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.
They were arrested for the sit in, not trying to get a marriage license. They broke the law, and are being punished for it. I'm pretty sure that was the desired outcome of the sit in.
I wouldn't do this as I have other responsibilities, and going to jail would not be an option. I do go to peaceful demonstrations, and do letter writing campaigns. But to each their own. The knew the risk, probably anticipated the outcome, and did it anyways. They will probably be fined at the very least.
I get it much better than you do. Why are you even bringing up wholesale v retail? The distinction is irrelevant. Both wholesale sales and retail sales are transactions in GOODS, not services - the fact that it can be distinguished into wholesale vs. retail MEANS it deals with goods rather than services. Again, all you're doing is supporting my argument and tearing down yours.
The difference is you resold my product, that I charged you no sales tax.
Your argument is from a lifetime employee perspective, which supports my stance, based on facts and being in business as a wholesaler, that also has a retail establishment.
Retail is the level that the state government gets their tax
Your entire argument is that people should be able to disregard laws as they choose, or that people should fight against laws they don't approve of?
They can be the same thing, but in the case of the baker, he disregarded the law, then cut and ran when he got punished. If he was really against the law, he could have pushed for repeal of the law using the press he generated. Instead he closed his doors, and tucked tail.
The couple that did the sit in, are using their arrest to bring attention to the law.
The difference is you resold my product, that I charged you no sales tax.
Your argument is from a lifetime employee perspective, which supports my stance, based on facts and being in business as a wholesaler, that also has a retail establishment.
Retail is the level that the state government gets their tax
What? That was not my argument at all. My argument was that the sale (or would be sale) of this wedding cake was a transaction of goods, not a transaction of services.
I made that argument because several posters (you included) were insisting the sale and purchase of a wedding cake is a transaction for a service (and that that somehow made a difference in the application of the Oregon anti-discrimination law), rather than a transaction of a good.
My argument had nothing whatsoever to do with wholesale vs. retail - you brought that up, not me.
Your entire argument is that people should be able to disregard laws as they choose, or that people should fight against laws they don't approve of?
They can be the same thing, but in the case of the baker, he disregarded the law, then cut and ran when he got punished. If he was really against the law, he could have pushed for repeal of the law using the press he generated. Instead he closed his doors, and tucked tail.
The couple that did the sit in, are using their arrest to bring attention to the law.
Nothing the baker does will convince intolerant people that they are being intolerant. This thread should prove that.
Yeah, it's a lot easier to develop hatred in your heart against homosexuals than it is for tattoos.
Uh, huh.
Since the homos are the ones who stank up the joint with their spewing and vomiting, I'd say they're the ones with the hatred.
Decent people would simply move on. Actually, decent people wouldn't have done what they did in the first place. Like others said, they went from Portland to a little-known bakery in a different town. I'm pretty sure they had bile in their guts when they did that. It wasn't because the little bakery was recommended by legions of friends. They went there with one intent, and it wasn't a wedding cake.
What? That was not my argument at all. My argument was that the sale (or would be sale) of this wedding cake was a transaction of goods, not a transaction of services.
I made that argument because several posters (you included) were insisting the sale and purchase of a wedding cake is a transaction for a service (and that that somehow made a difference in the application of the Oregon anti-discrimination law), rather than a transaction of a good.
My argument had nothing whatsoever to do with wholesale vs. retail - you brought that up, not me.
The cake was considered an "Installed Product" It was taxed at the retail level if sold. The state didn't make their money because the store refused to sell it. So, the state came down hard. Slavery. Some put up with it, others don't.
We defend freedom in many ways.
As business people wise up and want the freedom back, the states counteract with a state income tax.
Then they lose it all as the business moves out of state.
You never answered the question – why would you want a cake from a business that clearly does not want you especially for religious reasons?
No, I wouldn't want a cake from them. That doesn't change the fact that the baker broke the law.
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.
