Bakers Ordered to Pay $135,000 for Refusing Gay Wedding Service

dbl

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So this trumps his Religious reasons for not wanting to bake a cake.. so how is this a problem?

do you understand that the Bakery broke the law, the State law that has an Anti-Discrimination Law, the Bakery Broke...The...Law

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: NavyDoc

Here's a whole database of faked hate crimes.

People are invited to examine them and draw their own conclusions about which groups do the faking. It seems that everyone has at least one recently.

He's not Right Wing or anything like that, right?

In his 1997 self-published book The Watchdogs Wilcox criticized an "industry" of such groups "whose identity and livelihood depend upon growth and expansion of their particular kind of victimization." He holds such groups use "links and ties" to imply connections between individuals and groups. And they collect millions of dollars by greatly exaggerating the size and danger of such groups, becoming "a massive extortion racket." He names groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti-Defamation League, Political Research Associates and the Center for Democratic Renewal. Mark Potok of Southern Poverty Law Center told a reporter that Wilcox "had an ax to grind for a great many years," and engaged in name calling against others doing anti-racist work. Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates told a reporter that "Laird Wilcox is not an accurate or ethical reporter...He simply can't tolerate people who are his competition in this field."

en.m.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: NavyDoc

Here's a whole database of faked hate crimes.

People are invited to examine them and draw their own conclusions about which groups do the faking. It seems that everyone has at least one recently.

Out of the first ten, only one entry reported as a result of a police investigation ... so would you say that the "false" nature of the crimes is an arbitrary decision on the part of the mysterious (since there's no About Us on the page) progenitors of this information?

A preponderance of gay/lesbian/black/transgender "fake crimes" isn't just coincidental then?

/eyeroll

a reply to: CrawlingChaos

Nothing could be farther from the truth. I understood precisely what you were saying, as further proven by your current effort.

Being intoxicated is the result of a behavior, not an aspect of identity. Acting to stop someone to become a danger to themselves and to others because of something they're doing ... i.e. imbibing alcohol excessively, is not comparable at all to someone buying a cake.

Also, as under the law, bars have legal liability for serving the obviously intoxicated, it's perfectly reasonable to refuse the Nth drink to an obvious drunk.

Being gay and wanting a cake is not dangerous. Being extremely intoxicated is or surely can be.

Many states have rules for the purchase of firearms, including a wait period and/or a background check. However, 2nd Amendment proponents argue that these restrictions are unconstitutional. My own position is that there is no problem with recording who buys weapons and making sure that they aren't mental patients or violent felons. However, again, selling someone a weapon is not comparable at all to selling someone a cake.

Being gay and wanting a cake isn't dangerous. Being angry with a loaded gun in your hand is.

It doesn't matter whether you're a "minority" from the city (talk about PC) or a redneck from the country, no loan officer anywhere is REQUIRED to make you a loan (which isn't really a purchase, notably).

Being gay and wanting a cake isn't dangerous. Neither is being turned down for a loan that you can't afford.

So, you're comparing being #faced drunk, being an armed homicidal maniac with wanting to buy a cake to celebrate one of the most important days of your life.

Nah ... seems perfectly reasonable to me.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Am I understanding you to say that the Constitution trumps both State law and religion? Or is that only blue States?

A hit job? The bakery not only wouldn't sell because of homosexuality but also castigated the person who went into the store by telling her the reasoning behind not selling them a cake was because they were an abomination ...

The State of Oregon looked at the evidence and made a decision based on the facts. Are we supposed to doubt their integrity because Oregon is a bit liberal?

How do you know that the claims are bogus? Are you a mind reader or empath? Are they "bogus" because you disagree with the decision?

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Your definition of involuntary servitude appears to differ wildly from the Supreme Court's definition.

Probably should take a look at that.

True. Is it a service? Is it voluntary? If yes and yes, then its involuntary servitude. Simple. Serving a black or gay person a at their wedding is a service. If you are the government then you are required to serve blacks and gays because of the social contract involved. Otherwise, its private, and no, you are not required to serve, because that would be involuntary and it would be a service, so it would be involuntary servitude. The US supreme court can't get their basic English down pat.

The government has to serve gays, not Christians outside of government. By people in general shopping only at places that treat everyone like equal human beings, the problem of discrimination can be solved. But using force only creates resentment and racial division. Why are race relations in England just fine, while they are hostile in the US? I would guess its because the government tried to force white and black people to shake hands in the 1960's, but life does not work that way, they needed the full faith and support of the states involved, which they did not have.

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: wayforward

Okay. What if the shoe or pump was on the other foot? What if a gay couple owned the bakery and refused to serve you because you are heterosexual, or they found out you were mormon and you wanted to marry your 10'th wife and they disapproved and refused to make your stupid wedding cake, what then? Would they be justified to refuse you service?

It is always just so easy for people to forget they themselves are often discriminated against and forget how it feels when it happens to them.

I know someone who was treated poorly at an oil change service. I offered to hold a sign with them if they wished and recommended they did that. Do you have any idea how much business that place would lose if they had done that? Thousands of dollars worth. That is financial punishment without using the force of a gun. It is much more effective too. Less violent, more effective. So, I do believe there are good solutions that don't involve a heavy hand.

a reply to: wayforward

Do you have any idea how much business that place would lose if they had done that? Thousands of dollars worth.

We do have the idea. The problem is that it doesn't always work.

That is financial punishment without using the force of a gun. It is much more effective too. Less violent, more effective. So, I do believe there are good solutions that don't involve a heavy hand.

Like I said it doesn't always work. Many people do not live in big cities and towns.

[edit]

I know someone who was treated poorly at an oil change service.

I am curious about this. I want full story lol.

a reply to: Annee

Most of the entries have this detail when drilled into:

"Type of hoax: suspected"

Now, I wonder who would have the motivation to mount an online attack on the concept of hate crimes, and further, to discover that the majority reported by Blacks, gays, Lesbians and trans* folk are "fake."

Who do we know that would fit that description?

Oh yeah, any of a number of fringe right-wingnuts.

Traffic reports show that the website only gets about 18 hits a day.

Websites quoting or co-publishing entries:

Indiana Review - "the crossraods of the conservative community"

American Renaissance

From their About Us for American Renaissance info:

AR has had a web presence since 1994, and we consider AmRen.com to be the Internet’s premier race-realist site.

Oh, and, not to mention, the website home of [hate-site-nolink], a well-known racist/neo-nazi site, which of course cannot be linked to because ATS properly recognizes it as a known hate site.

Link to Websites Quoting or Citing "fakehatecrimes.org"

EDIT: Well, whoever actually owns the site has gone to a lot of trouble to hide their identity through privacyprotect.org.

The site is hosted in Atlanta, GA and is registered in New Zealand in the charmingly named city of Nobby Beach.

WHOIS lookup for fakehatecrimes.org

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
]Ah, gotta love this strawman whenever it pops up. Maybe because Muslims aren't actively trying to suppress gay rights in this country?

How would you know? The media and gay activists dont target their businesses.

Because we haven't seen any lawsuits involving them yet or seen any Muslims loudly looking for face time to discriminate against them. It's pretty damn obvious. Stop trying to drag another demographic down to your level of hate.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm afraid you missed my point friend. You were argueing in absolute terms a merchant must sale, I responded with absolutes, to show there are times a merchant has discretion. And no, im not comparing buying a cake to those things, the fact you go there shows you either missed my point, or decided to ignore it.

Either is fine, doesn't matter in the long run. We both think gay couples should not by law be prevented from marriage, we just disagree on what part the rest of the population must play in that marriage. Freedom of association has a flip side, most people do not realize this. Freedom of association denotes a freedom of disassociation. If you have the right to associate and congregate with those you wish to ; Then you are also free to disassociate yourself from people you do not wish to.

/shrug that's just something we'll have to disagree about.



EDIT:

It doesn't matter whether you're a "minority" from the city (talk about PC) or a redneck from the country, no loan officer anywhere is REQUIRED to make you a loan (which isn't really a purchase, notably).

Actually the community reinvestment act says different. And that difference is what lead to predatory loans and robo-signing, and forclosure scandals. The very ones this administration claimed the banks were to big to jail, over. The targets were predominatly minorities, who were coaxed or strong-armed into loans they could not pay off. And it has had serious reprocussions not only to those individuals but the entire housing market, and the baseline of the economy. The loan is a necessary part of the purchase, and cannot be discounted as being involved, IMO.

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
We both think gay couples should not by law be prevented from marriage, we just disagree on what part the rest of the population must play in that marriage.

It's not about marriage.

It's about a public business providing equal service to every customer.

If you make a specific type of cake, that cake is equally available to ALL customers.

What customer does with that cake is none of your business.

a reply to: CrawlingChaos

No one ever has to participate in any gay marriage if they don't want to. For example, since I'm not in the marriage business, I won't be participating in any gay weddings, unless I'm invited to one personally.

Don't want to work with fat people? Don't be a personal trainer.

Don't want to participate in gay weddings? Don't get into the wedding business.

As I said before it seems some people think that their religious beliefs can exempt them from the law or in this case with them violating the gag order they must believe the law does not apply to them at all.

Sooner or later those types will figure out that they can't pick and choose the laws they follow like they do with their bible. It may take a while and some loss of fortunes, but it will sink in.

They can argue against it, be unhappy with it, and even try to get the laws changed, but unless they can get the laws changed when they break they laws they will face consequences. Even if they are ignorant of the laws that doesn't exempt them from them.

a reply to: Annee

I'm afraid we disagree.. It's not a public business ; It's a private business that caters to the public. Simply opening a business does not make you a public institution, nor publicly owned. If I walk into a sporting goods store, to buy a baseball bat ; I express I will not be hitting baseballs but people... Are you still soo adamant that you must sell me this bat ? I bet you wouldn't have this same resolve.

And that's fine. This is not an absolute argument, an absolute answer will not suffice I'm afraid.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

No one ever has to participate in any gay marriage if they don't want to.

Apparently this is not the case. Several forms of business and the owners of, have been forced or are in the act of being forced to participate. Is this not what is being discussed ?

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
a reply to: Annee

I'm afraid we disagree.. It's not a public business ; It's a private business that caters to the public. Simply opening a business does not make you a public institution, nor publicly owned. If I walk into a sporting goods store, to buy a baseball bat ; I express I will not be hitting baseballs but people... Are you still soo adamant that you must sell me this bat ? I bet you wouldn't have this same resolve.

And that's fine. This is not an absolute argument, an absolute answer will not suffice I'm afraid.

Public versus private ownership of the business is irrelevant. It is about whether you cater to the ENTIRE public or a select private group. If your shop is open to anyone who wants to walk in, then you AREN'T allowed to discriminate based on gender, race, sexuality. Places that are purposely set up to be exclusive to only a select group of people (whether through dues, membership, etc) ARE allowed to turn people away for whatever reason. It's just that simple.

Also, if you tell a store clerk that you intend to use something you intend to purchase from their store to commit a crime, you are 100% allowed to deny them service. That isn't discrimination. That point was a red herring and not relevant to the topic at hand.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's not a red herring at all. Like I stated earlier, are they refusing service to anyone that's gay ? Or simply not participating in the event or ceremony. I'm bombarded with absolutes as arguments, so I figured these are ways that might be understood.

I personally, don't feel this is absolutely this, or absolutely that type of discussion.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

ACTUALLY the Constitution says in the 14th Amendment that you aren't allowed to discriminate based on minority status. It's called the Equal Protection clause.

Actually, it does no such thing. It empowers the federal government to to deter state discrimination. It has no effect on private discrimination.

This is complete [sic] horsecrap. A business being forced to serve all customers equally is NOT slavery and you should feel ashamed for dishonoring REAL slaves who have to work WITHOUT compensation.

Slaves were compensated with room and board. Some were even allowed some pay that could then be applied to buying their freedom. Was this compensation adequate? No. The same can be applied--even if on a different level-- in this case. Who is the government to say what compensation among private actors is adequate?

It is also a clear violation of the First Amendment. The Government is coercing a private entity to act against it's personal and religious beliefs.