Anonymous wrote:So someone clarify this....if selling a cake to a gay couple for a wedding is "participating", why isn't selling a gun to a murder "participating" in the murder?

Doh!

So someone clarify this....if selling a cake to a gay couple for a wedding is "participating", why isn't selling a gun to a murder "participating" in the murder?

Every business, bat, restaurant has the right to refuse service and many have this posted. If Roman Catholic organizations are granted the right NOT to pay for birth control or abortion them this bakery also had the right to refuse to sell cakes to a same sex marriages. The rights of gays, lesbians to marry do not trump the right of churches to refuse the marry them or bakeries and other service businesses from refusing to do business with them.

Remembering that it is not so long since being gay was a crime, as it still is in many places in the world, we have made so much progress that I don't see it as a major sacrifice to go easy on those bakers and similar business people who serve gays, but find it hard to participate directly in gay wedding ceremonies.

There are still states that have no anti-discrimination laws at all about gays, so this narrow class of situations seems to me to be a silly place to draw the battle lines, rather than putting full energy where general anti-gay discrimination is still legal.

I do understand the argument that allowing discrimination of any sort encourages discrimination -- but I disagree with that argument in this particular case, because I think there are people of good will whose sympathy is being lost.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What's a bit strange is that I can't imagine that the gays would want to do business with someone who didn't think that their wedding was going to be the most marvelous, absolutely fabulous event ever!!!!!

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.

Why are you such a hateful person?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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".

Selling cake is not a religious activity. Marrying people is, and it's really clear that the right of clergy to choose who they marry is constitutionally protected.

THANK YOU.

You're not protected from having to sell your goods and services to gay people. Cake-selling isn't a fundamental tenet of any religion that I know of. Are they "participating" in divorce by making cakes for second (or third or fourth) marriages? Common sense, people.

Gay wedding are not people. They are events.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this hair-splitting belongs in the gov't arena. A private business can do whatever the heck they want. Freedom of choice is no freedom from consequences, right? LOL

Can they refuse black people? Obviously not. Did you miss the entire civil rights movement?

They weren't refusing to serve gay people. They were refusing a to enter into a contract for a specific type of event.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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".

Selling cake is not a religious activity. Marrying people is, and it's really clear that the right of clergy to choose who they marry is constitutionally protected.

THANK YOU.

You're not protected from having to sell your goods and services to gay people. Cake-selling isn't a fundamental tenet of any religion that I know of. Are they "participating" in divorce by making cakes for second (or third or fourth) marriages? Common sense, people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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".

Selling cake is not a religious activity. Marrying people is, and it's really clear that the right of clergy to choose who they marry is constitutionally protected.

Participating in the marriage by creating a custom cake for the wedding is. The bakers served these same people in their bakery before with no issues. Why do you think they were targeted?

Anonymous wrote:

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".

Selling cake is not a religious activity. Marrying people is, and it's really clear that the right of clergy to choose who they marry is constitutionally protected.

Anonymous wrote:"Christian" bakeries and other businesses should self-identify so people with a genuine moral compass can avoid them.

We could use Yelp.

Anonymous wrote:All this hair-splitting belongs in the gov't arena. A private business can do whatever the heck they want. Freedom of choice is no freedom from consequences, right? LOL

Can they refuse black people? Obviously not. Did you miss the entire civil rights movement?

"Christian" bakeries and other businesses should self-identify so people with a genuine moral compass can avoid them.

All this hair-splitting belongs in the gov't arena. A private business can do whatever the heck they want. Freedom of choice is no freedom from consequences, right? LOL