Hypocrite Liberals imposing their beliefs

[Regina]

But what you cannot do is to refuse to trade with people whom - for whatever reason - you happen to dislike. 

Really? Forcing people to provide products or services against their will is slavery. Infringing on a person's freedom of association without a compelling state interest is fascism.

But apparently you believe it is enough of a compelling state interest to make someone bake you a cake against their will. Tell me honestly, do you seriously believe it is right to take away a families livelihood and fine them over $100,000 because they will not bake you a cake for whatever reason? Seems like a wildly out of control overreaction over what? Oooo someone hurt feelings. Stop whining. Pick up your toys and play somewhere else.

For something to be "slavery" that means it is forced work you're not getting payed for. Nobody is making you own a business making cakes at all, and nobody is asking you to do it for free. They are saying that if you want to make cakes as your business, you can't refuse to make them for particular types of people over something so petty.

We all have to deal with shit at work we don't like. We have to deal with passive-aggressive and counter-productive co-workers, we have to deal with outright rude clientele. We also have to deal with some hard work that must be done by strict deadline that we do not feel passionate about (which is exactly what this case is, at it's core). If there's any part of any job that's so big you don't feel you can do it, it's not the job for you. It's not gay people who are whining about their triggered feels here, it's un-professional childish people who are valuing their faux-Christian* views over their trade and over making money, and they look damn stupid for it. A part of me is actually glad they've exposed themselves, I'm not going to fine anyone but I'm not patroning any business that isn't passionate about what they do.

*as I explained earlier they are false, but the Christians on here ignored it, which is their right

[SteelCurtain]

There would have been no reparations due if the Kleins (owners of the bakery) hadn't posted the complaint that the lesbian couple sent to the Oregon Department of Justice on Facebook, plastered it all over the right wing media, and made themselves out to be victims.

They in turn victimized the women who only filed a complaint to the Oregon DOJ. They did nothing else. The Bureau of Labor and Industry of the State of Oregon came up with the judgement:

This isn't about cake. It is about a business' refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.

Within Oregon’s public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society. The ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry.

The BOLI Final Order awards $60,000 in damages to Laurel Bowman-Cryer and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer for emotional suffering stemming directly from unlawful discrimination. The amounts are damages related to the harm suffered by the Complainants, not fines or civil penalties which are punitive in nature.

The Final Order notes that the non-economic damages are consistent with the agency’s previous orders, such as an earlier ruling against a Bend dentist In the Matter of Andrew W. Engle. In that case, BOLI awarded a Christian employee $325,000 in damages for physical, mental and emotion suffering due to religious discrimination and harassment.

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."

The Commissioner concludes that complainants’ emotional harm related to the denial of service continued throughout the period of media attention and that the facts related solely to emotional harm resulting from media attention do not adequately support an award of damages. No further analysis regarding the media attention as a causative factor is, therefore, necessary.

Bottom line: they broke the law in that state. They were liable for the emotional harm they caused by attracting national media attention, death threats, and hate to a couple that merely filed a complaint because a public business broke the law.

[Dystopia]

I am unfortunately agreeing with ChadWooters on this one. The only reason for the state to intervene and regulate the market is a compelling (usually economic) interest, such as preventing excessive pollution, monopolies and externalities - It is not the government's business to regulate who you can and if you can or can't do business with someone. Public businesses are still privately owned by individual people and voluntary trade is based on the notion that it is - Duh - Voluntary, so forcing any trade for any reason is contrary to the most basic rules of a [reasonably] free market where voluntary association and trade are strongly allowed.

If a nazi requests a cake with a swastika, do I need to bake the cake, or can I refuse and just say "no I can't do that"? Well the reason to not bake a cake to nazis is the same to not bake a cake for every other group in society - You don't like them, and it is your right to not like them or hate them as much as you can. If an atheist started a business to serve only atheists and refused to service religious people, I would be perfectly ok with it. Of course, all of this doesn't mean society won't react and you are responsible for the consequences of your position and actions - If people make the choice to not do business with you anymore it is a consequence, just like if people decide to boycott your business because you're a douchebag.

But forcing people to do voluntary trades? Nah, I don't like the idea. It's my establishment, I can do whatever I want with it. I can close and open, schedule and work like I please, for as long as I don't endanger other people's fundamental rights. I have a different position when it comes to firing people because you need a just cause to fire someone without due monetary compensation - But an employment contract, given its importance and vitality for the worker's life is not comparable to a cake request that can be done in any bakery aside from that one. Why anyone would want to voluntarily file a lawsuit because of a cake to hurt the local economy is out of my imperfect intellect's reach.

Of course, the law is the law and it must be followed, but that doesn't mean the law is correct. The government has interest in allowing and promoting business expansion and profit - This means that the government should allow mechanisms and principles that provide for a healthy economic growth and prosperity. A law forcing you to serve people is essentially a turn off for some investors and businessmen/women, restrictions on your right to free trade is a form of economic suicide for any caring government.

TL;DR - Let the hateful people expose themselves and boycott them - You don't need a law to force them to do business with you - Just like it is more desirable for bigots to expose themselves with free speech rather than seeing them facing censorship - How is this any better (ethically) than a hate speech law? the only difference is that in the latter you are not allowed to do or say something, while in the former you are forced to do something

[Thumpalumpacus]

---

I am seriously fed up with some religious people imposing their beliefs on me. But I am even more angry when some liberals (who hypocritically claim to actually "live and let live") impose their beliefs on others as well. This whole controversial gay issue is a prime example. Those Christian dude's who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple get fined for not doing so??? Are you telling us What to believe? Are you infringing our 1rst amendment rights?

If you run a public estasblishment, you have no First Amendment right to be a bigot.

The very thing you gay liberals were fighting FOR? Who is being the *hypocrite* and *bigot* and *infringing first amendment rights* now?

You are.  You're also demonstrating a pretty deep ignorance of the law.

Just because some Christian assholes told you to go to hell doesn't mean you got to beat the shit out of all of us. I don't believe in gay stuff anymore and I have the right to do so let me live and let live. We agree to disagree, you don't attack me, I don't attack you.

Great.  Don't  let your bigotry hurt others and we'll get along fine.  Keep it to yourself, and abide by the law of the land.

Your rainbow flags and all of a sudden playing the victim card to attack a group of people that you have a grudge shows your hypocrisy.

You're right, being forced to serve all segments of the public is just like being denied the right to marry the person you love.

Of course this doesn't excuse Christians from doing the same thing themselves. Everyone protect each other's first amendment rights.

Another great point.  Christians should quit trying to hold themselves above the law, and stop enacting discriminatory laws based on their tired old superstition.

*************************************************************

Hi omnomnom. Got tired of reading this by the second page. I'm working on my recognition skills. Are you a POE?

What's a poe? Whatever that is, I don't think I'm it. I'm a buddhist.

---

I get it you don't want homosexuality rammed down your throat.

Exactly, thank you!

---

Nobody's forcing you to accommodate anything. Nobody gives a sh*t what you believe. If you're a baker - bake the damn cakes - it's your job. And if the customer wants to use your cake for gay wedding, or simply plans to stick his d*ck in it, once it's been paid for - it's their right and none of your damn business.

Dude, no.... Fucker.... Let me tell you something as you obviously aren't logical. My fckin business is MY business, and forcing me to bake a cake for your gay wedding is NOT what I believe in so quit ramming it in my throat. I can give gays any cake but I'm not going to bake you a **wedding** cake as I DON'T FUCKING believe in that stuff. Get me, you bigot?

---

Your ass must be really sore from that raging case of butthurt.  In fact, it almost sounds as if you're fighting against some same-sex feelings yourself.  Only the ones in the closet are that fired up about the issue.

Regardless, no one is infringing on your first amendment rights, because, as I already stated, freedom of religion isn't freedom to do as you please as long as it is based upon a religious belief.  I suppose if your holy book called for the death of homosexuals(Hint: it does) and you believed it, you should just be allowed to kill them all and anyone that stops you is a "fcking[sic] Marxist piece of shit," right?

By the way, can you save all these tears you're shedding now that two men that like to sexually pleasure each other can get married?  They're priceless.

Dude how many fucking times I have to tell you, I DON'T CARE. Sex up your gender and gay all you want I DON'T CARE but don't expect me to bake WEDDING cakes for a marriage that I DON'T SUPPORT. Got that liberal hypocrite bigot?

As many people have pointed out, when it comes to public business, there are certain laws that need to be followed.
But even if for the sake of arguement we ignore the laws, it's not that the 'liberals' are imposing their beliefs so much as it is people trying to counter the special treatment these groups of Christians want.

IE....
If a Christian baker opens a bakery, he feels he has the right to refuse service to gays because it goes against his belief.
Now, if an atheist opened a bakery and refused to make a Christian themed cake, that Christian would cry foul and claim his religious freedom is being impeded.
They don't seem to understand in this bakery scenario, either everyone can can refuse service to anyone OR no one can refuse service to anyone. That Christians can refuse service to some but no one can refuse service to a Christian is NOT an option. That's just wanting special treatment.

Actually, some Bakers refused service to Christian Bakers and geuss what? They didn't play a dishonest victim card lawsuit over it. And I don't care about Christians did to you, leave us fucking out of it. I'm buddhist with lots of Christian family and you and they act like bigots 24/7.

---

No one forced you to open a bakery.  But when you open a business to the public, it is to all of the public.  That is the law.

Don't like it?  Don't open a business to the public.

Fucker. Wedding cakes is what I'm talking aboutm. I'm not talking about everyday birthday cakes and stuff.

Lol, preventing you from acting out your prejudices is not what a bigot is.  

BTW, when you have to resort to tossing that word around, it means you have no coherent argument and all you're left with is character assassination.

No asshole the truth is in America people are bigots regardless of their faith, sex, or whatever. Don't excuse your bigotry against me with that typical Dawkins anti-theist shism.

Suck a dick, OP.  You'll feel better.

No dude. This ain't right of all you guys. You need to support my amendment rights to refuse to bake "WEDDING cakes" of weddings that I don't believe in. Quit your anti-theistic views against all religions and help. A third-party buddhist who has nothing to do with your atheist vs. Christian fights.

Gay stuff is out there, no point pretending it isn't. The gays have arrived, and they're gonna get you. There's still time to join them. If you resist, you'll be amalgamated by force.

True. There was a line between freedom fighting and plain out extremism. I have had great gay friendships all my life but that don't mean my beliefs are at their mercy. Draw the line at the amendment for all people.

Boo-hoo, Christians are getting their just desserts.

I'm not Christian, I'm a Buddhist. And that comment you made just goes to show that this whole parade against me is about your grudge against pastor Bob and your christian parents cause they wouldn't let you fuck frank. Classic, Dawkins anti-theistic extremism. Geuss what dude? Why don't you protect my amendment rights instead of letting your petty grudge against a totally different religion get the better of you.

---

I think the OP is proof that white buddhists are generally idiots.

Your proof that white people assume a lot. I'm an Indian dude.

---

Your trolling is weak, boy. 0/10 for originality.

Your cop-out for not being able to understand the difference between gay and consensual Bestiality is even weaker. Just one thing though, I don't care.

---

That's your bigotted self's face when karma gets thrown back at you. All because you couldn't stand up for an innocent bystanders first amendment rights.

---

So, I'm still waiting for a reply to my considered response. You have a hell of a lot of time to fling insults, but you won't answer my reasoned reply.

I wonder why?

[SteelCurtain]

TL;DR - Let the hateful people expose themselves and boycott them - You don't need a law to force them to do business with you - Just like it is more desirable for bigots to expose themselves with free speech rather than seeing them facing censorship - How is this any better (ethically) than a hate speech law? the only difference is that in the latter you are not allowed to do or say something, while in the former you are forced to do something

Except America has a colorful history where people were refused service. Hence, we have laws that if you own a public business, you cannot refuse service to anyone based on their race, religion, creed, etc. The question is only whether or not LGBT should be a protected class or not.

The question really is about whether or not baking a cake for a wedding is in any way endorsing the wedding at all. If that were the case, a Christian baker shouldn't bake a cake for a pagan wedding, a Hindu wedding, etc. Do they think at all about endorsing the wedding otherwise? Do you think these bakers endorse or tacitly approve of every wedding they have ever baked a cake for? If I were to use a service for my wedding, and we have a religion free ceremony officiated by a Pastafarian minister, are they implicitly approving of my wedding? Should they be able to refuse service to me because I am an atheist?

I have been refused service. I walked into a hole in the wall restaurant in the deepest backwoods of Tennessee on the advice of a friend. To the hillbilly fuck that told me to get out, I looked like a "towel-head," and I wasn't going to blow up his restaurant. No one should EVER have to be kicked out of or refused service based on their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. If you open up a public business, you don't get to choose who sits at the counter.

[omnomnom]

The right to discriminate against people?

Pbht. My step daughter went to a charter school a few years back and had a principal that said she couldn't be on the football team because she was a girl. I had a meeting with him in his office about his discriminatory "rights".

She stayed on the team.

If same sex marriage is against your religious morals then don't have a same sex marriage. I don't remember reading in the bible that says, "Thou shalt not make cake for sinners." Be a pretty select clientele wouldn't it?

Read my post, you know I'm discriminating against anybody, I'm no homophobe. I have gay friends whom I cherish and none of them hate me and call me a homophobe simply because I disagree with their lifestyle. Just let me run my bakery without having to give *wedding* cakes to gay marriages and consensual bestial marriages.

---

Devils advocate play:

Since you don't bake a cake for the CONSENSUAL bestial couple then you are an intolerant zoophobe? Zoophiles need equal rights!

Ended devils advocate;

I won't bake a wedding cake for anything other than traditional marriage as it is my amendment right and my lawful moral.

How can an animal give its consent?

You're not playing devil's advocate, you're being a gibbering idiot.

Dolphins and bonobos love sex with anything. They rape humans quite often. So yes they can consent.

[KevinM1]

The Nazi analogy doesn't work since they're not recognized as a minority.

Oregon's law is that discrimination - declining to serve/employ someone due to their minority status - is illegal. I have no problem with that.

[KevinM1]

How can an animal give its consent?

You're not playing devil's advocate, you're being a gibbering idiot.

Dolphins and bonobos love sex with anything. They rape humans quite often. So yes they can consent.

You're either an idiot, troll, or poe.

[omnomnom]

Boru

I'm Buddhist. I'm not one of those butthurt Christians in this big Christian fundamentalist vs Liberal war that America is obcessed with. I'm a bystander and all I want is my fucking job so I can EAT without having gay or bestial people suing my business 24/7 just because I don't support giving *wedding* cakes to a marriage I don't believe in.

---

No dude. You an fck whoever you want, I don't care but don't expect me to accommodate your practices and force me to bake a cake. Thats bigotry and moralaphobia. Your just a bigot against someone with different morals than you. Actually understand what first amendment rights are asshole. You know I'm not a homophobe. I even have gay friends but don't force me to bake a cake for their wedding, that's just Marxist assholism.

---

Why don't you see my poin I don't give a shit about who you have sex with. I don't care. Be gay and do whatever you want. Buy don't infringe MY RIGHTS and force me to accomadate your beliefs. That is pure assholism. Do you get me?

Oh no he didn't go there. I'm not a racist. some of my best friends are niggers.

"Moralaphobia?"
Somebody get me my smelling salts.

I guess you have a right to own a bakery and refuse service to whom you want. But we're not talking about a bakery owner. We're talking about an employee. An employee is paid to represent his employee, not himself. If he can't do that then he has every right to get a new job.

Oh no, if an employee is gay he can give cakes to weddings I don't support. Just not MEEEE

[SteelCurtain]

I gotta go with Poe. And I think something else, too.

I think he's a h88ter.