It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bakers Ordered to Pay $135,000 for Refusing Gay Wedding Service

page: 16
9
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Their interpretation is not sacrosanct, nor is it free from scrutiny. Court judgments must have a foundation based on legal principles as they actually exist. This judgment, if properly appealed could easily be overturned.




posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   


TextIt's very simple. If you own a business that serves the PUBLIC, you must serve ALL members of the public. And yes, you have the right to refuse service to anyone, so long as the reason for refusal is NOT that the person belongs to a protected group. If a customer is acting like a general arseface and you refuse to serve them. That's your right. If a customer is gay, disabled, black, catholic, etc, and you refuse to serve them for THAT reason, that's illegal. It's really quite simple. If your business serves the public, you can't discriminate.
a reply to: ScientificRailgun


That isn't how it works. A private entity does not have to serve all members of the public, nor must they show that said refusal is not based upon one being in a legal "protected group". That reasonable basis test only applies to state actors; not private ones under the United States Constitution.

edit on 9-7-2015 by timequake because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-7-2015 by timequake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
a reply to: Annee

I'm afraid we disagree.. It's not a public business ; It's a private business that caters to the public. Simply opening a business does not make you a public institution, nor publicly owned. If I walk into a sporting goods store, to buy a baseball bat ; I express I will not be hitting baseballs but people... Are you still soo adamant that you must sell me this bat ? I bet you wouldn't have this same resolve.

And that's fine. This is not an absolute argument, an absolute answer will not suffice I'm afraid.



Do they have a state business license?

Do you use public access to get to their business?

Do they personally own the property their "brick & mortar" sits on?



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's not a red herring at all. Like I stated earlier, are they refusing service to anyone that's gay ? Or simply not participating in the event or ceremony. I'm bombarded with absolutes as arguments, so I figured these are ways that might be understood.

I personally, don't feel this is absolutely this, or absolutely that type of discussion.


They refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Participation in the wedding wasn't required of them. All they had to do was bake the cake and give it to the people paying for it, but because it was for a gay wedding, they declined. That is discrimination.

And yes, your example WAS a red herring. Gay weddings aren't criminal acts. Hitting someone with a baseball bat is a called "Assault with a deadly weapon" and is VERY illegal.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: LeatherNLace




If you commit the crime, then you must pay the fine. It is truly that simple.



This wasn't prosecuted as a criminal offense, but as a civil damages case.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee




Do they have a state business license? Do you use public access to get to their business? Do they personally own the property their "brick & mortar" sits on?


Being required to have a license does not make one a public/state actor anymore than having a driver's license makes us agents of the state. The same is true of having public access, and having direct ownership of the property. Likely, they have a leasehold interest in the property, but even without that, that does not obviate one of their status as a private entity.
edit on 9-7-2015 by timequake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Participation in the wedding wasn't required of them.


So they did not have to provide the cake, or did they ? If they did have to provide it, then it is participation. The law looks upon material support, as participation. So yes, they were forced to ; Or atleast the act of force was applied.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

I'm sorry Annee.. But merely opening a business does not make you a public entity.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Participation in the wedding wasn't required of them.


So they did not have to provide the cake, or did they ? If they did have to provide it, then it is participation. The law looks upon material support, as participation. So yes, they were forced to ; Or atleast the act of force was applied.


Uh... No... Providing the cake is just that providing a cake. If I buy ammo at a gun store then go hunting, the clerk of the gun store isn't participating in my hunt. He is just providing the means to carry out my action.

If the law says this, then prove it. Post the statute that says what you just said.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
a reply to: Annee

I'm sorry Annee.. But merely opening a business does not make you a public entity.




You are bound by state law.

You probably get tax breaks.

You ever owned a small business? There are rules you are required to follow.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: timequake
Actually, it does no such thing. It empowers the federal government to to deter state discrimination. It has no effect on private discrimination.


Ok you got me there. That isn't in the Constitution. That is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that I am referring to.


Slaves were compensated with room and board. Some were even allowed some pay that could then be applied to buying their freedom. Was this compensation adequate? No. The same can be applied--even if on a different level-- in this case. Who is the government to say what compensation among private actors is adequate?


That's not compensation. That is just taking care of your property so you don't have to buy more of it.


It is also a clear violation of the First Amendment. The Government is coercing a private entity to act against it's personal and religious beliefs.


Businesses aren't supposed to HAVE religious beliefs and until the Hobby Lobby case they never did. Businesses also don't have "personal" beliefs either. In any case, it isn't a violation of the First Amendment.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: timequake

Being required to have a license does not make one a public/state actor anymore than having a driver's license makes us agents of the state.


You ever get a "nasty gram" from the Highway Patrol with a picture of your out of state license plate and a 2 page letter about how you're breaking the law and stealing from your state of residence?



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee




You are bound by state law. You probably get tax breaks. You ever owned a small business? There are rules you are required to follow.


None of those rules allows for one's right to be annulled, nor does it require one to waive them. It still doesn't make one a public entity.

Two things that will make one subject to restrictions on public/state actors is if one is directly receiving government funding and is performing a traditional governmental activity--typically at the behest of the government.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee




You ever get a "nasty gram" from the Highway Patrol with a picture of your out of state license plate and a 2 page letter about how you're breaking the law and stealing from your state of residence?


No. Even if I did, that doesn't change anything.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Providing the cake is just that providing a cake.


I am not a terrorist your honor, just because I sold 1000 pounds of nitrate fertilizer to a terrorist doesn't mean I was participating !!




Incase not everyone here is intelligent enough to grasp this, I am not comparing a gay wedding to terrorism LOL.. But merely pointing out providing material is participation in any sense of it's use.




Again, I support two people of whatever orientation having a marriage. I also support the freedom of disassociation. And yet again, I do not think this must be absolutely this or absolutely that and trying to find an absolute solution isn't going to work.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   
I'm not in the mood to do actual indepth research.

They fought the law --- the law won. So far.

They have a Christian legal group supporting them. They will appeal.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Ok you got me there. That isn't in the Constitution. That is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that I am referring to.


The authority to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 stems from the 14th Amendment and the commerce clause. The spin that was often used to force coercion against private entities was actually the so-called "Commerce Clause" found under Article I in its authority to regulate commerce.




That's not compensation. That is just taking care of your property so you don't have to buy more of it.


That was my point: who gets to define what real compensation is?




Businesses aren't supposed to HAVE religious beliefs and until the Hobby Lobby case they never did. Businesses also don't have "personal" beliefs either. In any case, it isn't a violation of the First Amendment.


Small private businesses are property and an enterprise run by a private person who is still, nonetheless, entitled to all of the protections enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

I'm not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse, or whether you really don't get it.

It's a simple issue: Oregon has a law against discrimination that covers sexual orientation.

It also has laws regarding public accommodation.

I humored your analogies because I thought you might see the point, I see now that was wrong.

No one is arguing that a merchant has to sell any product to anyone no matter what the circumstances (that's your restatement or rephrasing of the argument ... also called "a strawman.")

Also, you're taking the usual tactic of "muddying the water" ... you can't deal with the facts of the particular matter head-on, so you're trying to compare the situation to things that just aren't similar. (That was actually what I was trying to show you.)

Bluntly, a cake shop sells cakes. A customer came into the shop to buy a cake, and the store owner not only refused to sell, but proceeded to tell the potential customer that they weren't selling because of their identity, and the fact that the baker believed the customer to be "an abomination."

The laws of the State of Oregon were broken, the lawbreakers are being called to account. Their attempt to hide from the lawbreaking behind their interpretation of their religion has failed.

Period.
edit on 11Thu, 09 Jul 2015 11:49:21 -050015p112015766 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling, darn it.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
a reply to: Annee

I'm sorry Annee.. But merely opening a business does not make you a public entity.




Municipal, State and Federal laws say differently.

Consider the implications of the term: "business licence."
edit on 11Thu, 09 Jul 2015 11:48:01 -050015p112015766 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Anyone want to wager on how many times things like this are going to have to be settled in court before people figure out that their belief about the law doesn't actually trump law?




top topics



 
9
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join