Simple solution: Don't be so thin-skinned. Everyone's money looks exactly the same once its in the cash drawer.
to some their beliefs are more important that money.. no matter how stupid or silly you may find a persons religious or any other type belief.. They atleast put them before the almighty dollar.. Why do gays have to push the issue, and just go to another bakery.. cause at somepoint a business owner that is forced to go against their beliefs because they can't afford to be fined.. will make a cake that will cause people to get sick.. It's sad that gays can't see the irony of their actions, they want to be free to live their life as they see fit, but screw everyone elses way they live their life..
Simple solution: Don't be so thin-skinned. Everyone's money looks exactly the same once its in the cash drawer.
It violates religious freedom. It may not be important to you but it's what out county was founded on and the reason so many immigrants have done whatever it takes to come to the US.
This was a black and white with no grey area attack on Christians. This was proven when the same stunt was pulled in Muslim bakeries. Not only was there no legal action taken against the bakeries, but the gay community didn't care.
[This message has been edited by jmbishop (edited 07-05-2015).]
Difficult. Anti-discrimination laws against religious freedom. Both have their good reason. Both choices available to the judge are bad.
Personally, I agree with the judgement as I'd side with the real over the imagined.
I also think that the lesbian couple should have just gone to another place for their cake. Or should have replaced the male groom with a female figure after picking up the cake. I agree that this was probably done to make an example.
[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 07-05-2015).]
Personally, I agree with the judgement as I'd side with the real over the imagined.
However, it's religious freedom that lets you make statements like that. The more religious freedom we lose, the closer get to a world that can't comment on religion without someone getting offended and legally penalizing you for it.
However, it's religious freedom that lets you make statements like that. The more religious freedom we lose, the closer get to a world that can't comment on religion without someone getting offended and legally penalizing you for it.
As a nonbeliever, religious freedom is high up on my Constitutional Rights.
How can you be fined for refusing to work for someone? Oh yeah, we can now be fined for not signing up for a tax , so there is always that argument.
Personally, I agree with the judgement as I'd side with the real over the imagined.
Well of course you do.
However -
"In the ruling, Avakian placed an effective gag order on the Kleins, ordering them to “cease and desist” from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs."
So do you believe their 1st amendment right to free speech is imaginary?
How can you be fined for refusing to work for someone?
I think the problem is that a community can subvert many laws with that argument: "Oh, sure blacks can sit at the counter. But if they do, we have the right not to serve them.".
But, as I've said before, I think that this was unnecessary and designed to make an example. However, now it's a legal case and it needs resolving one way or the other.
"Oh gosh, that timeframe is completely booked solid. We would be happy to recommend someone. Thanks so much for thinking of us first. Perhaps we can help you for some other function in the future. We're really sorry, but we just don't have the resources for that timeframe".
"Oh gosh, that timeframe is completely booked solid. We would be happy to recommend someone. Thanks so much for thinking of us first. Perhaps we can help you for some other function in the future. We're really sorry, but we just don't have the resources for that timeframe".
You're right. However, the way I read the story, it may be that at first the bakery wasn't aware that the cake was for a lesbian couple...
But, as I've said before, I think that this was unnecessary and designed to make an example. However, now it's a legal case and it needs resolving one way or the other.
I agree. A legal system too worded for the average Walmart shopper to care about. A rather high percentage of the populous here fund their very existence this way. We have quite the revolving door penal system in this part of the lands. More than a few golf courses. A plethora of full serve car washes. Just perfect for that trophy wife to grab the "pup pups" after the cut and wash in her 'burban on 22"s.
BTW, Spokane is up there with lawyers and doctors.
I think the problem is that a community can subvert many laws with that argument: "Oh, sure blacks can sit at the counter. But if they do, we have the right not to serve them.".
Because gays and blacks are a special protected class. If management wants to turn away a white person or a Christian, the law won't have any problem with that and if they were to complain, they'd be mocked because popular attitude is whites and Christians can't be discriminated against.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. The precedent has been set that some people's rights are more important than someone else's.
I agree. A legal system too worded for the average Walmart shopper to care about. A rather high percentage of the populous here fund their very existence this way.
Not new. I guess the average Walmart shopper would be challenged by (and uninterested in) the Federalist Papers, as well. And most of the founding fathers were... lawyers. Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 25 were lawyers. Of the 55 framers of the Constitution, 32 were lawyers.
... In any case, as I said, it's a conflict of different laws and it's up to the judiciary to resolve this.
Actually, it *is* resolved. That's why it's called the *First* Amendment. All other Amendments are subject to it.
That's also, if I were in the shoes of the business owners (and they may be preparing this right now), is I'd sue the heck out of the state commission that ruled against them for violating their 1A rights.
Because gays and blacks are a special protected class. If management wants to turn away a white person or a Christian, the law won't have any problem with that and if they were to complain, they'd be mocked because popular attitude is whites and Christians can't be discriminated against.
Do you think so?
quote
State Discrimination Law
In order to be protected by Oregon´s discrimination laws, employees must be employed by a company with at least one or more employees, except where noted. Protected classes include:
Race / color National origin Sex (includes gender, pregnancy and sexual harassment) Sexual orientation Religion Retaliation for opposing an unlawful employment practice Association with a member of a protected class Age (18 or older) Marital status Physical/Mental disability (6 or more employees) Injured workers (6 or more employees) Family relationship.
Protected Classes
Discrimination is unlawful when carried out because of an individual´s race, color, gender or other characteristic protected by law. Such characteristics place people into "protected classes." Everyone belongs to a number of protected classes. For example, we all have a race, a color and a gender.
So, if a gay-owned business would refuse service to a straight person because of their sexual orientation and said so and the straight person would sue them, you think that a US court would not side with the straight person?
to some their beliefs are more important that money.. no matter how stupid or silly you may find a persons religious or any other type belief.. They atleast put them before the almighty dollar..
quote
Originally posted by jmbishop:
It violates religious freedom. It may not be important to you but it's what out county was founded on and the reason so many immigrants have done whatever it takes to come to the US.
It may seem obvious to me, but if I held strictly defined religious beliefs, which might run contradictory with certain of my customers, I'd find myself a different line of work. Or I'd just learn to set aside those differences for the sake of good business.
quote
Originally posted by spark1:
The bakery was set-up, IMO.
Even so, they could have defused the entire issue by just making the cake. No lawsuits, no court cases, no news story. Call me crazy, but that's what I would have done.
They chose to make themselves the victims here, IMO.
So, if a gay-owned business would refuse service to a straight person because of their sexual orientation and said so and the straight person would sue them, you think that a US court would not side with the straight person?
Ignoring for the moment that the bakery didn't turn them away because they were gay - they turned them away because of their religious beliefs on homosexuality. If you can't understand the difference, ask yourself what religious belief the gay owned business would use to turn away a straight person.
That being said, you can Google all the legal text you want. Until it's actually put into practice it's irrelevant. We've seen plenty of examples of selective enforcement of the law.
It seems that the court was of the opinion that they also broke a law that's on the books.
So, which law?
Do you know how many laws there are in America? From the smallest infraction, to the most horrid of crimes, please tell me how many laws there are. Do you have any idea? I ask this because I do not.
I see this more as the second step in the agenda to force religious institutions into marrying gay couples even if it goes against their religious beliefs/teachings. If we can force it in a business setting against the religious beliefs of it's owners how long until we force it within the religious institution itself? Yeah, that thing everyone crowed "This isn't forcing religions to marry them against their beliefs", right...
Gay marraige held up by SCOTUS. Set.
Businesses forced to server customers against their beliefs. Will be point once it's upheld by the SCOTUS.
Religions forced to marry against their beliefs. Will be the match once it's upheld by the SCOTUS.
This kind of thing will continue to happen until they get a case to be appealed and heard and ruled on by the SCOTUS.
That's my personal take on it. Am I right? I don't know but I hope I'm not.
[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 07-05-2015).]
Legaly, I see it as a restriction of the free exercise of religion. Personally, I don't know why someone would wish to do business with another who hates him.
If you don't want my business, I will gladly take it elsewhere. If you are the sole provider of that product or service, I see a business opportunity. Someone should open up a homosexual bakery. Maybe even name it "Fruit Cakes".
Edited to say that I do not mean to imply that the bakery owners hate homosexuals, but that is the way it is often interpreted.
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 07-05-2015).]
That's my personal take on it. Am I right? I don't know but I hope I'm not.
It appears your right based on recent events. I'm loosing faith in the American people and I don't think it's going to end with the freedoms I exercise in America intact.
Ignoring for the moment that the bakery didn't turn them away because they were gay - they turned them away because of their religious beliefs on homosexuality. If you can't understand the difference, ask yourself what religious belief the gay owned business would use to turn away a straight person.
All right, they have nothing against homosexuals, it's their god who hates fags. That makes it so much more reasonable!
Maybe it would be more straight forward if they just prayed for their god to smite all the fags and be done with it. Or just make it so that from here on out, no more homosexuals will be born to straight couples. Can't be that hard for god and would take care of the "problem" in one generation without any smiting.
I'm in the middle of reading this now. It turns out that the bakery itself were the ones who made this issue public via Facebook with the comment: "this is what happens when you tell gay people you won't do their wedding cake" while including the name and address of one of the brides.
It appears that the bakery owners (by own admission) had been aware of the law for years and knew that they were going to break it if a same-sex couple would solicit their services. They also publicly declared that they would continue to do so in the future, if presented with the opportunity.
It seems to me that the gay couple have been trying to make this a big issue once it went public (which they didn't do) by embellishing their "emotional suffering".
The ruling also discusses the constitutional issues regarding religion and free speech at length. Interesting reading.
[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 07-05-2015).]
God doesn't hate homosexuals. God has deemed that homosexuality is a sin (therefore "wrong"). If I were a baker (and I'm not as I can burn water), I wouldn't make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple. I "would" however make a birthday cake for them. God doesn't say that birthdays are a sin so I wouldn't be doing anything where it looked as though I was accepting of their sin. (FWIW, I also wouldn't make a polygamists wedding cake or one that celebrated an abortion.)
God doesn't hate homosexuals. God has deemed that homosexuality is a sin (therefore "wrong"). If I were a baker (and I'm not as I can burn water), I wouldn't make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple. I "would" however make a birthday cake for them. God doesn't say that birthdays are a sin so I wouldn't be doing anything where it looked as though I was accepting of their sin. (FWIW, I also wouldn't make a polygamists wedding cake or one that celebrated an abortion.)
Since homosexuality doesn't seem to be a choice (based on what I read on the subject and from what I heard from gay friends who often struggle to reconcile their faith and sexual orientation), how can being a homosexual be any more sinful than having a hooked nose, brown hair or needing glasses?
BTW, why is polygamy so sinful?
Exodus 21:10: "a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can marry." 2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3: "King David had six wives and numerous concubines." 1 Kings 11:3: "King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines." 2 Chronicles 11:21: "King Solomon's son Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines." Deuteronomy 21:15: "If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons...."
[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 07-06-2015).]
Since homosexuality doesn't seem to be a choice (based on what I read on the subject and from what I heard from gay friends who often struggle to reconcile their faith and sexual orientation), how can being a homosexual be any more sinful than having a hooked nose, brown hair or needing glasses?
BTW, why is polygamy so sinful?
Exodus 21:10: "a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can marry." 2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3: "King David had six wives and numerous concubines." 1 Kings 11:3: "King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines." 2 Chronicles 11:21: "King Solomon's son Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines." Deuteronomy 21:15: "If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons...."
All the above polygamy references are to the Old Testament.
[This message has been edited by spark1 (edited 07-06-2015).]
A rather high percentage of the populous here fund their very existence this way. We have quite the revolving door penal system in this part of the lands. More than a few golf courses. A plethora of full serve car washes. Just perfect for that trophy wife to grab the "pup pups" after the cut and wash in her 'burban on 22"s. 
