Oregon Bakery Owners Refuse To Pay Gay Damages

[Motown]

There's a new development concerning the Oregon bakery owners who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple.






The owners of an Oregon bakery are refusing to pay $135,000 in state-ordered damages to a same-sex couple who were denied service.
Melissa and Aaron Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, cited religious beliefs when they refused to bake a wedding cake for Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer more than two years ago.
The couple were awarded the damages in July by Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian for emotional suffering, saying the owners had violated the women’s civil rights by discriminating on the basis of their sexual orientation. They were also slapped with a gag order that prohibited them (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/07/06/state-silences-bakers-who-refused-to-bake-cake-for-lesbians.html) from speaking publicly about their refusal to participate in or bake wedding cakes for same-sex marriages.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/01/oregon-bakery-owners-refuse-to-pay-damages-in-gay-wedding-cake-case/ (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/01/oregon-bakery-owners-refuse-to-pay-damages-in-gay-wedding-cake-case/)


I'm not posting this to generate any debate on whether or not the bakery owners should have baked the cake. What took me by surprise was the fact that the labor commissioner is the one who fined the bakery and then imposed a gag order. I'd always assumed the bakery owners had their day in court. No matter which side you come down on concerning the cake what do you think about some bureaucrat fining and gagging people instead of a court of law handling this?

[jimnyc]

I would never give them a penny if it were me. Not a single cent. I'd file bankruptcy, not work and avoid by all and any means possible. These people don't deserve money simply because a bakery refused to make them a cake. "Damages"? Yeah right, my ass.

[indago]

Paying money for "damages" would further support the faggotry agenda, and faggotry is not a lifestyle that should be further supported in America.

http://i61.tinypic.com/291jdwg.jpg

[Motown]

I would never give them a penny if it were me. Not a single cent. I'd file bankruptcy, not work and avoid by all and any means possible. These people don't deserve money simply because a bakery refused to make them a cake. "Damages"? Yeah right, my ass.

The first thing I would have done was refuse to accept any ruling from the labor commissioner and demand my day in court.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The first thing I would have done was refuse to accept any ruling from the labor commissioner and demand my day in court.

labor commissioner eh? Not a fine levied in a civil court--do not pay...
And even if in a civil court do not pay as its religious oppression to force those people to engage in helping perverts be united perverts.
I'd say get back to me when you son of bitches start forcing American muslims to start buying, selling and eating pork!
Until then drop dead!!--Tyr

[fj1200]

I'm not posting this to generate any debate on whether or not the bakery owners should have baked the cake. What took me by surprise was the fact that the labor commissioner is the one who fined the bakery and then imposed a gag order. I'd always assumed the bakery owners had their day in court. No matter which side you come down on concerning the cake what do you think about some bureaucrat fining and gagging people instead of a court of law handling this?

Of course they shouldn't pay the fine and they should appeal. Did they bake the cake?

As far as the bureaucrat levying the fine it's a matter of how the law was written and who was put in charge of those types of things. They have to go through any appeal process through the Labor Commissioner before they can appeal to the courts.


I would never give them a penny if it were me. Not a single cent. I'd file bankruptcy, not work and avoid by all and any means possible. These people don't deserve money simply because a bakery refused to make them a cake. "Damages"? Yeah right, my ass.

I recall you suggesting that they use the funds raised via some sort of crowdfunding to pay the fine. I could be mistaken.


... faggotry ... faggotry ...

"It" will increase in acceptance especially when they can point to your type of intolerance.


The first thing I would have done was refuse to accept any ruling from the labor commissioner and demand my day in court.

There is an appeal process.

[Motown]

Of course they shouldn't pay the fine and they should appeal. Did they bake the cake?




There is an appeal process.

'No comment' would have been quicker.

[fj1200]

'No comment' would have been quicker.

But not as helpful to you. :poke:

[indago]

"It" will increase in acceptance especially when they can point to your type of intolerance.

As will rejection of it...

[fj1200]

As will rejection of it...

Recent history does not line up with your opinion.

[Motown]

But not as helpful to you. :poke:

Don't feel the need to help me, I've already figured out how you do things.

[NightTrain]

The bakery raised $500k through crowd sourcing, and as soon as this begins the legal court battle there will be a lot more pouring in.

Private businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone, and to live with the general public backlash from their decision, if any.

I think it's funny that the clueless commission spokesman pointed to the crowdsourcing funds raised and said they've got the money to pay the $135k fines. Whoosh! Right over his head. The money was given to the bakers to fight this sort of thing, not pay off the fascist crusaders.

[Motown]

I think it's funny that the clueless commission spokesman pointed to the crowdsourcing funds raised and said they've got the money to pay the $135k fines. Whoosh! Right over his head. The money was given to the bakers to fight this sort of thing, not pay off the fascist crusaders.

Something else to consider is that by implying that the crowdsourced money has any impact here he's admitting that the punishment was arbitrary.

[tailfins]

I would never give them a penny if it were me. Not a single cent. I'd file bankruptcy, not work and avoid by all and any means possible. These people don't deserve money simply because a bakery refused to make them a cake. "Damages"? Yeah right, my ass.

In other words, you would model the behavior of an astute man preparing to divorce his wife. However, try to find a way to do it without wrecking your career.

[Gunny]

I would never give them a penny if it were me. Not a single cent. I'd file bankruptcy, not work and avoid by all and any means possible. These people don't deserve money simply because a bakery refused to make them a cake. "Damages"? Yeah right, my ass.

You been reading my stuff, huh? :laugh:

I'm right with you on this one. I'd even hide my penny jar.

[jimnyc]

I recall you suggesting that they use the funds raised via some sort of crowdfunding to pay the fine. I could be mistaken.

Yeps! If they cannot dismiss the monies owed by legal means, and if it must be paid and no alternative, I would hope that the gofundme would work in their favor. Even though the money may be paid, it wouldn't be a huge burden to the bakery owners.

If me personally, I would rather tell them to F off. I can't go to prison. I'd rather live in a box than see them assholes get a penny. Either that, or I would offer a truce and bring them a cake I had baked for them, and then peed in it. :pee:

[Black Diamond]

Yeps! If they cannot dismiss the monies owed by legal means, and if it must be paid and no alternative, I would hope that the gofundme would work in their favor. Even though the money may be paid, it wouldn't be a huge burden to the bakery owners.

If me personally, I would rather tell them to F off. I can't go to prison. I'd rather live in a box than see them assholes get a penny. Either that, or I would offer a truce and bring them a cake I had baked for them, and then peed in it. :pee:

Is that icing?

[NightTrain]

Very special icing.

[jimnyc]

Is that icing?

It would be special "filling", since I would add it during the prep process. :)

[Motown]

It would be special "filling", since I would add it during the prep process. :)

I probably would have gone the 'chocolate' filling route but that's just me.

[Gunny]

I probably would have gone the 'chocolate' filling route but that's just me.

Damn, y'all are too nice. I'd go the "fuck you" route. I'm with Jim on this one. Only he left out one thing ... I'd put all the stuff in my daughter's or mother's name THEN declare bankruptcy. NO assets for them to seize.

[Motown]

Part of the problem here is that people don't plan ahead. I think anyone should be able to run their business as they see fit but let's face it, that's not the world we live in. The bakery chose to make a stand, good for them but that wasn't very realistic. Here's how I would have handled it.


Women walk in to my bakery. I talk to them and start taking the order. I find out that they are gay and want a wedding cake. I say congratulations and keep talking to them, then a little bit later I pick up a book from under the counter (doesn't matter what the book is about) and then I say "hmmm, turns out there may be a scheduling issue, let me go in back and check with the owner". I then go in back and take a 5 minute smoke break and then go back up front and apologize to them because as it turns out we're already booked. I then apologize again and hand them a business card and tell them that this business is reputable and would be thrilled to cater their wedding and bake a cake for them. The card, of course, is from the nearest muslim owned bakery.

[Gunny]

Part of the problem here is that people don't plan ahead. I think anyone should be able to run their business as they see fit but let's face it, that's not the world we live in. The bakery chose to make a stand, good for them but that wasn't very realistic. Here's how I would have handled it.


Women walk in to my bakery. I talk to them and start taking the order. I find out that they are gay and want a wedding cake. I say congratulations and keep talking to them, then a little bit later I pick up a book from under the counter (doesn't matter what the book is about) and then I say "hmmm, turns out there may be a scheduling issue, let me go in back and check with the owner". I then go in back and take a 5 minute smoke break and then go back up front and apologize to them because as it turns out we're already booked. I then apologize again and hand them a business card and tell them that this business is reputable and would be thrilled to cater their wedding and bake a cake for them. The card, of course, is from the nearest muslim owned bakery.

Did I miss something while I was on float? When did we lose our Constitutional Rights?

[Motown]

Did I miss something while I was on float? When did we lose our Constitutional Rights?

I hear you. Our Constitution has been abused and in some cases ignored and it is worth fighting over but there's something else I believe which is don't stand in front of the juggernaut alone unless you want to be a martyr.

[tailfins]

Damn, y'all are too nice. I'd go the "fuck you" route. I'm with Jim on this one. Only he left out one thing ... I'd put all the stuff in my daughter's or mother's name THEN declare bankruptcy. NO assets for them to seize.


No need to declare bankruptcy.
My friend Tim Dreste had a 1 BILLION judgement against from Planned Parenthood. He never paid a dime. He had to quit his job and become a beekeeper to do it.

It's also possible that the authorities were reluctant to arrest him because Tim was the chaplain of the Missouri Militia.

[Gunny]

No need to declare bankruptcy.
My friend Tim Dreste had a 1 BILLION judgement against from Planned Parenthood. He never paid a dime. He had to quit his job and become a beekeeper to do it.

Here's a plan: how about one person walks in and orders a cake? No reason to make an issue of being gay. Except that gay people HAVE TO make an issue of being gay. THAT is what this is all about. Otherwise, just get a cake.

[indago]

http://oi62.tinypic.com/2mdlcpg.jpg

[indago]

I probably would have gone the 'chocolate' filling route but that's just me.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD9Ua7FuzyA

[jimnyc]

Part of the problem here is that people don't plan ahead. I think anyone should be able to run their business as they see fit but let's face it, that's not the world we live in. The bakery chose to make a stand, good for them but that wasn't very realistic. Here's how I would have handled it.


Women walk in to my bakery. I talk to them and start taking the order. I find out that they are gay and want a wedding cake. I say congratulations and keep talking to them, then a little bit later I pick up a book from under the counter (doesn't matter what the book is about) and then I say "hmmm, turns out there may be a scheduling issue, let me go in back and check with the owner". I then go in back and take a 5 minute smoke break and then go back up front and apologize to them because as it turns out we're already booked. I then apologize again and hand them a business card and tell them that this business is reputable and would be thrilled to cater their wedding and bake a cake for them. The card, of course, is from the nearest muslim owned bakery.

Or like I said in the past, as soon as they ask - "I'm so sorry, we're closing for the day and I'm in a rush". Lock them out. Repeat process should they return. Losing a little business when you lock up a few times is likely less costly than $135k. Either that, or I would make a cake and make it terrible. I mean TERRIBLE. Too much sugar. Way too much flour. Forget the eggs. Make the damn thing taste like cardboard. Then make it uneven and falling apart. Frost it like you're a 2 year old child writing on the walls.

[Motown]

Or like I said in the past, as soon as they ask - "I'm so sorry, we're closing for the day and I'm in a rush". Lock them out. Repeat process should they return. Losing a little business when you lock up a few times is likely less costly than $135k. Either that, or I would make a cake and make it terrible. I mean TERRIBLE. Too much sugar. Way too much flour. Forget the eggs. Make the damn thing taste like cardboard. Then make it uneven and falling apart. Frost it like you're a 2 year old child writing on the walls.

Why waste the flour on them?

[jimnyc]

Why waste the flour on them?

True, true, how about mistakenly using baking soda?

[fj1200]

Don't feel the need to help me, I've already figured out how you do things.

Yeah; debate, discuss, answer questions... My bad.


Private businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone...

Even black people?


Something else to consider is that by implying that the crowdsourced money has any impact here he's admitting that the punishment was arbitrary.

How so? Was the fine arbitrary or that he violated the law? I think it's pretty clear that he broke the law, it's just a dumb and unnecessary one.

[fj1200]

Damn, y'all are too nice. I'd go the "fuck you" route. I'm with Jim on this one. Only he left out one thing ... I'd put all the stuff in my daughter's or mother's name THEN declare bankruptcy. NO assets for them to seize.

Fraudulent transfer. They'll claw it back.

[jimnyc]

Even black people?

Absolutely!! If a black man busts his ass and creates and opens his own private business, he most certainly SHOULD be able to decided who he does and doesn't want to do business with.

[jimnyc]

Fraudulent transfer. They'll claw it back.

Withdrawals and transfers are 2 different things. If I were to go Gunny's route, it would be withdrawn and never seen again. No way I'd transfer it to another account, unless it was a Swiss account of course. :)

[fj1200]

Absolutely!! If a black man busts his ass and creates and opens his own private business, he most certainly SHOULD be able to decided who he does and doesn't want to do business with.

The question was deny service to black people. There is clear Constitutional law against that. If the case is decided on that basis then the bakery loses.


Withdrawals and transfers are 2 different things. If I were to go Gunny's route, it would be withdrawn and never seen again. No way I'd transfer it to another account, unless it was a Swiss account of course. :)

Gunny said transfer. Don't make the court mad though... :martian:

But he's in Texas and they have good protections down there if he puts it all into his primary residence and property IIRC. An unlimited homestead exemption. But given his likely baking skills the question is moot.

[Gunny]

Or like I said in the past, as soon as they ask - "I'm so sorry, we're closing for the day and I'm in a rush". Lock them out. Repeat process should they return. Losing a little business when you lock up a few times is likely less costly than $135k. Either that, or I would make a cake and make it terrible. I mean TERRIBLE. Too much sugar. Way too much flour. Forget the eggs. Make the damn thing taste like cardboard. Then make it uneven and falling apart. Frost it like you're a 2 year old child writing on the walls.

LMAO. I wouldn't even have to work on that terrible thing. :laugh: I'm an excellent cook, but not at bakery. I don't eat the crap so I don't know how anything past an Easy Bake Oven. :laugh:

[Gunny]

True, true, how about mistakenly using baking soda?

:laugh::laugh:

[Gunny]

Withdrawals and transfers are 2 different things. If I were to go Gunny's route, it would be withdrawn and never seen again. No way I'd transfer it to another account, unless it was a Swiss account of course. :)

Bahamas.

[jimnyc]

The question was deny service to black people. There is clear Constitutional law against that. If the case is decided on that basis then the bakery loses.

I understand that. NT said they should have the right to refuse service. You said "Even black people". I then responded. I didn't say anything at all about the civil rights act or anything else. I was simply stating that they SHOULD be able to refuse service, no matter the color of the owner or patron. I don't think the government should be telling ANYONE how to operate their own private business. But I think you know my stance on this already, don't you, fucker? :poke:

Gunny said transfer. Don't make the court mad though... :martian:

Yes he did, I clarified for those that may ever take that route, one is better with a withdrawal that is much harder to trace.

[NightTrain]

The question was deny service to black people. There is clear Constitutional law against that. If the case is decided on that basis then the bakery loses.

Don't muddy the waters.

As far as I know, there is no mainstream religion that states someone is inferior by race. Christianity certainly doesn't, and that's specifically what we're dealing with here. It does, however, speak to the sins of homosexuals.

[fj1200]

I understand that. NT said they should have the right to refuse service. You said "Even black people". I then responded. I didn't say anything at all about the civil rights act or anything else. I was simply stating that they SHOULD be able to refuse service, no matter the color of the owner or patron. I don't think the government should be telling ANYONE how to operate their own private business. But I think you know my stance on this already, don't you, fucker? :poke:

I agree but there's a rub, they shouldn't be able to but they clearly can. "Should" in one hand and wish in the other and see which gets fined faster. :eek:


Yes he did, I clarified for those that may ever take that route, one is better with a withdrawal that is much harder to trace.

Just ask tailfins. He likely has a basement full of cash cards.

[fj1200]

Don't muddy the waters.

As far as I know, there is no mainstream religion that states someone is inferior by race. Christianity certainly doesn't, and that's specifically what we're dealing with here. It does, however, speak to the sins of homosexuals.

That's not muddying the waters, that is exactly the question. We've had NDA laws for 50 years now and they've withstood Constitutional muster. They aren't going to win their case if that's the basis the courts use so they need a better argument. I think they have one but it's not a slam dunk.

[jimnyc]

I agree but there's a rub, they shouldn't be able to but they clearly can. "Should" in one hand and wish in the other and see which gets fined faster. :eek:

That's why I come up with great excuses, like "we're closing". "We only take Discover".... emergency closings, we're out of stock on that one, that's floor model only....


Just ask tailfins. He likely has a basement full of cash cards.

Even that I wouldn't use, cold hard cash only! Even those cards can be trace, albeit more difficult.

[Gunny]

That's why I come up with great excuses, like "we're closing". "We only take Discover".... emergency closings, we're out of stock on that one, that's floor model only....



Even that I wouldn't use, cold hard cash only! Even those cards can be trace, albeit more difficult.

Excuse? How does "Get your faggot ass out of my store" sound?

[jimnyc]

Another thing that pisses me off. It would be bad enough if it were an oversized fine. But this is being called "damages". How in the world were the queers damaged? Yeah, I know, they were embarrassed :rolleyes:

People today are "damaged" much too easily, and I blame that on LAWSUITS. People want to sue for millions and for the stupidest shit. And then we have stupid judges who let them win such cases. But not to go off topic... But at WORST, something like this should be a fine from the state, and NOT ridiculous numbers. And the plaintiff should only be able to be awarded based on REAL LIFE damages.

Seriously, this shit has given me heartburn since the day I heard about it, and maybe a little anxiety. I should sue all of them and let a new stupid judge short it out. But I have NO DOUBT that I have been damaged more than these annoying queers.

[NightTrain]

That's not muddying the waters, that is exactly the question. We've had NDA laws for 50 years now and they've withstood Constitutional muster. They aren't going to win their case if that's the basis the courts use so they need a better argument. I think they have one but it's not a slam dunk.


It is muddying the waters because you can't say it's against your religion to serve a black guy.

You can say that it's against your religion to interact with homos who engage in activities expressly frowned upon in a harsh way by God.

Racism is not supported by the bible, so you have no leg to stand on with that argument.

[Gunny]

Another thing that pisses me off. It would be bad enough if it were an oversized fine. But this is being called "damages". How in the world were the queers damaged? Yeah, I know, they were embarrassed :rolleyes:

People today are "damaged" much too easily, and I blame that on LAWSUITS. People want to sue for millions and for the stupidest shit. And then we have stupid judges who let them win such cases. But not to go off topic... But at WORST, something like this should be a fine from the state, and NOT ridiculous numbers. And the plaintiff should only be able to be awarded based on REAL LIFE damages.

Seriously, this shit has given me heartburn since the day I heard about it, and maybe a little anxiety. I should sue all of them and let a new stupid judge short it out. But I have NO DOUBT that I have been damaged more than these annoying queers.

Like I said, everything goes into mom's name and :fu:

I'm keeping enough $ to file my appeal.

[Gunny]

It is muddying the waters because you can't say it's against your religion to serve a black guy.

You can say that it's against your religion to interact with homos who engage in activities expressly frowned upon in a harsh way by God.

Racism is not supported by the bible, so you have no leg to stand on with that argument.

I'm betting Leviticus 17 ain't in the rainbow bible.

[fj1200]

That's why I come up with great excuses, like "we're closing". "We only take Discover".... emergency closings, we're out of stock on that one, that's floor model only....

I'd rather just win the case. :poke:

[tailfins]

Here's a plan: how about one person walks in and orders a cake? No reason to make an issue of being gay. Except that gay people HAVE TO make an issue of being gay. THAT is what this is all about. Otherwise, just get a cake.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbU3zdAgiX8

[fj1200]

It is muddying the waters because you can't say it's against your religion to serve a black guy.

You can say that it's against your religion to interact with homos who engage in activities expressly frowned upon in a harsh way by God.

Racism is not supported by the bible, so you have no leg to stand on with that argument.

It's not muddying the waters and I understand what you're saying. There will be plenty of legal arguments like public accommodation that mandate behavior, religious or not, because it is private businesses that are being mandated to serve and not religious institutions. Just tossing religious freedom at the question is not going to make it go away. This Oregon case, or any like it, will have to be appealed up the chain until SCOTUS weighs in. I imagine some districts will uphold NDA laws and some will strike them down forcing the issue all the way up.

The bottom line for me is many NDA laws, ones protecting gays especially, are largely unnecessary and probably do more harm than good. If one bakery won't bake the cake then ten others will. And many large firms have already written in their own NDA protections on hiring for example. The private market is already far ahead of government in some respects. But these laws get passed because people want to be nice; not much deeper than that.

Here's a bit that talks about public accommodation laws, though not much on the Constitutionality part, and largely comes down with a reasonable comment amidst the wailing about how gays are so at risk in a country that largely doesn't care about the issue except when it's forced on them. Nevertheless that's what lefties do.


IV. THE MARKET MAY PROTECT GAY INDIVIDUALS MORE THAN EXPECTEDDespite all of the religiosity data included in this Note, it is possible thatdiscrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation is not asprevalent as both supporters and opponents of gay rights statutes may think. Themarket’s ability to provide goods and services to those who demand them mightpleasantly surprise gay rights advocates who fear large religious exemptionswould lead to substantial or even moderate levels of discrimination. Conversely,politicians who are opposed to gay rights may also be surprised that theirbusiness-owning constituents would not be as opposed to such a statute as thepoliticians may believe. Two reasons may explain these misconceptions: first,individuals operating businesses may not be as prejudiced against gay individualsas the general public believes; second, the operation of the free-marketsystem itself may reduce or inhibit such discrimination. Economic theorysupports the second reason, and anecdotal evidence collected by the authorsupports both explanations.
http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/2012/06/Chapman.pdf&sa=U&ei=VvpQU4mmLJCmyATFlIGYCQ&ved=0CDEQFjAE&usg=AFQjCNGVffM1wHUxpmjBKd-WNzceOBA9lw

[Gunny]

It's not muddying the waters and I understand what you're saying. There will be plenty of legal arguments like public accommodation that mandate behavior, religious or not, because it is private businesses that are being mandated to serve and not religious institutions. Just tossing religious freedom at the question is not going to make it go away. This Oregon case, or any like it, will have to be appealed up the chain until SCOTUS weighs in. I imagine some districts will uphold NDA laws and some will strike them down forcing the issue all the way up.

The bottom line for me is many NDA laws, ones protecting gays especially, are largely unnecessary and probably do more harm than good. If one bakery won't bake the cake then ten others will. And many large firms have already written in their own NDA protections on hiring for example. The private market is already far ahead of government in some respects. But these laws get passed because people want to be nice; not much deeper than that.

Here's a bit that talks about public accommodation laws, though not much on the Constitutionality part, and largely comes down with a reasonable comment amidst the wailing about how gays are so at risk in a country that largely doesn't care about the issue except when it's forced on them. Nevertheless that's what lefties do.


http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/2012/06/Chapman.pdf&sa=U&ei=VvpQU4mmLJCmyATFlIGYCQ&ved=0CDEQFjAE&usg=AFQjCNGVffM1wHUxpmjBKd-WNzceOBA9lw

Private business should be able to serve who they want. Used to be that way. You don't have a right to my services. Go down the f-ing street.

[jimnyc]

I'd rather just win the case. :poke:

I'd rather not have to bake them a cake AND not give them any type of case at the same time. What are they going to do, sue me because I had to close the shop early for an emergency?

[Nonnie]

Private business should be able to serve who they want. Used to be that way. You don't have a right to my services. Go down the f-ing street.

By law, a business does not have any religious beliefs and would therefore have no reason not to make the cake. But, what if the bakery/business accepts the sale, wants to make the cake for the gays but the staff (albeit the owner) is unwilling to make the cake, then the business is unable to fulfill the order.

[indago]

By law, a business does not have any religious beliefs and would therefore have no reason not to make the cake. But, what if the bakery/business accepts the sale, wants to make the cake for the gays but the staff (albeit the owner) is unwilling to make the cake, then the business is unable to fulfill the order.

That's interesting! The business can't be sued for discrimination because it didn't fulfill the order. It just didn't fulfill the order.

[Gunny]

By law, a business does not have any religious beliefs and would therefore have no reason not to make the cake. But, what if the bakery/business accepts the sale, wants to make the cake for the gays but the staff (albeit the owner) is unwilling to make the cake, then the business is unable to fulfill the order.

I run my business. I hire who I want. I serve who I want. There's no law against that. They use judicial rulings to punish people accused of whatever. Where is the 4th Amendment Rights of the accused? Where are their First and 10th Amendment Rights?

That whole "innocent until proven guilty" notion is just that .. a notion. A pipe dream. Freedom of speech? Freedom of religion? Words on paper that mean nothing.

[Nonnie]

I run my business. I hire who I want. I serve who I want. There's no law against that. They use judicial rulings to punish people accused of whatever. Where is the 4th Amendment Rights of the accused? Where are their First and 10th Amendment Rights?

That whole "innocent until proven guilty" notion is just that .. a notion. A pipe dream. Freedom of speech? Freedom of religion? Words on paper that mean nothing.

Over here, you can be a Limited Company or in business as self employed. A limited company is a separate entity from you even though you may be the sole director. You can refuse to serve anyone you wish without a reason.

The case I'm familiar with is the Irish bakery, Ashers, that accepted the sale and took payment. Then the gay couple gave the wording, that's when the shop refused and gave the money back. In court, it was deemed that the separate entity, the business, does not have religious beliefs and thus discriminated.

I remember going to a Chinese restaurant with a friend, we were in scruffy clothes as I had been helping him sort his garage and garden out. We decided to sit in but were refused on our appearance, but were offered the takeaway menu. We immediately went elsewhere and I've not been back ever since. They simply didn't want my business. I've bought many takeaways since, but not 1 pence has gone their way. If the gay couple didn't have an agenda, they would have simply gone to another bakers and boycotted the first bakery.

Gays just simply do this to force the issue and for no other reason. They want it all their way, they don't want straights to have their own decisions etc..

[indago]

The case I'm familiar with is the Irish bakery, Ashers, that accepted the sale and took payment. Then the gay couple gave the wording, that's when the shop refused and gave the money back. In court, it was deemed that the separate entity, the business, does not have religious beliefs and thus discriminated.

They should have just took the money and not made the cake.

[tailfins]

Over here, you can be a Limited Company or in business as self employed. A limited company is a separate entity from you even though you may be the sole director. You can refuse to serve anyone you wish without a reason.

The case I'm familiar with is the Irish bakery, Ashers, that accepted the sale and took payment. Then the gay couple gave the wording, that's when the shop refused and gave the money back. In court, it was deemed that the separate entity, the business, does not have religious beliefs and thus discriminated.

I remember going to a Chinese restaurant with a friend, we were in scruffy clothes as I had been helping him sort his garage and garden out. We decided to sit in but were refused on our appearance, but were offered the takeaway menu. We immediately went elsewhere and I've not been back ever since. They simply didn't want my business. I've bought many takeaways since, but not 1 pence has gone their way. If the gay couple didn't have an agenda, they would have simply gone to another bakers and boycotted the first bakery.

Gays just simply do this to force the issue and for no other reason. They want it all their way, they don't want straights to have their own decisions etc..

Here in the US, your "out" is to be a private club. That's how a shooting range can have a "no Muslims" rule. The gun club is technically NOT open to the public, there is a membership and application process. The governing board can decide to accept or reject anyone for any reason or no reason. The no reason is probably safest if the Supreme Court decides that freedom of association is only applicable within the confines of "social responsibility".

Come to think of it: What if a public business refused to serve someone for the stated reason being that they had a bad attitude?

[fj1200]

Private business should be able to serve who they want. Used to be that way. You don't have a right to my services. Go down the f-ing street.

It's not that way anymore. Sticking your fingers in your ears is not going to roll back unnecessary, ridiculous laws.


I'd rather not have to bake them a cake AND not give them any type of case at the same time. What are they going to do, sue me because I had to close the shop early for an emergency?

But this is about a baker in OR who has to make a legal/Constitutional argument to win the case.

[Abbey Marie]

Absolutely!! If a black man busts his ass and creates and opens his own private business, he most certainly SHOULD be able to decided who he does and doesn't want to do business with.


:laugh2:

[Abbey Marie]

Another thing that pisses me off. It would be bad enough if it were an oversized fine. But this is being called "damages". How in the world were the queers damaged? Yeah, I know, they were embarrassed :rolleyes:

People today are "damaged" much too easily, and I blame that on LAWSUITS. People want to sue for millions and for the stupidest shit. And then we have stupid judges who let them win such cases. But not to go off topic... But at WORST, something like this should be a fine from the state, and NOT ridiculous numbers. And the plaintiff should only be able to be awarded based on REAL LIFE damages.

Seriously, this shit has given me heartburn since the day I heard about it, and maybe a little anxiety. I should sue all of them and let a new stupid judge short it out. But I have NO DOUBT that I have been damaged more than these annoying queers.


I thought gay damages were usually in the rectal area? :eek:

[jimnyc]

But this is about a baker in OR who has to make a legal/Constitutional argument to win the case.

All of my stuff was "pre-suit". That was my whole point, no cake for them, and no reason to sue. I suppose they can - but how well do you think it would hold up in court if they sued me for needing to close early for a family emergency? Lots of great excuses. They chose to be defiant in their faces.

[fj1200]

All of my stuff was "pre-suit". That was my whole point, no cake for them, and no reason to sue. I suppose they can - but how well do you think it would hold up in court if they sued me for needing to close early for a family emergency? Lots of great excuses. They chose to be defiant in their faces.

You know how the left likes to engage in trickery and such. Imma just tryin' to help. :)

[jimnyc]

You know how the left likes to engage in trickery and such. Imma just tryin' to help. :)

Maybe so, maybe so, but they met their match if they try that shit with me. Nothing like a little clear magnesium citrate in the batter. :)

[fj1200]

Maybe so, maybe so, but they met their match if they try that shit with me. Nothing like a little clear magnesium citrate in the batter. :)

That'll be a different kind of lawsuit. :poke:

[Russ]

True, true, how about mistakenly using baking soda?

Or how about Pop Rocks and ExLax?

[Russ]

Another thing that pisses me off. It would be bad enough if it were an oversized fine. But this is being called "damages". How in the world were the queers damaged? Yeah, I know, they were embarrassed :rolleyes:

People today are "damaged" much too easily, and I blame that on LAWSUITS. People want to sue for millions and for the stupidest shit. And then we have stupid judges who let them win such cases. But not to go off topic... But at WORST, something like this should be a fine from the state, and NOT ridiculous numbers. And the plaintiff should only be able to be awarded based on REAL LIFE damages.

Seriously, this shit has given me heartburn since the day I heard about it, and maybe a little anxiety. I should sue all of them and let a new stupid judge short it out. But I have NO DOUBT that I have been damaged more than these annoying queers.

You said it, Jim. This sounds like an activist official just pulling a damages figure out of his a*s. People like that disgust me.

[jimnyc]

Or how about Pop Rocks and ExLax?

Sittin' on the bowl with all kinds of crackling noises in their mouths. :laugh:

[Gunny]

I thought gay damages were usually in the rectal area? :eek:

Okay, WHO are you and what did you do with our Abbey? Abs doesn't say nasty crap like this. :laugh:

[Gunny]

Or how about Pop Rocks and ExLax?

That ought to just about cover everything. :laugh2: I think the gay sex would be on hold for awhile. :laugh:

[indago]

That'll be a different kind of lawsuit. :poke:

Criminal charges...

[Abbey Marie]

Okay, WHO are you and what did you do with our Abbey? Abs doesn't say nasty crap like this. :laugh:

Lol, still me! Just getting disgusted with "current events".

[tailfins]

All of my stuff was "pre-suit". That was my whole point, no cake for them, and no reason to sue. I suppose they can - but how well do you think it would hold up in court if they sued me for needing to close early for a family emergency? Lots of great excuses. They chose to be defiant in their faces.

It's not my fault if homosexuals have a bad attitude. Every business has the right to eject people who are disruptive.