Oregon: Anti-gay Christian bakery found guilty of discrimination (female, amendment, constitution)

[daylux]

People need to investigate these cases a little more. Like find out how many bakeries they visited before they found the right one, etc.

[~HecateWhisperCat~]

Originally Posted by daylux

People need to investigate these cases a little more. Like find out how many bakeries they visited before they found the right one, etc.

Yes, I'm sure that was the whole purpose of it all.

[GHOSTRIDER AZ]

Originally Posted by daylux

People need to investigate these cases a little more. Like find out how many bakeries they visited before they found the right one, etc.

What a Great One Liner.
So if we take this point, The Happy couple and the State Attorney General, should sue the 20 other Bakeries they have visited. (In Theory)

Hey let's be fair.


I do agree with the other Poster that Gays are trying to become "Protected Class". Plus the Gay community is trying to shut down "Freedom of Speech"

How many more Rights are we willing to give up for Protected Class?:h amd:

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by Lucidkitty

Again, you still have your protections. I don't get why you ring wingers don't understand that the 1st amendment is not enshrined in some holy level of glory that trumps all other amendments.

Which law trumps the 1st amendment?

The gay-scam can be lucrative, but lets not preteded we didn't see this coming. There were reasons why people opposed the gay agenda.

[jjrose]

Originally Posted by GHOSTRIDER AZ

This law is Unconstitutional, because it goes against the Freedom of Religion. which is in direct conflict with this Oregon Law. Where is DOJ defending the Constitution and Rights of the Business.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

Nope. In fact anti-discrimination laws have stood through court cases.
A bakery is not an establishment of religion, and baking is not a religious practice. Even Scalia has said that religious beliefs do not allow people to break generally applicable laws.

[rogead]

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

Which law trumps the 1st amendment?

The gay-scam can be lucrative, but lets not preteded we didn't see this coming. There were reasons why people opposed the gay agenda.

There is absolutely nothing in The Fist Amendment which prohibits the federal, state, or local governments from enforcing anti-discrimination statutes.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I am not aware of any religions which prohibit the sales of cakes to homosexuals, therefore this is not a prohibition of the free exercise of religion.

You are free to say that you don't like homosexuals, therefore this is not a prohibition of free speech.

You can publish a statement indicating that you don't like homosexuals, therefore this is not a restriction on a free press.

You can form a peaceful assembly to publicize the fact that you don't like homosexuals, therefore this is not an infringement on your right of assembly.

You can ask the government to rescind anti-discrimination laws because you don't like homosexuals, therefore there is no infringement on your right to seek a redress of grievances.

That's it. The First Amendment is what it is.

[jjrose]

Originally Posted by daylux

People need to investigate these cases a little more. Like find out how many bakeries they visited before they found the right one, etc.

They chose this bakery because they had purchased other items there before, and one of their mothers had bought her wedding cake there.

[daylux]

Originally Posted by jjrose

They chose this bakery because they had purchased other items there before, and one of their mothers had bought her wedding cake there.

So they knew them pretty well. (at least well enough).

Also, they weren't 'antigay' if they purchased other items there.

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by rogead

There is absolutely nothing in The Fist Amendment which prohibits the federal, state, or local governments from enforcing anti-discrimination statutes.



I am not aware of any religions which prohibit the sales of cakes to homosexuals, therefore this is not a prohibition of the free exercise of religion.

You are free to say that you don't like homosexuals, therefore this is not a prohibition of free speech.

You can publish a statement indicating that you don't like homosexuals, therefore this is not a restriction on a free press.

You can form a peaceful assembly to publicize the fact that you don't like homosexuals, therefore this is not an infringement on your right of assembly.

You can ask the government to rescind anti-discrimination laws because you don't like homosexuals, therefore there is no infringement on your right to seek a redress of grievances.

That's it. The First Amendment is what it is.

OK, so you say anti-discrimination laws trump the 1st amendment. Gotcha. I disagree. Forcing people to participate in gay weddings violates the 1st amendment, and since you obviously do not know, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It gives us the right to refuse to participate for religious reasons. Feel free to disagree.

[jjrose]

Originally Posted by daylux

So they knew them pretty well. (at least well enough).

Also, they weren't 'antigay' if they purchased other items there.

The bakery did discriminate in selling a cake that they offered for sale to the lesbian couple.