What A Travesty of Justice: Oregon court rules Christian bakery must pay $135K to lesbian couple (homosexuals, gun)

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by hbdwihdh378y9

This is the law at issue:

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.403

And you're welcome.

Federal laws trump Oregon laws. I didn't read the Oregon law as it isn't really relevant.

[hbdwihdh378y9]

Originally Posted by thenewtexan

No a church cannot be forced to marry a same sex couple . . . .

Yeah, it can, in Oregon.

[hbdwihdh378y9]

Originally Posted by pknopp

There is no such distinction.

There is indeed.

Struggles For Existence : The Website of John Hartung

[JerseyGirl415]

Originally Posted by hbdwihdh378y9

What an awful, disingenuous argument. They didn't "open" a bakery; they continued to operate a bakery after the statute was enacted. But why would it matter whether they opened a bakery? People have to make a living somehow. Today it's bakers, tomorrow it's lawyers, doctors, electricians real estate agents, or anyone else licensed by the state, and the state could literally make any occupation subject to a licensing requirement. The notion that a state can nullify the 13th and 14th Amendments by issuing licenses to its citizens is Constitutionally crazy.

By the way, slaves did have a choice: They could have killed themselves instead of working, so everything they did was voluntary, by your standards. And, according to you, people today have a similar choice: They can starve to death, or they can forfeit their Constitutional rights in order to get government permission to earn a living. You're defending a totalitarian nightmare.

OMG dude. Just stop. This is beyond pathetic.

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by hbdwihdh378y9

I get tired of lawyers making the wrong argument. The best argument is the 13th Amendment. This is involuntary servitude.

No one is forcing the baker to be a baker.

This is perhaps the most insane argument in here.

[hbdwihdh378y9]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

No one is forcing the baker to be a baker.

This is perhaps the most insane argument in here.

Bakers have rights like everyone else.

[Workin_Hard]

Originally Posted by Mtnluver8956

Would you be okay if a baker refused to make a cake for a unwed mother for her childs birthday or a african american couple?

Would you eat food prepared by someone who finds your very existence despicable?

[MPowering1]

Originally Posted by Hrw-500

You might be on to something. I spotted an older thread posted in 2015 on C-D forums for some memories. //www.city-data.com/forum/polit...t-happens.html

The only winner in this will be lawyers.

Hey this is a business for someone with an entrepreneurial spirit. Just go to Muslim-owned bakeries and order a wedding cake for Dan and Stan or Chrissy and Missy, and when they refuse, sue them.

[MPowering1]

Originally Posted by Workin_Hard

Would you eat food prepared by someone who finds your very existence despicable?

That's what I've been saying all along. I don't fall on my sword where food and drink are involved.

[Workin_Hard]

Originally Posted by Ringo1

Tell me ~ are porn stars a protected class?

Porn stars are defined as such by what they choose to do with their genitalia and other ways of sexually expressing themselves, in this case being paid to do so in front of a camera. Gays are defined by what they choose to do with their genitalia and other ways of sexually expressing themselves. A camera may or may not be present. Why would one be more or less protected than the other? Why are you focused on the presence of a camera?