Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I woukd think that if the Supreme Court decreed that Hobby Lobby can pick and choose what parts of the ACA federal law that they can follow based on the company's right to align its business practices according to the owner's religious beliefs, then a very small family owned bakery or individual sole propretor wedding photographer has the exact same right to select which events the business participates in base off of religious beliefs.

How is this case in Oregon any different than the Hobby Lobby ruling?

You may be right at the Federal level (haven't actually considered the Hobby Lobby ruling in this context, but it's an interesting question). However, some state constitutions and state anti-discrimination laws may go further than Federal law.

And yet when Arizona and TX tried to enforce their immigration laws, they were told Federal law trumps State. Funny that....

Funny that you're displaying an ignorance about how the law works. Some Federal laws are drafted in ways that basically prevent states from acting in a given area. On the other hand, some Federal laws are set as floors, but the states may be more stringent, and some are set as ceilings, but states may be more lenient. You can't make a sweeping statement to say that Federal law trumps state law in all cases, unless you are talking about fundamental Constitutional principles.

The right to practice your faith as you see fit is indeed a "fundamental Constitutional principal".

Anonymous wrote:What the hell is a Christian bakery anyway? I've had wonderful baguettes from French bakeries, buttery rugelach to die for from Jewish bakeries, fresh cannolis from Italian bakeries... Is there some sort of pride in being a Christian bakery?!? Good hot cross buns? Does Jesus personally bless the muffins every morning?

It is a bakery run by a "cultural Christian", a person who has somehow read the Bible multiple times without understanding a single word in it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I woukd think that if the Supreme Court decreed that Hobby Lobby can pick and choose what parts of the ACA federal law that they can follow based on the company's right to align its business practices according to the owner's religious beliefs, then a very small family owned bakery or individual sole propretor wedding photographer has the exact same right to select which events the business participates in base off of religious beliefs.

How is this case in Oregon any different than the Hobby Lobby ruling?

You may be right at the Federal level (haven't actually considered the Hobby Lobby ruling in this context, but it's an interesting question). However, some state constitutions and state anti-discrimination laws may go further than Federal law.

And yet when Arizona and TX tried to enforce their immigration laws, they were told Federal law trumps State. Funny that....

Funny that you're displaying an ignorance about how the law works. Some Federal laws are drafted in ways that basically prevent states from acting in a given area. On the other hand, some Federal laws are set as floors, but the states may be more stringent, and some are set as ceilings, but states may be more lenient. You can't make a sweeping statement to say that Federal law trumps state law in all cases, unless you are talking about fundamental Constitutional principles.

Can a gay doctor refuse a straight patient?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I woukd think that if the Supreme Court decreed that Hobby Lobby can pick and choose what parts of the ACA federal law that they can follow based on the company's right to align its business practices according to the owner's religious beliefs, then a very small family owned bakery or individual sole propretor wedding photographer has the exact same right to select which events the business participates in base off of religious beliefs.

How is this case in Oregon any different than the Hobby Lobby ruling?

You may be right at the Federal level (haven't actually considered the Hobby Lobby ruling in this context, but it's an interesting question). However, some state constitutions and state anti-discrimination laws may go further than Federal law.

And yet when Arizona and TX tried to enforce their immigration laws, they were told Federal law trumps State. Funny that....

What the hell is a Christian bakery anyway? I've had wonderful baguettes from French bakeries, buttery rugelach to die for from Jewish bakeries, fresh cannolis from Italian bakeries... Is there some sort of pride in being a Christian bakery?!? Good hot cross buns? Does Jesus personally bless the muffins every morning?

What makes them "Christian" bakeries to turn down gays anyhow?

What did Christ ever say against gays? NOTHING. HE. SAID. NOTHING.

Since the Gospels of Christ don't support it, this isn't a legitimate "Christian" thing at all - it is falsely using Christian religion as cover for bigotry.

Anonymous wrote:I woukd think that if the Supreme Court decreed that Hobby Lobby can pick and choose what parts of the ACA federal law that they can follow based on the company's right to align its business practices according to the owner's religious beliefs, then a very small family owned bakery or individual sole propretor wedding photographer has the exact same right to select which events the business participates in base off of religious beliefs.

How is this case in Oregon any different than the Hobby Lobby ruling?

You may be right at the Federal level (haven't actually considered the Hobby Lobby ruling in this context, but it's an interesting question). However, some state constitutions and state anti-discrimination laws may go further than Federal law.

I woukd think that if the Supreme Court decreed that Hobby Lobby can pick and choose what parts of the ACA federal law that they can follow based on the company's right to align its business practices according to the owner's religious beliefs, then a very small family owned bakery or individual sole propretor wedding photographer has the exact same right to select which events the business participates in base off of religious beliefs.

How is this case in Oregon any different than the Hobby Lobby ruling?

Yet they eagetly serve every day people who break each of the 10 commandments.

What makes this biblical rule more important than the others?

Anonymous wrote:The bakery should just tell the lesbians that if they insist on a cake, they will make a wedding cake with Satans face with the warning that the lesbians are going to burn in hell. Then the lesbos have no case. The bakery baked them a cake for their special day and the bakery owner was able to exercise his religious beliefs and freedom of speech.

Also, they should add a generous helping of laxative to the mix.

Why do you want someone who you think hates you to make your food? This is as stupid as pissing off your waitress.

Of course, the gays don't really care about the cake, it's all about demonstrating power and humiliating people.

Why would being refused service by a business -- any business -- lead to three days in bed? The story makes no sense.

The bakery should just tell the lesbians that if they insist on a cake, they will make a wedding cake with Satans face with the warning that the lesbians are going to burn in hell. Then the lesbos have no case. The bakery baked them a cake for their special day and the bakery owner was able to exercise his religious beliefs and freedom of speech.

Perhaps you need the other side of this coin?

Avakian has publicly stated his intentions to target Christian business owners who do not comply with his way of thinking. Here’s what he told The Oregonian about Sweet Cakes By Melissa in 2013:

“The goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate.”


Here we have a government employee who wants to “rehabilitate” Christian business owners like the Kleins. How exactly does Avakian plan on purging their religious beliefs? Is the state of Oregon running a reeducation camp? Or maybe they prefer to use shock therapy.

Furthermore, they were not citing a harassment campaign against the particular couple. They were speaking out about their refusal to bake the cake and why.

The Kleins were ordered to “cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published, circulated, issued or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services or privileges of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination will be made against, any person on account of sexual orientation.”

The order was signed by Brad Avakian, the commissioner of the BOLI and a vocal supporter of the LGBTQIA community.


They were fined because they refuse to be 'rehabilitated'.The family was the one who received death threats, etc.

2013 the Kleins and their five children have become targets of LGBTQIA activists and their supporters. They eventually had to shut down their retail store after they were hit with boycotts and protests.

Their children were subjected to death threats and the family had to install security at their rural home.

Everything you know about the GLBT wedding cake case in Oregon is wrong.

An Oregon bakery wasn't fined $135,000 for refusing to make a gay wedding cake. They were not fined for discrimination at all. They were fined $135,000 because, after they got notice that the state was investigating a discrimination complaint against them, they went to the national media and started a harassment campaign against the plaintiffs. Let me repeat: they were fined for harassing the plaintiffs. Oregon didn't bother to calculate the fine for the discrimination; it would have been small change compared to the fine for running a national campaign of harassment in an attempt to get out of the discrimination complaint.

This issue wasn't about persecuting Christians all. The same agency issued an earlier fine of more than twice that much against a dentist's office that discriminated against a Christian employee. Discrimination is illegal, but less serious It is a serious offense to try to harass people out of testifying against you in a discrimination complaint by publicizing their names in the national media.

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/brint/almost_everything_you_heard_on_the_sweet_cakes_case_is_false