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

originally posted by: timequake
a reply to: Annee

I'm aware of what the law says. The question was whether or not it is constitutional. Naturally the state actor that passed the law is going to sell their view as to what they believe the issue is about.

There are lots of Constitutional lawyers, therefore it is not set in stone.

It is basically a framework, which seems to be falling away from Christianty having the dominance it ones did, but should never have had.

I think the Constitution is finally standing up for the secular country it was always meant to be.

I've been watching this progression since the 50s.

Oops!

a reply to: timequake

You make a statement that you're not waffling ... and then you waffle more. Fascinating.

originally posted by: timequake
a reply to: Gryphon66

I hold to my ultimate point: The Constitution subjects the government to limited authority and restrictions that were only meant for government actors. States are subject to this under the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment empowered the federal government to deter state governments from discriminating against certain protected class (which does not include those based upon sexual orientation). This does not empower federal or state governments to apply the same to private actors.

No, the 14th amendment DID NOT empower the federal government to deter state governments from discriminating against certain protected class(es) ... that is the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In case you haven't read it in a while, here is the text of the Fourteenth Amendment:

Section 1. 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.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Of course, the relevant part to our question is Section 1, and to a lesser extent, Section 5.

You're mistaken once again. I don't have to "misdirect" ... you're doing a fine job with your errant claims and outright mistakes.

a reply to: wayforward

If I was a gay Black baker and I only wanted to serve gay Blacks.......According to the constitution I have the right. This is what real freedom looks like guys.........On your private property you have to constitutional right to serve whoever you want.



We are so far down the path of tyranny we can not even understand what liberty is anymore.

Lets see them do this for OTHER religions and THEN let's see what happens..louderwithcrowder.com...

originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: wayforward

If I was a gay Black baker and I only wanted to serve gay Blacks.......According to the constitution I have the right. This is what real freedom looks like guys.........On your private property you have to constitutional right to serve whoever you want.

We are so far down the path of tyranny we can not even understand what liberty is anymore.

Yep! 300 million people should just do whatever they want.

cheers to Freedom.

I'm getting the impression that many of you are rallying behind this solely for the well intended, but overly narrow minded view, that this law is against discrimination so it must be a good thing. Unfortunately the broader perspective is that this same premise can be applied the other way just the same.

Allowing such control over the private actions of individuals that have nothing to do with the public safety but instead for happy-feel-good reasons can be problematic in the long run. that is not the role of government. Ironically, in an attempt to prevent discrimination, is also enforces it. It means that the law now respects the beliefs du jour, and only those that are found "acceptable". In broader terms, this may well come back to bite you in the end.

What would normally happen is that this baker refuses service for said reasons. Those reason become known. And this baker suffers financially as a result. Freedom requires the willingness to accept the consequences of one's actions. The couple who was refused service is free to go somewhere else. Forcing someone else to act against one's will to make someone else feel better is obviously a removal from freedom. Yes, gay people have a right to interact with others, but no one has the right to force others to interact with them.

originally posted by: SubTruth
a reply to: wayforward

If I was a gay Black baker and I only wanted to serve gay Blacks.......According to the constitution I have the right. This is what real freedom looks like guys.........On your private property you have to constitutional right to serve whoever you want.



We are so far down the path of tyranny we can not even understand what liberty is anymore.

Can you quote the section of the Constitution (or its Amendments) that addresses property rights?

Did you mean to say "tyranny" or "theocracy" ... because when religious whims trump the laws of the land ... that's surely what is on the way.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Trying reading it more closely. It does exactly what I said it does.

.......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.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

It empowered Congress to enforce Section One with applies to States only.

originally posted by: timequake
I'm getting the impression that many of you are rallying behind this sole for the well intended, but overly narrow minded view, that this law is against discrimination so it must be a good thing. Unfortunately the broader perspective is that this same premise can be applied the other way just the same.

So, you think it's OK to deny service, discriminate against a military veteran because his wheelchair leaves marks on your floor or just because he makes other customers feel uncomfortable.

Can you quote the section of the Constitution (or its Amendments) that addresses property rights? Did you mean to say "tyranny" or "theocracy" ... because when religious whims trump the laws of the land ... that's surely what is on the way.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Are you attempting to argue that we no do not have any property rights? Well, that has been help up under the First, Fourth, Sixth, Fourteenth, and Tenth Amendments.

Also, get over the religious thing. It was merely context for the bigger question.

a reply to: Annee

So, you think it's OK to deny service, discriminate against a military veteran because his wheelchair leaves marks on your floor or just because he makes other customers feel uncomfortable.

Why not? I wouldn't do it, but it isn't for me or you to tell the "discriminator" what he must or must not do in this instance. It would be his right ( and economic downfall) to do so. Who are you or I to tell him otherwise?

a reply to: timequake

So now you're arguing against anti-discrimination laws?

Wow. Okay.

Government, at every level, has had control over the actions of individuals under the rule of law since the beginning of the United States, before the United States under British rule, etc. etc. Where did you people grow up in which the government never limited the actions of citizens ...

Anti-discrimination laws have nothing to do with "happy-feel-good" reasons, but are based deeply in American history.

And they are directly in line with the 14th's equality before the laws and due process provisions.

Again, the matter is clear.

The baker refused to perform the service their business holds out to the public.

The baker refused to do so for discriminatory reasons.

Those discriminatory reasons are illegal in the State of Oregon.

The baker is paying the penalty for breaking the law.

No one is being forced to "interact" with anyone. No one is forced to come to a party or a wedding, or even to think about a wedding.

The baker bakes cakes and sells them to the public. All members of the public have the right to purchase the goods.

If the baker wants to pick and choose who they will sell to, they need to form a private club.

The Kleins are, if anything, spitting on freedom and religion.

originally posted by: timequake
a reply to: Annee

So, you think it's OK to deny service, discriminate against a military veteran because his wheelchair leaves marks on your floor or just because he makes other customers feel uncomfortable.

Why not? I wouldn't do it, but it isn't for me or you to tell the "discriminator" what he must or must not do in this instance. It would be his right ( and economic downfall) to do so. Who are you or I to tell him otherwise?

That makes it clear where you stand.

I have no more interest in what you choose to say.

a reply to: Gryphon66

And once again you're blind to the ultimate point that I am trying to make. Yes, governments have attempted to interfere with the private lives of individuals ever since we have had governments. The issue is that political systems always move towards tyranny and increasingly more power (over your life) through good intentions, both deliberately and unintentionally. We have a constitution in recognition of this trend.

And, once again, the equal protection and due process of the 14 Amendment have nothing to do with this case as it is not implicated nor cited as the source of the authority. Both only apply to government actions against private entities. not actions among purely private entities. ..... that poor dead horse cannot take anymore of this, Gryph.

a reply to: Annee

And it is your right to stick your head into the sand.

Good luck to you.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Here's the video.

originally posted by: timequake
a reply to: Annee

And it is your right to stick your head into the sand.

Good luck to you.

Hardly.

Lived it ---- as a child growing up with a disabled mom prior to the disability act.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

Yeah, that illustrates it fairly well.

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Here's the video.

Isn't this about the decorations or wording on the cake?

Didn't they say they would bake the cake?