Court rules against Oregon bakers who refused to make gay wedding cake [W:1685] (1 Viewer)

[MateoMtnClimber]

I've thought about it.

You're wrong. As stated about 20 times here now, the lesbians were discriminated against by the Kleins because of their sexual orientation, not because "an event."

ludin: "No a wedding is not a protected class it is an event. "

No, they aren't. For the kajillionth time.



Arrgh. See?



Grasp your dichotomy. Give it a good stroke, and maybe you'll erupt into an understanding of where you are wrong.

It's never gonna happen. He has been saying versions of the same thing for a hundred pages. No grasp of the statute. No grasp of the case law. Hasn't even read the court's and the bureau's rulings. At least the judges knew what they were talking about and doing.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

& for those who *still* haven't bothered to read up on the case, part of why the Kleins were fined, was they blatantly and boldly flaunted court orders. Repeatedly.

Courts don't take too kindly to that kind of ****.

They also went on radio and TV - for years - and said that the First Amendment should protect them from having to bake a cale for gay people. Now we have half a dozen or more posters in here literally making up the facts of the case and still failing to comprehend that certain kinds of discrimination are illegal, including the sexual orientation discrimination the bakers used against the gay couple.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

*WARNING* We are now reentering the earth's atmosphere....

Oh hey Paperview. Back here on planet earth, California has decriminalized knowingly spreading the HIV virus, and the mayor of Seattle got away with molesting kids for 30 years largely because he's gay.

But if you want to pretend that gays are discriminated against because of one lesbian couple's inability to find a gay-friendly baker in one of the gayest cities in America, you are free to do so.

How in the year 2018 is it still acceptable to deny discrimination in public? Why don't you let the victims of homophobia tell us when discrimination is fixed? Why don't you let the victims of racism tell us when discrimination is fixed? Why don't you let the victims of sexism tell us when discrimination is fixed? All those groups have a better grasp on these issues than the white, straight men who caused the problems in the first place.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

Seeing as the coupled still was willing to point them towards a bakery that would accommodate the customers and I wholly disagree with the fine for "emotional distress".

You disagree? Because the bakers said, "There's a bakery down there that'll take more kindly to folks like you."

You have read the rulings and the findings that support the fine, have you not?

What about this article that Somerville shared with us? It describes in agonizing detail the emotional distress the gay couple endured and has been linked three times in this thread. It will help you understand.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/redi...s/index.ssf/2016/07/sweet_cakes_lesbians.html

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

That the bakers support a marriage their religious views do not allow.

Same as if a Christian walked into a gay baker and asked for a cake in a cross for Easter.
I bet you wouldn't have an issue with them declining to make it.

But we are not talking about cake. Cake is irrelevant.

We allow businesses to discriminate all the time.

Do you think that if I walk into a Chick-fil-A holding another man's hand that the counter can refuse to sell me a chicken sandwich?

Before you regurgitate that nonsense about a gay marriage being an event and a chicken sandwich being a product, consider this. I can order a hundred chicken sandwiches, get into my car, take my sandwiches to my gay wedding, and serve them to our guests at my and my husband's reception. By your logic, I just violated Chick-fil-A's owners' religious freedom rights.

If the bakers had just baked the damn cake (which was a standard good they offer to all of their customers just like the sandwich is a standard good that Chick-fil-A offers to all of its customers, so save the faulty "custom order" argument), handed the cake to the women who wanted to pay for it, and gone back to work baking cakes (or making chicken sandwiches in the other case), none of this would ever have happened.

The bakers illegally inserted their religious views into someone else's business. They can do that at home and at church (in fact, I'm sure they do), but they cannot do it in the place of public accommodation they agreed they would operate pursuant to the same laws that every other public accommodation follows.

I'm rather proud of that analogy. Let's see if it sticks.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

White people are a protected class, which is why you can't refuse service to someone strictly because he is white.

But that has nothing to do with the lesbians, who were refused service because of their sexual orientation, not because they are white.

ludin thinks that if KKK members are refused service somewhere because they are KKK members that they can claim discrimination because they are white.

I'm not kidding.

 

[tres borrachos]

ludin thinks that if KKK members are refused service somewhere because they are KKK members that they can claim discrimination because they are white.

I'm not kidding.

Unbelievable.

 

[Cephus]

It's never gonna happen. He has been saying versions of the same thing for a hundred pages. No grasp of the statute. No grasp of the case law. Hasn't even read the court's and the bureau's rulings. At least the judges knew what they were talking about and doing.

And he doesn't care, that's the thing you have to remember. Most people in this thread who are defending the bigots don't know any better and simply don't care. It's all emotion, no rationality, as usual.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

Never heard of a cross cake, a wedding cake yes. A religious easter cake? Not really that well known.

Also the odds of baker making a cross cake would be very very very very insignificantly small. The odds of a baker making a wedding cake is very very significantly enormously big.

And we are talking about cake, a wedding cake to be precise and the obligation to comply with the law if you are a public accommodation. And we do not allow public accommodation to discriminate for the reasons mentioned in the law (because that would be against the law).

I've seen cakes in the shape of a cross for First Communions and baptisms and things like that. I've even seen them at grocery store and other non-Christian bakeries. But they're included within a catalog that usually says something about "no substitutions" or "custom orders upon request". In that case, they have to make the cross cake for anyone who orders it, even a theistic Satanist.

From my understanding, this gay couple would have or could have bought a wedding cake from the Christian bakers' catalog or regular offerings. Since the bakers make wedding cakes, they have to make a wedding cake for anyone who orders it, even a lesbian couple. Of course, we don't know exactly what the couple would have ordered because the bakers illegally denied them service before even getting that far.

 

[gdgyva]

Do you think that if I walk into a Chick-fil-A holding another man's hand that the counter can refuse to sell me a chicken sandwich?

Before you regurgitate that nonsense about a gay marriage being an event and a chicken sandwich being a product, consider this. I can order a hundred chicken sandwiches, get into my car, take my sandwiches to my gay wedding, and serve them to our guests at my and my husband's reception. By your logic, I just violated Chick-fil-A's owners' religious freedom rights.

If the bakers had just baked the damn cake (which was a standard good they offer to all of their customers just like the sandwich is a standard good that Chick-fil-A offers to all of its customers, so save the faulty "custom order" argument), handed the cake to the women who wanted to pay for it, and gone back to work baking cakes (or making chicken sandwiches in the other case), none of this would ever have happened.

The bakers illegally inserted their religious views into someone else's business. They can do that at home and at church (in fact, I'm sure they do), but they cannot do it in the place of public accommodation they agreed they would operate pursuant to the same laws that every other public accommodation follows.

I'm rather proud of that analogy. Let's see if it sticks.

when is the last time you ordered a wedding cake?

did you have it delivered?

was there a tasting?

how many tiers? what types of decorations and fondants were used?

just a cake isnt even close....

just a cake is a cake sitting in a display case already made.....

a wedding cake is a piece of art, and the customer pays for that artistry

they can take a few hours, or i have seen a team on one cake for a day

not "just another cake"

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

That would be true if government owned the business....

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

That's not what the anti-discrimination statutes say. Have you read them? Both the federal as well as the OR laws were linked earlier in this thread.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

Sorry that is not correct and frankly goes against every argument being presented. They make cake. It doesn't matter what shape the cake takes. they offer to make cakes.



minority vendors are not asked for their opinion on white people who might be kkk or to offer their support. they are being asked to serve food that they offer for sale in their shop.
let see if you can be consistent.

i doubt it.

That is absurd. You just said I can walk into a bakery and demand a Guinness record cake or a cake shaped like breasts or a cake depicting an aborted fetus. That last one is an actual case. I suggest you review it.

Your KKK members are being refused service because they are KKK members, not because they are white. KKK members are not a protected class. For probably the fiftieth time in this thread, do you get the difference?

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

And being a homosexual is not a race.

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

Sexual orientation is a protected class of persons. Just like race is. Again, you need to read the statutes before you stumble into this conversation.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

Article XIV (Amendment 14 - Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection)
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.

This EQUAL Protection includes equal protection for the murderous Black Panthers as well as the despised Democrat Party affiliated institutions like the KKK

I know, the robed priests who rule us have deemed (in the words of George Orwell who fully understood left wing and the tyranny of their language) that while "All animals are EQUAL but some animals are MORE EQUAL than others"

Thank God for Trump because this crap is going to get flushed down the toilet where it belongs by a just Supreme Court as the loony leftest lesbians are outvoted

The very plain language of US Constitution does not permit government to recognize titles of nobility, privileged or protected classes

If you will review applicable case law since 1964, you will see that every level of court in the country has ruled that anti-discrimination laws are constitutional under the Commerce Clause.

By the way, the Christian bakers didn't even make a claim under equal protection. They used the First Amendment because they thought they should get some sort of Christian hall pass for breaking the law. Fortunately, the law could not care less that the bakers don't like gay people.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

I think that the way we allowed the baker to be treated by the state is dangerous, as the precedent can be used at a later time against virtually any citizen or minority.

But it would be ok to you for us to allow the gay couple to be treated so dangerously by the bakers? You realize this precedent was established more than fifty years ago and has been enforced since then, don't you? Anti-discrimination laws are just being hopelessly relitigated now because bigots and zealots think that their arguments that failed relative to black Americans will somehow succeed against LGBTQ Americans. The historically ignorant have been sloppily lobbing them all at the wall throughout this thread. It simply is not going to happen.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

What kind of government targets people like the Jews for their beliefs?

Not ours. It didn't target Christians here either.

 

[Cephus]

That's not what the anti-discrimination statutes say. Have you read them? Both the federal as well as the OR laws were linked earlier in this thread.

And they don't care. Reality is an inconvenience to the irrational. They don't care what actually is, what they wish was is all that matters to them.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

Specifically which "groups" are afforded superior and unequal protection of the law.

Please itemize all of them.

There are none so blind as those who will not see. How have you formed your opinions on this topic if you haven't even read the laws? Sigh. I'll do your homework for you. Here are the links. Unless you can find an audio book, you will have to read them for yourself.

https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/thelaw/civil_rights_act.html

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.403

Also, I see what you're trying to do with that "superior and unequal protection" language there. That's not what anti-discrimination laws provide. They guarantee equal protection equally applied because Americans refuse to treat minorities decently unless they are forced by governments to do so.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

And he doesn't care, that's the thing you have to remember. Most people in this thread who are defending the bigots don't know any better and simply don't care. It's all emotion, no rationality, as usual.

I get better about ignoring certain people and then I relapse. I'll get there.

I get the lack of rational thought (believe me, I get that for some people here, rational thought is utterly absent), but what emotional basis do you think leads someone to support discrimination against a minority victim? Is it a partisan thing? I hope not because human rights are not a partisan issue. Is it religion? Is it just a need to argue? Something else?

 

[Visbek]

a wedding cake is a piece of art, and the customer pays for that artistry

Not in terms of protected speech, it isn't.

When a baker makes a wedding cake, no one assumes that anything about that cake expresses the views of the baker.

No one assumes it is the baker wishing someone a happy birthday, simply because that's what was written on the cake. It is patently obvious that it is the family, not the baker, who is expressing a view.

Similarly, the baker is not conducting a religious service. The baker is not performing any sort of religious function. The baker has no role in sanctioning or sanctifying the marriage. The baker is not communicating, to the community, that he or she blesses the marriage.

The difficulty is irrelevant here. Taking a full day to make a cake does not magically turn it into an expression of the baker's personal views. Craftsmanship does not bestow magical discrimination powers on the baker.

And of course, one should note: If the baker proclaimed that it was against his religion to make a wedding cake for a mixed-race marriage, would that be acceptable? It's the same thing, except that to some people it is apparently still acceptable to discriminate against LGBT individuals.

A bakery is a public accommodation, and are not being paid to express their opinion on behalf of the customer. While the owner is entitled to refuse service based on certain qualities (such as the customer being difficult or rude), in the state of Oregon they cannot discriminate against customers on the basis of sexual preference.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

when is the last time you ordered a wedding cake?

did you have it delivered?

was there a tasting?

how many tiers? what types of decorations and fondants were used?

just a cake isnt even close....

just a cake is a cake sitting in a display case already made.....

a wedding cake is a piece of art, and the customer pays for that artistry

they can take a few hours, or i have seen a team on one cake for a day

not "just another cake"

I see that artistry angle you are attempting (courts are considering it too), but there is a difference between a big, special cake that bakeries like the one we are discussing routinely produce and a custom cake that a bakery does not routinely produce. The gay couple wanted a wedding cake that the Christian bakers would have made for a heterosexual couple at the same moment they refused to make it for the homosexual couple. Oopsie, that's illegal.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

And they don't care. Reality is an inconvenience to the irrational. They don't care what actually is, what they wish was is all that matters to them.

And thus discrimination is perpetuated by the small minded and illogical.

 

[truthatallcost]

How in the year 2018 is it still acceptable to deny discrimination in public? Why don't you let the victims of homophobia tell us when discrimination is fixed? Why don't you let the victims of racism tell us when discrimination is fixed? Why don't you let the victims of sexism tell us when discrimination is fixed? All those groups have a better grasp on these issues than the white, straight men who caused the problems in the first place.

Sure Mateo, straight white men are the source of all wrongdoing in the world, and utopia will commence promptly when they're either pushed aside, or outnumbered. Because just look at how much more advanced men of other cultures are when it comes to respecting the rights of others.

-Rap music has made it acceptable to refer to women as hoes and bitches.
- Women in many Muslim countries are considered the property of their husbands. Gays are beaten and imprisoned, if not outright killed, and the Arab minority in parts of north Africa has conducted what amounts to genocide against blacks.
- Latin America, with it's over-obsession with machismo, is a completely backwards place where many of us love to visit, but we sure as hell don't want to live. It's nice at a glance, and horrifying as a permanent reality.
- India is in a rape epidemic. The government literally makes advertisements asking men not to rape.
- China, until recently, forced mandatory abortions on women. It was common for women to abort their unborn, if the baby was going to be born female.

Boy, just wait til those straight white guys disappear! Heaven on earth!

 

[truthatallcost]

Oh, I see. So people who have never experienced discrimination on the receiving end get to tell the victims of discrimination that discrimination is either over or "good enough" to stop insisting on equal rights equally applied.

You seem to be a fan of the country's history. The Founders had a lot to say about tyranny of the majority.

Lolz, 'never discriminated against'. You have no clue what you're talking about whatsoever.

The founders never thought we'd be in such a state as to fine people $135k over a cake either. They would be more horrified to learn of that than of any supposed tyranny of a dwindling-soon-to-disappear majority.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

If a Muslim baker refuses service based on sexual orientation then they should face the same consequences.

No mosque, church, temple or synagogue is covered under public accommodation laws, so they could refuse all they want, just like the Christian church in MS that refused a black couples wedding.

I was trying to think of a way to answer his post that wouldn't earn me infraction points. I'm glad you handled it instead.