custom builder did not advertise his services to the general public or have a public place of business.
Plaintiff is a custom builder who constructs homes for those with whom he contracts after a bid process or negotiation. There is no evidence that he advertises his services to the general public. Here, defendants heard of plaintiff from another person and contacted him to discuss the design and construction of a home on defendants’ lot. After bidding and negotiation, a contract was signed, by the terms of which plaintiff was to build a home for defendants for a total price of $68,274, “subject to additions and deductions”; of the price, plaintiff was to be paid no more than $6,000 for his “overhead and fee.” On those facts, even if some builders might be subject to the act, plaintiff cannot be said to have “offered his services to the public” within the meaning of ORS 30.675(1).
I stand corrected. Govt has started an investigation. "In a news release Wednesday (i.e. Aug 14 2013), the agency said it will investigate whether Sweet Cakes violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, which states that people cannot be denied service based on sexual orientation. The law provides an exemption for schools and religious groups, but not for private businesses, the release noted". Same-sex couple files complaint against Gresham bakery | KOIN.com
This sounded like a lawsuit waiting to happen, although I think I understand the difference between a BOLI Complaint and Court Complaint.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax
Plaintiff is a custom builder who constructs homes for those with whom he contracts after a bid process or negotiation. There is no evidence that he advertises his services to the general public. Here, defendants heard of plaintiff from another person and contacted him to discuss the design and construction of a home on defendants’ lot. After bidding and negotiation, a contract was signed, by the terms of which plaintiff was to build a home for defendants for a total price of $68,274, “subject to additions and deductions”; of the price, plaintiff was to be paid no more than $6,000 for his “overhead and fee.” On those facts, even if some builders might be subject to the act, plaintiff cannot be said to have “offered his services to the public” within the meaning of ORS 30.675(1).
The doctrine of Public Accommodations and its relevant cases are pretty extensive. A private party obtaining a Quote / Bid from a private Business, entering into a single Contract to build and deliver a single, specific, and unique product, with agreed-upon qualities, features, that are pertinent only to the Order in question -- that is clearly a contract/ private accommodation. Other esteemed members of this Forum enlightened us with the science and sophistication of a Wedding Cake.
This Wedding cake could not be sold to another one, and unrelated party. This is easy not a public accommodation.
Baker had sold several products off the shelf to the lesbian couple without prejudice. These other products were clearly generically produced, for sale to anyone. These were clearly public accommodations, and the lesbian couple had purchased plenty of these from the moron baker.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax
Here is the legal decision on that 'custom builder' case. Note, that the custom builder did not advertise his services to the general public or have a public place of business.
LOL...first you went off on "separation of church and state". I asked you how that applied here and you still didn't answer that, instead it was you who changed the subject and here you are claiming I did. Really?
You're not controlling anything other then what's is going on in your little head. And I am the one who is worked up?. Who is the one shouting "bigot" this and "bigot" that? Do you even know what that means?
No, they closed their shop down because people like you who are ready to yell "bigot" at the drop of a hat and started harassing and threaten them. Even though they have served this couple before in the past but they had to stop at this one request and all of a sudden they are extreme religious bigots now.
But it's you people who are the "tolerant" and "accepting" ones?
Really?
Liberals.......smh.
You're yelling. And you are making the mistake of confusing "Liberal" and "wimp" in your use of the word "tolerant". They are not synonymous. We have a very low threshhold for BS, especially when someone tries to use "religion" to hide behind when they are openly hating people for being the way God created them..
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.
