[WideRight05]

Here we go. Marriage has now been re-defined and even though we always heard for years how this redefinition wouldn't harm anybody. a bakery in Oregon, Sweet Cakes by Melissa, has been fined $135,000 for refusing to participate in a same-sex wedding.

It doesn't stop here, folks. Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian issued a "cease and desist" order against the Kleins. They have already violated this order by continuing to speak publicly via their Facebook page and by contacting media. The big question the left asked was about how same-sex marriage would harm anybody...well, this certainly looks like it's harming somebody to me.

I have sent a donation to the Kleins via their Facebook page, but even more importantly I think we give this commissioner a piece of our minds. Do not curse at him or go off on a rant - but firmly state your opinion. Brad Avakian's email, public information via his Facebook page, is [email]brad@bradavakian.com[/email].

Like Harry Rex Vonner, Truth, and some others on here have been reiterating - it's either we take a stand now or we lose our freedom to speak out.

[Motley]

This actually started back in 2013, and I think the sum of $135,000 is absurd, but the question is where does this stop? The business owners knew the law and knew that breaking it would cause problems so it's hard to shed too many tears for them. Oregon law clearly states that businesses can't discriminate based on age, religious, gender, or sexual orientation. Religious freedom doesn't give the right to discriminate but after reading about this I think it's clear that the couple knew what would happen.

If the bakery owners are so Christian and feel they're protecting what God wants why not ask all couples if they have been divorced, had pre marital sex, or ask about other sins? One sin isn't worse than the other. Where would we draw the line if businesses are allowed to clearly discriminate based on their religious beliefs (Christian or otherwise)?

I'm not giving money or support to either side, but there's clearly a large gray area here.

[TheRealThing]

This actually started back in 2013, and I think the sum of $135,000 is absurd, but the question is where does this stop? The business owners knew the law and knew that breaking it would cause problems so it's hard to shed too many tears for them. Oregon law clearly states that businesses can't discriminate based on age, religious, gender, or sexual orientation. Religious freedom doesn't give the right to discriminate but after reading about this I think it's clear that the couple knew what would happen.

If the bakery owners are so Christian and feel they're protecting what God wants why not ask all couples if they have been divorced, had pre marital sex, or ask about other sins? One sin isn't worse than the other. Where would we draw the line if businesses are allowed to clearly discriminate based on their religious beliefs (Christian or otherwise)?

I'm not giving money or support to either side, but there's clearly a large gray area here.

I would defer to Harry Rex Vonner for a clarification on this but I doubt your interpretation of Oregon law is all that accurate. Discrimination laws are in place for purposes of employment and such and in this case, they would likely prevent the bakery in question from withholding sale of their goods on the grounds you mention. No law presently would force the bakery to make a homosexually explicit cake. But, like Wide is saying, that looks to be changing.

Where does this stop? When those who revel in rebellion against God see the ultimate fulfillment of same and this nation lays in ruins, it will be over. Like you said "good riddance to traditional beliefs." You don't have the first clue what will rush in to fill the moral vacuum being created but, bring it on anyway right?

[RunItUpTheGut]

This actually started back in 2013, and I think the sum of $135,000 is absurd, but the question is where does this stop? The business owners knew the law and knew that breaking it would cause problems so it's hard to shed too many tears for them. Oregon law clearly states that businesses can't discriminate based on age, religious, gender, or sexual orientation. Religious freedom doesn't give the right to discriminate but after reading about this I think it's clear that the couple knew what would happen.

If the bakery owners are so Christian and feel they're protecting what God wants why not ask all couples if they have been divorced, had pre marital sex, or ask about other sins? One sin isn't worse than the other. Where would we draw the line if businesses are allowed to clearly discriminate based on their religious beliefs (Christian or otherwise)?

I'm not giving money or support to either side, but there's clearly a large gray area here.

Discrimination does not entail gays. It never has and it never will.
Segregation did not cast gays out on there own. It also never enslaved gays, and it never defined that group.
Being gay is a choice. The color of your skin is not. Discrimination shouldn't apply here because it directly interferes with a persons right to practice the religion of there choice. To my knowledge there is no religion that calls for the discrimination of blacks or to cater a black or Hispanic wedding.
Almost all major religions do however denounce homosexuality. The gays won there supreme court ruling on the right to marry, but it was also noted that religious freedoms must be respected as well. And lets face it, SCOTUS had no constitutional right to redefine marriage, that's been known ever since this garbage started taking place.
what the Kleins need to do is very simple. Fight this all the way to the supreme court as well and lets see how they rule on that one. If basing legalizing gay marriage on the fact that everyone has a right to be free from discrimination, then this is no different as it interferes with there constitutional right to practice there religion as they see fit. Discrimination suits of 50 years ago had no feet. there was no good reason people of the south had to discriminate other than they did not like those people. This is a completely different subject and topic.



And as suspected as many of us here have been calling it for 2 years, now polygamist are lining up for there turn. SCOTUS has no right to keep them from marrying if they are serious about marriage equality. they also don't have the right to take keep a father and daughter from becoming wed, a 50 year old man to wed a 10 year old girl with her consent and her parents consent. They pretty much destroyed everything with one simple unconstitutional ruling. considering Yahoo ran a story about a gay 10 year old with his feeling hurt already shows theyre promoting underage sodomy, so why not?
And boy, heres to hoping the polygamist also see there freedoms recognized. Lets see how long Social Security last with thousands of people doing this and lets see how long obamacare last with these types of families. I do not base my arguments on religion as others do because the liberal media has trained all parrots of the democratic party with boring comebacks and useless conversation regarding what to say and what not to say to all those religious "bigots". I base my arguments on common sense, something many in our government and almost all on our SCOTUS has very little of. Im no lawyer, but had I been fighting the gay marriage bunch I would have at least presented SCOTUS with a biology book and explain to the liberals how there love of evolution goes against exactly what they are saying. Im pretty sure survival of the fittest included reproduction between a man and woman, or otherwise the word survival wouldn't have been a part of it. Instead lets run public announcements on tv with our tax money about how only love matters lol. That's on every station, how is this any different than a clerk not issuing a marriage license and liberals complaining theyre tax money is paying there salary? Does this mean we can keep gay public service commercials from being shown with our tax dollars?



Stay tuned, its going to be better than a reality show.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Get ready, traditional believers, it is going to get far worse. Personally, I don't know why anyone with any moral standards would live in Oregon, Washington, or California. Fruit and Nut Land was always California but it has annexed the two states immediately north and British Columbia is not better.

[RunItUpTheGut]

^
Ive been saying for years the liberals should all just move to the western half of the US and make there own rules, and we'll keep the east and not keep changing ours.

I cant imagine living on the west coast and feeling good about myself.

[WideRight05]

This actually started back in 2013, and I think the sum of $135,000 is absurd, but the question is where does this stop? The business owners knew the law and knew that breaking it would cause problems so it's hard to shed too many tears for them. Oregon law clearly states that businesses can't discriminate based on age, religious, gender, or sexual orientation. Religious freedom doesn't give the right to discriminate but after reading about this I think it's clear that the couple knew what would happen.

If the bakery owners are so Christian and feel they're protecting what God wants why not ask all couples if they have been divorced, had pre marital sex, or ask about other sins? One sin isn't worse than the other. Where would we draw the line if businesses are allowed to clearly discriminate based on their religious beliefs (Christian or otherwise)?

I'm not giving money or support to either side, but there's clearly a large gray area here.

I will give you a heads up that I do not have the legal background of say, Harry Rex Vonner, but my career path does have a small involvement in the legal field, with a requirement to keep to date on certain laws.

Oregon law on these issues resorts to the Oregon Equality Act of 2007. It was established, as you would probably guess, to protect homosexuals from discrimination in the workplace, housing, the providing of goods and services, etc. The "providing of goods and services" is what is being referenced in case. But let's say that this didn't exist, that Oregon was one of the states that didn't have a law like this...

For example, let's say a gay man walks into a computer store. The owner knows he's gay and won't let him buy a computer because of that. Very likely, it would fall under either gender discrimination. I'm using a recent example of a football player at Marshall University that attacked two gay men who kissed on the side of the road. One of them filmed him attacking them. He was arrested and taken to jail. Now, WV does not have a discrimination law so it couldn't be charged as a hate crime - but, the judge charged him with one in that he did not think the player would have attacked the two gay men if they were women.

A fair question, now to add to the original situation...

This will no doubt about it be at the SCOTUS at some point. Kennedy was the justice that ruled in favor of SSM, but this time I suspect he will rule in favor of the Christian business owners although nothing is ever certain with Kennedy. Despite being the deciding vote on SSM, he has voted against the homosexual groups before. He voted against them in 2000 in Boys Scouts of America vs. Dale which was the deciding vote in allowing the BSA to keep their rules of not allowing homosexuals into the organization - although they do allow homosexual youth now, having voted to overturn that rule two years ago while upholding the ban on leaders. The other case, Motley, is Hollingsworth vs. Perry just two years ago, which determined whether or not the groups that supported Proposition 8 had legal standing to challenge it, long story short. Kennedy dissented with the opinion that these groups had the standing to challenge the opinion. Point being, (1) Hollingsworth vs. Perry shows that he would certainly rule against the gay groups, and (2) Boy Scouts of America vs. Dale (although I know it's 15 years old) is probably the best indicator that he would likely side with the businesses.

As to answer your question of "where does it stop?" Nobody should be denied services, etc. for any reason - with the exception that it force them to violate their morals be it through participating in a same-sex "wedding," a gay pride parade, making t-shirts for a strip club, etc. Myself, personally, I have a different opinion than most. I believe government should be completely out of business in discrimination and that a business owner should be able to turn away business for any reason. Allowing the market to do the damage to somebody who refuses to serve somebody food (let's say, if that person was black) would take care of that business rather quickly.

[Truth]

I will give you a heads up that I do not have the legal background of say, Harry Rex Vonner, but my career path does have a small involvement in the legal field, with a requirement to keep to date on certain laws.

Oregon law on these issues resorts to the Oregon Equality Act of 2007. It was established, as you would probably guess, to protect homosexuals from discrimination in the workplace, housing, the providing of goods and services, etc. The "providing of goods and services" is what is being referenced in case. But let's say that this didn't exist, that Oregon was one of the states that didn't have a law like this...

For example, let's say a gay man walks into a computer store. The owner knows he's gay and won't let him buy a computer because of that. Very likely, it would fall under either gender discrimination. I'm using a recent example of a football player at Marshall University that attacked two gay men who kissed on the side of the road. One of them filmed him attacking them. He was arrested and taken to jail. Now, WV does not have a discrimination law so it couldn't be charged as a hate crime - but, the judge charged him with one in that he did not think the player would have attacked the two gay men if they were women.

A fair question, now to add to the original situation...

This will no doubt about it be at the SCOTUS at some point. Kennedy was the justice that ruled in favor of SSM, but this time I suspect he will rule in favor of the Christian business owners although nothing is ever certain with Kennedy. Despite being the deciding vote on SSM, he has voted against the homosexual groups before. He voted against them in 2000 in Boys Scouts of America vs. Dale which was the deciding vote in allowing the BSA to keep their rules of not allowing homosexuals into the organization - although they do allow homosexual youth now, having voted to overturn that rule two years ago while upholding the ban on leaders. The other case, Motley, is Hollingsworth vs. Perry just two years ago, which determined whether or not the groups that supported Proposition 8 had legal standing to challenge it, long story short. Kennedy dissented with the opinion that these groups had the standing to challenge the opinion. Point being, (1) Hollingsworth vs. Perry shows that he would certainly rule against the gay groups, and (2) Boy Scouts of America vs. Dale (although I know it's 15 years old) is probably the best indicator that he would likely side with the businesses.

As to answer your question of "where does it stop?" Nobody should be denied services, etc. for any reason - with the exception that it force them to violate their morals be it through participating in a same-sex "wedding," a gay pride parade, making t-shirts for a strip club, etc. Myself, personally, I have a different opinion than most. I believe government should be completely out of business in discrimination and that a business owner should be able to turn away business for any reason. Allowing the market to do the damage to somebody who refuses to serve somebody food (let's say, if that person was black) would take care of that business rather quickly.

Judges aren't paid to think. They are not entitled to their version of the truth which, of course, would be based on their own prejudices. If they want to charge this football player properly, it should be a mere violation for hitting fairies out of season. I'd give him a medal but, then, I abhor political correctness. Come to think of it, I don't have any use for fairies either. This country will have a hard time surviving the halfrican and, if the aged Hillary comes next, we better hope Texas succeeds from the union so we will have a sane place for our relocation.

[TheRealThing]

Judges aren't paid to think. They are not entitled to their version of the truth which, of course, would be based on their own prejudices. If they want to charge this football player properly, it should be a mere violation for hitting fairies out of season. I'd give him a medal but, then, I abhor political correctness. Come to think of it, I don't have any use for fairies either. This country will have a hard time surviving the halfrican and, if the aged Hillary comes next, we better hope Texas succeeds from the union so we will have a sane place for our relocation.

Good, if Texas does secede that would mean that Shelia Jackson Lee and Al Green would be out of a job. They've got some great fishing in Texas. :biggrin: