Baker Faces State Investigation After Refusing to Make Same-Sex Couple’s Wedding Cake

[red states rule]

Once again libs are in a tizzy over someone sticking to their moral beliefs.





snip

KGW has details (http://www.kgw.com/news/local/Gresham-bakery-refuses-to-make-same-sex-wedding-cake-189475871.html) on the story:

It started on Jan. 17 when a mother and daughter showed up at Sweet Cakes by Melissa looking for the perfect wedding cake.
“My first question is what’s the wedding date,” said owner Aaron Klein. “My next question is bride and groom’s name … the girl giggled a little bit and said it’s two brides.”


Klein apologized to the women and told them he and his wife do not make cakes for same-sex marriages. Klein said the women were disgusted and walked out.


“I believe that marriage is a religious institution ordained by God,” said Klein. “A man should leave his mother and father and cling to his wife … that to me is the beginning of marriage.”


[...]
“I’d rather have my kids see their dad stand up for what he believes in then to see him bow down because one person complained.”
One of the women filed a complaint on January 28– also saying Klein referred to them as “abominations unto the Lord”– and now the Oregon Attorney General’s civil enforcement officers are investigating the claim (http://now.msn.com/religious-baker-wont-make-same-sex-wedding-cake).


But Klein says he never used harsh language and has no problem with homosexuals; he just doesn’t want to be a part of their marriage.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/02/baker-under-investigation-after-declining-to-make-gay-couples-wedding-cake-if-i-have-to-be-penalized-for-my-beliefs-so-be-it/

[jimnyc]

Don't like the business? go elsewhere. I'm tired of everyone trying to tell business owners just how they need to operate. If they want to turn down $$, let them do so.

[bingster]

I see no difference between this and the refusal to serve minorities.

[Marcus Aurelius]

While there is no federal law that protects based on sexual orientation, there are some states or local municipalities that protect based on sexual orientation.

While I personally feel the baker is well within their rights to refuse business in this case, the legality would depend on whether or not their state or local municipality has any form of protections based on sexual orientation.

For example...
http://www.padiversity.org/ProtectedClasses.html
...in PA, 12 cities and 29 municipalities have protections based on sexual orientation.

In Oregon however, where this took place...
http://www.oregon.gov/boli/CRD/pages/c_crprotoc.aspx

Discrimination in Public Accommodation
A place of public accommodation is defined in state law as any place that offers the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges, whether in the nature of goods, services, lodging, amusements or otherwise. It is illegal to discriminate in places of public accommodation on the basis of race, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, national origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability, or age (18 years of age and older).

I think the baker may be screwed.

[jimnyc]

I see no difference between this and the refusal to serve minorities.

One is protected by the civil rights act, one is not. This owner would be within her rights to turn down work from a gay black person too. Being gay is not a protected characteristic in "discrimination", and shouldn't be, quite frankly. A person with strong religious beliefs, who owns such a business, should be allowed to turn down business she disagrees with. The consumer, should have the ability to see a business in which operates against their beliefs, and take their business elsewhere.

Similar in MANY bars - "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason". While of course that doesn't give them the right to illegally discriminate, outside of that, ANY business owner should be free to tell a customer to leave, just as any consumer has the right to go to ANY business to spend their money.

[fj1200]

I see no difference between this and the refusal to serve minorities.

Gays have economic options, blacks typically did not.

[bingster]

One is protected by the civil rights act, one is not. This owner would be within her rights to turn down work from a gay black person too. Being gay is not a protected characteristic in "discrimination", and shouldn't be, quite frankly. A person with strong religious beliefs, who owns such a business, should be allowed to turn down business she disagrees with. The consumer, should have the ability to see a business in which operates against their beliefs, and take their business elsewhere.

Similar in MANY bars - "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason". While of course that doesn't give them the right to illegally discriminate, outside of that, ANY business owner should be free to tell a customer to leave, just as any consumer has the right to go to ANY business to spend their money.

As Marcus points out, it is a protected characteristic in some states, just not federally, yet. For instance, it is illegal to discriminate against gays in federal government jobs and, in California, for any jobs. And you can post any signs you want, if what the sign says is not legal, the sign is meaningless.

This is a forum about arguing right or wrong. It's wrong to discriminate against gays, period.

[bingster]

Gays have economic options, blacks typically did not.

That doesn't sound like much of legal argument. Color of skin and sexual preference are still just superficial differences that deserve protection against discrimination.

[bingster]

Once again libs are in a tizzy over someone sticking to their moral beliefs.

You know there are some gay conservatives. I can never figure out why, but there are.

[jimnyc]

While there is no federal law that protects based on sexual orientation, there are some states or local municipalities that protect based on sexual orientation.

While I personally feel the baker is well within their rights to refuse business in this case, the legality would depend on whether or not their state or local municipality has any form of protections based on sexual orientation.

For example...
http://www.padiversity.org/ProtectedClasses.html
...in PA, 12 cities and 29 municipalities have protections based on sexual orientation.

In Oregon however, where this took place...
http://www.oregon.gov/boli/CRD/pages/c_crprotoc.aspx


I think the baker may be screwed.

Read about those protections:


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:

What you're quoting is employment law. A business owner is still free to not do business with someone/something against their religious beliefs.

[jimnyc]

As Marcus points out, it is a protected characteristic in some states, just not federally, yet. For instance, it is illegal to discriminate against gays in federal government jobs and, in California, for any jobs. And you can post any signs you want, if what the sign says is not legal, the sign is meaningless.

This is a forum about arguing right or wrong. It's wrong to discriminate against gays, period.

Gays have no right to demand someone make a cake, but they are free to take their business elsewhere. The stuff Marcus pointed out is about employment law, which has no effect on this case, or lack of a case.

[jimnyc]

That doesn't sound like much of legal argument. Color of skin and sexual preference are still just superficial differences that deserve protection against discrimination.

The overwhelming majority of discrimination is perfectly legal. You can be fired in most places for no reason at all, or because your boss doesn't like the color of your shirt. Short of a contract, you're shit out of luck. Your local deli can deny you a sandwich made if you're wearing a NY Giants jersey if they so choose.

There are very few, in reality, protected characteristics that would protect certain discrimination. Sometimes people need to just move on and shop elsewhere, instead of being butt hurt and going towards lawsuits and such.

[bingster]

Gays have no right to demand someone make a cake, but they are free to take their business elsewhere. The stuff Marcus pointed out is about employment law, which has no effect on this case, or lack of a case.

Discrimination in Public Accommodation
A place of public accommodation is defined in state law as any place that offers the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges, whether in the nature of goods, services, lodging, amusements or otherwise. It is illegal to discriminate in places of public accommodation on the basis of race, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, national origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability, or age (18 years of age and older).

What does this have to do with employment. Even if it did, what difference does that make? Either discrimination is good or it's bad.

[bingster]

The overwhelming majority of discrimination is perfectly legal. You can be fired in most places for no reason at all, or because your boss doesn't like the color of your shirt. Short of a contract, you're shit out of luck. Your local deli can deny you a sandwich made if you're wearing a NY Giants jersey if they so choose.

There are very few, in reality, protected characteristics that would protect certain discrimination. Sometimes people need to just move on and shop elsewhere, instead of being butt hurt and going towards lawsuits and such.

When you open up a business to serve the public, you either serve the public or you don't.

Other than my stint in the Army, I've spent most of my life as a Retail Manager, so these principles are just common sense to me. You don't pick your customers, there are plenty who stink or have nasty personalities but you still serve them all with a smile on your face.

You also serve plenty of bigots and not all of them are white. I wish I had a nickel for every minority customer who accused be of being a bigot because I'm white! I'm white and I asked a black person for a receipt to return something, so I'm a bigot. So, you help them with a smile on your face and you follow policy hoping that your bosses won't throw you under the bus when the complaints get to them.

Picking and choosing your customers is not only bad business, it's either illegal or at least, should be illegal.

[KitchenKitten99]

Just like I can refuse to buy coffee from Caribou because it is owned by muslims and I am not 100% convinced that money from the company is not being channeled somewhere to terrorist organizations or that they support terrorism, etc.

Am I being discriminatory? Yep. :salute:

I prefer to support my local 'hometown' coffee shop that has been around for almost 20 years and is locally owned. If I can't get over there, I love Dunn Bros. BEST coffee around.

[jimnyc]

Discrimination in Public Accommodation
A place of public accommodation is defined in state law as any place that offers the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges, whether in the nature of goods, services, lodging, amusements or otherwise. It is illegal to discriminate in places of public accommodation on the basis of race, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, national origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability, or age (18 years of age and older).

What does this have to do with employment. Even if it did, what difference does that make? Either discrimination is good or it's bad.

I was reading a portion about discrimination above the public accommodation part. Based on that, then yes, Marcus was correct. My bad, didn't continue reading after seeing the employment portion, because employment law is generally totally different. In this case, they likely do have a case to make a complaint. The baker might get a fine, or if repeated violations, have their license taken away.

[jimnyc]

When you open up a business to serve the public, you either serve the public or you don't.

In the majority of places around the nation that is incorrect. The places that have laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation is still very much in the minority. I suppose the business owner needs to follow the laws set forth for where they live. Me personally, I think a business owner should be able to deny business to anyone they please. No different that not forcing a consumer to shop where they want to, let them choose any business they please.

[Kathianne]

It seems it will come down to a decision between state law and 'serving all' or 1st amendment and freedom to practice religion. As reminded repeatedly, most folks haven't an issue with 'gay marriages' and there are plenty of other bakeries.

We'll see where this takes us, though with the current conditions I'm betting that 1st amendment is trampled upon.

[fj1200]

That doesn't sound like much of legal argument. Color of skin and sexual preference are still just superficial differences that deserve protection against discrimination.

Who said I was making a legal argument? But bear with me. Should a private enterprise be able to discriminate against those who make more money? against those who are higher educated?

[bingster]

Who said I was making a legal argument? But bear with me. Should a private enterprise be able to discriminate against those who make more money? against those who are higher educated?

Really good question but I don't know, 'cause I'm not saying I can make a legal argument.

If you're referring to hiring, they certainly can take education into account. When a dealer finances a car, they can take finances into account. I guess that depends.

[Robert A Whit]

I see no difference between this and the refusal to serve minorities.

Kind a like that.

Wait, better

Kind da lik dat.

The business owner may not understand economics. When he banned them from his cakes, they more than likely spread the word and it is very possible he lost business. I agree with Jim that the owner has the right to pick out buyers.

Even if it puts him out of business.

[Robert A Whit]

As Marcus points out, it is a protected characteristic in some states, just not federally, yet. For instance, it is illegal to discriminate against gays in federal government jobs and, in California, for any jobs. And you can post any signs you want, if what the sign says is not legal, the sign is meaningless.

This is a forum about arguing right or wrong. It's wrong to discriminate against gays, period.

But you can discriminate against a person that is armed? Yes or no!

[Robert A Whit]

When you open up a business to serve the public, you either serve the public or you don't.

Other than my stint in the Army, I've spent most of my life as a Retail Manager, so these principles are just common sense to me. You don't pick your customers, there are plenty who stink or have nasty personalities but you still serve them all with a smile on your face.

You also serve plenty of bigots and not all of them are white. I wish I had a nickel for every minority customer who accused be of being a bigot because I'm white! I'm white and I asked a black person for a receipt to return something, so I'm a bigot. So, you help them with a smile on your face and you follow policy hoping that your bosses won't throw you under the bus when the complaints get to them.

Picking and choosing your customers is not only bad business, it's either illegal or at least, should be illegal.

Hell, I will even serve a white client.

Matter of fact, Green clients are welcome.

[bingster]

It seems it will come down to a decision between state law and 'serving all' or 1st amendment and freedom to practice religion. As reminded repeatedly, most folks haven't an issue with 'gay marriages' and there are plenty of other bakeries.

We'll see where this takes us, though with the current conditions I'm betting that 1st amendment is trampled upon.

I don't see discrimination to have anything to do with the 1st amendment, but, ok.

You can practice your religion all that you want as long as do not block or abridge the right of others.

[Kathianne]

I don't see discrimination to have anything to do with the 1st amendment, but, ok.

You can practice your religion all that you want as long as do not block or abridge the right of others.

I'll await the final findings.

[bingster]

But you can discriminate against a person that is armed? Yes or no!

No, if you're armed I'll not only serve you, I'll give you my money, and promise I won't report you if you don't shoot me!
:laugh:
That's a little different.

[fj1200]

Really good question but I don't know, 'cause I'm not saying I can make a legal argument.

If you're referring to hiring, they certainly can take education into account. When a dealer finances a car, they can take finances into account. I guess that depends.

I already said I'm not making a legal argument and I'm not referring to hiring. Should those who make more money and/or are more educated be protected as well?


I don't see discrimination to have anything to do with the 1st amendment, but, ok.

You can practice your religion all that you want as long as do not block or abridge the right of others.

The right to a cake? I must have missed that clause.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I was reading a portion about discrimination above the public accommodation part. Based on that, then yes, Marcus was correct. My bad, didn't continue reading after seeing the employment portion, because employment law is generally totally different. In this case, they likely do have a case to make a complaint. The baker might get a fine, or if repeated violations, have their license taken away.

I am quite often, yet people are always surprised ;)

[red states rule]

You know there are some gay conservatives. I can never figure out why, but there are.

The big difference is most gay conservatives do not use their sexual preference to create trouble, draw attention to themselves, and use the liberal media to paint those who do not support their lifestyle as bigots and homophobes

[bingster]

The big difference is most gay conservatives do not use their sexual preference to create trouble, draw attention to themselves, and use the liberal media to paint those who do not support their lifestyle as bigots and homophobes

Just curious, would you support a gay Republican candidate?

And I don't believe living your life without restrictions based purely on your sexual preference (like in the case of this baker) is causing trouble.

[fj1200]

I hear Duff has offered to bake the cake.

Food Network star's generous offer (http://hsrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=AnEgBoNQI1ff5JL6NeuHoe6bvZx4;_ylc=X3oDMWI1MzJ idnYwBF9TAzIwMjM1MzgwNzUEYQMxMzAyMDUgbmV3cyB0cmVuZ GluZyBub3cgcG0gYWNlIG9mIGNha2VzIHYEY2NvZGUDcHpidWZ jYWg1BGNwb3MDMzcEZANlcARlZAMxBGcDaWQtMzAzODgwNgRpb nRsA3VzBGl0YwMwBGx0eHQDRm9vZE5ldHdvcmtzdGFyJiMzOTt zZ2VuZXJvdXNvZmZlcgRtY29kZQNwemJ1YWxsY2FoNQRtcG9zA zEEcGtndAMxBHBrZ3YDMTEEcG9zAzIEc2VjA3RkLWZlYQRzbGs DdGl0bGUEdGFyA2h0dHA6Ly9uZXdzLnlhaG9vLmNvbS9ibG9nc y90cmVuZGluZy1ub3cvcmVmdXNhbC1sb2NhbC1iYWtlcnktc2F tZS1zZXgtY291cGxlLW9mZmVyZWQtZnJlZS0xOTI2MTQ4MzEua HRtbAR0ZXN0AzcwMQR3b2UDMjQ1OTExNQ--/SIG=13tnld0b4/EXP=1360189662/**http%3A//news.yahoo.com/blogs/trending-now/refusal-local-bakery-same-sex-couple-offered-free-192614831.html)

[jimnyc]

I hear Duff has offered to bake the cake.

Food Network star's generous offer (http://hsrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=AnEgBoNQI1ff5JL6NeuHoe6bvZx4;_ylc=X3oDMWI1MzJ idnYwBF9TAzIwMjM1MzgwNzUEYQMxMzAyMDUgbmV3cyB0cmVuZ GluZyBub3cgcG0gYWNlIG9mIGNha2VzIHYEY2NvZGUDcHpidWZ jYWg1BGNwb3MDMzcEZANlcARlZAMxBGcDaWQtMzAzODgwNgRpb nRsA3VzBGl0YwMwBGx0eHQDRm9vZE5ldHdvcmtzdGFyJiMzOTt zZ2VuZXJvdXNvZmZlcgRtY29kZQNwemJ1YWxsY2FoNQRtcG9zA zEEcGtndAMxBHBrZ3YDMTEEcG9zAzIEc2VjA3RkLWZlYQRzbGs DdGl0bGUEdGFyA2h0dHA6Ly9uZXdzLnlhaG9vLmNvbS9ibG9nc y90cmVuZGluZy1ub3cvcmVmdXNhbC1sb2NhbC1iYWtlcnktc2F tZS1zZXgtY291cGxlLW9mZmVyZWQtZnJlZS0xOTI2MTQ4MzEua HRtbAR0ZXN0AzcwMQR3b2UDMjQ1OTExNQ--/SIG=13tnld0b4/EXP=1360189662/**http%3A//news.yahoo.com/blogs/trending-now/refusal-local-bakery-same-sex-couple-offered-free-192614831.html)



Well, I hope they're prepared to take the cake I order too, or I'll be claiming discrimination. :poke:

[Marcus Aurelius]

I hear Duff has offered to bake the cake.

Food Network star's generous offer (http://hsrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=AnEgBoNQI1ff5JL6NeuHoe6bvZx4;_ylc=X3oDMWI1MzJ idnYwBF9TAzIwMjM1MzgwNzUEYQMxMzAyMDUgbmV3cyB0cmVuZ GluZyBub3cgcG0gYWNlIG9mIGNha2VzIHYEY2NvZGUDcHpidWZ jYWg1BGNwb3MDMzcEZANlcARlZAMxBGcDaWQtMzAzODgwNgRpb nRsA3VzBGl0YwMwBGx0eHQDRm9vZE5ldHdvcmtzdGFyJiMzOTt zZ2VuZXJvdXNvZmZlcgRtY29kZQNwemJ1YWxsY2FoNQRtcG9zA zEEcGtndAMxBHBrZ3YDMTEEcG9zAzIEc2VjA3RkLWZlYQRzbGs DdGl0bGUEdGFyA2h0dHA6Ly9uZXdzLnlhaG9vLmNvbS9ibG9nc y90cmVuZGluZy1ub3cvcmVmdXNhbC1sb2NhbC1iYWtlcnktc2F tZS1zZXgtY291cGxlLW9mZmVyZWQtZnJlZS0xOTI2MTQ4MzEua HRtbAR0ZXN0AzcwMQR3b2UDMjQ1OTExNQ--/SIG=13tnld0b4/EXP=1360189662/**http%3A//news.yahoo.com/blogs/trending-now/refusal-local-bakery-same-sex-couple-offered-free-192614831.html)



Duff can do it in Oregon, or in DC. Sexual orientation is a protected class, in regards to public accommodations, in both places.

http://www.glaa.org/resources/dchumanrightslaw.shtml


1-2519. Unlawful discriminatory practices in public accommodations. (a) General. It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice to do any of the following acts, wholly or partially for a discriminatory reason based on the race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, family responsibilities, disability, matriculation, political affiliation, source of income, or place of residence or business of any individual:


(1) To deny, directly or indirectly, any person the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodations;


(2) To print, circulate, post, or mail, or otherwise cause, directly or indirectly, to be published a statement, advertisement, or sign which indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be unlawfully refused, withheld from or denied an individual; or that an individual's patronage of, or presence at, a place of public accommodation is objectional, unwelcome, unacceptable, or undesirable.


(b) Subterfuge. It is further unlawful to do any of the above said acts for any reason that would not have been asserted but for, wholly or partially, a discriminatory reason based on the race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, family responsibilities, disability, matriculation, political affiliation, source of income, or place of residence or business of any individual.

[Robert A Whit]

Just curious, would you support a gay Republican candidate?

And I don't believe living your life without restrictions based purely on your sexual preference (like in the case of this baker) is causing trouble.

I hope any republican running for office is happy.

If you want homosexuals to be non restricted, why do you believe private property buyers must suffer background checks?

Do you suppor background checks when homosexuals buy personal property?

[red states rule]

Just curious, would you support a gay Republican candidate?

And I don't believe living your life without restrictions based purely on your sexual preference (like in the case of this baker) is causing trouble.

Sure I would. It would depend on his/her opinion on the role and size of government and how much money he/she thins the producers should have taken to finance the government

The baker is doing something that really pisses off liberals - he is standing firm on his moral and religious beliefs. The only ones causing trouble is the mom and her gay daughter. Instead of going to another baker they want to play the victim for the obliging liberal media

[fj1200]

Well, I hope they're prepared to take the cake I order too, or I'll be claiming discrimination. :poke:

I'm sure there's a comment about pie in their someplace but I sure don't know what it is. :dunno:


Duff can do it in Oregon, or in DC. Sexual orientation is a protected class, in regards to public accommodations, in both places.

I'm sure he can offer to bake a cake anywhere he likes.

[red states rule]

Bottom line is ordering a cake is a contract between the buyer and the seller. Why should the seller be forced into contract they do not wish to accept?

Besides the gay couple has already recieved an offer for a wedding cake - at no charge I believe

[PostmodernProphet]

I'm sure he can offer to bake a cake anywhere he likes.

ah, but can he give a free cake to a gay couple but refuse to give free cakes to all the heterosexual couples?........

[Marcus Aurelius]

ah, but can he give a free cake to a gay couple but refuse to give free cakes to all the heterosexual couples?........

yes. He can. Since he'd not be charging said heterosexual couples, there is no accommodation between them, so he need not give them a free cake.

[PostmodernProphet]

yes. He can. Since he'd not be charging said heterosexual couples, there is no accommodation between them, so he need not give them a free cake.

sorry, that cake don't bake......
(1) To deny, directly or indirectly, any person the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodations;

[Marcus Aurelius]

sorry, that cake don't bake......
(1) To deny, directly or indirectly, any person the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodations;

Show me where in the law it says the 'full and equal enjoyment of the goods' is free. It's talking about paid services, not freebies.

[bingster]

I hope any republican running for office is happy.

If you want homosexuals to be non restricted, why do you believe private property buyers must suffer background checks?

Do you suppor background checks when homosexuals buy personal property?

Damn right I do, if it's a gun.

Also, how do you expect us to do anything about gun trafficking if we don't make it a law to have these "legal" purchasers do background checks on the criminals they are selling to? Right now, their "legally" purchased guns end up in a Chicago police department after being used in a crime and there are no laws dictating that they keep track of or control who they sell the guns to. Many of the guns used in crimes (I've heard 80%) are illegally traficked into the city.

[aboutime]

Damn right I do, if it's a gun.

Also, how do you expect us to do anything about gun trafficking if we don't make it a law to have these "legal" purchasers do background checks on the criminals they are selling to? Right now, their "legally" purchased guns end up in a Chicago police department after being used in a crime and there are no laws dictating that they keep track of or control who they sell the guns to. Many of the guns used in crimes (I've heard 80%) are illegally traficked into the city.


Bingster. Your complaint is duly recognized, but totally unreasonable in a nation of more than 311 Million people, with nearly as many guns available to those 300 plus Million people.....UNLESS.....We hire One Police officer for EACH of those 311 Million people.

Excuses, opinions, idea's, common sense, logic, laws, and enforcement Combined "CAN NEVER SOLVE THIS PROBLEM!"

[bingster]

Sure I would. It would depend on his/her opinion on the role and size of government and how much money he/she thins the producers should have taken to finance the government

The baker is doing something that really pisses off liberals - he is standing firm on his moral and religious beliefs. The only ones causing trouble is the mom and her gay daughter. Instead of going to another baker they want to play the victim for the obliging liberal media

Yea, it pisses us off. "Moral and religious beliefs" is the same lame excuse people used to discriminate against minorities. The same excuse was used to outlaw interracial marriage. Stand as firm as you wish unless you're blocking others rights.

Good for the mom and her daughter, standing firm on their moral and legal rights.

[red states rule]

Yea, it pisses us off. "Moral and religious beliefs" is the same lame excuse people used to discriminate against minorities. The same excuse was used to outlaw interracial marriage. Stand as firm as you wish unless you're blocking others rights.

Good for the mom and her daughter, standing firm on their moral and legal rights.

So when a conservative stands firm on their principals you get pissed off. When a lib stands firm on their principals you are delighted. You should be delighted with both. There is no "discrimination" in this case. Of course liberals live to force their ideology on others by using threats, the courts, and harassment.

[bingster]

Bingster. Your complaint is duly recognized, but totally unreasonable in a nation of more than 311 Million people, with nearly as many guns available to those 300 plus Million people.....UNLESS.....We hire One Police officer for EACH of those 311 Million people.

Excuses, opinions, idea's, common sense, logic, laws, and enforcement Combined "CAN NEVER SOLVE THIS PROBLEM!"

We can't as a society, just give up. The studies on gun crime all come up "inconclusive" because of too many untraceable elements. Chicago is a perfect example. That city has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, but gun crime is way too high. So, new studies are finding that the guns are being traficked in, or being mostly sold by one gun shop just out of the city (illegally?), etc.... They are getting close to some solutions, but laws supported and pushed by the NRA are causing too many stumbling blocks to getting those dealers and trafickers. If people would be more compromising and reasonable, we can have an impact on this problem without unduly inconveniencing the lawful gun owner.

[red states rule]

We can't as a society, just give up. The studies on gun crime all come up "inconclusive" because of too many untraceable elements. Chicago is a perfect example. That city has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, but gun crime is way too high. So, new studies are finding that the guns are being traficked in, or being mostly sold by one gun shop just out of the city (illegally?), etc.... They are getting close to some solutions, but laws supported and pushed by the NRA are causing too many stumbling blocks to getting those dealers and trafickers. If people would be more compromising and reasonable, we can have an impact on this problem without unduly inconveniencing the lawful gun owner.

Maybe in time you will learn criminals do not obey laws - that is why they are criminals

BTW why are you avoiding my Obamacare threads Bing - I thought you would jump at the chance to defend Obama's "crowning" achievement

[bingster]

Maybe in time you will learn criminals do not obey laws - that is why they are criminals

BTW why are you avoiding my Obamacare threads Bing - I thought you would jump at the chance to defend Obama's "crowning" achievement

Maybe, someday, you will learn criminals use the easiest methods available to get what they want. Why go out of their way as long as folks like you make lame arguments that help to make it easy for them?

If you make an argument that I don't know how to dispute, I don't. I don't just bomb everyone's threads with insults and maddeningly childish comments to make myself feel superior. If I don't have an argument....silence is golden.

[Kathianne]

We can't as a society, just give up. The studies on gun crime all come up "inconclusive" because of too many untraceable elements. Chicago is a perfect example. That city has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, but gun crime is way too high. So, new studies are finding that the guns are being traficked in, or being mostly sold by one gun shop just out of the city (illegally?), etc.... They are getting close to some solutions, but laws supported and pushed by the NRA are causing too many stumbling blocks to getting those dealers and trafickers. If people would be more compromising and reasonable, we can have an impact on this problem without unduly inconveniencing the lawful gun owner.

Got a link to the bolded? If it's 'more restrictions' on legal gun holders, how is that getting 'pretty close'?

[bingster]

Got a link to the bolded? If it's 'more restrictions' on legal gun holders, how is that getting 'pretty close'?

No, last night I saw an interview of the Chief of Police of Chicago who threw out a lot of figures related to guns used in crime in Chicago. He said the laws were working within the city, but that the guns were coming into the city from places where gun laws were not strict.

I also referenced that two laws exist that were pushed by the NRA that have been stumbling blocks to law enforcement. The Tiarht Amendment is one forbidding civil suits against gun manufacturers and gun dealers, and somewhat restricts what gun tracking information can be used for. And there's another law that also protects dealers from civil suits-but I can't remember the name right now.

As for "restrictions" I'm only talking about background checks and maybe more anti-traficking laws. You shouldn't get away with buying guns and then re-selling them to criminals.

I'm not sure if this is the guy, but this link makes most of the same points
http://nation.time.com/2013/02/01/qa-guns-cities-and-the-death-of-hadiya-pendleton/

[jimnyc]

Hmmmm,.... a thread about homos ends up about guns. You people are sick! :laugh:

[Kathianne]

No, last night I saw an interview of the Chief of Police of Chicago who threw out a lot of figures related to guns used in crime in Chicago. He said the laws were working within the city, but that the guns were coming into the city from places where gun laws were not strict.

I also referenced that two laws exist that were pushed by the NRA that have been stumbling blocks to law enforcement. The Tiarht Amendment is one forbidding civil suits against gun manufacturers and gun dealers, and somewhat restricts what gun tracking information can be used for. And there's another law that also protects dealers from civil suits-but I can't remember the name right now.

As for "restrictions" I'm only talking about background checks and maybe more anti-traficking laws. You shouldn't get away with buying guns and then re-selling them to criminals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state#Illinois

The state of Illinois has very strict gun control laws. Chicago has tried every which way to make gun manufacturers into the tobacco companies, pesky 2nd amendment won't allow. As for the claims by the city that it's the burbs that are trafficking, just doesn't hold up by state requirement on FOIA cards and responsibilities of sellers.


Main article: Gun laws in Illinois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Illinois)

<tbody>
Subject/Law
Long Guns
Handguns
Relevant Statutes
Notes


State permit to purchase?
Yes
Yes
430 ILCS 65 (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1657&ChapAct=430%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B65%2F&ChapterID=39&ChapterName=PUBLIC%2BSAFETY&ActName=Firearm%2BOwners%2BIdentification%2BCard%2 BAct%2E)
FOID required.


Firearm registration?
No
No
Chi. Mun. Code §8-20-110 (http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/chicago_il/title8offensesaffectingpublicpeacemorals/chapter8-20weapons?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amleg al:chicago_il$anc=JD_8-20-110)
The city of Chicago requires registration of firearms. Residents must complete a firearm safety course, pass a background check including fingerprinting, and pay a $100 permit fee which is renewed every three years. Registration of any handgun assumes an additional one time fee of $15.


"Assault weapon" law?
No
No
Cook Co. Code of Ord. §54-211 (http://library.municode.com/HTML/13805/level4/PTIGEOR_CH54LIPEMIBURE_ARTIIIDEWEDE_DIV4BLHOASWEBA .html)
Chi. Mun. Code §8-20-170 (http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/chicago_il/title8offensesaffectingpublicpeacemorals/chapter8-20weapons?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amleg al:chicago_il$anc=JD_8-20-170)
Cook County and the city of Chicago have separately banned the possession of "assault weapons", and of magazines that can hold more than 10 or 12 rounds of ammunition respectively.


Owner license required?
Yes
Yes
430 ILCS 65 (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1657&ChapAct=430%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B65%2F&ChapterID=39&ChapterName=PUBLIC%2BSAFETY&ActName=Firearm%2BOwners%2BIdentification%2BCard%2 BAct%2E)
FOID required.


Carry permits issued?
No
No




Open carry?
No
No




State preemption of local restrictions?
No
No




NFA weapons restricted?
Yes
Yes
720 ILCS 5/24 (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/072000050K24-1.htm)
Automatic firearms, short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles, and silencers prohibited. AOW (Any Other Weapon) and large-bore DD (Destructive Device) allowed with proper approval and tax stamp from ATF. Historically accurate short-barreled rifles possessed for the purpose of historical reenactment allowed by bona fide members of a nationally-recognized military reenactment organization.


Peaceable journey laws?
No
No

Non-Illinois residents who are permitted to possess a firearm in their home state are not required to have a FOID card.

</tbody>

[PostmodernProphet]

Show me where in the law it says the 'full and equal enjoyment of the goods' is free. It's talking about paid services, not freebies.

obviously it says "equal".....and if it is free for one, then why not for the other?......is that not what equal means?........

[bingster]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state#Illinois

The state of Illinois has very strict gun control laws. Chicago has tried every which way to make gun manufacturers into the tobacco companies, pesky 2nd amendment won't allow. As for the claims by the city that it's the burbs that are trafficking, just doesn't hold up by state requirement on FOIA cards and responsibilities of sellers.

Holding gun dealers responsible for selling to a regular shopper 10-20 guns at a time has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. Neither does making it a felony to commit straw man purchases or gun traficking. They do have a lot of laws and I'm not denying that. I do buy what the superintendant says thought, that a lot of guns are coming in via traficking. New York is making the same argument.

Your right to keep and bear has nothing to do with interstate or illegal commerce.
More Chicago news.
http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/mayor/press_room/press_releases/2013/january_2013/mayor_emanuel_endorsesnewcommonsensegunsafetylegis lationintroduc.html

[tailfins]

Back to the OP: I think the baker is in the clear. Think of McDonald's serving Jews but not offering Kosher food. Likewise the bakery can serve homosexuals but not have same sex cakes in the product offering.

[Kathianne]

Holding gun dealers responsible for selling to a regular shopper 10-20 guns at a time has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. Neither does making it a felony to commit straw man purchases or gun traficking. They do have a lot of laws and I'm not denying that. I do buy what the superintendant says thought, that a lot of guns are coming in via traficking. New York is making the same argument.

Your right to keep and bear has nothing to do with interstate or illegal commerce.
More Chicago news.
http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/mayor/press_room/press_releases/2013/january_2013/mayor_emanuel_endorsesnewcommonsensegunsafetylegis lationintroduc.html

What you fail to understand, that isn't what's going on. You are buying into the excuse makers of Daley Plaza.

[bingster]

Back to the OP: I think the baker is in the clear. Think of McDonald's serving Jews but not offering Kosher food. Likewise the bakery can serve homosexuals but not have same sex cakes in the product offering.

I think we can assume the baker was custom making the cakes. She would have decorated it with a man and a woman, but not a man and a man for instance.

McDonald's example not very good. If it isn't on the menu, it isn't on the menu. How about a Jewish employee cashiering at Vons refusing to sell you bacon. Do you think she's within her rights?-I think that's a more accurate comparison.

[bingster]

What you fail to understand, that isn't what's going on. You are buying into the excuse makers of Daley Plaza.

That's not what's going on? You mean the gun trafficking? Here's the best link I could find.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/29/us/where-50000-guns-in-chicago-came-from.html?ref=us

I think conservatives are just convinced that nothing can be done without screwing over gun owners and I don't accept that.

ps. what's Daley Plaza?

[Kathianne]

I think we can assume the baker was custom making the cakes. She would have decorated it with a man and a woman, but not a man and a man for instance.

McDonald's example not very good. If it isn't on the menu, it isn't on the menu. How about a Jewish employee cashiering at Vons refusing to sell you bacon. Do you think she's within her rights?-I think that's a more accurate comparison.

What's Von Maur's policy? Not the Jewish employee's 'policy.' If the employee and employer see things differently, guess whose will will will out? ;)

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=615240#post615240)
Show me where in the law it says the 'full and equal enjoyment of the goods' is free. It's talking about paid services, not freebies.



obviously it says "equal".....and if it is free for one, then why not for the other?......is that not what equal means?........

because this is a capitalistic society. You really don't understand the correct application of the law in question, do you. Shame. It's not rocket science.

full and equal enjoyment of the goods... is NOT referring to anything but goods or services for which there is a charge.

[red states rule]

Maybe, someday, you will learn criminals use the easiest methods available to get what they want. Why go out of their way as long as folks like you make lame arguments that help to make it easy for them?

If you make an argument that I don't know how to dispute, I don't. I don't just bomb everyone's threads with insults and maddeningly childish comments to make myself feel superior. If I don't have an argument....silence is golden.

You and your fellow do gooder libs are making it harder on the law abiding citizens while the criminals are laughing at you. In MD the turnout was huge in opposition to new guns laws the libs want to ram through

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BCb-TFdCEAA0Mdg.jpg


Hell, the current laws are not enforced and the Obama Justice Dept sits back and does little with the lies put on background checks

As far as your absence on the Obamacare threads - I understand. It is hard to defend the screwing of the middle class when they were told Obamcare would actually help them. SO you stay silent and hope the problem fixes itseld

[Marcus Aurelius]

Hmmmm,.... a thread about homos ends up about guns. You people are sick! :laugh:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kU0XCVey_U

[PostmodernProphet]

because this is a capitalistic society. You really don't understand the correct application of the law in question, do you. Shame. It's not rocket science.

full and equal enjoyment of the goods... is NOT referring to anything but goods or services for which there is a charge.

isn't it hypocritical to say that makes a difference?......I understand the "correct application of the law in question"......I merely point out the error of saying the principle applies in one situation and not the other.....one baker is accused by the law for discriminating in one manner, another is praised for applying the exact same discrimination in another manner......

[Marcus Aurelius]

isn't it hypocritical to say that makes a difference?......I understand the "correct application of the law in question"......I merely point out the error of saying the principle applies in one situation and not the other.....one baker is accused by the law for discriminating in one manner, another is praised for applying the exact same discrimination in another manner......

they are not the same situation.


If I give my mother a free cake in my bakery, am I required to give every mother a free cake?

[fj1200]

isn't it hypocritical to say that makes a difference?......I understand the "correct application of the law in question"......I merely point out the error of saying the principle applies in one situation and not the other.....one baker is accused by the law for discriminating in one manner, another is praised for applying the exact same discrimination in another manner......

That's a ridiculous line of thought. Find a gay baker that refused to sell to a straight couple.

[PostmodernProphet]

they are not the same situation.


If I give my mother a free cake in my bakery, am I required to give every mother a free cake?

of course its the same situation.....he gave that couple a free cake ONLY because of his feelings about homosexuality......he didn't just walk down the street and give a free cake to the first couple he met.......he gave them a cake because of how he felt about the situation.........and that is also why the first baker refused to bake them a cake.......

[PostmodernProphet]

That's a ridiculous line of thought. Find a gay baker that refused to sell to a straight couple.

I'm sorry.....if you can't see the parallel between doing something FOR someone because of their sexual orientation and NOT doing something for someone because of their sexual orientation then I suppose you just won't get it.....but that isn't because my line of thought is ridiculous......its because you aren't very bright.......

[fj1200]

I'm sorry.....if you can't see the parallel between doing something FOR someone because of their sexual orientation and NOT doing something for someone because of their sexual orientation then I suppose you just won't get it.....but that isn't because my line of thought is ridiculous......its because you aren't very bright.......

It's ridiculous, you don't compel charity. It's worse than compelling the behavior of one guy who bakes cakes.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=615536#post615536)
they are not the same situation.

If I give my mother a free cake in my bakery, am I required to give every mother a free cake?



of course its the same situation.....he gave that couple a free cake ONLY because of his feelings about homosexuality......he didn't just walk down the street and give a free cake to the first couple he met.......he gave them a cake because of how he felt about the situation.........and that is also why the first baker refused to bake them a cake.......

you did not answer my question.

If I give my mother a free cake, am I required to give every mother a free cake?

[PostmodernProphet]

you did not answer my question.

If I give my mother a free cake, am I required to give every mother a free cake?

apparently yes, in Oregon.....though the parallel falls a bit short because these people are not family members of Duf....they are just a gay couple he decided to give a free cake for, out of some combination of making a political statement and drumming up free publicity for his business......

[PostmodernProphet]

It's worse than compelling the behavior of one guy who bakes cakes.

ah but you see, that's the point.....it isn't worse.......it's exactly the same thing......

[fj1200]

^A stretch. To say the least.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=615551#post615551)
you did not answer my question.

If I give my mother a free cake, am I required to give every mother a free cake?



apparently yes, in Oregon.....though the parallel falls a bit short because these people are not family members of Duf....they are just a gay couple he decided to give a free cake for, out of some combination of making a political statement and drumming up free publicity for his business......

Now...

First, show me the Oregon law that proves your statement. Which protected class is my mother, and all mothers, a part of in the Oregon law?

Then, explain why money in exchange for the 'accommodation' is not a prerequisite of the protection afforded in said law.

The term public accommodation refers to an establishment that offers it's goods or services to the general public in exchange for monetary remuneration. If there is no remuneration between my mother and myself, there is no public accommodation.