Doctor Funkenstein: Mugato: shotglasss: How many whites are in the Congressional Black Caucus? Zero, because those CBC racists won't let them in. When the CBC is disbanded, we'll have a good stating point to have a chat about bigotry.

Yeah! And I have yet to see one male Hooters waitress!

[i595.photobucket.com image 137x200]

Saddam Hussein in a Hooters outfit serving wings?  Why the fark not?

Actually, they have those now.

here to help: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: shotglasss: Like the sign says, "We have the right to refuse service to anyone".

He refused service based on religious beliefs. Now you libs want the state to attack him and his business for that religious belief? What ever happened to the separation of church and state?

ZING!

This is what Republicans actually believe think is clever.

Baker boy should try that line on the judge. I'm sure he'll carry the day with that brilliant legal analysis.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: jso2897: BronyMedic: BarkingUnicorn: Had one of these in Lakewood, Colorado, a while back.  The baker felt the Internet's wrath.  IDK if any legal consequences ensued.

Why is it always the bakers?  Are there no Christian butchers or candlestick makers?

I'm pretty sure that refusing to serve someone based on sexual orientation or because of your religious convictions is a violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but IANAL, unless it's a "private club"

No. Federal law does not treat sexual orientation as a protected class (if it did, there could be no "DOMA"). Oregon law, however, does, so it's irrelevant.
Cue all the righties who will defend this lawbreaking criminal's "religious freedom".

Except, of course, Federal law trumps state law, right?

Except the Oregon law is not contradicting the federal, and the constitutional right isn't being infringed upon..

BraveNewCheneyWorld: .If your religious beliefs suggest that you shouldn't cooperate with people who do certain types of things, then by forcing a person to cooperate, you're prohibiting free exercise of their religious tenets.

Bullshiat.  You're free to practice your religion in any way you like as long as you don't break the law.  Running a business is not practicing religion by any stretch of the imagination.

You want to operate a public accommodation? You play by society's rules.  

shotglasss: Like the sign says, "We have the right to refuse service to anyone".

Dude... I need your help.  I put up a sign in my store that said, "The customer assumes all liability while on the premises".  Someone slipped and fell while I was mopping, and they sued me and won a $50,000 judgement!

What should I do?

swingerofbirches: I think private businesses that aren't getting government funding should be allowed to be as douchey as they want.

I would really hate eating a cake too that someone made for me under government orders.

This, So much this.

MayoSlather: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: jso2897: BronyMedic: BarkingUnicorn: Had one of these in Lakewood, Colorado, a while back.  The baker felt the Internet's wrath.  IDK if any legal consequences ensued.

Why is it always the bakers?  Are there no Christian butchers or candlestick makers?

I'm pretty sure that refusing to serve someone based on sexual orientation or because of your religious convictions is a violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but IANAL, unless it's a "private club"

No. Federal law does not treat sexual orientation as a protected class (if it did, there could be no "DOMA"). Oregon law, however, does, so it's irrelevant.
Cue all the righties who will defend this lawbreaking criminal's "religious freedom".

Except, of course, Federal law trumps state law, right?

Except the Oregon law is not contradicting the federal, and the constitutional right isn't being infringed upon..

Still, we don't want to discourage them too much - I find their attempts to "debate" the "Constitutionality" of stuff that was settled case law before they were born pretty amusing, and wouldn't want them to quit entirely. It's like watching Don Quixote charging those windmills.

Does management no longer reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason?

Don't get me wrong. "I refuse to make money, and do my job for you based on your sexual orientation" makes you sound ignorant and closed minded. "Based on my religious beliefs" makes you sound, to me, (Agnostic) stupid. "I would rather close my business down than violate my conscience." ... well... despite the reasons *why*, you may have something there...

I mean, hey, I got banned from a coffee shop once for ordering three cookies, just as i had done every day for a couple of weeks. A mix of the only two kinds they had. When asked (at the drive thru) what kind I wanted, i said "A mix, two of one, and one of the other", at which point the girl started screaming through the mic, I drove through, and discovered for the first time in weeks, they had a real variety of cookies. Then I was banned from property (Police got involved and everything).

Like three years later, we stopped there on the way out of town, for a pee break and some refreshments before we hit the highway. The owner recognized me and refused to serve me.

OVER COOKIES.... and he was technically in the right... because management reserved the right to refuse service to anyone.

The reason here is just as stupid and ignorant, but how is it *really* any different, other than his root reason of not agreeing with homosexuality, and this coffee shop owner's reason of hating indecisiveness?

Phrozen
/they were really farking good cookies, too...

Z-clipped: BraveNewCheneyWorld: .If your religious beliefs suggest that you shouldn't cooperate with people who do certain types of things, then by forcing a person to cooperate, you're prohibiting free exercise of their religious tenets.

Bullshiat.  You're free to practice your religion in any way you like as long as you don't break the law.  Running a business is not practicing religion by any stretch of the imagination.

You want to operate a public accommodation? You play by society's rules.

For many people, their religion doesn't begin and end when they walk through the church door.  Society's first rule is the first amendment, if you don't like it, repeal it, but don't pretend a state law trumps it, because you're not fooling anyone.

KrispyKritter: He is entitled to his opinion.

Yes, he is.  However, his behavior makes him a gigantic douchebag.

What the heck is going on? Suddenly everybody is farking gay! We're going to negative population growth at this rate.

PhrozenStar: Does management no longer reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason?

Don't get me wrong. "I refuse to make money, and do my job for you based on your sexual orientation" makes you sound ignorant and closed minded. "Based on my religious beliefs" makes you sound, to me, (Agnostic) stupid. "I would rather close my business down than violate my conscience." ... well... despite the reasons *why*, you may have something there...

I mean, hey, I got banned from a coffee shop once for ordering three cookies, just as i had done every day for a couple of weeks. A mix of the only two kinds they had. When asked (at the drive thru) what kind I wanted, i said "A mix, two of one, and one of the other", at which point the girl started screaming through the mic, I drove through, and discovered for the first time in weeks, they had a real variety of cookies. Then I was banned from property (Police got involved and everything).

Like three years later, we stopped there on the way out of town, for a pee break and some refreshments before we hit the highway. The owner recognized me and refused to serve me.

OVER COOKIES.... and he was technically in the right... because management reserved the right to refuse service to anyone.

The reason here is just as stupid and ignorant, but how is it *really* any different, other than his root reason of not agreeing with homosexuality, and this coffee shop owner's reason of hating indecisiveness?

Phrozen
/they were really farking good cookies, too...

It's not illegal under Oregon law to refuse service over cookies. It is illegal to refuse service based on Sexual Orientation in Oregon. That is how it is different.

You Idiots: So what.

I would suggest you libtards start your own business to serve these folks, but you'd rather rant and demand a government agency force businesses to provide politically correct services.

Put your money where your mouth is, instead of a foot for once.

You idiots.

That's actually a great idea. Hire a really competent head baker and staff. Pay over scale to attract and keep the best. Name it something like "GLBT Bakeries." Advertise as THE place to go for alternative lifestyle couples. Hire both tolerant straights and tolerant gays.

The reasoning: how many bakeries are there in a random large metropolitan area? Probably at least 30 or 40, including both chains and mom-and-pop shops. That means, on the average, any store gets maybe 3% of the total business. But the percentage of GLBT people in the population is probably 3.4% to 3.8%. http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm, http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/10/19/how_many_americans_ a re_gay_or_lesbian_gallup_survey_says_3_4_percent.html. If you offer quality product and huge service, you will have a definite competitive edge.

wambu: Klein emphasized the importance of his religious beliefs, saying it outweighs his bottom line and the state law.

If your religious beliefs outweigh state law, then you should not be running a business open to the public since that involves you by default in practices that run counter to your beliefs.

Yeah, if you want to refuse service to someone because you find their lifestyle objectionable, you shouldn't have a job and be forced to live in a dumpster!

wambu: It's like this: If you play in the rain, you'll get wet. If your beliefs require you to stay dry, then you can't play in the rain.  But your belief doesn't entitle you to make the rain stop for eveybody else.

Funny how that applies to the lesbian couple even more than the baker.

MayoSlather: I believe this is in fact breaking the state law. His personal freedom of religion isn't being infringed upon. He is attempting to push his religious ideas onto others through his place of business. Just because his interpretation of his religion is homophobic doesn't mean he can openly do homophobic things and hide behind freedom of religion as a defense.

Marriage is not purely a religious device contrary to what many Christians believe. It is secular in the eyes of the law, and thus the Christian definition of marriage and the US's definition are different things. He cannot dictate his bigoted definition to others via his place and call it his expression of religious freedom. It's discrimination pure and simple and seems to me to be in violation of Oregon state law.

I'm not sure I would see it as pushing his beliefs on others.  My view of that would be "If I make a cake for you, then it has to have certain details that only I approve".  On the other hand, it appears that the baker is saying "The work you are asking me to do conflicts with my beliefs, so I cannot help you this time around".  He may very well be running afoul of secular law, but he chose to follow his conscience...

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: You Idiots: So what.

I would suggest you libtards start your own business to serve these folks, but you'd rather rant and demand a government agency force businesses to provide politically correct services.

Put your money where your mouth is, instead of a foot for once.

You idiots.

That's actually a great idea. Hire a really competent head baker and staff. Pay over scale to attract and keep the best. Name it something like "GLBT Bakeries." Advertise as THE place to go for alternative lifestyle couples. Hire both tolerant straights and tolerant gays.

The reasoning: how many bakeries are there in a random large metropolitan area? Probably at least 30 or 40, including both chains and mom-and-pop shops. That means, on the average, any store gets maybe 3% of the total business. But the percentage of GLBT people in the population is probably 3.4% to 3.8%. http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm, http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/10/19/how_many_americans_ a re_gay_or_lesbian_gallup_survey_says_3_4_percent.html. If you offer quality product and huge service, you will have a definite competitive edge.

make cakes out of poop and semen and watch your sales go through the roof!!

Mentalenemasquad: MayoSlather: I believe this is in fact breaking the state law. His personal freedom of religion isn't being infringed upon. He is attempting to push his religious ideas onto others through his place of business. Just because his interpretation of his religion is homophobic doesn't mean he can openly do homophobic things and hide behind freedom of religion as a defense.

Marriage is not purely a religious device contrary to what many Christians believe. It is secular in the eyes of the law, and thus the Christian definition of marriage and the US's definition are different things. He cannot dictate his bigoted definition to others via his place and call it his expression of religious freedom. It's discrimination pure and simple and seems to me to be in violation of Oregon state law.

I'm not sure I would see it as pushing his beliefs on others.  My view of that would be "If I make a cake for you, then it has to have certain details that only I approve".  On the other hand, it appears that the baker is saying "The work you are asking me to do conflicts with my beliefs, so I cannot help you this time around".  He may very well be running afoul of secular law, but he chose to follow his conscience...

He can deal with his conscience in the next life. In this one he gets to deal with secular law. I don't like having to deal with certain people, but I recognize that in a civilized society we must put certain beliefs and urges on hold to ensure that everyone can live their lives. 'Christians' (especially openly hypocritical ones like mr tatty mc tattoo) need to learn this lesson as well.

truthseeker2083: In this one he gets to deal with secular law.

It's funny how you people dismiss the 1st amendment when it's not convenient.

And yet he makes a fortune selling penis cakes.

I seem to recall a rather extended story in the New Testament about a certain prostitute, and Jesus telling the self-righteous assholes to all just fark the hell off and be nice to the poor woman. And/Or bake her a bloody cake if she wanted.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Society's first rule is the first amendment, if you don't like it, repeal it, but don't pretend a state law trumps it, because you're not fooling anyone.

LOL.  Freedom to practice religion = freedom to ignore the law.  You're a genius.  Why is it that the SCOTUS hasn't agreed with your analysis in slightest over the last 50 years?

While I believe that it's morally wrong to discriminate against gays, it seems that in this case the state law would infringe upon the man's first amendment rights. I am interested to see how the case turns out.

This won't be good for his business, whether he wins the case or not.

Bungles: I seem to recall a rather extended story in the New Testament about a certain prostitute, and Jesus telling the self-righteous assholes to all just fark the hell off and be nice to the poor woman. And/Or bake her a bloody cake if she wanted.

I remember him telling everybody not to bash her to death with rocks, not to make a cake.  And don't mistake "love thy neighbor" as "enable your neighbor".

BraveNewCheneyWorld: truthseeker2083: In this one he gets to deal with secular law.

It's funny how you people dismiss the 1st amendment when it's not convenient.

When would be a convenient time to dismiss the 1st Amendment? When we're trying to civilize the heathen Africans?

Ah yes, that whole "Thou shall not serve cake to sinners" commandment. Glad Jesus will see this guys attempt at being religuous and say "You know what, this was the kind of guy I was talking about the whole time.  Lets go meet my Dad."

shotglasss: Why do I have to pretend he's something other than a guy trying to make a living and honor his God? You want to turn him into something he's not for what reason?

And if you don't like the way he runs his business, go somewhere else.

Remember, these are the same folks who think that the Civil Rights Act was unnecessary because the free market would punish those who discriminate.

Well, it's the free market at work biatches!!!

Z-clipped: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Society's first rule is the first amendment, if you don't like it, repeal it, but don't pretend a state law trumps it, because you're not fooling anyone.

LOL.  Freedom to practice religion = freedom to ignore the law.  You're a genius.  Why is it that the SCOTUS hasn't agreed with your analysis in slightest over the last 50 years?

Please cite this case that you must be referring to, where the supreme court made a non protected class's desire to be served trump someone's religious rights.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: truthseeker2083: In this one he gets to deal with secular law.

It's funny how you people dismiss the 1st amendment when it's not convenient.

Its funny how you people dismiss the 4th. Why won't my NY marriage be valid in OH?

Mugato: BraveNewCheneyWorld: For many people, their religion doesn't begin and end when they walk through the church door. Society's first rule is the first amendment, if you don't like it, repeal it, but don't pretend a state law trumps it, because you're not fooling anyone.

Until about 1980, Mormons considered black people sub-human. Jehovah's Witnesses will refuse their own children blood transfusions. Scientologists don't believe in psychiatric help. I don't know everything about Christian Scientists but they have some pretty farked up views about healthcare as well. Should we all bow down to their various idiocies under the guise of the 1st amendment?

I'm glad you brought that up, yeah, Christian scientists get to let people die, and you people think this will be undone for a farking cake!

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Bungles: I seem to recall a rather extended story in the New Testament about a certain prostitute, and Jesus telling the self-righteous assholes to all just fark the hell off and be nice to the poor woman. And/Or bake her a bloody cake if she wanted.

I remember him telling everybody not to bash her to death with rocks, not to make a cake.   And don't mistake "love thy neighbor" as "enable your neighbor".

Is that the new version of "hate the sin, love the sinner" that people who are acting in no way a Christian manner use to justify their hate?

So?

PonceAlyosha: Isn't that illegal, given that you can not deny use of public accommodations based on sex?


But strangely, you must deny the use of accommodations for sex in public.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Yeah, if you want to refuse service to someone because you find their lifestyle objectionable, you shouldn't have a job and be forced to live in a dumpster!

Pretty much, yes.  There are rules when it comes to running a business.  If you want to do business with the public, you play by the rules.  You can always start a church of your own, or run for office... since apparently anything goes in those enterprises.

Having religious beliefs doesn't entitle you to ignore OSHA standards, pay less than minimum wage, sell poisoned food, or not pay taxes... why the ever loving fark would it entitle you to discriminate against people?

here to help: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: shotglasss: Like the sign says, "We have the right to refuse service to anyone".

He refused service based on religious beliefs. Now you libs want the state to attack him and his business for that religious belief? What ever happened to the separation of church and state?

ZING!

This is what Republicans actually believe think is clever.

well, since I'm not a Republican, you need to re-think that out.

Damnit didnt mean 4th ammendment. Meant Article Four. I blame being up almost 30 straight hours...

Z-clipped: Having religious beliefs doesn't entitle you to ignore OSHA standards, pay less than minimum wage, sell poisoned food, or not pay taxes... why the ever loving fark would it entitle you to discriminate against people?

That is the worst comparison ever.

That dude needed a sign.

From God.