OR moves to seize property from couple who refused to bake cake for lesbian wedding

They aren't setting up people. They are forcing people to abide by the laws of discrimination. If we allow people to discriminate in one area, they can discriminate in another. Sexual orientation is a protected area regarding discrimination. The Oregon judge has ruled that the bakery did not have the right to discriminate based on the fact that sexual orientation is a 'protected class.' The bakery will have to take it to the Supreme Court.

"A 2007 Oregon law protects the rights of LGBT people in employment, housing and public accommodations. It provides an exemption for religious organisations, but the agency ruled that exemption does not allow private businesses to discriminate against potential customers."

“This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage. It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal,” Oregon labor commissioner Brad Avakian said in the final order."

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/04/oregon-bakery-same-sex-marriage-lawsuit

 

It would be perverse it there were; why should they be more protected than heterosexuals?

 

You do realize there was no gay agenda. The only reason why the gay couple chose this bakery was because they tasted samples from this bakery in a public expo event which the bakery was there. They ordered the cake for one of the mother's in her wedding and then decided to use the same bakery because of the quality of food.

 

According to the final order, the bakery violated several Oregon Constitutional laws and one US Constitutional law. The US Constitutional law was the 14th amendment under the equal protection clause.

 

If there is no gay agenda then what is the deal with this and all the other gay fiasco's?

People that don't have an agenda don't try to use the state to force others to do what they want.

Indeed there is an agenda here, apparently you really cant acknowledge that because it makes your position on the issue look bad..

Just admit there is an agenda - be honest.

 

Show me the laws.. You keep saying they violated laws but I have seen none...

Show me the gorilla on the couch.

 

Here you go. 659A.403¹

Here is what it says:

 

So the Tenth Amendment applies here but doesn't in states where gay marriage is banned?

Lol...

I was waiting for that you know?

 

It is simply a consequence to the decision that the couple who own Sweet Cakes by Melissa made. I seriously doubt they thought this through logically or legally. They thought this based on emotion and under a prima facie religious decision. They compounded the decision when the husband said under oath that he would do this again. In addition, the couple posted the names and address of the guy couple on their social media site, a big no no legally. And part is why the fines were high as they were. They are also compounding the problem by refusing to either set up payments or to place a down payment on the fine while their appeal goes through. That appeal will be denied eventually.

They went to court, argued their reasons why the law does not apply to them, and lost in court.

This is the same agency that fined a dentist who discriminated against a Christian and that woman was awarded $435,000. In that case, the dentist belittled the woman's faith publicly and tried to use the same type of argument as the baker couple did.

- - - Updated - - -

I have provided the actual final order from the Oregon's Bureau of Labor and Industries Board. In that final order, it gave very specific citations of the laws they were violated.

 

The 10th amendment does not really apply here. Since the jurisdiction was under Oregon statues primarily, the state of Oregon through one of its subdivisions, ruled. A federal court would have a lack of standing unless the Oregon regulatory agency failed to follow its own directives, aka a legal hearing to determine the facts of the matter.

 

Your argument is none - you're done.

You cite state law, yet you will be the first one in line to argue against state law when it comes to Kim Davis and will support federal law.

I have no desire to debate you - you only support the Bill of Rights when it works in your favor - you can't take the bitter that comes with the sweet of freedom..

Nice try tho..

Oh and this is certainly a "got'cha" moment..

- - - Updated - - -

Hahahahaha, now you want to discredit the Tenth Amendment because it does and doesn't work in your favor..

Go debate someone stupid enough to buy that...

 

MMM, the First Amendment applies here and Freedom of Religion is a guaranteed right - homosexuality has been and never was covered in our Constitution..Hence states have the right to self legislate but using your logic and Tenth Amendment Kim Davis is also in her right to refuse gay marriage licenses...

Your position not mine (at least here)..

 

You can’t have a Pickrick Restaurant Lester Maddox; nobody was forced to participate outside of the public establishment.

The tenth amendment is void several times over with the decision that the Civil War was fought to free Homosexuals from Confederate bondage.

Equal protections of the laws can’t exist without social AND economic justice. Next question and shoe to drop for the Sanders and Clinton appointees voiding acts of Congress and the States: why should that couple be allowed an entitlement to hand down such a public business to their children, so that income (inheritance) can be tax free, while an entrepreneur who is actually working must pay taxes on every million made? The flood gates are open.

It is your Lot to give up the Angel food cake to the sodomite tyranny, and no State house is free from sodomite bondage.

 

No, you lost the argument before you typed one letter on the keyboard. you asked for the law and I gave it to you. you wanted the actual citation, and I gave it to you. And now you do not want to recognize the actual citation of the law because you neither accept it nor understand it. And then you try to use the 10th amendment because you do not know any better.

The 10th amendment does not apply here with you having no understanding, no clue, and no argument to use the 10th amendment. The laws that apply both in federal and state is based on the Dual Federalism doctrine. Under that doctrine, the rule applies to which governmental agency has jurisdiction. In this case, the jurisdiction is based clearly on Oregon. Federal jurisdiction does not apply. The only way it would apply is if the governmental agency fails to follow procedures after a complaint is filed based on a violation of Oregon law.

 

Go read the Ninth, Tenth and the Equal protection clause..

You progressives really (*)(*)(*)(*) me off because you either are ignorant to the Constitution or you know it but don't care which makes you (*)(*)(*)(*)ing tyrants...

Either way I'm right here and you're either ignorant or part of the gay agenda...

I'm done here because I'm not interested in your opinions or mental gymnastics on civil liberties...

 

If you impose your religion onto others in a public area, then that may violate another amendment in the United States Constitution. Freedom of religion includes that the state cannot establish a religion nor prevent the free exercise thereof. However, if the free exercise of religion imposes its beliefs onto others, then that would violate the establishment clause because the state is allowing that to be imposed onto the public through its laws, Freedom of speech is applied in what you say, however, it does not prevent the consequences of that speech. Thus in both cases, you lose here on the merits of your quasi argument. Neither really apply here because the freedom of exercise is permitted only if it is not imposed onto others.

 

What a load of bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

You obviously are not reading the 14th amendment when it comes to the equal protection clause.

 

Equal protections of the laws can’t exist without social AND economic justice; redistribute the ill-gotten gains of inheritance, thirty acres and an air-conditioned tractor for every comrade!

Understanding the enemy, being able to talk the talk, does not make one walk the walk of a progressive Trojan Horse:

 

That is the scariest thing you have said, as it is in keeping with the Obamanation (see signature line).

"[9.32] They desire to put out the light of Homo Allah with their mouths, and Homo Allah will not consent save to perfect His light, though the unbelievers are averse."

 

You do realize that most English translations of the Q'ran come from Saudi Arabia and its religious view based on Wahhabism.

 

Pickthall? From wiki: “Marmaduke William Pickthall was born in Cambridge Terrace, London on 7 April 1875,” “Muhammad Habib Shakir (1866 in Cairo – 1939 in Cairo) (Arabic: محمد حبيب شاكر&#8206 was an Egyptian judge, born in Cairo and a graduate from Al Azhar University.” That was the version the Taliban defender sent me to in Aug 2001, before they put a bloody mujahedeen link to Azzam.com that I saw on their site on 9/11.

Freedom of speech is imposing onto the public, that which the public does not want to hear.

Words have meaning, and this is treason:

 

Nevertheless, you quoted a passage from the Q'ran that has been translated into English from Arabic. That English translation of the Q'ran come primarily from Saudi Arabia.

 

The left of today is just as oppressive as the religious right of yesterday. They abuse power for their own benefit. The only solution is to restore Constitutional freedoms. Freedom of association. Where one can associate and do business with persons of their choice, be it gay, religious, black, white.

 

Bull! It was not from Saudi Arabia.

“9:32 Fain would they put out the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah disdaineth (aught) save that He shall perfect His light, however much the disbelievers are averse. 33 He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the idolaters may be averse.” (Mohammed Marmaduke William Pickthall) http://quranunlocked.com/p/9/9

These two statecrafts are not consistent with the Constitution:

"The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." (Clinton)

"We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." (Obama)

And this one is a treat to it:

“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." (Obama)

And this one, if true, is a violation of law:

“‘We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video,’ said Hillary Clinton.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/331806/incredible-shrinking-president-mark-steyn

“If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241

"’[T]he fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker's opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. [485 U.S. 46, 56] For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas.’ Id., at 745-746.” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=485&invol=46

They should have baked them the cake, but wrote a verse on it, which is their right.