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: 17
9
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   
This is an interesting article: Almost Everything You've Heard About The Anti-Gay Sweet Cakes Wedding Cake Case Is (Probably) Wrong

www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com...




posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


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.)


I assure you I need no, fore-planned tactics to engage in a simple conversation heh.

Anyways, we have a disagreement. I can live with that, you seem reasonable enough, I trust you can as well. /shrug



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




Municipal, State and Federal laws say differently. Consider the implications of the term: "business [sic] licence."


As it was stated previously: having a business license does not transform one into a public entity anymore than owning a driver's license makes us public entities.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: grimpachi
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?


You mean laws are actually, like, you have to follow them?

Shocking!



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

No one ever has to participate in any gay marriage if they don't want to.


Apparently this is not the case. Several forms of business and the owners of, have been forced or are in the act of being forced to participate. Is this not what is being discussed ?





Did you not read my post correctly? If there are required parts of a business that you just can't or won't do, it is up to you to not be in that business.

If you refuse to abide by health code regulations in your restaurant, than maybe the restaurant business is not a good fit for you.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: timequake




As it was stated previously: having a business license does not transform one into a public entity anymore than owning a driver's license makes us public entities.


They do, however, both require you to follow the laws pertaining to each; be it business laws or traffic laws. If one fails to abide by those laws, then, if caught, a fine and/or suspension of those licenses is the prescribed punishment.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   


They do, however, both require you to follow the laws pertaining to each; be it business laws or traffic laws. If one fails to abide by those laws, then, if caught, a fine and/or suspension of those licenses is the prescribed punishment.
a reply to: LeatherNLace

That would be true with or without a license. The question is whether or not the Oregon law would withstand a Constitutional Challenge in federal court. I understand that one can bring up a case for damages in civil court if such damages were actually incurred. However, to enforce the issue on its own grounds--that a state entity can force a private entity to act contrary to one's personal beliefs/religious in a discrimination case--is highly problematic.


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 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Interesting regarding the fine:



The Agency's theory of liability is that since Respondents brought the case to the media's attention and kept it there by repeatedly appearing in public to make statements deriding Complainants, it was foreseeable that this attention would negatively impact Complainants, making Respondents liable for any resultant emotional suffering experienced by Complainants. The Agency also argues that Respondents are liable for negative third party social media directed at Complainants because it was a foreseeable consequence of media attention." www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com...



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: timequake
a reply to: Gryphon66




Municipal, State and Federal laws say differently. Consider the implications of the term: "business [sic] licence."


As it was stated previously: having a business license does not transform one into a public entity anymore than owning a driver's license makes us public entities.


"It was stated previously" is a really reliable source!

I submit that you either don't understand or are choosing to ignore the meaning of public entity (as used here, colloquially) or more appropriately, a business open to the public.

A business is private in the sense you're trying to claim only if it announces that it is a club, requiring membership, that does not serve the general public.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




It's so nice that Christians have a catch-all so they don't have to take responsibility for their awfulness. "We don't have to change our ways! See! It's predicted in our book that we will be persecuted for our beliefs!"



Are you pretending it's a Christian fallacy that the Bible offers
reward to ALL who are faithful? If you were as fair minded as you
like to make yourself out to be? You wouldn't be writing this crap.
Nothing awful going on here accept you being a jerk again. As this
is just a matter of personal choice. If I owned that bakery Krazy.
I guarantee you, I would serve gays and I'm at least as Christian as
anyone who would choose to discriminate. Painting with such
a broad brush gets paint on everything my fellow member.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Refusing to serve someone because they are homosexual is stupid.

Giving a fine to someone for refusing a not life threatening service, just as stupid.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: theMediator
Refusing to serve someone because they are homosexual is stupid.

Giving a fine to someone for refusing a not life threatening service, just as stupid.


This is why they were fined:


The Kleins did not go out of business nor did they go bankrupt, contrary to what the right wing claims. They chose to close their brick-and-mortar shop and take their business online, as many companies do. Later, the Oregon DOJ sent Cryer's consumer complaint to the Kleins, with a cover letter requesting that they respond to the complainants. It was an attempt to encourage reconciliation. Instead, Aaron Klein posted the discrimination complaint to Facebook (not taking the precaution of redacting the couple's name and address from the document). "This is what happens when you tell gay people you won't do their 'wedding cake,'" he posted. The Kleins then took to the news and media. They cozied up to anti-gay hate group Family Research Council, campaigning at appallingly anti-gay hate rallies, for their business' totally-fictional right to discriminate against LGBT people. . www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com...



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: wayforward

The original story made the news about a year ago, and now the court result is in. A couple who owns a bakery must now pay $135,000 to a gay couple for refusing to provide service at their gay wedding.

Source: christiannews.net...

According to comments posted on the article, the gay couple's personal contact information was posted on Facebook for all to see. It is not stated whether or not the gay couple had also posted the couples personal contact information or other Facebook material regarding the couple.

The first amendment is the freedom of speech. Service, or servitude, is is mentioned as the 13th amendment, which is the right human beings have to refuse to involuntarily serve others. On one hand what goes around comes around. During the 1960's, bakers were forced to involuntarily serve black people in bakeries. The Christians never made an uproar or mentioned, "gee, what if someone makes me serve a customer that I find offensive... that wouldn't be right". So, now they face the consequences, now that the tides have shifted against them.

But, two wrongs never, never, make a right. The US constitution correctly points out that service of any and ALL kinds is voluntary. It is up to each business which customers they serve. If a business chooses to be offensively and grossly unfair about ANY of their policies, then customers can simply leave and shop elsewhere. Problem solved, without any use of violence. Big stores all know what happens when they do things that are offensive. They piss off their customer base and lose loyalty.

The poorly phrased US 13th Amendment is simply phrased and simple to understand. And while we could go around all day thinking of rare exceptions, its a good rule and it works. So, making exceptions is a waste of time and revokes status as a right. If something has ANY exceptions whatsoever, its then a privilege. The well-phrased 1st Amendment gives every person the right to post other people's contact information. If you don't have a confidentiality agreement, you have an absolute right to post contact information. If you don't have that right, you are a subject of the government, not a citizen. So, which is it? Most people honestly have little appreciation for freedoms, and much more appreciation for self-righteous judgement of others.

Failing to be served by someone who doesn't approve of your actions is bad. Being forced to serve any other person in any situation is a crime against humanity, so much worse. We have a right to set our own values, or we are not a fully free people. Freedom is what gives us life. Without choices, we are simply robots. Freedom is one step back, but two steps forward.




There is a simple solution, if you don't want to bake a cake for someone for whatever reason. It would eliminate these problems. Here's a scenario......

Guy comes in and wants a cake...you don't like him. Guy says that he wants a chocolate double decker with whipped cream . You ask the guy how big would you like this cake to be? Guy says, maybe 16" x 24". You , the baker think that would cost , maybe $40.00 . So, you tell the guy that cake you'd like would cost $495.00. Guy says okay, so you call up a baker friend of yours and order the cake the guy wants to be delivered to your bakery. You don't have to bake a cake for this guy , that you didn't like , and you made a huge profit cause this guy is unlikeable and a bad shopper. Or the guy says that's too much for a cake that size and stomps out of the bakery complaining about highway robbery. Either way......you solved the problem by not refusing anything....you made the customer refuse or accept your offer.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
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 !!


You do know that buying all that nitrate fertilizer gets you put on a watch list by the FBI right? So I'm sure the guy selling the nitrate fertilizer is aware of this.


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.


Yes, you are.


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.


We already found an absolute solution. You can't discriminate against someone for being gay.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: timequake
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.


So you think the CRA of 1964 was unconstitutional then?


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


The state when it outlawed slavery.


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.


Yeah, THEY are entitled to personal protections and their business is entitled to business protections. Like I said, businesses have traditionally NOT had religious rights. But it matters little, there is zero Christian doctrine that prevents a baker from baking a cake for a gay wedding.
edit on 9-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

You are right that holding a sign isn't guaranteed to convince a large number of people to use another oil change service. Typically there is another oil change service at most a couple miles away even out in the country. I live in a sparsely populated area, and yet there are a number of mechanics in town where I can get an oil change. But, negative advertising is apparently a very effective form, so I think chances are very high that it would reduce sales greatly.

One sign was going to be "Went Here, Engine is Destroyed!" because the bad service was where an acquaintance told me they didn't attach the oil filter causing a severe oil leak, causing their engine to be destroyed. The other sign would be: "They break it, $YOU $FIX IT!".

If a store were to refuse service to a black friend, I would probably tell all my friends about it, distribute a flyer, and mention it to all my friends and family. That would more likely than not have a dramatic negative impact on the business. But certainly the black friend wouldn't be mentally disabled for three to four years that would warrant $135,000 in damages. Perhaps $4,000.00 to $8,000.00 would be a more appropriate damage number.
edit on 9-7-2015 by wayforward because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

I'm not pretending anything. I'm pointing out how Christians are able to use various bible versus to excuse or validate any behavior they want. I know what the Bible offers to the faithful and that wasn't even my point.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0tYes, you are.





No.. No I am not and you are making this a disingenuous discussion. You know damn well I wasn't.
edit on 9-7-2015 by CrawlingChaos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

originally posted by: Krazysh0tYes, you are.





No.. No I am not and you are making this a disingenuous discussion. You know damn well I wasn't.


You brought up someone trying to defend themselves from the feds for selling fertilizer to a terrorist unknowingly as an allegory to the gay wedding issue. It isn't anything BUT comparing this situation to terrorism or at least supporting it (even if it is unknowingly). Supporting a gay wedding (knowingly or unknowingly) ISN'T the same as supporting terrorism (knowingly or unknowingly). You can claim you weren't trying to do that all day, but that's how it comes across. Maybe next time, choose your allegories better?



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Uh.. No...
Not that you're going to care ; you've found some false-argument to cling to, to discredit and defame someone, who supports gay-marriage just like you do (keep that inmind). I said, the people who do not wish to participate in the couple's marriage, find that providing the cake is, participating in the marriage... You can call it "material support." They do not wish to provide that material support.


This is a far cry from saying two homosexuals getting married is a terrorist act. You, are intelligent enough to have grasped that, and understood what I meant. Instead you.. well anyways.

Have a nice day, I no longer wish to be involved in mud-slinging and false accusations.




top topics



 
9
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join