How long before 'free speech' is totally banned in America?

anon(4698833)

Banned
Sep 7, 2010
12,010
187
0
Visit site
I'll be more succinct. Do you want over 300 different religious groups to be able to deny services based on their religious beliefs?

In the case of Sweet Cakes, Oregon found that they refused to serve some because of their sexual orientation. Had Sweet Cakes won, see the above.

This has nothing to do with free speech, and everything to do with using religion to discriminate.

The Supreme Court has held that laws may prohibit religiously motivated action, as opposed to belief.

The legislative branch may prohibit conduct it deems discriminatory, even where the motivation for that conduct is base on a religion. This too has been held up in courts.

On a side note, I wonder how many wedding cakes Sweet Cakes made for couples who engaged in premarital sex? I bet quite a few. It would appear that Sweet Cakes cherry picked what sinner they would serve and ones that they would not.

Cherry picked? Are you joking? You're being ridiculous now. Nobody is going to go request a cake from a bakery and make it known that they were screwing before they tied the knot. A gay couple is a bit more in your face, to say the least.

And I wanted your elaboration for a purpose...you seem to want to distance this from the idea of "freedom of speech", but at the end of the day, it is directly related. Say that couple goes in, and they ask for a cake for the wedding and the bakery simply says "No." Are you telling me that you're naive enough to think that it simply ends there and nothing else is said about it? Really?

In reality, the bakery says no...the customer says "Why not?" and the bakery, according to this charge they are paying for, has no recourse because it's not good enough to run a private business in the fashion you wish to as an owner...nope, you have no freedom to explain to someone "I don't want to serve you because I don't agree with your lifestyle"...because at that point, you're going to get charged with something and you're going to pay a big fine.

Nope, you better keep your mouth shut, and either make that cake or just stonewall them with silence.

Where is that freedom of speech again? Oh yeah, it's so clearly present as they sign that $135,000 check because a couple of gay people were "offended" that they wouldn't make a wedding cake for them and explained to them why. Best just not to say anything anymore out of risk of being sued for doing such.

My father in law does video editing as a side business/hobby...he does a lot of wedding video editing. As a Christian man, he would not do video editing of a gay wedding. If someone asked him to do that, he would tell them no and he would explain to them why. Now days, he can be sued for that and end up losing everything he owns because of it...not because he simply WON'T do the job...but because he won't do the job and he'd tell you precisely why.

It's a hypocritical system of enforcement. Nearly the whole damn system is...one of the reasons why I jumped at the chance to get out of it when I could and never look back. It disgusts me.
 

duckduckgoose

Well-known member
Jun 4, 2014
168
0
16
Visit site
This entire case doesn't make sense to me. A bakery refuses to bake them a cake, so they sue it and win $130,000 for "emotional suffering"... They could've just went to another bakery, knowing that the owner couldn't violate their religious beliefs...

Actually if you read the stories the bakery refused to bake the cake but then printed the couples name and address on Facebook. The gay couple then started receiving death threats and obscene calls. Child protective services was going to remove their foster children from the home worried for the children's safety. I think there is a ton of emotional suffering there.
The bakers have now been funded over three or four times the fine on one of online funding sites. If the couple has any sense of decency they will donate the excess to a charitable cause, but I really doubt that happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

kilofoxtrot

Well-known member
Jan 11, 2011
1,204
36
0
Visit site
Cherry picked? Are you joking? You're being ridiculous now. Nobody is going to go request a cake from a bakery and make it known that they were screwing before they tied the knot. A gay couple is a bit more in your face, to say the least.

Is the baker that naive? Really? Or smart enough to "dont ask, dont tell" and everything is ok and I'll take your money. <wink> <wink>.

And I wanted your elaboration for a purpose...you seem to want to distance this from the idea of "freedom of speech", but at the end of the day, it is directly related. Say that couple goes in, and they ask for a cake for the wedding and the bakery simply says "No." Are you telling me that you're naive enough to think that it simply ends there and nothing else is said about it? Really?

The only thing I am naive about is that fact that you have a law degree in constitutional law. It appears the bakers should have hired you as their lawyer. After all, their 1st amendment rights were violated. Right?

In reality, the bakery says no...the customer says "Why not?" and the bakery, according to this charge they are paying for, has no recourse because it's not good enough to run a private business in the fashion you wish to as an owner...nope, you have no freedom to explain to someone "I don't want to serve you because I don't agree with your lifestyle"...because at that point, you're going to get charged with something and you're going to pay a big fine.

Nope, you better keep your mouth shut, and either make that cake or just stonewall them with silence.

Where is that freedom of speech again? Oh yeah, it's so clearly present as they sign that $135,000 check because a couple of gay people were "offended" that they wouldn't make a wedding cake for them and explained to them why. Best just not to say anything anymore out of risk of being sued for doing such.

My father in law does video editing as a side business/hobby...he does a lot of wedding video editing. As a Christian man, he would not do video editing of a gay wedding. If someone asked him to do that, he would tell them no and he would explain to them why. Now days, he can be sued for that and end up losing everything he owns because of it...not because he simply WON'T do the job...but because he won't do the job and he'd tell you precisely why.

It's a hypocritical system of enforcement. Nearly the whole damn system is...one of the reasons why I jumped at the chance to get out of it when I could and never look back. It disgusts me.

Here is reality.... the courts in this case and historically have prohibited religiously motivated action over belief in cases of discrimination. SPOKEN OR UNSPOKEN.

If their 1st amendment rights were violated.... then render your services as their lawyer.
 

anon(4698833)

Banned
Sep 7, 2010
12,010
187
0
Visit site
Is the baker that naive? Really? Or smart enough to "dont ask, dont tell" and everything is ok and I'll take your money. <wink> <wink>.

You said it right there... "Don't ask, don't tell". As long as they are hush hush about the entire situation, good or bad, they wouldn't be facing this situation.

The rest of your post was just pot shot drivel that I'm not going to address because I like this discussion so far and I don't want it deteriorating into such. The gay couple did not have their 1st amendment rights oppressed...this wasn't the case on the bakery's side of the story, and it was enforced because they elaborated why they weren't offering service to the couple.

They either served the couple, or did not serve the couple silently...that was the only options afforded the bakery. The fact that they did not serve the couple and explained to them why cost them $135,000 on a horse sh*t charge because the world was all fired up about the gay marriage subject and they knew they could make waves doing it.

Thankfully, from what I understand, the bakery has received tons of donations and people reaching out with large orders where they are paying more than normal to cover this charge.
 

Just_Me_D

Ambassador Team Leader, Senior Moderator
Moderator
Jan 8, 2012
59,709
632
113
Visit site
.... The gay couple did not have their 1st amendment rights oppressed...this wasn't the case on the bakery's side of the story, and it was enforced because they elaborated why they weren't offering service to the couple.

They either served the couple, or did not serve the couple silently...that was the only options afforded the bakery. The fact that they did not serve the couple and explained to them why cost them $135,000 on a horse sh*t charge ...
Thank you. This is indisputable, and everyone knows it.
 

kilofoxtrot

Well-known member
Jan 11, 2011
1,204
36
0
Visit site
The gay couple did not have their 1st amendment rights oppressed...this wasn't the case on the bakery's side of the story, and it was enforced because they elaborated why they weren't offering service to the couple.

If I threaten to harm someone and do so, its the elaboration that enforces the charge and not the act?

-----

This is a case of the baker using religion to discriminate. Its against the law to discriminate in Oregon. You disagree?

If the bakers said "No" to the gay couple....... the outcome would be the same.

If the bakers said "We dont serve gays" to the gay couple.... the outcome would be the same.

If the bakers ignored the gay couple....the outcome would be the same.

In other words, it was the act that got the bakers in trouble. Not what they said.

Discrimination is an act, not an elaboration.
 
Last edited:

kilofoxtrot

Well-known member
Jan 11, 2011
1,204
36
0
Visit site
Nope, but like you, my stance remains as-is. I see it one way and you see it another. So be it.

I appreciate your answer. I truly do.

You might find this hard to believe, but I too am a Christian. Maybe different in some ways ... ok many ways. :)

I believe that government should be secular. I am pretty sure God's Kingdom is a heavenly one, not earthly. That being the case, I would never let a gay couple come between me and God. Even if I made them a cake.
 

Just_Me_D

Ambassador Team Leader, Senior Moderator
Moderator
Jan 8, 2012
59,709
632
113
Visit site
I appreciate your answer. I truly do.
Thank you, but I don't hold any ill-feelings in regard to your stance. We just see certain things from a different perspective, and there's nothing wrong with that.

You might find this hard to believe, but I too am a Christian. Maybe different in some ways ... ok many ways. :)
(laughing)...Christians have varying talents and tolerances, my friend, so no, I'm not surprised...:)

I believe that government should be secular.
I agree in theory, but there's a difference between government being secular and then governing in a manner that disregards religion or one's religious beliefs. I know that's a broad statement, but you know what I mean. Besides, I'm about to walk out the door as soon as I type this reply...;)
I am pretty sure God's Kingdom is a heavenly one, not earthly. That being the case, I would never let a gay couple come between me and God. Even if I made them a cake.
Neither would I, but is failing to bake a cake for what is believed, by many, to be a dishonor to HIM wrong?
 
Last edited:

anon(4698833)

Banned
Sep 7, 2010
12,010
187
0
Visit site
If I threaten to harm someone and do so, its the elaboration that enforces the charge and not the act?

-----

This is a case of the baker using religion to discriminate. Its against the law to discriminate in Oregon. You disagree?

If the bakers said "No" to the gay couple....... the outcome would be the same.

If the bakers said "We dont serve gays" to the gay couple.... the outcome would be the same.

If the bakers ignored the gay couple....the outcome would be the same.

In other words, it was the act that got the bakers in trouble. Not what they said.

Discrimination is an act, not an elaboration.

This is where we disagree...I don't feel this is the case at all. I feel if the couple came in, and the bakery stone walled them and never said anything but "No.", this situation would have blown up virally, but it would not have seen any court time. It became a legal dispute once the words were said...making it a situation of a denial of freedom of speech (as well as other things).

And above, someone responded about some slanderous acts that the bakery committed...find some legitimate reports backing that stuff up and we'll talk. So far, the only legitimate sources I've read have shown that the bakery defended itself in public, but did not attack.
 

kilofoxtrot

Well-known member
Jan 11, 2011
1,204
36
0
Visit site
This is where we disagree...I don't feel this is the case at all. I feel if the couple came in, and the bakery stone walled them and never said anything but "No.", this situation would have blown up virally, but it would not have seen any court time. It became a legal dispute once the words were said...making it a situation of a denial of freedom of speech (as well as other things).

And above, someone responded about some slanderous acts that the bakery committed...find some legitimate reports backing that stuff up and we'll talk. So far, the only legitimate sources I've read have shown that the bakery defended itself in public, but did not attack.

Its ok we disagree..... but we can agree that we hate the Nats. :beer:
 

anon(4698833)

Banned
Sep 7, 2010
12,010
187
0
Visit site
Its ok we disagree..... but we can agree that we hate the Nats. :beer:

god_damn_right_breaking_bad.gif


:beer:
 

anon(4698833)

Banned
Sep 7, 2010
12,010
187
0
Visit site
2 transgender women were not allowed to donate blood so they sued.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/why-are-blood-banks-rejecting-transgender-women

How ridiculous. These 2 women don't understand how many things can prevent you from being able to give blood...and the regulations these companies that are in charge of blood collection have to follow to avoid being sued for any number of a thousand different things.

I'm surprised the court is even hearing this case, and I hope they counter sue for court cost when it is determined they were rightfully turned down.
 

Just_Me_D

Ambassador Team Leader, Senior Moderator
Moderator
Jan 8, 2012
59,709
632
113
Visit site
What about a sign that says "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"?

As long as they refrain from verbally explaining the reason for refusal, they're good, but it's also a catch-22 because society, in general, will demand an explanation, and once that explanation is given, especially in regard to homosexuality, the business is screwed, in my opinion.
 

Trending Posts

Forum statistics

Threads
260,011
Messages
1,765,306
Members
441,221
Latest member
CØR