Re: Oregon Bakery Owners PAY *Damages* in Gay Wedding Cake Case

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

On 12/30/2015 10:09 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> "jane.playne" <jane....@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:n60q7r$f0t$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 12/30/2015 8:29 AM, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 7:58:47 PM UTC-7, jane.playne wrote:
>>>> On 12/29/2015 4:25 PM, Tom Sr. wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 3:41:09 PM UTC-5, jane.playne
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Actually, the law only goes back to the 60s with the Civil Rights
>>>>>> Act.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Try again, Pretentious Jayne:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. (8 Otto.) 145 (1878)
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>> The topic is discrimination by an individual against an
>>>> individual[1], NOT bigamy. Try again Tom.
>>>
>>> Nope, sorry.
>>>
>>> The Kleins did not claim they didn't discriminate.
>>
>>
>> The two customers claimed discrimination; the topic is about
>> discrimination by an individual against another individual.
>
>
>
> Discrimination against a customer by a business.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> They claimed that their religion precluded them from baking a cake.
>>>>
>>>> Please quote the part of the US Constitution protecting an
>>>> individual against discrimination by another individual.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 14th Amendment.
>>>
>>> Section 1.
>>>
>>> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
>>> the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of
>>> the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law
>>> which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
>>> United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life,
>>> liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
>>> person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
>>>
>>> ----------------
>>>
>>> See that last part? "equal protection of the laws." Everyone is
>>> entitled to it. Therefore, if one person has the right to walk into
>>> any business and buy any product,
>>
>>
>> Where is it stated that any or every person has a right to walk into
>> any business?
>
>
>
> The Public Accomodations Act of 1964
>
>
>>
>> There is no Constitutionally guaranteed "right" to enter private
>> property.
>
>
>
> Unless that property is opened up to the
> public as a business.


If true then all your constitutional rights are allowed there like the
right to protest and interrupt speeches and meetings which means
hecklers can't be removed for free speech and it also means the right to
carry a gun is protected and also the right to dress any way you please
in any restaurant so Chipotle's is violating people's rights "the same
as the BAKERY that refused to serve the gay wedding cake" by refusing to
allow guns inside there store, a business can't just allow some rights
*if it's considered public property then all our* *rights* *are* *in
force*. The place you have no right to be there, is private property,
which makes all your other rights subject to the owners discretion. But
on public property *all* your rights have a right to *equal protection
of the law*

It's only when you're entering private property that your entry rights
can be subjected to or denied by the whims and property rights of the
owners.

So tell us which is it, can guns be constitutionally carried into any
business, or do the owners have the right to deny service (entry) to
anyone they want.... because trying to force both and allow the owner
to "deny" service to one persons constitutional rights while "allowing"
the other persons constitutional rights is what Jim Crow laws did. The
Government was telling the owners what they could and couldn't do and
that was deemed unconstitutional. SO either the owners "can" deny gays a
wedding cake or the owner can *NOT* constitutionally deny a licensed
gun owner the right to enter with their legally carried gun to buy a
happy ASSAULT WEAPON party cake.

Typical Liberalism you want it both ways so that you get what you want
even when they conflict with each other. The ideology of Liberalism is a
never ending stream of contradictions.

*The ideology of Liberalism is also unsustainable* it will lead to
collapse of Social structure and western civilization. Liberals think
they're elite genius types, but they can't even see what harm they're
doing to our Nation and our way of life. Yet another contradiction. A
genius with their head up their ass, really is *NO* genius at all.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

> When you take out a business license and open those doors to the public,
> it's no longer strictly private property.

It's NOT government property and Government public space is where you
can't be denied access. There is no such thing as Private-Public
property. Private property is "private" property. A government
demanding you buy a license can't deny you your private property "rights".

Sorry but Rights are NOT for sale, a license is NOT a right to do
something and a "right" can't be sold or auctioned off to the highest
bidder as a license to do what is already your "right".

Where do you Liberals get these crazy ideas that government creates and
distributes your rights?

*The ideology of Liberalism is unsustainable*

[Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs]

coo...@loon.com wrote in news:m4c98bh09q7d33d3l...@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:59:31 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty <"Liberalism has
> been exposed as a never ending stream of

> contradictions"@soilentgreen.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>>> When you take out a business license and open those doors to the
>>> public, it's no longer strictly private property.
>>
>>It's NOT government property and Government public space is where you
>>can't be denied access.
>

> It is a public domain under license from government
>
> If you CHOOSE to apply for, and get a license to do business--you must
> follow the regulations and law.
>
> You CAN be denied access if the owners say you can't bring weapons
> into the place.

Excellent reason to burn down the system and start over.

>
>
>>==================================================================
>
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 10:12:48 -0400, CB <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>
>>Notice the very guy I call nigger (because of the vulgar words he
>>says), cuts his own content out, 'segregating his low life character
>>from the words he said.
>
>>You're a nigger, not because of your white skin color, because of
>>your character.
>
>>Goonuss sake, main... dere dere, we'lls gets y'all a cryin towl. Ma
>>fuckin' whyte boyz are da shit. Cain't be's mens, so dey cries lowder
>>den our chillens. Evah wunda why are chillens cry so lowd? Dey closest
>>ting to da gohrillis in da jungle... needs dem lungs! Ooo Ooo Eee Eee
>>Aah aah
>



--
Notice: This poster is politically incorrect. I say 'Merry Christmas,'
'God bless America.' I salute our flag and give thanks to our troops,
police officers and firefighters. If this offends you, you are welcome to
leave. In God we trust. All others, fuck off.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 21:37:09 -0700, coo...@loon.com wrote:

>On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:59:31 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty <"Liberalism has
>been exposed as a never ending stream of
>contradictions"@soilentgreen.nebulax.com> wrote:
>

>>> When you take out a business license and open those doors to the public,
>>> it's no longer strictly private property.
>>
>>It's NOT government property and Government public space is where you
>>can't be denied access.
>

>It is a public domain under license from government

ROFLMAO

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

> On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 16:53:15 -0800 (PST), wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Of course not. Of course, any shop owner can throw you out for DOING something, but not for BEING something.
>>>
>>> Being there naked?
>>>
>>> Being there covered in feces?
>>
>> Jane the ignorant slut has lost the argument when she resorts to
>> unabashed idiocy.

It contrasts the idiocy of the Liberal views very well. The point is to
highlight the Liberal idiocy. The best way to show how stupid stupid is
to point it out with more stupid.

Liberal restrictions on freedoms and RIGHTS are ridiculous and stupid
which is why someone walking in that's naked and covered in feces to
shop is just as sane an argument as the Liberals argument that a store
is BOTH "Public" property and "Private" property at the same time.

*The ideology of Liberalism is unsustainable and contradicts its self*

If it's Public property then the Owner can't ban guns or the gun owner,
because the guns are a constitutional right and no person can violate my
constitutional rights. If it's private property then the Government
can't force the store owner to allow persons onto his/her property.

*It's that simple, Liberalism is filled with idiocy*

[Spuds]

In article <iu5a8b5fv1agb4afn...@4ax.com>

Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@null.net> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 21:37:09 -0700, coo...@loon.com wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:59:31 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty <"Liberalism has
> >been exposed as a never ending stream of
> >contradictions"@soilentgreen.nebulax.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> When you take out a business license and open those doors to the public,
> >>> it's no longer strictly private property.
> >>
> >>It's NOT government property and Government public space is where you
> >>can't be denied access.

That's not exactly a true statement.

There are plenty of gubermint public buildings where one is
denied access. Take jails for example.

> >It is a public domain under license from government
>
> ROFLMAO

2!

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

NOT a public place is it? Unless you are saying that the visiting room
is public, but it's really NOT.


What is public and government is a park. Can they ban you from CCW
possession in a park? Or on the street or sidewalk. Those are places
you can publicly protest and travel without any restrictions because
they are public government facilities.

In fact they just had a court ruling that guns are allowed in National
forests.... because they are public lands.

>
>>> It is a public domain under license from government

You can't be forced to give up your property rights. You have a right to
own private property. You can own a private business which is private
property. Corporations were at one point government ententes which were
created for government... If a marriage license *can't* tell you who
you can or can't marry depending on their race how can a business
license tell you who you have to engage in commerce with?

*Liberalism is unsustainable, self destructive and contradicting*

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

On 12/31/2015 05:06 PM, Spuds wrote:

NOT a public place is it? Unless you are saying that the visiting room
is public, but it's really NOT.


What is public and government is a park. Can they ban you from CCW
possession in a park? Or on the street or sidewalk. Those are places
you can publicly protest and travel without any restrictions because
they are public government facilities.

In fact they just had a court ruling that guns are allowed in National
forests.... because they are public lands.

>

>>> It is a public domain under license from government

[Peter Franks]

On 12/30/2015 8:37 PM, coo...@loon.com wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:59:31 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty <"Liberalism has
> been exposed as a never ending stream of
> contradictions"@soilentgreen.nebulax.com> wrote:
>

>>> When you take out a business license and open those doors to the public,
>>> it's no longer strictly private property.
>>
>> It's NOT government property and Government public space is where you
>> can't be denied access.
>

> It is a public domain under license from government

No, it is not.

It is not a public domain.

It is not public property.

It is private.

Period.

It is not under license from government.

Period.

NO LAW can change that. What is private remains private. What is
public remains public.

> If you CHOOSE

There is no choosing there. It is a requirement. The requirement to
license does NOT change private to public.

> to apply for, and get a license to do business--you must
> follow the regulations and law.

And paramount to that, regulations and law must be consistent with the
powers and authorities that can and have been delegated to government.

There is NO authority held by the people that can compel one person to
conduct business with another. Therefore no such authority can be
delegated to government, and accordingly, no such law can be justly enacted.

What you have here is nothing more than a corrupt system based on unjust
law and non-delegated authority. That doesn't make for anything
remotely approaching a foundation of justice and freedom in government.

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

On 12/31/2015 05:06 PM, Spuds wrote:

NOT a public place is it? Unless you are saying that the visiting room
is public, but it's really NOT.


What is public and government is a park. Can they ban you from CCW
possession in a park? Or on the street or sidewalk. Those are places
you can publicly protest and travel without any restrictions because
they are public government facilities.

In fact they just had a court ruling that guns are allowed in National
forests.... because they are public lands.

>

>>> It is a public domain under license from government

You can't be forced to give up your property rights. You have a right to
own private property. You can own a private business which is private
property.

If a marriage license *can't* tell you who
you can or can't marry depending on their race how can a business

license tell you who you have to engage in commerce with depending on
their sexual delusions?

[Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs]

coo...@loon.com wrote in news:m4c98bh09q7d33d3l...@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:59:31 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty <"Liberalism has
> been exposed as a never ending stream of
> contradictions"@soilentgreen.nebulax.com> wrote:
>

>>> When you take out a business license and open those doors to the
public,
>>> it's no longer strictly private property.
>>
>>It's NOT government property and Government public space is where you
>>can't be denied access.
>

> It is a public domain under license from government
>

> If you CHOOSE to apply for, and get a license to do business--you must

> follow the regulations and law.
>

> You CAN be denied access if the owners say you can't bring weapons
> into the place.

You fucking retard, then how can they NOT be allowed to refuse to make a
wdding cake for 2 pole smokers or 2 carpet munchers.

This is the problem with progressives, they are certifiably insane.

[Unknown]

Beam Me Up Scotty <"Liberalism has been exposed as a never ending stream

of contradictions"@nexus.nebulax.com> wrote in
news:xqjhy.48523$K21....@fx02.iad:

> On 12/31/2015 05:06 PM, Spuds wrote:
>> In article <iu5a8b5fv1agb4afn...@4ax.com>
>> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@null.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 21:37:09 -0700, coo...@loon.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:59:31 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty <"Liberalism
>>>> has been exposed as a never ending stream of
>>>> contradictions"@soilentgreen.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> When you take out a business license and open those doors to the
>>>>>> public, it's no longer strictly private property.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's NOT government property and Government public space is where
>>>>> you can't be denied access.
>>
>> That's not exactly a true statement.
>>
>> There are plenty of gubermint public buildings where one is
>> denied access. Take jails for example.
>
> NOT a public place is it? Unless you are saying that the visiting
> room is public, but it's really NOT.
>
>
> What is public and government is a park. Can they ban you from CCW
> possession in a park?

Some states can and some states do.

> Or on the street or sidewalk.

Not specifically.

Those are places
> you can publicly protest and travel without any restrictions because
> they are public government facilities.

Like a bus? A streetcar? A railway?

> In fact they just had a court ruling that guns are allowed in National
> forests.... because they are public lands.

Not just had. Obama signed that as one of his first acts when he was
elected. Bush had it all ready to go.

>>>> It is a public domain under license from government
>
> You can't be forced to give up your property rights. You have a right
> to own private property. You can own a private business which is
> private property. Corporations were at one point government ententes
> which were created for government... If a marriage license *can't*
> tell you who you can or can't marry depending on their race how can a
> business license tell you who you have to engage in commerce with?
>
> *Liberalism is unsustainable, self destructive and contradicting*
>
>

--
Sleep well tonight.......

RD (The Sandman}

"Inside every old person is a young person
wondering what the hell happened!"

Terry Pratchett in The Times/UK

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 1/1/2016 10:51 AM, K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:
>
> Is sexual orientation a suspect (protected) classification? If it
> is, then they can't refuse based on sexual orientation. If it is not,
> then the owner(s) can.


It is a protected classification per the Oregon anti-discrimination
statute. So, a private business generally may not discriminate against
gays in Oregon.

Just a small quibble. A suspect classification refers to when the
government discriminates, rather than when a private business does.
Since the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that government
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is subject to
heightened scrutiny (similar to discrimination on the basis of sex, a
so-called quasi-suspect classification), that too applies to Oregon
(although it has no relevance to the bakery case).

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

>> You can't be forced to give up your property rights. You have a right
>> to own private property. You can own a private business which is
>> private property.

[Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs]

"K Wills (Shill #3)" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:7kid8b9h9etnranui...@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 15:17:21 -0000 (UTC), "Cruzing to the White House,
> Trumping the Libs" <nuke_them_...@sulaco.com> wrote:
>
>>coo...@loon.com wrote in news:m4c98bh09q7d33d3l...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:59:31 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty <"Liberalism has
>>> been exposed as a never ending stream of
>>> contradictions"@soilentgreen.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> When you take out a business license and open those doors to the
>>public,
>>>>> it's no longer strictly private property.
>>>>
>>>>It's NOT government property and Government public space is where you
>>>>can't be denied access.
>>>
>>> It is a public domain under license from government
>>>
>>> If you CHOOSE to apply for, and get a license to do business--you must
>>> follow the regulations and law.
>>>
>>> You CAN be denied access if the owners say you can't bring weapons
>>> into the place.
>>
>>You fucking retard, then how can they NOT be allowed to refuse to make a
>>wdding cake for 2 pole smokers or 2 carpet munchers.
>>
>>This is the problem with progressives, they are certifiably insane.
>

> Is sexual orientation a suspect (protected) classification? If it
> is, then they can't refuse based on sexual orientation. If it is not,
> then the owner(s) can.
>

Sexual orientation is subjective, unlike race or colr which is objective.

I realize libtards can't understand the concept, but it is true.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 1/1/2016 3:56 PM, Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs wrote:
> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:7kid8b9h9etnranui...@4ax.com:
>>

>> Is sexual orientation a suspect (protected) classification? If it
>> is, then they can't refuse based on sexual orientation. If it is not,
>> then the owner(s) can.
>
> Sexual orientation is subjective, unlike race or colr which is objective.

That makes no difference as to whether the classification is covered by
an anti-discrimination statute.

[Peter Franks]

On 1/1/2016 12:13 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On 1/1/2016 10:51 AM, K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:
>>
>> Is sexual orientation a suspect (protected) classification? If it
>> is, then they can't refuse based on sexual orientation. If it is not,
>> then the owner(s) can.
>
>
> It is a protected classification per the Oregon anti-discrimination
> statute. So, a private business generally may not discriminate against
> gays in Oregon.

Care to explain where that authority to enact such a statute comes from?

[Peter Franks]

Can I, just a regular old person, discriminate? A simple yes or no will
suffice (consider it all or nothing for the time being). You most
assuredly will answer that I can not discriminate. And I'll ask under
what authority can you force me to not discriminate, and you will not
have an answer to that question other than 'might makes right'.

[Peter Franks]

On 1/1/2016 10:51 AM, K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 15:17:21 -0000 (UTC), "Cruzing to the White House,
> Trumping the Libs" <nuke_them_...@sulaco.com> wrote:
>
>> coo...@loon.com wrote in news:m4c98bh09q7d33d3l...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:59:31 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty <"Liberalism has
>>> been exposed as a never ending stream of
>>> contradictions"@soilentgreen.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> When you take out a business license and open those doors to the
>> public,
>>>>> it's no longer strictly private property.
>>>>
>>>> It's NOT government property and Government public space is where you
>>>> can't be denied access.
>>>
>>> It is a public domain under license from government
>>>
>>> If you CHOOSE to apply for, and get a license to do business--you must
>>> follow the regulations and law.
>>>
>>> You CAN be denied access if the owners say you can't bring weapons
>>> into the place.
>>
>> You fucking retard, then how can they NOT be allowed to refuse to make a
>> wdding cake for 2 pole smokers or 2 carpet munchers.
>>
>> This is the problem with progressives, they are certifiably insane.
>

> Is sexual orientation a suspect (protected) classification? If it
> is, then they can't refuse based on sexual orientation. If it is not,
> then the owner(s) can.

Doesn't matter if it is a suspect/protected classification or not. This
is a private entity and they are free to discriminate. There is NO
authority that can be delegated from the people to government to force
other people (that are not infringing the rights of others) to behave a
certain way.

[Wayne]

"Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message news:n67957$ban$1...@dont-email.me...

But the "offended" parties are making up and claiming a "right" that doesn't
exist.

Nobody has a "right" to no have their feelings hurt.

Their proper response would have been to call the baker an asshole, then go
get the cake somewhere else.

[Unknown]

Peter Franks wrote:
> On 1/1/2016 5:31 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> On 1/1/2016 3:56 PM, Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs wrote:
>>> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:7kid8b9h9etnranui...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>> Is sexual orientation a suspect (protected) classification? If it
>>>> is, then they can't refuse based on sexual orientation. If it is not,
>>>> then the owner(s) can.
>>>
>>> Sexual orientation is subjective, unlike race or colr which is
>>> objective.
>>
>> That makes no difference as to whether the classification is covered by
>> an anti-discrimination statute.
>
> Can I, just a regular old person, discriminate? A simple yes or no will
> suffice (consider it all or nothing for the time being). You most
> assuredly will answer that I can not discriminate.

What makes you think that you can't discriminate?
The word means to differentiate or find a distinction.

Of course you might run into trouble if you do it in an unjust
manner, but then doing just about anything unjustly might get
you in trouble.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 1/1/2016 6:36 PM, Wayne wrote:
>
>
> "Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message news:n67957$ban$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> On 1/1/2016 3:56 PM, Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs wrote:
>>> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:7kid8b9h9etnranui...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>> Is sexual orientation a suspect (protected) classification? If it
>>>> is, then they can't refuse based on sexual orientation. If it is not,
>>>> then the owner(s) can.
>>>
>>> Sexual orientation is subjective, unlike race or colr which is
>>> objective.
>
>> That makes no difference as to whether the classification is covered
>> by an anti-discrimination statute.
>
> But the "offended" parties are making up and claiming a "right" that
> doesn't exist.
>
> Nobody has a "right" to no have their feelings hurt.

True. But in Oregon, there is a statutory right to be served without
being discriminated against because of your sexual orientation.

[Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs]

Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in news:n67957$ban$1@dont-
email.me:

So the law is the law irrepsctive of it's morality. So basically you would
have been a good Nazi. Nice to know.

[Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs]

Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in news:n67ibq$hv$1@dont-
email.me:

So then the people who passed the law and enforce it should be crucified.
As an educational exercise in the consequences of legislative overreach.

[Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs]

"K Wills (Shill #3)" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:vdff8b1d7khmfh0jf...@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 12:13:10 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 1/1/2016 10:51 AM, K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:
>>>
>>> Is sexual orientation a suspect (protected) classification? If it
>>> is, then they can't refuse based on sexual orientation. If it is not,
>>> then the owner(s) can.
>>
>>
>>It is a protected classification per the Oregon anti-discrimination
>>statute. So, a private business generally may not discriminate against
>>gays in Oregon.
>>
>

> Then the matter is resolved. They cannot discriminate based on
> sexual orientation without violating the law.

No, it is not reolved. Sexual oreintation is not an innate state like race
or color. Anyone can say "I'm gay, treat me special". With the exception of
Shaun King and Rachel Dolezal one does not usually find people claiming to
be black and worthy of special protections.

In point of fact, it illustrates the insanity of the position.

>
>>Just a small quibble. A suspect classification refers to when the
>>government discriminates, rather than when a private business does.
>>Since the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that government
>>discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is subject to
>>heightened scrutiny (similar to discrimination on the basis of sex, a
>>so-called quasi-suspect classification), that too applies to Oregon
>>(although it has no relevance to the bakery case).
>

> If the matter is brought before a federal court, or SCOTUS, then
> it may be ruled as you describe. Until such time as that occurs, the
> bakery can't legally discriminate based on sexual orientation.

[Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs]

"K Wills (Shill #3)" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:1fff8btpp8ad31jni...@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 23:56:22 -0000 (UTC), "Cruzing to the White House,

> Trumping the Libs" <nuke_them_...@sulaco.com> wrote:
>
>>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>news:7kid8b9h9etnranui...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 15:17:21 -0000 (UTC), "Cruzing to the White House,
>>> Trumping the Libs" <nuke_them_...@sulaco.com> wrote:
>>>

>>>>coo...@loon.com wrote in news:m4c98bh09q7d33d3lq63ei02t00ea8gho0@

> I'm not a liberal, so that would not apply to me.
> Please present your evidence that sexual orientation is
> subjective. I will enjoy giving it an honest examination.
>

Gender fluidity. You can be whatever you feel like you are that day.

Blacks don't have that privilege, do they?

[Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs]

"K Wills (Shill #3)" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:jfff8bd97e71d8eki...@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 18:26:01 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>
>>On 1/1/2016 12:13 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>> On 1/1/2016 10:51 AM, K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Is sexual orientation a suspect (protected) classification? If
it
>>>> is, then they can't refuse based on sexual orientation. If it is not,
>>>> then the owner(s) can.
>>>
>>>
>>> It is a protected classification per the Oregon anti-discrimination
>>> statute. So, a private business generally may not discriminate against
>>> gays in Oregon.
>>
>>Care to explain where that authority to enact such a statute comes from?
>>
>

> Presumably the state Constitution.
>

And what great human right is that protecting?

Are you another one of the dullards that is going to claim theat becuase it
is legal it is right? Cuz I can point to many laws that were and are wrong.

[Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs]

"K Wills (Shill #3)" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:egff8bl73onf3tb44...@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 18:29:05 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>
>>On 1/1/2016 5:31 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>> On 1/1/2016 3:56 PM, Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs
>>> wrote:
>>>> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:7kid8b9h9etnranui...@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>> Is sexual orientation a suspect (protected) classification? If
>>>>> it
>>>>> is, then they can't refuse based on sexual orientation. If it is
>>>>> not, then the owner(s) can.
>>>>
>>>> Sexual orientation is subjective, unlike race or colr which is
>>>> objective.
>>>
>>> That makes no difference as to whether the classification is covered
>>> by an anti-discrimination statute.
>>
>>Can I, just a regular old person, discriminate?
>

> Yes.

>
>>A simple yes or no will
>>suffice (consider it all or nothing for the time being). You most
>>assuredly will answer that I can not discriminate.
>

> But you can, if you wish. It is possible you'll run afoul of the
> law, depending on against whom you discriminate and why, but you can

> discriminate.
>
>>And I'll ask under
>>what authority can you force me to not discriminate, and you will not
>>have an answer to that question other than 'might makes right'.
>

> No one can force you to not discriminate. If the act of
> discrimination is illegal, you may have to deal with any ramification
> of that, but you can still commit the act.
>

So I can exercise my freedoms and then have the giovernment throw me in
jail or take my savings because some petulant cocksuckers are offended?

How about I find that offensive and would to see everyone involved jailed
and forced to pay a fine.

[Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs]

"K Wills (Shill #3)" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:liff8b5ak80r7u3dn...@4ax.com:

> For purposes of this discussion, it does, since we are discussing
> a matter at law.

>
>>This is a private entity and they are free to discriminate.
>

> So they can refuse to accept you as a customer because you are
> male?

Jesus you are stupid. If we can refuse to serve people who are exercising
thier 2nd Amendment right how can you not be able to refuse to serve them
for any reason at all?

I find the politics of homosexuality offensive in the extreme and very
unAmerican while at the same time I don't really care who you fuck. Why
can't I discriminate?

>
>>There is NO
>>authority that can be delegated from the people to government to force
>>other people (that are not infringing the rights of others) to behave a
>>certain way.
>

> There is the law. Perhaps you find the rule of law to be
> offensive?

[Unknown]

Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs wrote:
> "K Wills (Shill #3)"<comp...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:vdff8b1d7khmfh0jf...@4ax.com:
>
>> >On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 12:13:10 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth<no...@nowhere.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>>> >>On 1/1/2016 10:51 AM, K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Is sexual orientation a suspect (protected) classification? If it
>>>> >>>is, then they can't refuse based on sexual orientation. If it is not,
>>>> >>>then the owner(s) can.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>It is a protected classification per the Oregon anti-discrimination
>>> >>statute. So, a private business generally may not discriminate against
>>> >>gays in Oregon.
>>> >>
>> >
>> > Then the matter is resolved. They cannot discriminate based on
>> >sexual orientation without violating the law.
> No, it is not reolved. Sexual oreintation is not an innate state like race
> or color.

What "innate state" is religious beliefs?

Or are you saying discrimination based on
religious preference should also be allowed?

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 1/1/2016 11:06 PM, Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs wrote:
> Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in news:n67957$ban$1@dont-
> email.me:
>
>> On 1/1/2016 3:56 PM, Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs wrote:
>>> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:7kid8b9h9etnranui...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>> Is sexual orientation a suspect (protected) classification? If it
>>>> is, then they can't refuse based on sexual orientation. If it is not,
>>>> then the owner(s) can.
>>>
>>> Sexual orientation is subjective, unlike race or colr which is
> objective.
>>
>> That makes no difference as to whether the classification is covered by
>> an anti-discrimination statute.
>
> So the law is the law irrepsctive of it's morality. So basically you would
> have been a good Nazi. Nice to know.

I'm not following how whether a classification is subjective or
objective makes a law moral or immoral.

[Peter Franks]

On 1/2/2016 4:09 AM, K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 18:26:01 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/1/2016 12:13 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>> On 1/1/2016 10:51 AM, K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Is sexual orientation a suspect (protected) classification? If it
>>>> is, then they can't refuse based on sexual orientation. If it is not,
>>>> then the owner(s) can.
>>>
>>>
>>> It is a protected classification per the Oregon anti-discrimination
>>> statute. So, a private business generally may not discriminate against
>>> gays in Oregon.
>>
>> Care to explain where that authority to enact such a statute comes from?
>>
>

> Presumably the state Constitution.

Constitutions only enumerate authorities, it does not create them.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 1/2/2016 6:50 AM, Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs wrote:
>
> If we can refuse to serve people who are exercising
> thier 2nd Amendment right how can you not be able to refuse to serve them
> for any reason at all?

Because the law specifies which classifications a private business that
is a public accommodation (e.g., restaurant or bakery) may not
discriminate against. Typically, those classifications are race,
religion and national origin. Often (depends on the state) they include
sex, sexual orientation, disability and status as a veteran. I know of
no law which specifies whether or not you carry a gun, although it
wouldn't surprise me if Texas did that.

[Wayne]

"Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message news:n67ibq$hv$1...@dont-email.me...

On 1/1/2016 6:36 PM, Wayne wrote:
>
>
> "Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message news:n67957$ban$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> On 1/1/2016 3:56 PM, Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs wrote:
>>> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:7kid8b9h9etnranui...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>> Is sexual orientation a suspect (protected) classification? If it
>>>> is, then they can't refuse based on sexual orientation. If it is not,
>>>> then the owner(s) can.
>>>
>>> Sexual orientation is subjective, unlike race or colr which is
>>> objective.
>
>> That makes no difference as to whether the classification is covered
>> by an anti-discrimination statute.
>
> But the "offended" parties are making up and claiming a "right" that
> doesn't exist.
>
> Nobody has a "right" to no have their feelings hurt.

# True. But in Oregon, there is a statutory right to be served without
# being discriminated against because of your sexual orientation.

It is debatable whether or not the law gives a statutory right to be served.

At any rate, the Oregon law is total bullshit. It's an example of the kind
of crazy legal shit going on in Portland that got slipped by the coastal and
rural folks who are normal.

[Peter Franks]

Assuming that 'just' is equivalent to 'fair', are you suggesting that I
must act fairly?

Assuming yes, under what authority can you, a person, tell me, another
person, that I must act fairly?

[Peter Franks]

On 1/2/2016 4:10 AM, K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 18:29:05 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/1/2016 5:31 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>> On 1/1/2016 3:56 PM, Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs wrote:
>>>> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:7kid8b9h9etnranui...@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>> Is sexual orientation a suspect (protected) classification? If it
>>>>> is, then they can't refuse based on sexual orientation. If it is not,
>>>>> then the owner(s) can.
>>>>
>>>> Sexual orientation is subjective, unlike race or colr which is objective.
>>>
>>> That makes no difference as to whether the classification is covered by
>>> an anti-discrimination statute.
>>
>> Can I, just a regular old person, discriminate?
>

> Yes.

>
>> A simple yes or no will
>> suffice (consider it all or nothing for the time being). You most
>> assuredly will answer that I can not discriminate.
>

> But you can, if you wish. It is possible you'll run afoul of the
> law, depending on against whom you discriminate and why, but you can
> discriminate.

You mean that I have the power to discriminate, but not the authority.

So, if I don't have the authority, what is curtailing that authority?
You have indicated the law. Since laws are enacted under authority that
is delegated to the state from the people, what authority do the people
have that can take away the authority from another?

>> And I'll ask under
>> what authority can you force me to not discriminate, and you will not
>> have an answer to that question other than 'might makes right'.
>

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 1/2/2016 4:10 AM, K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 18:29:05 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>>

>> Can I, just a regular old person, discriminate?
>

> Yes.

>
>> A simple yes or no will
>> suffice (consider it all or nothing for the time being). You most
>> assuredly will answer that I can not discriminate.
>

> But you can, if you wish. It is possible you'll run afoul of the
> law, depending on against whom you discriminate and why, but you can
> discriminate.

I know of no law that says a private individual - not acting as a place
of public accommodation - cannot discriminate. Moreover, I would expect
such a law to violate the First Amendment's right of expressive
association (who you interact with as an individual is protected by
Freedom of Speech because those interactions express your ideas).

In contrast for a bakery, there are no ideas being expressed by the
business (for-profit businesses are there to make money) when they
refuse to serve gays. On the other hand, the Boy Scouts won in court
when they refused to have gay scoutmasters because their membership
rules express an idea central to the organization.

[Peter Franks]

And that statutory right is based on what? Id est, where does the
authority come from to enact such legislation and create said right, and
what is that authority?

[Peter Franks]

On 1/1/2016 11:08 PM, Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs wrote:
> Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in news:n67ibq$hv$1@dont-
> email.me:
>
>> On 1/1/2016 6:36 PM, Wayne wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message news:n67957$ban$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>> On 1/1/2016 3:56 PM, Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs
> wrote:
>>>>> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:7kid8b9h9etnranui...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is sexual orientation a suspect (protected) classification? If
> it
>>>>>> is, then they can't refuse based on sexual orientation. If it is not,
>>>>>> then the owner(s) can.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sexual orientation is subjective, unlike race or colr which is
>>>>> objective.
>>>
>>>> That makes no difference as to whether the classification is covered
>>>> by an anti-discrimination statute.
>>>
>>> But the "offended" parties are making up and claiming a "right" that
>>> doesn't exist.
>>>
>>> Nobody has a "right" to no have their feelings hurt.
>>
>> True. But in Oregon, there is a statutory right to be served without
>> being discriminated against because of your sexual orientation.
>>
>
> So then the people who passed the law and enforce it should be crucified.
> As an educational exercise in the consequences of legislative overreach.

It is simply an unjust law without foundation.

We as a state and a nation need to do a much better job of vetting the
justness and appropriateness of laws. Just because a group of
legislators vote on a law does NOT mean that it is just or appropriate
or based on delegable authority.

This (homosexuals and cakes) is just such an example of a law that is
unjust and without foundation.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 1/2/2016 8:11 AM, Wayne wrote:
>
> "Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message news:n67ibq$hv$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> On 1/1/2016 6:36 PM, Wayne wrote:
>>
>> Nobody has a "right" to no have their feelings hurt.
>
> # True. But in Oregon, there is a statutory right to be served without
> # being discriminated against because of your sexual orientation.
>
> It is debatable whether or not the law gives a statutory right to be
> served.

I think the law is clear on that point. What is the counter argument?

> At any rate, the Oregon law is total bullshit. It's an example of the
> kind of crazy legal shit going on in Portland that got slipped by the
> coastal and rural folks who are normal.

Portland? Isn't Salem the capital? And as far as slipping shit
through, I'm guessing the coastal and rural folks are represented in the
state legislature.

[Peter Franks]

On 1/2/2016 4:11 AM, K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:

> For purposes of this discussion, it does, since we are discussing
> a matter at law.

No, it is merely a canard to distract from the core issue: the
underlying law is repugnant.

>> This is a private entity and they are free to discriminate.
>

> So they can refuse to accept you as a customer because you are
> male?

They can refuse to accept me as a customer for ANY reason they choose,
discriminatory or not.

I have no right to enter their establishment.

I have no right to any goods or services they offer.

I have no right to demand anything of them, in any way, shape or form.

There is NO authority held by the people to change ANY of the above.
Therefore, there is NO proper law that can be enacted to change any of
the above. Any law that is passed is improper and without foundation,
and facially null and void.

Them's the facts. Often ignored, but they are the facts nonetheless.

>> There is NO
>> authority that can be delegated from the people to government to force
>> other people (that are not infringing the rights of others) to behave a
>> certain way.
>

> There is the law. Perhaps you find the rule of law to be
> offensive?

Laws protect rights.

Explain what right is being protected by requiring a baker to sell me a
cake. Use as much space as you need, but please focus your answer on
the question.

[Peter Franks]

On 1/2/2016 8:21 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> On 1/2/2016 8:11 AM, Wayne wrote:
>>
>> "Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message news:n67ibq$hv$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> On 1/1/2016 6:36 PM, Wayne wrote:
>>>
>>> Nobody has a "right" to no have their feelings hurt.
>>
>> # True. But in Oregon, there is a statutory right to be served without
>> # being discriminated against because of your sexual orientation.
>>
>> It is debatable whether or not the law gives a statutory right to be
>> served.
>
> I think the law is clear on that point. What is the counter argument?

The law (wording) may be explicitly clear and unambiguous, but is the
law proper? Is it based on a delegable authority? If so, which one?

[Wayne]

"Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message news:n68t8g$sul$2...@dont-email.me...

On 1/2/2016 8:11 AM, Wayne wrote:
>
> "Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message news:n67ibq$hv$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> On 1/1/2016 6:36 PM, Wayne wrote:
>>
>> Nobody has a "right" to no have their feelings hurt.
>
> # True. But in Oregon, there is a statutory right to be served without
> # being discriminated against because of your sexual orientation.
>
> It is debatable whether or not the law gives a statutory right to be
> served.

# I think the law is clear on that point. What is the counter argument?

There was enough disagreement to take the matter to trial, and the ruling
isn't as broad as your statement.

> At any rate, the Oregon law is total bullshit. It's an example of the
> kind of crazy legal shit going on in Portland that got slipped by the
> coastal and rural folks who are normal.

# Portland? Isn't Salem the capital? And as far as slipping shit
# through, I'm guessing the coastal and rural folks are represented in the
# state legislature.

Yes, weird old Portland. That's where most of the crazy shit originates.
Salem is also pretty weird.
The coastal and rural folks are busy having normal lives.

There is a race between San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland to see which
can be the most fucked up.

[talishi]

Wayne wrote:
>
> There is a race between San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland to see
> which can be the most fucked up.

Meanwhile you yokels in Idaho or Mississippi or what-have-you are in a
race for the bottom in the rate of high school graduation.

[Wayne]

"talishi" wrote in message news:n692t...@news6.newsguy.com...

Wayne wrote:
>
> There is a race between San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland to see which
> can be the most fucked up.

# Meanwhile you yokels in Idaho or Mississippi or what-have-you are in a
# race for the bottom in the rate of high school graduation.

LOL...you ever see the kind of uneducated dipshits that hang out in the
parks in Portland?

[Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs]

Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in

news:n68s2a$odj$2...@dont-email.me:

You have said "it's the law". Even though I have demonstrateds it is
immoral. Therefore you support immoral laws because they are the law.

The couple in Oregon did not harm the homosexual couple in any way. There
are plenty of other bakeries they can get thier cake made at. The bakers
had a choice of following thier religious convictions (which di not cause
any harm) or being profoundly punished for what could be called a thought
crime.

How long do you think people are going to put with this shit?

Elections don't work. What is the alternative?

[Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs]

"K Wills (Shill #3)" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:076g8b5pr2c1s4045...@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 14:39:03 -0000 (UTC), "Cruzing to the White House,
> Trumping the Libs" <nuke_them_...@sulaco.com> wrote:
>
>>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>news:vdff8b1d7khmfh0jf...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 12:13:10 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 1/1/2016 10:51 AM, K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Is sexual orientation a suspect (protected) classification? If
>>>>> it
>>>>> is, then they can't refuse based on sexual orientation. If it is
>>>>> not, then the owner(s) can.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It is a protected classification per the Oregon anti-discrimination
>>>>statute. So, a private business generally may not discriminate against
>>>>gays in Oregon.
>>>
>>> Then the matter is resolved. They cannot discriminate based on
>>> sexual orientation without violating the law.
>>
>>No, it is not reolved.
>

> Yes, it is. Applicable law states discrimination based on sexual
> orientation is not allowed.

>
>>Sexual oreintation is not an innate state like race
>>or color. Anyone can say "I'm gay, treat me special". With the exception
>>of Shaun King and Rachel Dolezal one does not usually find people
>>claiming to be black and worthy of special protections.
>>
>>In point of fact, it illustrates the insanity of the position.
>

> This does not alter what the law states.
>

So the law is the law. Jawohl, Herr Obersturmführer. Killing Jews was
"legal". You want to defend that? How about the Jim Crow laws, they were
the law, how do you feel about that?

[Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs]

"K Wills (Shill #3)" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:k76g8bhc0840lg9cb...@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 14:40:25 -0000 (UTC), "Cruzing to the White House,

> Despite Michael Jackson's best efforts, no. But the law doesn't
> recognize what you are trying to argue.
>

Really? If I claim to be homosexual, how would you disprove it?

[Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs]

"K Wills (Shill #3)" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:v76g8bdunl626jj63...@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 14:41:49 -0000 (UTC), "Cruzing to the White House,

> Trumping the Libs" <nuke_them_...@sulaco.com> wrote:
>

>>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>news:jfff8bd97e71d8eki...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2016 18:26:01 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 1/1/2016 12:13 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>> On 1/1/2016 10:51 AM, K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is sexual orientation a suspect (protected) classification?
>>>>>> If
>>it
>>>>>> is, then they can't refuse based on sexual orientation. If it is
>>>>>> not, then the owner(s) can.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a protected classification per the Oregon anti-discrimination
>>>>> statute. So, a private business generally may not discriminate
>>>>> against gays in Oregon.
>>>>
>>>>Care to explain where that authority to enact such a statute comes
>>>>from?
>>>
>>> Presumably the state Constitution.
>>
>>And what great human right is that protecting?
>>
>

> Due process under the law.
> I'm not an expert on Oregon's constitution, but I would expect
> due process is included.

>
>>Are you another one of the dullards that is going to claim theat becuase
>>it is legal it is right? Cuz I can point to many laws that were and are
>>wrong.
>

> I claim that what the law states is what it states.
> You may lobby to get the law changed.
>

Jim Crow was the law. I will assume that had you been living at the time
you would have considered it acceptable to throw niggers out of your
establishment.

[Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs]

"K Wills (Shill #3)" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:l86g8btuln4nvp5jd...@4ax.com:

> If it's only a matter of someone being offended, no. You would
> have to violate the actual law.

>
>>How about I find that offensive and would to see everyone involved jailed
>>and forced to pay a fine.
>

> You may lobby your state legislative body and governor to see
> such a law enacted. I don't think you'll enjoy any success, but the
> only assured way to fail is to do nothing.
>

How about the legislature exceeded it's authority and the law itself does
not have any moral authority.

You would be wise to consider that that is the kind of thing that start
civil wars.

[Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs]

Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in news:n68sj3$rbh$1@dont-
email.me:

But you can discriminate against a law abiding citizen for exercising thier
2nd Amendment rights?

Do you actually grasp how stupid that sounds?

[Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs]

"K Wills (Shill #3)" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:k96g8btr5oq7lgpt7...@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 14:50:08 -0000 (UTC), "Cruzing to the White House,

> Yet with every post, you prove me to be your intellectual
> superior. How very odd.

>
>>If we can refuse to serve people who are exercising
>>thier 2nd Amendment right how can you not be able to refuse to serve them
>>for any reason at all?
>

> Carrying a fire arm is not a suspect (protected) class.

Why not? It is clearly in the bill of rights "the right to keep and BEAR
arms shall not be infinged". I seem to have missed the relevant section
where thye talked about homosexual rights.

So law abiding citizens are not a protected class, but a small noisy
minority that cannot even prove that it is what it claims to be through any
scientifically valid process is?

The future is going to hold many surprises for you.

> You are free to lobby for those who carry firearms to be added to
> the classification.

>
>>
>>I find the politics of homosexuality offensive in the extreme and very
>>unAmerican while at the same time I don't really care who you fuck. Why
>>can't I discriminate?
>

> You can. You may have to deal with the legal ramifications if
> your discrimination violates the law, of course.
> I can't dumb this down any more than I have. If, as appears to be
> the case, it remains to cerebral for you, there is nothing more I can
> do.

[Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs]

Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote in news:n68t03$svh$1...@dont-email.me:

You will not get an answer that is rational.

>
>>> And I'll ask under
>>> what authority can you force me to not discriminate, and you will not
>>> have an answer to that question other than 'might makes right'.
>>
>> No one can force you to not discriminate. If the act of
>> discrimination is illegal, you may have to deal with any ramification
>> of that, but you can still commit the act.
>
>
>
>

[K Wills (Shill #3)]

On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 19:54:23 -0000 (UTC), "Cruzing to the White House,

Was. that it's past tense must really upset you.

>I will assume that had you been living at the time
>you would have considered it acceptable to throw niggers out of your
>establishment.

I wouldn't. But your use of a racial slur is undeniable evidence
that you would.
Since you've just proved to all reading that your a vile racist,
there is no reason to continue trying to educate you. I don't have the
ability to dumb things down to your level.

--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 1/2/2016 9:16 AM, Wayne wrote:
>
>
> "Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message news:n68t8g$sul$2...@dont-email.me...
>
> On 1/2/2016 8:11 AM, Wayne wrote:
>>
>> "Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message news:n67ibq$hv$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> On 1/1/2016 6:36 PM, Wayne wrote:
>>>
>>> Nobody has a "right" to no have their feelings hurt.
>>
>> # True. But in Oregon, there is a statutory right to be served without
>> # being discriminated against because of your sexual orientation.
>>
>> It is debatable whether or not the law gives a statutory right to be
>> served.
>
> # I think the law is clear on that point. What is the counter argument?
>
> There was enough disagreement to take the matter to trial, and the
> ruling isn't as broad as your statement.

The baker claimed two defenses:

1) They did not discriminate against gays, just gay marriages
2) Assuming #1 fails, they had a First Amendment right to do so

Even if we accept one or both of those, it doesn't change the conclusion
that the statute says you have to serve gays.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 1/2/2016 11:46 AM, Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs wrote:
> Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in

> news:n68s2a$odj$2...@dont-email.me:

>>
>>>>> Sexual orientation is subjective, unlike race or colr which is
>>> objective.
>>>>
>>>> That makes no difference as to whether the classification is covered
>>>> by an anti-discrimination statute.
>>>
>>> So the law is the law irrepsctive of it's morality. So basically you
>>> would have been a good Nazi. Nice to know.
>>
>> I'm not following how whether a classification is subjective or
>> objective makes a law moral or immoral.
>
> You have said "it's the law". Even though I have demonstrateds it is
> immoral. Therefore you support immoral laws because they are the law.

I don't think the law is immoral.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 1/2/2016 11:57 AM, Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs wrote:
> Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in news:n68sj3$rbh$1@dont-
> email.me:
>
>> On 1/2/2016 6:50 AM, Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs wrote:
>>>
>>> If we can refuse to serve people who are exercising
>>> thier 2nd Amendment right how can you not be able to refuse to serve
> them
>>> for any reason at all?
>>
>> Because the law specifies which classifications a private business that
>> is a public accommodation (e.g., restaurant or bakery) may not
>> discriminate against. Typically, those classifications are race,
>> religion and national origin. Often (depends on the state) they include
>> sex, sexual orientation, disability and status as a veteran. I know of
>> no law which specifies whether or not you carry a gun, although it
>> wouldn't surprise me if Texas did that.
>>
>
> But you can discriminate against a law abiding citizen for exercising thier
> 2nd Amendment rights?

As a baker, yes.

> Do you actually grasp how stupid that sounds?

It sounds fine to me.

You are having trouble distinguishing between discrimination by the
government and discrimination by bakers. The two cases need not be
based on the same classifications.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <n6a33l$22f$1...@dont-email.me>,

Just like the statute says you have to serve black people. Exactly the
same law.

--

JD

I¹ve officially given up trying to find the bottom
of the barrel that is Republican depravity.--Jidyom
Rosario, Addicting Info

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <n68t83$svh$3...@dont-email.me>, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
wrote:

By your reasoning, it's unjust and without foundation to force a baker
to bake a cake for black people.

--

JD

I靶e officially given up trying to find the bottom

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <n68t2u$svh$2...@dont-email.me>, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
wrote:

The 14th Amendment of the United States of America. Also the 9th
Amendment.

--

JD

I¹ve officially given up trying to find the bottom

[Unknown]

Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article<n6a33l$22f$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Josh Rosenbluth<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> >On 1/2/2016 9:16 AM, Wayne wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >

>>> > >"Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in messagenews:n68t8g$sul$2...@dont-email.me...

>>> > >
>>> > >On 1/2/2016 8:11 AM, Wayne wrote:
>>>> > >>

>>>> > >>"Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in messagenews:n67ibq$hv$1...@dont-email.me...

>>>> > >>
>>>> > >>On 1/1/2016 6:36 PM, Wayne wrote:
>>>>> > >>>
>>>>> > >>>Nobody has a "right" to no have their feelings hurt.
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >># True. But in Oregon, there is a statutory right to be served without
>>>> > >># being discriminated against because of your sexual orientation.
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >>It is debatable whether or not the law gives a statutory right to be
>>>> > >>served.
>>> > >
>>> > ># I think the law is clear on that point. What is the counter argument?
>>> > >
>>> > >There was enough disagreement to take the matter to trial, and the
>>> > >ruling isn't as broad as your statement.
>> >
>> >The baker claimed two defenses:
>> >
>> >1) They did not discriminate against gays, just gay marriages
>> >2) Assuming #1 fails, they had a First Amendment right to do so
>> >
>> >Even if we accept one or both of those, it doesn't change the conclusion
>> >that the statute says you have to serve gays.
>
> Just like the statute says you have to serve black people. Exactly the
> same law.

There is no such statute.

The statutes that do exist create what is essentially a tort.
A tort is where the law defines a civil wrong that result
in an injury or harm constituting the basis for a legal claim by
the injured party. That means businesses that invite the public
to do business and then refuse on any basis recognized by the
law as being harmful are opening themselves up to civil action
that can be very costly. Businesses tend to comply because they
want to avoid that cost.

In theory any business owner that claims that his
religion prevents him from serving blacks is free
to do so as long as he pays enough for the privilege.
And the law is inclined to make the cost very steep.
After all the religious people believe their reward
is in Heaven not on Earth, so giving up all their
wealth for their beliefs should be not a problem.

[Unknown]

Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs wrote:
> Josh Rosenbluth<no...@nowhere.com> wrote in
> news:n68s2a$odj$2...@dont-email.me:
>
>> >On 1/1/2016 11:06 PM, Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs
>> >wrote:

>>> >>Josh Rosenbluth<no...@nowhere.com> wrote innews:n67957$ban$1@dont-

>>> >>email.me:
>>> >>
>>>> >>>On 1/1/2016 3:56 PM, Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs
>>>> >>>wrote:
>>>>> >>>>"K Wills (Shill #3)"<comp...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>> >>>>news:7kid8b9h9etnranui...@4ax.com:
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> Is sexual orientation a suspect (protected) classification?
>>>>>> >>>>> If it
>>>>>> >>>>>is, then they can't refuse based on sexual orientation. If it is
>>>>>> >>>>>not, then the owner(s) can.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>Sexual orientation is subjective, unlike race or colr which is
>>> >>objective.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>That makes no difference as to whether the classification is covered
>>>> >>>by an anti-discrimination statute.
>>> >>
>>> >>So the law is the law irrepsctive of it's morality. So basically you
>>> >>would have been a good Nazi. Nice to know.
>> >
>> >I'm not following how whether a classification is subjective or
>> >objective makes a law moral or immoral.
>> >
> You have said "it's the law". Even though I have demonstrateds it is
> immoral. Therefore you support immoral laws because they are the law.
>
> The couple in Oregon did not harm the homosexual couple in any way.

I'm afraid that statement is false.
And everything else you claim falls apart because it
is based on that false assumption.

[Wayne]

"Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message news:n6a3no$372$2...@dont-email.me...

# I don't think the law is immoral.

Yes it is. And a Muslim baker refusing to serve women with uncovered heads
would have no problem because of his religion.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 1/3/2016 8:32 AM, Wayne wrote:
>
>
> "Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message news:n6a3no$372$2...@dont-email.me...
>
> On 1/2/2016 11:46 AM, Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs wrote:
>> Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in
>> news:n68s2a$odj$2...@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>>>> Sexual orientation is subjective, unlike race or colr which is
>>>> objective.
>>>>>
>>>>> That makes no difference as to whether the classification is covered
>>>>> by an anti-discrimination statute.
>>>>
>>>> So the law is the law irrepsctive of it's morality. So basically you
>>>> would have been a good Nazi. Nice to know.
>>>
>>> I'm not following how whether a classification is subjective or
>>> objective makes a law moral or immoral.
>>
>> You have said "it's the law". Even though I have demonstrateds it is
>> immoral. Therefore you support immoral laws because they are the law.
>
> # I don't think the law is immoral.
>
> Yes it is.

Why?

> And a Muslim baker refusing to serve women with uncovered
> heads would have no problem because of his religion.

If he served men with uncovered heads, he would have a problem (sex
discrimination).

[Wayne]

"Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message news:n6bl71$gou$2...@dont-email.me...

On 1/3/2016 8:32 AM, Wayne wrote:
>
>
> "Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message news:n6a3no$372$2...@dont-email.me...
>
> On 1/2/2016 11:46 AM, Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs wrote:
>> Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in
>> news:n68s2a$odj$2...@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>>>> Sexual orientation is subjective, unlike race or colr which is
>>>> objective.
>>>>>
>>>>> That makes no difference as to whether the classification is covered
>>>>> by an anti-discrimination statute.
>>>>
>>>> So the law is the law irrepsctive of it's morality. So basically you
>>>> would have been a good Nazi. Nice to know.
>>>
>>> I'm not following how whether a classification is subjective or
>>> objective makes a law moral or immoral.
>>
>> You have said "it's the law". Even though I have demonstrateds it is
>> immoral. Therefore you support immoral laws because they are the law.
>
> # I don't think the law is immoral.
>
> Yes it is.

# Why?

It violates the baker's right to religion.
Considering that Muslims would get a pass on whatever religious issue they
had, or atheists, or whatever, it becomes selective application of the law
against a Christian.

> And a Muslim baker refusing to serve women with uncovered
> heads would have no problem because of his religion.

# If he served men with uncovered heads, he would have a problem (sex
# discrimination).

No he wouldn't. The law would look the other way because it is politically
correct to do so.

[Clave]

"Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:n6bric$bhd$1...@dont-email.me...

That's bullshit, of course.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Indeed, as is his claim about "atheists or whatever" being exempt from
anti-discrimination laws as well. Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists,
and "whatever" are all treated the same.

[Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs]

"K Wills (Shill #3)" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:cejg8bt7d1ieob92n...@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 19:52:33 -0000 (UTC), "Cruzing to the White House,

> Is that available in sober?

Um, stupid is as stupid posts. Historical ignorance is your forte,
apparently.

>
>>Killing Jews was
>>"legal". You want to defend that? How about the Jim Crow laws, they were
>>the law, how do you feel about that?
>

> Your attempted obfuscation was expected. It's how the
> intellectually limited admit to the rest that they've lost.

Admit what, that you won't own up to the reality? If "the law is the law"
then any law, no matter how depravced, MUST be followed. That is your
position.

[Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs]

"K Wills (Shill #3)" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:9fjg8btfll17gcsaq...@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 20:00:35 -0000 (UTC), "Cruzing to the White House,

> I shall try to dumb it down to your level, though I don't expect
> to be able.
> The 2nd prevents the federal government from infringing the right
> to bear arms. This does not mean those who exercise this right must be
> granted access to business.

So then we cannot stop businesses from refusing service to anyone for any
reason. It isn't in the Constitution.

>
>>So law abiding citizens are not a protected class,
>

> Correct. Neither are law breaking citizens.

Stupid and irrelvant.

>
>>but a small noisy
>>minority that cannot even prove that it is what it claims to be through
>>any scientifically valid process is?
>

> Yes.
> Sucks for you.

Sucks to be them when the backlash comes.

>>
>>The future is going to hold many surprises for you.
>>
>

> I doubt it. But time will tell.
>

Yawn, I am bored with you.

[Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs]

Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in news:n6a3no$372$2@dont-
email.me:

Any law that violates the rights of one class in favor of another is EVIL.
Period.

[Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs]

Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in

news:n6a3u4$45g$1...@dont-email.me:

There is no reasoning with fanatics. This is going to blow up in your face
at some point. The majority will not be bullied by a noisy minority.

[Just Wondering]

No. By definition, torts are common-law, not statutory.

[Just Wondering]

Technically the Oregon bakers didn't refuse to serve a lesbian couple.
They were willing to sell the couple a cake. What they weren't willing
to do was make it into a lesbian wedding cake.

[talishi]

On 01/03/2016 02:06 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
> Technically the Oregon bakers didn't refuse to serve a lesbian couple.
> They were willing to sell the couple a cake. What they weren't willing
> to do was make it into a lesbian wedding cake.

Technically Rosa Parks wasn't refused a ride. What the bus driver
wasn't willing to do was let her ride up front with the white folk.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 1/3/2016 2:06 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
> >
> Technically the Oregon bakers didn't refuse to serve a lesbian couple.
> They were willing to sell the couple a cake. What they weren't willing
> to do was make it into a lesbian wedding cake.

Yes, and they argued in court that as a result they weren't
discriminating against lesbians.

But, they lost that argument (properly in my view), applying dicta from
Christian Legal Society:

"CLS contends that it does not exclude individuals because of sexual
orientation, but rather on the basis of a conjunction of conduct and the
belief that the conduct is not wrong. [...] Our decisions have declined
to distinguish between status and conduct in this context. [...] While
it is true that the law applies only to conduct, the conduct targeted by
this law is conduct that is closely correlated with being homosexual.
[...] A tax on wearing yarmulkes is a tax on Jews."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1371.ZO.html

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 1/3/2016 1:14 PM, Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs wrote:
>
> There is no reasoning with fanatics. This is going to blow up in your face
> at some point. The majority will not be bullied by a noisy minority.

The majority passed the Oregon law.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 1/3/2016 1:12 PM, Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs wrote:
> Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in news:n6a3no$372$2@dont-
> email.me:

>>
>> I don't think the law is immoral.
>
> Any law that violates the rights of one class in favor of another is EVIL.
> Period.

What class is favored over the other in this law?

[Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs]

jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m...@mwt.net"> wrote in news:n6b88v$o82$1...@dont-email.me:

>> The couple in Oregon did not harm the homosexual couple in any way.
>
> I'm afraid that statement is false.
> And everything else you claim falls apart because it
> is based on that false assumption.

So you think refusing to make someone a cake causes them harm? That is very
weak. What would you do in the face of real evil, soil yourself?

[Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs]

talishi <tal...@example.net> wrote in news:n6c6r...@news6.newsguy.com:

False comparison. We have already established that one cannot prove oneself
to be a homosexual. They can only claim it.

Rosa Parks was black, an innate and immutable characterisitic.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/3/2016 5:41 AM, "jim" lied:

I'm afraid your statement not only is false, but another lie.

[Unknown]

Is your point that they could have caused greater
injury if they had wanted to? That may be true.

The intent of the baker's refusal is to do harm.
It is an attempt to punish those whom are perceived to
be sinning.

The law allows those who have been wronged to
file a complaint and seek relief and damages.
Pretty much an eye for an eye deal.

[Unknown]

> Really? If I claim to be homosexual, how would you disprove it?

What reason would anyone have to prove or disprove it?

[Unknown]

K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:

> On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 11:10:31 -0800, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>

> wrote:
>
>> "Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message news:n6bl71$gou$2...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> On 1/3/2016 8:32 AM, Wayne wrote:
>>>
>>> "Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message news:n6a3no$372$2...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>> On 1/2/2016 11:46 AM, Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs wrote:
>>>> Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in
>>>> news:n68s2a$odj$2...@dont-email.me:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sexual orientation is subjective, unlike race or colr which is
>>>>>> objective.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That makes no difference as to whether the classification is covered
>>>>>>> by an anti-discrimination statute.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So the law is the law irrepsctive of it's morality. So basically you
>>>>>> would have been a good Nazi. Nice to know.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not following how whether a classification is subjective or
>>>>> objective makes a law moral or immoral.
>>>>
>>>> You have said "it's the law". Even though I have demonstrateds it is
>>>> immoral. Therefore you support immoral laws because they are the law.
>>>
>>> # I don't think the law is immoral.
>>>
>>> Yes it is.
>>
>> # Why?
>>
>> It violates the baker's right to religion.
>

> It in no way prevents the baker from believing in anything or in
> any way he wishes.

The theory is that to not act as the right hand of
God and help smite the sinner is to endorse the sinning
and thus become a sinner.

Apparently it is a belief in a God too feeble
to do anything to enforce his own rules.

[Unknown]

Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs wrote:

> talishi <tal...@example.net> wrote in news:n6c6r...@news6.newsguy.com:
>
>> On 01/03/2016 02:06 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>> Technically the Oregon bakers didn't refuse to serve a lesbian couple.
>>> They were willing to sell the couple a cake. What they weren't willing
>>> to do was make it into a lesbian wedding cake.
>>
>> Technically Rosa Parks wasn't refused a ride. What the bus driver
>> wasn't willing to do was let her ride up front with the white folk.
>>
>
> False comparison. We have already established that one cannot prove oneself
> to be a homosexual. They can only claim it.
>
> Rosa Parks was black, an innate and immutable characterisitic.
>

So refusing service to Christians would be OK?
After all they can renounce their religion if they
really wanted that cake.

[Unknown]

Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs wrote:

> jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m...@mwt.net"> wrote in news:n6b88v$o82$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>>> The couple in Oregon did not harm the homosexual couple in any way.
>>
>> I'm afraid that statement is false.
>> And everything else you claim falls apart because it
>> is based on that false assumption.
>
> So you think refusing to make someone a cake causes them harm?

That is what the law looks at in these sort of cases.
What happens to the cake after it leaves the bakery
certainly does no harm to the baker, so there is no
legitimate claim the baker is being harmed.
The only question is does the refusal harm the customer.

A baker might refuse a customer who asks for a gluten-free cake
because he doesn't, know how to make one or doesn't
have the ingredients. Refusal in and of itself doesn't
rise to the level of harm for which you can seek and
gain relief or damages.

> That is very
> weak. What would you do in the face of real evil, soil yourself?

Victims of greater injuries can call the police and have the
perpetrator thrown in jail.

[Unknown]

I'm just reporting the reasoning behind the law.
If it is a lie it is the law that is lying.

[Wayne]

"Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message news:n6c7ff$pgu$2...@dont-email.me...

How about Billy Bob and Peggy Sue going to a left wing liberal baker and
asking for a wedding cake with a confederate flag on top, and they get
denied.
You got a problem with that?

How about Achmed the baker being approached to bake a cake and decorate it
with a statue of Mohammed holding a cross, and he refuses.
You got a problem with that?

Forcing a baker to decorate a gay wedding cake is the same.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 1/3/2016 4:55 PM, Wayne wrote:
>
>
> "Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message news:n6c7ff$pgu$2...@dont-email.me...
>
> On 1/3/2016 1:12 PM, Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs wrote:
>>> Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in news:n6a3no$372$2@dont-
>>> email.me:
>>>>
>>>> I don't think the law is immoral.
>>>
>>> Any law that violates the rights of one class in favor of another is
>>> EVIL.
>>> Period.
>
>> What class is favored over the other in this law?
>
> How about Billy Bob and Peggy Sue going to a left wing liberal baker and
> asking for a wedding cake with a confederate flag on top, and they get
> denied.
> You got a problem with that?

No. The law permits discrimination on the basis of political belief,
and a conservative can refuse to make a wedding cake with the slogan,
"support gay rights on it".

> How about Achmed the baker being approached to bake a cake and decorate
> it with a statue of Mohammed holding a cross, and he refuses.
> You got a problem with that?

Yes. If the person requesting the cake's religion honestly has Mohammed
carrying a cross, refusing to make that image discriminates on the basis
of religion.

> Forcing a baker to decorate a gay wedding cake is the same.

I agree it is analogous to the latter case, but not the former.

[Wayne]

"Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message news:n6cgu5$oqk$1...@dont-email.me...

On 1/3/2016 4:55 PM, Wayne wrote:
>
>
> "Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message news:n6c7ff$pgu$2...@dont-email.me...
>
> On 1/3/2016 1:12 PM, Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs wrote:
>>> Josh Rosenbluth <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in news:n6a3no$372$2@dont-
>>> email.me:
>>>>
>>>> I don't think the law is immoral.
>>>
>>> Any law that violates the rights of one class in favor of another is
>>> EVIL.
>>> Period.
>
>> What class is favored over the other in this law?
>
> How about Billy Bob and Peggy Sue going to a left wing liberal baker and
> asking for a wedding cake with a confederate flag on top, and they get
> denied.
> You got a problem with that?

# No. The law permits discrimination on the basis of political belief,
# and a conservative can refuse to make a wedding cake with the slogan,
# "support gay rights on it".

> How about Achmed the baker being approached to bake a cake and decorate
> it with a statue of Mohammed holding a cross, and he refuses.
> You got a problem with that?

# Yes. If the person requesting the cake's religion honestly has Mohammed
# carrying a cross, refusing to make that image discriminates on the basis
# of religion.

> Forcing a baker to decorate a gay wedding cake is the same.

# I agree it is analogous to the latter case, but not the former.

You're splitting a pretty fine line with at discrimination on the basis of
political belief vs gay rights.

Hell, I'd let either baker in the examples above to sell or not sell any
damned thing they want.

The original baker didn't harm the gay couple at all. They may feel that
their widdle feelings were hurt, but that's life. Go buy the cake somewhere
else instead of bitching.

But, I guess you are a control freak, who's got to have his own way even if
it bulldozes someone else's rights.

[Clave]

"Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote in message

news:n6cm2i$3up$1...@dont-email.me...

<...>

> The original baker didn't harm the gay couple at all. They may feel that
> their widdle feelings were hurt, but that's life. Go buy the cake
> somewhere else instead of bitching.

Another irony meter smoked.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/3/2016 3:31 PM, "jim" lied:

You're not a lawyer, you're not even an educated layman, and you don't
know anything about the Oregon law. You're just bullshitting, again.

[Just Wondering]

The bakers' intent was to stand up for their religious beliefs.
And except for taking offense, the lezzies suffered no harm.
Undoubtedly they just bought a wedding cake from a baker without
religious convictions.

> It is an attempt to punish those whom are perceived to
> be sinning.
>

No.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

I disagree. Discrimination on the basis of political belief versus
sexual orientation is a clear line.

> Hell, I'd let either baker in the examples above to sell or not sell any
> damned thing they want.
>
> The original baker didn't harm the gay couple at all. They may feel
> that their widdle feelings were hurt, but that's life. Go buy the cake
> somewhere else instead of bitching.
>
> But, I guess you are a control freak, who's got to have his own way even
> if it bulldozes someone else's rights.

Do you think the baker's "right" to refuse to serve "any damned thing
they want" trumps a black person's right not to be discriminated against
on the basis of race? If so, I guess you are also a control freak.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 1/3/2016 7:34 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>
> The bakers' intent was to stand up for their religious beliefs.
> And except for taking offense, the lezzies suffered no harm.

Would the same hold true if it were an interracial couple that the baker
had a religious objection to?

[Just Wondering]

The bakers did not object to having a same-sex couple as a customer.
Basically, they just said they decide what products they manufacture,
and a lesbian-theme wedding cake was not one of those products.

[Just Wondering]

On 1/4/2016 3:03 AM, K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:

> I am not a biblical scholar, but I recall Jesus was
> to have said something like, "Whoever is without sin,
> let him be the first to cast a stone." Obviously I'm
> paraphrasing. If we accept the Bible as valid, then it's
> clear Jesus stated no one's sin is any greater or less
> than another's.
>
You've clearly established that you are not a biblical scholar.

[Unknown]

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> you don't know anything about the Oregon law.

How hard is it to comprehend this particular statute:

all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled
to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities
and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without
any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of
race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national
origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years
of age or older.

[Cruzing to the White House, Trumping the Libs]

"K Wills (Shill #3)" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:pqgk8bdm8qf1kk334...@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 17:11:09 -0600, jim <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m...@mwt.net">
> wrote:
>

> I am not a biblical scholar, but I recall Jesus was to have said
> something like, "Whoever is without sin, let him be the first to cast
> a stone." Obviously I'm paraphrasing.
> If we accept the Bible as valid, then it's clear Jesus stated no

> one's sin is any greater or less than another's. That the lesbian
> couple has their "sin" being more visible means nothing.
> Maybe the bakers should refuse heterosexuals. After all, if
> either of the two have had a lustful thought about another person,
> they have committed adultery with that person in their heart. Jesus
> mentioned this as well.
>

It is always so amusing when nonbeleivers quote verse without understanding
it and try to tell beleiveers what it means.

[Unknown]

Their intent was to punish those who do not
conform to their religious beliefs.

> And except for taking offense, the lezzies suffered no harm.

You recognize there was harm , but try to make it appear trivial.

The case could have been immediately settled with
little fanfare and cost, but the Bakers decided
to dig in their heels and assert that it was their
religious duty and right to cause such harm.

[Unknown]

Just Wondering wrote:
> On 1/3/2016 9:28 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> On 1/3/2016 7:34 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>
>>> The bakers' intent was to stand up for their religious beliefs.
>>> And except for taking offense, the lezzies suffered no harm.
>>
>> Would the same hold true if it were an interracial couple that the baker
>> had a religious objection to?
>>
> The bakers did not object to having a same-sex couple as a customer.

If you read the facts of the case, they did object to
making a cake for a same sex couple.

> Basically, they just said they decide what products they manufacture,

The discussion never got as far as what the cake would
look like.