Oregon Couple refuses to pay damages to gays couple or comply with Gag Order
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-10-2015, 10:19 PM
RE: Oregon Couple refuses to pay damages to gays couple or comply with Gag Order
(03-10-2015 01:33 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  
(03-10-2015 01:21 PM)ZoraPrime Wrote:  Are your really this much of a moron?

I'll jump in first. I forgive you for calling the moron a moron.

And I'll jump in to say that I won't forgive Blowjob for the sanctimonious faux 'I forgive you' that is doubtlessly incoming. Dodgy

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
04-10-2015, 06:11 AM (This post was last modified: 04-10-2015 06:17 AM by Lord Dark Helmet.)
RE: Oregon Couple refuses to pay damages to gays couple or comply with Gag Order
I'm really torn on this one. On one hand you have my personal feelings of supporting gay rights, and the fact that this bakery business benefitted from tax payer money by being accessible on a city street that is open to everyone. On the other hand, I am also a firm believer in choice and personal belief. This couple that owned the bakery are claiming their religion has rules against homosexuality, and by making a cake for a gay wedding they are in a way supporting behavior that their religion forbids. This is different than the Kim Davis case because this is a private business. Kim Davis is trying to mix her religion and government position, and that is prohibited by the wall of separation. No such wall exists between private business and religion. I wish the Supreme Court would have decided this issue in the Hobby Lobby case, however instead of ruling on the matter on 1st Amendment grounds they ruled that the federal government cannot violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. This act does not apply to local city and state governments. At the federal level, the government cannot force a private company to violate their religious beliefs, but apparently a state law or city ordinance can until the Supreme Court rules on this with a decision based on the free exercise clause of the Constitution. That will be a landmark decision if they ever hear this case or one similar. The meaning of "prohibiting the free exercise" of ones religion will have to be decided by the court eventually.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2015, 06:47 AM
RE: Oregon Couple refuses to pay damages to gays couple or comply with Gag Order
Religious freedom ends where it would involve breaking the law. Not complicated.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
04-10-2015, 06:52 AM
RE: Oregon Couple refuses to pay damages to gays couple or comply with Gag Order
(04-10-2015 06:47 AM)morondog Wrote:  Religious freedom ends where it would involve breaking the law. Not complicated.

I would disagree, based on the Hobby Lobby decision. They were basically given a religious exemption to violate the ACA law.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2015, 07:11 AM
RE: Oregon Couple refuses to pay damages to gays couple or comply with Gag Order
(04-10-2015 06:11 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  I'm really torn on this one. On one hand you have my personal feelings of supporting gay rights, and the fact that this bakery business benefitted from tax payer money by being accessible on a city street that is open to everyone. On the other hand, I am also a firm believer in choice and personal belief. This couple that owned the bakery are claiming their religion has rules against homosexuality, and by making a cake for a gay wedding they are in a way supporting behavior that their religion forbids. This is different than the Kim Davis case because this is a private business.


Right, a business. Which they have to be licensed by the state to operate, and doing so carries a set of restrictions and guidelines that you must abide by, including adhering to non-discrimination laws. So they had a number of options. One, suck it up and make the cake, and ask Jesus for forgiveness if they're that bothered by it (if murderers can be saved, surely bakers can be too). Two, they could have shut down their business if they were unwilling to serve the entire public.


(04-10-2015 06:11 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  Kim Davis is trying to mix her religion and government position, and that is prohibited by the wall of separation. No such wall exists between private business and religion.


That isn't the problem. There simply is no 'conscientious objection' exemption from discrimination laws, and sexual orientation is considered a protected status under Oregon law. Thus you cannot discriminate upon the basis of someone's sexual orientation, and the law doesn't give a fuck what your religion says about it. If they cannot refuse service on the basis of skin color, they also cannot refuse service because of someone's sexual orientation; they both fall under the same set of protections.


(04-10-2015 06:11 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  I wish the Supreme Court would have decided this issue in the Hobby Lobby case, however instead of ruling on the matter on 1st Amendment grounds they ruled that the federal government cannot violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. This act does not apply to local city and state governments. At the federal level, the government cannot force a private company to violate their religious beliefs, but apparently a state law or city ordinance can until the Supreme Court rules on this with a decision based on the free exercise clause of the Constitution. That will be a landmark decision if they ever hear this case or one similar. The meaning of "prohibiting the free exercise" of ones religion will have to be decided by the court eventually.


Here's hoping a few of the aging Catholic virgins kick the bucket and get replaced before that.


Also, fuck Antonin Scalia; and may the devil piss in his corn flakes. Dodgy

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2015, 08:38 AM
RE: Oregon Couple refuses to pay damages to gays couple or comply with Gag Order
(04-10-2015 06:52 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(04-10-2015 06:47 AM)morondog Wrote:  Religious freedom ends where it would involve breaking the law. Not complicated.

I would disagree, based on the Hobby Lobby decision. They were basically given a religious exemption to violate the ACA law.

Which will be overturned eventually, just liked gay marriage was eventually ruled legal.

Someone posted earlier in the thread that if your religion involves human sacrifice then despite that you are guaranteed freedom to practice your religion, if you do in fact sacrifice a human, you will face legal consequences. Same with these idiots and their bloody cake. They infringe on other people's right to not be discriminated against in the practicing of their religion, they face legal consequence.

And yes, idiot judges may rule against them (although they didn't in this case), but the sorta... facts... aren't that complicated, it's just the cognitive dissonance of the religious crowd that makes it a pain.

Gay marriage was illegal.
This was a clear violation of constitutional right to equal treatment by the law.
It took a fucking supreme court decision to make this *simple* fact clear to all the religious people. It should never have even been an issue. How anyone could even write a dissenting opinion is beyond me.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
04-10-2015, 11:35 AM (This post was last modified: 04-10-2015 04:37 PM by ZoraPrime.)
RE: Oregon Couple refuses to pay damages to gays couple or comply with Gag Order
(04-10-2015 06:11 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  I'm really torn on this one. On one hand you have my personal feelings of supporting gay rights, and the fact that this bakery business benefitted from tax payer money by being accessible on a city street that is open to everyone. On the other hand, I am also a firm believer in choice and personal belief. This couple that owned the bakery are claiming their religion has rules against homosexuality, and by making a cake for a gay wedding they are in a way supporting behavior that their religion forbids. This is different than the Kim Davis case because this is a private business. Kim Davis is trying to mix her religion and government position, and that is prohibited by the wall of separation. No such wall exists between private business and religion. I wish the Supreme Court would have decided this issue in the Hobby Lobby case, however instead of ruling on the matter on 1st Amendment grounds they ruled that the federal government cannot violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. This act does not apply to local city and state governments. At the federal level, the government cannot force a private company to violate their religious beliefs, but apparently a state law or city ordinance can until the Supreme Court rules on this with a decision based on the free exercise clause of the Constitution. That will be a landmark decision if they ever hear this case or one similar. The meaning of "prohibiting the free exercise" of ones religion will have to be decided by the court eventually.

The precedent BOLI used is one that exists at the federal level too: religion cannot excuse violation of anti-discrimination law. Although the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not explicitly include LGBT individuals, the Oregon statute uses similar language (e.g. same definition of place of Public Accommodation) that the fact it's a state statute instead of a federal statute is irrelevant. This is explicitly spelled out in Newman v Piggie Park Enterprises, except that's with race instead of sexual orientation. Otherwise, same type of law (anti-discrimination) and same type of situation (someone trying to violate anti-discrimination law under religious beliefs).

The Hobby Lobby case had the government as a direct party. ACA ("obamacare") required Hobby Lobby to provide birth control; Hobboy Lobby said that was against jesus or something, so they fought back under RFRA; SCOTUS eventually ruled that the government, not Hobby Lobby, needs to fund the birth control or something like that. The case would inoffensive if not for the fact we all have to wonder how a corporation can believe in Jesus, but that discussion is neither here nor there. The critical different is this: Hobby Lobby had the government as a direct party whereas the Oregon bakers do not--this completely changes what types of laws apply.

The problem, as I explained in vein to blowjob, is that almost any protection religion has extends only to identity per se, and not the action that accompany said religion. Any accommodations are usually spelled out on a case-by-case basis; the only two I'm aware of that involves private parties exclusively are:
- Reasonable Religious Accommodation under Civil Rights Act of 1964. What's considered "reasonable" isn't always well-defined, but typically, it's just a minor accommodation. E.g., maybe the landlord can't demand you stay at your house Wednesday evening to pick up rent while you attend church; however, she can still insist that you give her her rent by Wednesday evening. or your employer can't tell you to work during Passover, so he must grant you the day(s) off (I forgot if it counts towards your vacation time).
- Church Amendments. Basically say that medical doctors and/or institutions can refuse to provide abortions and birth control due to sincerely held religious beliefs. Again, don't ask me how a hospital corporation can believe in Jesus; just don't.

Edit: Although this includes both private and public actions, this document seems to have spelled out every accommodation: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/r...e-Laws.pdf . Might worth checking out, but I can't comment on its reliability.

There is technically a third one at the state level concerning state RFRAs, which are poorly worded as to make it sound like sincere religious beliefs can excuse any action. I'm skeptical of counting these because they're very new (i.e. almost all are less than two years old) and I have very little doubt that they're just an attempt to circumvent Romer v Evans; i.e. states overriding municipal level LGBTQ anti-discrimination so long as the offending party screams the Bible or something. I can't think of any other issue that state RFRA's would be interested that involve two private parties (abortion/birth control is not it; church amendments exist); the only other issue is maybe creationism/intelligent design, but such an application of state RFRA will certainly void it as that'd violate federal cases of Edwards/Dover respectively. These state RFRAs are scary business and they are they are the laws I'd worry as to whether or not they stand up to judicial review; not a state anti-discrimination law.


Edit: Edited throughout day to fix vocab/spelling/grammar errors.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like ZoraPrime's post
04-10-2015, 05:09 PM
RE: Oregon Couple refuses to pay damages to gays couple or comply with Gag Order
I forgive you for being an idiot Blowjob.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2015, 10:53 PM
RE: Oregon Couple refuses to pay damages to gays couple or comply with Gag Order
(04-10-2015 05:09 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  I forgive you for being an idiot Blowjob.

We've tried that before. He just upped the asshole factor. I forgive you for being a forgiveness troll, Blowjob.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2015, 01:26 AM
RE: Oregon Couple refuses to pay damages to gays couple or comply with Gag Order
(03-10-2015 01:21 PM)ZoraPrime Wrote:  Are your really this much of a moron?

Freedom of speech has time/place/manner restrictions. The issue isn't that the government want bakeries to say if they have (not) been fined for anti-discrimination; rather, they want to make sure plaintiffs can file complaints without unreasonable harassment impeding them from exercising their civic right. The bakery overstep this massively--such as posting the couples' name and address. That information would not have been public without the bakery disclosing it. The couples had to adopt their foster children because of the public exposure. Etc. Read the damn facts that were linked on the first page. I hate having to repeat myself: had they kept the couple anonymous, for example, there would be no issue. If Oregon did not take appropriate steps, then people would have to risk exposing themselves on a national-public scale just for filing a damn complaint. The damage has been done and any more speaking of this incident necessarily brings the lesbian couple to the public spotlight against their wishes because their identities are already known. The bakery can no longer speak of the plaintiffs anonymously.

I cannot make that any simpler. If you aren't getting it, then you're being intellectually dishonest because you so desperately want to believe that this is an abridgement of free speech that you cannot actually comprehend how much the lesbian couple had to go through for exercising their right to file a complaint (which, moreover, ended up being a legitimate complaint).

I forgive you for calling me a moron. I am surprised that someone with an intellect as superior as yours would need or want to stoop to childish, weakminded insults.

That being said, your intellect has failed you here. First this issue was made public by the gay complainants and their cohorts who posted it all over facebook causing demonstrations outside the bakery. If the gay couple had not wanted publicity, they should not have gone public with their complaint. Now I don't know for sure what was in the hearts and minds of this couple when they decided air their complaint in public, but I suspect it was create demonstrations and harass the bakery. Why does the gay and lesbian community have the right to incite harassment while the bakers cannot respond in kind? It seems in your world only one side has a voice and the other side better just stand by silently. You really are a bigot because you are so intolerant of the opposing side that you want to silence them with court orders.

Second just because a legal justification of a gag order is put forth doesn't mean that is the actual motive or that it is just. If it did, then there would be no cause to criticize voter ID laws. If you know anything about the law, then you often know that it is abused. People strategically file suits or make complaints all the time just silence their opposition. These are called Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.

I forgive you too Muffs. I'm going to limit my time here for a while because this forum has really pissed me off lately. The hypocrisy here is just too overwhelming for me right now.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: