Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 04 Jul '15 12:01
    http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2015/07/sweet_cakes_final_order_gresha.html#incart_m-rpt-1

    The Christians in Oregon who refused to make a gay wedding cake have been ordered by the courts to pay $135 K.

    I now encourage everyone to run out to Wal Mart and order a gay wedding cake with confederate flags on it.

    We are gonna be rich!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  2. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    04 Jul '15 13:01
    Originally posted by whodey
    http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2015/07/sweet_cakes_final_order_gresha.html#incart_m-rpt-1

    The Christians in Oregon who refused to make a gay wedding cake have been ordered by the courts to pay $135 K.

    I now encourage everyone to run out to Wal Mart and order a gay wedding cake with confederate flags on it.

    We are gonna be rich!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    It's hardly the "end". It's an administrative determination that will surely go to the courts.
  3. 04 Jul '15 13:24 / 1 edit
    "This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage," Avakian wrote. "It is about a business's refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal."

    If you disagree with that, you probably shouldn't open a bakery in Oregon.

    Case solved.
  4. 04 Jul '15 13:38
    Originally posted by Great King Rat
    "This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage," Avakian wrote. "It is about a business's refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal."

    If you disagree with that, you probably shouldn't open a bakery in Oregon.

    Case solved.
    I am afraid if you are straight the authorities will ignore you .Gays and lesbians shout the loudest , they get to " get their cake and eat it " ..
  5. 04 Jul '15 16:41
    Originally posted by phil3000
    I am afraid if you are straight the authorities will ignore you .Gays and lesbians shout the loudest , they get to " get their cake and eat it " ..
    Your fear is unnecessary.
  6. 04 Jul '15 17:44 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Great King Rat
    "This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage," Avakian wrote. "It is about a business's refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal."

    If you disagree with that, you probably shouldn't open a bakery in Oregon.

    Case solved.
    Its not case solved. Has the Baker not the right to express his or her religious sentiments. If not then the American first amendment is an empty deception. If yes then then a law which compels someone to forsake their religious principles is unconstitutional and should be regarded as illegal.
  7. 04 Jul '15 17:53 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Great King Rat
    Your fear is unnecessary.
    Not if you are a baker or a hotelier or anyone else who is liable to be prosecuted for exercising the right of religious freedom. I would say his fear is warranted because these people are simply not content to roger each other they gotta make you aware of the fact and will prosecute you if you dare raise an objection against their morality. You anti religious types are stereotypes, they should have a thousand cardboard cut outs made of you ready for every gay parade that passes through town, save you the bother of turning up or sending little children out with rainbow coloured flags.
  8. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    04 Jul '15 17:56
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Its not case solved. Has the Baker not the right to express his or her religious sentiments. If not then the American first amendment is an empty deception. If yes then then a law which compels someone to forsake their religious principles is unconstitutional and should be regarded as illegal.
    You have a right to express your religious sentiments.

    You have no right to discriminate while running a business. The States in pursuit of their long standing police powers may regulate internal commerce as they please unless such regulations violate your Natural Rights (which this one surely doesn't).

    I wonder if right wingers here would be soooooooooooooooo supportive of this type of "religious expression" if the case involved a Muslim bakery that refused to serve Jews.
  9. 04 Jul '15 17:59 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    You have a right to express your religious sentiments.

    You have no right to discriminate while running a business. The States in pursuit of their long standing police powers may regulate internal commerce as they please unless such regulations violate your Natural Rights (which this one surely doesn't).

    I wonder if right wingers here would be soooo ...[text shortened]... type of "religious expression" if the case involved a Muslim bakery that refused to serve Jews.
    If a business owner is asked to do something while running his or her business which compromises his religious beliefs you will now tell us how he is able to express his religious sentiments in accordance with his conscience while running said business and you will also tell us why that right preserved in the first amendment should be negated simply because it happens to be in connection with a business?

    Anyone should have the right to discriminate against anyone on the basis of a valid religious belief and provision should be made in the law to protect those who wish to live their lives in accordance with their religious beliefs, whether privately or in business or anywhere else for that matter.
  10. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    04 Jul '15 18:06 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    If a business owner is asked to do something while running his or her business which compromises his religious beliefs you will now tell us how he is able to express his religious sentiments in accordance with his conscience while running said business and you will also tell us why that right preserved in the first amendment should be negated simply ...[text shortened]... with their religious beliefs, whether privately or in business or anywhere else for that matter.
    No they shouldn't and the First Amendment hardly is consistent with such a claim. Your right to hate people based on your superstition shouldn't be allowed to translate into discrimination in commercial transactions.

    EDIT: Prior to the Civil War a common claim of Southerners was that the Bible and Christianity allowed slavery. Would a deeply held religious belief of that nature these days allow such a person to own slaves?
  11. 04 Jul '15 18:14 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    No they shouldn't and the First Amendment hardly is consistent with such a claim. Your right to hate people based on your superstition shouldn't be allowed to translate into discrimination in commercial transactions.
    Oh dear so you cannot tell us why a person should be coerced to forsake their religious convictions and the natural exercise of the conscience simply because its in connection with a business, thankyou. Your opinion that its not a first amendment issue is simply untrue as it most certainly is a first amendment issue which guarantees the right of religious expression. Your attempts to portray those who are opposed to your stance as hateful is neither very original nor even logical. Simply because i wish to guarantee the right of freedom of expression, freedom to exercise the natural faculty of conscience does not make me hateful and is more a reflection of you than it is of the people you seek to vilify by it. It's simply a room full or mirrors.

    What Southerners did is neither here nor there, this is not the south, sexual practice is not a racial issue and your attempts to make it synonymous with one are ludicrous.
  12. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    04 Jul '15 18:40 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Oh dear so you cannot tell us why a person should be coerced to forsake their religious convictions and the natural exercise of the conscience simply because its in connection with a business, thankyou. Your opinion that its not a first amendment issue is simply untrue as it most certainly is a first amendment issue which guarantees the right of reli ...[text shortened]... l practice is not a racial issue and your attempts to make it synonymous with one are ludicrous.
    The particular religious expression you wish to protect is hatred of gays. You've expressed it many times on this forum so pretending otherwise is disingenuous.

    Of course, the expression of hatred for gays is protected whether religious or not. But you've made no case for why States should not be able to ban discrimination in commercial transactions. Commerce is a societal regulated activity and non-discrimination against consumers has been a feature of Anglo-Saxon law since before the creation of the US. Inns, for example, had to admit any traveler able to pay.

    You claimed an absolute exemption from any law if a supposed religious belief makes you not wish to comply with it. The analogy based on certain Southerner's beliefs on the religious justification on slavery was on point. I'm not surprised you wish to ignore it as it makes your all-encompassing claim look a bit foolish.

    Can I own slaves in the US, notwithstanding the 13th Amendment, if I have a sincere religious belief that the ownership of slaves is justified by my religion? Yes or no?

    EDIT: Under your absolute test above, could followers of the old Atzec religion perform human sacrifices in 2015?
  13. 04 Jul '15 19:26
    Originally posted by whodey
    I now encourage everyone to run out to Wal Mart and order a gay wedding cake with confederate flags on it.

    We are gonna be rich!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    If you genuinely thought you had a case, you would have gone out and done just that instead of coming on this forum.
  14. 04 Jul '15 19:26
    Let's see, in Oregon the Kleins do not have freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, property rights, freedom of contract, and freedom of religion.

    Oh yea, they also do not have the right to be tried before an impartial judge nor a right to a jury trial.

    Their natural rights were totally not violated, lol.
  15. 04 Jul '15 19:27
    Originally posted by phil3000
    I am afraid if you are straight the authorities will ignore you .Gays and lesbians shout the loudest , they get to " get their cake and eat it " ..
    In what way do you feel ignored? Did you order a cake and get refused service? Did you sue because of the refusal and get ignored?