Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Fined $135K for refusing to bake a Queer wedding cake..

You can answer your original question the same way. At least the constitution is relevant. Or should be.

There's nothing about sexual orientation in the Constitution either but we certainly have a plethora of laws and rulings concerning it.

I've yet to meet anyone who doesn't answer to someone about something. YMMV
And I am enjoying life as I'm pretty sure it will be the only one I get.

ICGAF

The bakery had baked a cake for one of the mother of one of the brides a few years earlier. It was a word of mouth recommendation.

Page 5.... http://media.oregonlive.com/business_impact/other/BOLI-sweetcakes.pdf

Well hell, that shows you how much of a [bleep] I give about this. I thought it was a fine in criminal court. In that case I'd have found them guilty, fined them $5 plus court cost and told them all to get the hell out of my court. Like I give a [bleep] about lesbian cake.

It isn't reasonable to bankrupt a baker over refusing service. It does make an example of them, and some in power are apt to do that.

"Power is not a means, it is an end..."
-George Orwell

I have no issue with requiring them to bake a cake. The court should have required them to use flour acquired from “homo” plants reproduction. I imagine those empty husks (chaff) would make quite the cake, huh?

Quit using the word "gay'. It's "homosexual"! Gay is a word the queers invented to make themselves seem less harmful to the rest of the world.

They wish to be free to live their way, while placing others in bondage to them.

Satan is very crafty. Just ask Eve when you see her.

If you think things are bad now, what will you be thinking during the Rapture? You will be required to take the Mark of the Beast, and those that refuse, will be decapitated immediately.

Sound familiar?

Who in their right mind would think that they were 'damaged' $135k? This was punishment, not damages.

I don't think one sin is worse than the other, but the Baker doesn't knows who the Adulterers, Murderers, Thieves, etc. are, he simply makes cakes.

Forcing him to bake a cake makes him complicit in the whole gay ceremony, something that he Does Not want to be a part of.

A person should not be forced to do something against their will that violates the core of their religious beliefs. You will never get me to believe otherwise, no matter the argument.

It's the only thing we have left in this world that people can't take away from you, and now the Gov't is trying their best to steal that as well.

I don't have any personal experience with "damages" restitution.
My buddy was waiting for his truck to be loaded at a dock when a runaway forklift hit his truck. He was messed up for months and had countless doctor and chiropractor visits before returning to work. He's doubting he'll see much of anything for "damages". Even though the forklift operator jumped off the forklift and left it parked with no brake applied, and the entire thing was caught on security tapes.

Same trucker backed up 3' to make a tight turn in an intersection in Atlanta and bumped a car, at about 2 mph. Two black parasites crawl out screaming, "My neck, my neck!" and end up with $13,000 cash for their trouble.

That all seems fair. Just like $135,000 for the poor mistreated gays. It would have been cheaper for the baker to hire a hit man to take them out. This is nothing more than a setup, and if left to continue, will be one of the factors in the demise of our country.

Bristoe has it right, free or not. Pretty damn simple.

They should open a new bakery and just sell fruitcakes. Everyone would be happy.

If the bakers made them feel bad for not making them a cake. You can not imagine how bad thy would feel after I got thru telling them what I thought about them and their kind. Hasbeen

I see this sentiment commonly expressed.

But it's just not true.

https://carm.org/questions-sins-equal

Yeah pretty familiar, sounded just as stupid all the other times too.

.Gov is forcing a person to violate their religious beliefs in order to stay in business. Being in business goes to the core of our liberties protected by the Constitution. Forcing a Christian or muslim to participate in an event that violates their religious beliefs under penalty of law isn't constitutional. The free exercise of religion obviously includes choosing to not participate in events you find religiously objectionable. It is no different than a Christian couple suing to force an Orthodox Jewish caterer to make pork tenderloin with oyster dressing. Not all Jewish caterers hold this belief, yet no one would ever consider doing that. How is forcing a fundamentalist Christian to participate in a a gay wedding any different from forcing an ordained minister with the same beliefs to officiate one?

The actions of the baker are not discriminatory because it is the EVENT they can't support. They didn't deny service to the couple because they were gay. In fact, they were more than willing to sell them anything they baked , except for the one thing which would violate their religious beliefs. You want a birthday cake? No problem. It's a selective denial of service.

Very well said, Wycolocowboy.

And let me throw this out there - the civil ceremony is no different than a religious ceremony because the state, having established a set of morals and usurped many of the roles & functions of churches, has defacto established a state religion.

Yep. Sure seems so.

But if a business advertises cakes for sale, then sell cakes, not a religious agenda. They were not being forced to actually participate in the so called wedding ceremony. Now if the customer was being full out nutso, while ordering a cake in the bakery, then the owner has the right, I think, to kick them out. I guess though, nutso didn't happen in the bakery.

From my somewhat limited observation, lesbians always have angst. That kinda happens when narcissists don't get the attention, that they think they deserve. The nature of the beast...