# Gag Order



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Freedom of Speech?

http://www.teaparty.org/franklin-graham-blasts-oregon-fining-bakers-135k-refusing-gay-couple-106195/


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

What do you do for a living ?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

oneraddad said:


> What do you do for a living ?


Which time?


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Jolly said:


> Which time?



Today


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

oneraddad said:


> Today


Today, I work for a large financial firm. In previous incarnations, I've been a hospital department director, taught at the collegiate level, ran a consultant business, been a Class 1 firearms dealer, done custom reloading work, worked for a natural gas transmission company and cut my teeth in the sawmill.

Semi-jack-of-all-trades, master of none.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Jolly said:


> Which time?



The way you beat around the bush, I'd have pegged you as a liberal. Notice I answered your question straight up and wasn't evasive ?


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

Wow...that VAGUE question sure went south fast.
Dad, what have been your occupations throughout your life?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

oneraddad said:


> The way you beat around the bush, I'd have pegged you as a liberal. Notice I answered your question straight up and wasn't evasive ?


Like Popeye, I yam what I yam.

Mostly, that's a Reaganite Republican.

I answer questions as I see fit and while not equivocating, I do try to stay within the bounds of civil discourse.

If you like that fine. If you don't like that, fine.

I'm old enough to have been around the block once or twice, I have my own opinions and don't have to prove myself to you or anybody else.

That suit you?


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Jolly asked me what I did for a living in another thread and I answered him. Then asked what he did, but he didn't respond, so I asked him in his thread. I didn't ask for a story about his life, just what he did for a living, period.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Jolly said:


> Like Popeye, I yam what I yam.
> 
> Mostly, that's a Reaganite Republican.
> 
> ...



Much better, I voted for Reagan also.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

oneraddad said:


> Jolly asked me what I did for a living in another thread and I answered him. Then asked what he did, but he didn't respond, so I asked him in his thread. I didn't ask for a story about his life, just what he did for a living, period.


This may come as a shock to you, but I don't hang on every word in every thread. And I do pop in and out, so yes, sometimes I may miss something.

And I didn't come close to a life story...I've got a half-dozen more to add in if it'll satisfy your curiousity...


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Part of what makes me see our entire judicial system as going down the drain is the frivolous lawsuits and rulings that go on.

People run to court the way preschoolers run to the playground attendant.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

I'm an exotic dancer.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Jolly said:


> This may come as a shock to you, but I don't hang on every word in every thread. And I do pop in and out, so yes, sometimes I may miss something.
> 
> And I didn't come close to a life story...I've got a half-dozen more to add in if it'll satisfy your curiousity...



I'm not curious at all, I just figured if you had the nerve to ask me what I did for a living after accusing the pony guy of being a draft dodger, you should be asked the same thing.

Why did you want to know what I did for a living, were you gonna judge me ?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

JJ Grandits said:


> I'm an exotic dancer.


In the goat forum it didn't happen without a photo.:gaptooth:


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

oneraddad said:


> I'm not curious at all, I just figured if you had the nerve to ask me what I did for a living after accusing the pony guy of being a draft dodger, you should be asked the same thing.
> 
> Why did you want to know what I did for a living, were you gonna judge me ?


Thanks for reminding me.

I remember the times y'all were talking about It was a time when everyone knew that Vietnam was a done deal and nobody wanted to go in the grinder if they didn't have to. A lot different from WWII, or even Korea.

You equated a student deferrment with dodging the draft. For that war and that time, I don't. The person you were launching on said that he had obeyed the law, had gotten his physical and when his deferment ran out, was lucky enough to not have his number called.

So judgement? Yeah, I thought you were being a 24kt donkey (I don't think the software will take the proper word) and just wanted to know what anybody could do for a living and interact so poorly with somebody they didn't know.

I'm still betting against customer relations...


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

I am not sure whether to answer the OP or not since this thread is already trashed out of the box. 

For the record I think the judgement was very wrong. Freedom of speech is our most important right and I hope they push the case up the line.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

kasilofhome said:


> In the goat forum it didn't happen without a photo.:gaptooth:


Oh hush. Some things can't be unseen. Let's not make requests for those photos. I'm perfectly happy to just take jjgrandits at their word on this, lol.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Patchouli said:


> I am not sure whether to answer the OP or not since this thread is already trashed out of the box.
> 
> For the record I think the judgement was very wrong. Freedom of speech is our most important right and I hope they push the case up the line.


I agree, the thread is trashed, so I think I'll post the link in the original thread (but I fear it may be lost amid the artillery barrage).


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Jolly said:


> Thanks for reminding me.
> 
> I remember the times y'all were talking about It was a time when everyone knew that Vietnam was a done deal and nobody wanted to go in the grinder if they didn't have to. A lot different from WWII, or even Korea.
> 
> ...


So obeying the law is where you draw the line. He did say he only went to school to avoid the draft if you remember.

By your thinking it's OK for gays to marry and bakers should bake cakes, correct ?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Jolly said:


> Thanks for reminding me.
> 
> I remember the times y'all were talking about It was a time when everyone knew that Vietnam was a done deal and nobody wanted to go in the grinder if they didn't have to. A lot different from WWII, or even Korea.
> 
> ...


 Don't fret and now it is time to DO Not Feed Troll~! Plain and Simple.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

oneraddad said:


> So obeying the law is where you draw the line. He did say he only went to school to avoid the draft if you remember.
> 
> By your thinking it's OK for gays to marry and bakers should bake cakes, correct ?


Put the crack pipe down and slowly back away from the computer screen, before you hurt yourself.

Would you please show me where I have supported gay marriage? Would you please show me where I have not supported the right of a sole proprietorship to refuse service, _for whatever reason they see fit_?

You say you like blunt, I'll give you blunt: Either you lack reading comprehension, the ability to retain what you've read, are trying to read stoned or just looking to pick a fight. But you are starting to border on being nonsensical.

Do yourself and everyone else a favor - go enjoy your family and the rest of the evening. Return refreshed and renewed upon the morrow.

A good night's sleep will do you a world of good...


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Holidays can do a number on people.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Even more outrageous, Graham said, is that Avakian has also now ordered the Kleins to âcease and desistâ *from speaking publicly* about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs.
> 
> âThis is an outright attack on their #&#8206;freedomofspeech,â he said. âA senior attorney with the The Heritage Foundation was absolutely right when he said, âIt is exactly this kind of oppressive persecution by government officials that led the pilgrims to America.ââ


They can "speak publicly" about anything they want

What they can NOT do is say their* business will refuse to serve gays.*

That is illegal in Oregon

It's not hard to do a little research before overreacting to the spin and hysteria


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They can "speak publicly" about anything they want
> 
> What they can NOT do is say their* business will refuse to serve gays.*
> 
> ...


But they are out of business, IIRC.

Therefore, if somebody even hints that they won't sell a wedding cake to gays in Oregon, that is against the law?

If so, that is a very, very bad law and I cannot see how it can be upheld.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Jolly said:


> Put the crack pipe down and slowly back away from the computer screen, before you hurt yourself.
> 
> Would you please show me where I have supported gay marriage? Would you please show me where I have not supported the right of a sole proprietorship to refuse service, _for whatever reason they see fit_?
> 
> ...



You don't support gay marriage, but you should because it's the law and you support laws as in school over the draft.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Wow. The site www.oregonlive.com has a link in an article about this that is the final order. It's a 122 page doc. I got through about 50 pages of it so far.

Very eye opening to see what the govt will do to people. I pity anyone who gets in our govts crosshairs. Cit's just frightening.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

The store people had not discriminated from selling products to the gay couple before. They just did not want to sell a cake for a gay wedding. But the fay people involved had made other purchases for other things fine. So, apparently, at least for this store the owners were fine working with fay customers, they just had an issue with this particular purchase.

And, they are under a gag order by being barred from saying anything that would indicate they would make the same choices again. Talk about silencing the opposition. Sheesh.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

gibbsgirl said:


> Oh hush. Some things can't be unseen. Let's not make requests for those photos. I'm perfectly happy to just take jjgrandits at their word on this, lol.


A red sequin G string on a man who enjoys seconds.






and then



there's the tassel.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

JJ Grandits said:


> A red sequin G string on a man who enjoys seconds.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh gosh, if you can't behave, I think my hubby might just have to jump on here an put up his 2nd HT post just so he's following this thread, to be sure he's protecting my honor or something, lol.

Nice to have a little chuckle now and again to beak up the tension!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

gibbsgirl said:


> Wow. The site www.oregonlive.com has a link in an article about this that is the final order. It's a 122 page doc. I got through about 50 pages of it so far.
> 
> Very eye opening to see what the govt will do to people. I pity anyone who gets in our govts crosshairs. Cit's just frightening.


These types of over reaching government actions are the exact reason the government wants us disarmed.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

oneraddad said:


> You don't support gay marriage, but you should because it's the law and you support laws as in school over the draft.


In 1982, the Justice Department tried their best to figure out how many Federal laws are on the books. They found at least 3000 criminal offenses in 23,000 pages of Federal law, and finally became so frustrated they quit counting.

We've added a lot since then.

So let's pick just one sector and focus on total number of laws, encompassing all government entities...For instance, guns and gun control are subject to 20,000 laws...and counting.

What does all this have to do with your statement?

Very, very few things in life are absolute. By your reasoning, since you don't support one law, you should not support any laws. In short, that is anarchy.

I think reasonable people can support some laws and not others.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

You can not live in our society without breaking the law. we are all criminals and our prosecution is at the leisure of the State.
At the same time our leaders, both elected and appointed break the law with impunity. Their only prosecution can rarely come from their peers for the crime of not playing ball. 
therefore I follow the Constitution and the Bible as my guide and behave as a law unto myself. it is not a matter of doing what is legal as much as it is a matter of doing what is right. I will follow their tenants as I am a peaceful man but I feel no obligation beyond my own. So far it has worked out fairly well.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Jolly said:


> But they are out of business, IIRC.
> 
> Therefore, if somebody even hints that they won't sell a wedding cake to gays in Oregon, that is against the law?
> 
> If so, that is a very, very bad law and I cannot see how it can be upheld.


If they are out of business they can say anything they want, as long as they don't say they will discriminate

No matter what you think, a business can't say they will refuse to serve gays in Oregon

http://downtrend.com/robertgehl/ore...y-cant-say-they-will-continue-to-stand-strong



> The state law bans people from even saying or suggesting that they intend to discriminate against anyone.


http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.409



> it is an *unlawful practice* for any person acting on behalf of any place of public accommodation as defined in ORS 659A.400 (Place of public accommodation defined) to publish, circulate, issue or display, or cause to be published, circulated, issued or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services or privileges of the place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination will be made against, any person on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

JJ Grandits said:


> You can not live in our society without breaking the law. we are all criminals and our prosecution is at the leisure of the State.
> At the same time our leaders, both elected and appointed break the law with impunity. Their only prosecution can rarely come from their peers for the crime of not playing ball.
> therefore I follow the Constitution and the Bible as my guide and behave as a law unto myself. it is not a matter of doing what is legal as much as it is a matter of doing what is right. I will follow their tenants as I am a peaceful man but I feel no obligation beyond my own. So far it has worked out fairly well.


I wonder what would happen if a gay dude came in without a shirt? Hmmmm can't serve shirtless, now does THAt go before the flipping liberal dudes at the SC also. Some just hold there believes close to their heart. Why in the world MUST THEY be penalized to go away form their believes? And it ISA THEIR Businesses Period The government has no say or should nOT have say what a private business does when it comes to doing something that goes against their believes. This is so wrong a on so many levels and sets bad things to come down the road.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I wonder what would happen if a gay dude came in without a shirt?
> 
> Hmmmm can't serve shirtless, now does THAt go before the flipping liberal dudes at the SC also.


That's a flawed analogy since a dress code applies to* all *customers equally.
Why are these simple concepts so hard to grasp?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

gibbsgirl said:


> The store people *had not discriminated *from selling products to the gay couple before. They just did not want to sell a cake for a gay wedding. But the fay people involved *had made other purchases* for other things fine. So, apparently, at least for this store the owners were fine working with fay customers, they just had an issue with this particular purchase.
> 
> And, they are under a gag order by being barred from saying anything that would indicate they would make the same choices again. Talk about silencing the opposition. Sheesh.


They served them until they *found out* they were gay.

It's not tattooed on their foreheads


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

JJ Grandits said:


> You can not live in our society without breaking the law. we are all criminals and our prosecution is at the leisure of the State.
> At the same time our leaders, both elected and appointed break the law with impunity. Their only prosecution can rarely come from their peers for the crime of not playing ball.
> therefore I follow the Constitution and the Bible as my guide and behave as a law unto myself. it is not a matter of doing what is legal as much as it is a matter of doing what is right. I will follow their tenants as I am a peaceful man but I feel no obligation beyond my own. So far it has worked out fairly well.





Bearfootfarm said:


> They served them until they *found out* they were gay.
> 
> It's not tattooed on their foreheads


They did not say they were severing the customers shopping privileges entirely. They said they do not make cakes for gay weddings.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> They did not say they were severing the customers shopping privileges entirely. They said they do not make cakes for gay weddings.


They cannot refuse any services legally, regardless of anything you think they said

There's no way of proving what they "did not say"


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

gibbsgirl said:


> They did not say they were severing the customers shopping privileges entirely. They said they do not make cakes for gay weddings.



Could we assume they would make a cake for an engagement celebration for a gay couple or would it be safe to assume that might also be s problem.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

wr said:


> Could we assume they would make a cake for an engagement celebration for a gay couple or would it be safe to assume that might also be s problem.


I don't know.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

gibbsgirl said:


> I don't know.


Was the gag order put in place because they said they would serve gays as long as it wasn't a wedding, or was it because they were saying the would refuse to serve gays?


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They cannot refuse any services legally, regardless of anything you think they said
> 
> There's no way of proving what they "did not say"


You're right. No one but the people involved know what they said. And, even involved parties frequently misunderstand each other.

I was basing my post on what was said on reading the final order from the Oregon commission.

I found it interesting to read another part of that order. It cited testimony where the husband said, when asked by the mother of one of the women why, he said that his faith and understanding of God's word was that gay marriage was an abomination in the eyes of God and cited some scriptures. The mother left and went back out to the car where her daughter was waiting. She told her daughter, he said my children are an abomination. (Both her kids are gay.). Her daughter became even more hysterical at that point. The man said her felt the marriage was an abomination, not her children were an abomination 

Then, the gay couple initiated an investigation, which legally could be released to the public under foia, and became more hysterical when it was because they were concerned about it affecting the approval of adopting their foster kids.

It's unbelievable to me that they felt entitled to, and were awarded a settlement for all their pain and suffering. The final order even specifically talks about how the cake company people gave reliable testimony and the other people did not.

Good luck Oregon. You're well on your way to becoming the new California.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

So if regardless of their beliefs, they can not discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation, would they have to make a cake celebrating the accomplishments of a sadistic pedophile? 

as far as the gag order goes, I could possibly see it during the trial but afterwards? When did Oregon become a liberal police State? I guess all those open minded people can't handle idea's that disagree with them. Doesn't seem very open minded at all. Just a bunch of Commie control freaks.

when do they start burning books?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JJ Grandits said:


> So if regardless of their beliefs, they can not discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation, would they have to make a cake celebrating the accomplishments of a sadistic pedophile?
> 
> as far as the gag order goes, I could possibly see it during the trial but afterwards? When did Oregon become a liberal police State? I guess all those open minded people can't handle idea's that disagree with them. Doesn't seem very open minded at all. Just a bunch of Commie control freaks.
> 
> when do they start burning books?


I'll start out by saying I think the judgements are excessive and the gag order makes me more than uncomfortable.

Here are some cakes the bakery would do. http://www.wweek.com/portland/mobile/articles/articleView/id:20698/current_page: A nice pentagram cake for your coven, anyone?

The simplest way around the gag order and the best way for the bakers to ensure they will never, even inadvertently, be required to make a cake for a gay wedding is to figure out which religous denominations won't do gay weddings and advertise cakes only for those denominations. Saying who you will serves is nondiscriminatory. Saying you won't serve someone would violate the law.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

JJ Grandits said:


> So if regardless of their beliefs, they can not discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation, would they have to make a cake celebrating the accomplishments of a sadistic pedophile?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Maybe some baker already made a cake for a sadistic pedophile. Since such is illegal, they may not have been aware so it may not have been announced but I doubt if it was a wedding cake. 

Would a Christian baker still run afoul of their beliefs of they were not aware that they had been violated? 

What if the same baker just assumed that a cake was for a same sex couple and they were straight and happened to tell one of their mothers that they were sinners or an abomination in a store where others were present? I know two heterosexual couples that have the same first name so this is not a totally fabricated theory.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

wr said:


> Maybe some baker already made a cake for a sadistic pedophile. Since such is illegal, they may not have been aware so it may not have been announced but I doubt if it was a wedding cake.
> 
> Would a Christian baker still run afoul of their beliefs of they were not aware that they had been violated?
> 
> What if the same baker just assumed that a cake was for a same sex couple and they were straight and happened to tell one of their mothers that they were sinners or an abomination in a store where others were present? I know two heterosexual couples that have the same first name so this is not a totally fabricated theory.


Too many angels dancing on the head of the pin, coupled with a misunderstanding of Scripture.

During Jesus' ministry, homosexuality was not condoned. In fact, he would have been very familiar with the passage from Leviticus, _ If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them._

That's pretty straight forward.

Also, other ancient writings reveal the same thing from Plato to Tacitus...While some societies were more forgiving than others, no nation was in favor of homosexuality in the first century.

A lot of people get their knickers in a knot over the Pauline letters, when in fact, Paul was staking out some new ground, based on the Christian idea of loving one another. While the act was still condemned as an abomination, the person was not...The person still could be saved and receive God's Grace, if he could walk away from the act.

I think that sums up what most Christians have believed for a couple of thousand years. State or no state, gag order or no gag order, God's Word does not change. Though the Gates of Hell will open wide, we shall not be moved.

So, what is society going to do with us?

In the eyes of some, it seems a nice yellow armband with a cross on it, would be a nice first step.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

oneraddad said:


> Much better, I voted for Reagan also.


Most everyone did.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

JJ Grandits said:


> I'm an exotic dancer.


I knew that.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Jolly said:


> Too many angels dancing on the head of the pin, coupled with a misunderstanding of Scripture.
> 
> During Jesus' ministry, homosexuality was not condoned. In fact, he would have been very familiar with the passage from Leviticus, _ If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them._
> 
> ...


Very well said.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Jolly said:


> Too many angels dancing on the head of the pin, coupled with a misunderstanding of Scripture.
> 
> During Jesus' ministry, homosexuality was not condoned. In fact, he would have been very familiar with the passage from Leviticus, _ If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them._
> 
> ...


Or maybe one with a rainbow flag so people will know who not to sell to. After all, it is the seller who should decide, right. The buyer has no right to purchase that which is freely offered to all, except those people, of course.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> Or maybe one with a rainbow flag so people will know who not to sell to. After all, it is the seller who should decide, right. The buyer has no right to purchase that which is freely offered to all, except those people, of course.


I have never changed my position on small businesses - A sole proprietor should be the deciding factor on what he sells, when he sells and who he sells to. Period, no ifs, ands or buts. Without that autonomy, he and the business cannot function well, and any law to the different is just flat wrong. 

A publicly owned corporation is different, because of the nature of ownership.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Or maybe one with a rainbow flag so people will know who not to sell to. After all, it is the seller who should decide, right. The buyer has no right to purchase that which is freely offered to all, except those people, of course.


Why do you insist on saying that? Why? You KNOW it is the celebration of marriage that is the objection. You KNOW it is not the fact that gays have been & will be served all over the country. Why do you insist on saying rainbow people will not be served? Are you baiting someone to accidentally fall into that trap?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> Why do you insist on saying that? Why? You KNOW it is the celebration of marriage that is the objection. You KNOW it is not the fact that gays have been & will be served all over the country. Why do you insist on saying rainbow people will not be served? Are you baiting someone to accidentally fall into that trap?


Once again you presume to know what I know. You have had difficulty yourself defining exactly what participation in a gay wedding entails. If that seemingly simple thing cannot be defined how does one like me know where the line in Christian participation in a gay marriage might fall. Does a Christian have to sell a house to a legally married gay couple or can he refuse because that one bedroom house leaves no doubt in his mind what will be happening there and he can't participate in such activities? Remember, each slippery slope has at least two paths to the bottom.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> I'll start out by saying I think the judgements are excessive and the gag order makes me more than uncomfortable.
> 
> Here are some cakes the bakery would do. http://www.wweek.com/portland/mobile/articles/articleView/id:20698/current_page: A nice pentagram cake for your coven, anyone?
> 
> The simplest way around the gag order and the best way for the bakers to ensure they will never, even inadvertently, be required to make a cake for a gay wedding is to figure out which religous denominations won't do gay weddings and advertise cakes only for those denominations. Saying who you will serves is nondiscriminatory. Saying you won't serve someone would violate the law.


That is a news agency trying to entrap these people into tripping up now that the govt has it's boot to their necks.

Go ahead and read it everyone. Read th final order too.I encourage you. That was as not journalism.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

gibbsgirl said:


> That is a news agency trying to entrap these people into tripping up now that the govt has it's boot to their necks.
> 
> Go ahead and read it everyone. Read th final order too.I encourage you. That was as not journalism.


Journalism or not, the bakery seemed amenable to baking a wide variety of cakes. I really don't care whether they accept or reject messages they are asked to put on cakes. It's their prerogative as long as they exercise it fairly. The question was asked about what they might be willing to put on a cake. The answer seems to be much.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> Journalism or not, the bakery seemed amenable to baking a wide variety of cakes. I really don't care whether they accept or reject messages they are asked to put on cakes. It's their prerogative as long as they exercise it fairly. The question was asked about what they might be willing to put on a cake. The answer seems to be much.


It may be true that they said those things now. But, it is not right to infer that those statements were from regular real customers, were actually made and purchased, or that any of it took place prior to the gay wedding cake incident, and therefore should be representative of some sign of hypocrisy on the part of the cake company people. That was my point.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

gibbsgirl said:


> It may be true that they said those things now. But, it is not right to infer that those statements were from regular real customers, were actually made and purchased, or that any of it took place prior to the gay wedding cake incident, and therefore should be representative of some sign of hypocrisy on the part of the cake company people. That was my point.


Hypocrisy isn't illegal. The Supreme Court even says you can pick and choose which parts of your religion you choose to practice. The bakery didn't seem all that concerned about what they might put on a cake. That's their right. They did seem very concerned about the sexual orientation of those they sold cakes to. That's a problem.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> Hypocrisy isn't illegal. The Supreme Court even says you can pick and choose which parts of your religion you choose to practice. The bakery didn't seem all that concerned about what they might put on a cake. That's their right. They did seem very concerned about the sexual orientation of those they sold cakes to. That's a problem.


Nah, what you are basing your whole argument on was a fishing expedition, one where we aren't sure who talked to who, or, if I know the current news media, wouldn't put it past a reporter to throw some lace around the story, since they couldn't be bothered to get the Biblical passages right, either.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> Does a Christian have to sell a house to a legally married gay couple or can he refuse because that one bedroom house leaves no doubt in his mind what will be happening there and he can't participate in such activities? Remember, each slippery slope has at least two paths to the bottom.


:bdh: That's the problem w/ federal involvement; while seeming to protect the rights of certain _groups_ of individuals, this type of legislation tends to deny the rights of individuals. So while some Christians' beliefs may not prohibit them from certain actions, there are other individuals whose beliefs and conscience would prevent them from participation.

If you remember, the Constitution was all about the individual, protecting _individual _rights. I don't remember the founders saying anything about group rights.

IMO, this issue isn't settled, not by a long shot. I imagine this particular law will eventually be overturned because, in this case, it's impossible to protect the rights of some w/o denying the rights of others.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Let's see... How long have Christians been practicing the Holy Writ of Matrimony [marriage]?
How long have God's people seen the Holy Writ of Matrimony as a Blessing from God upon a man and a woman that seeks His approval?

So here we have a person supposedly knowing this information and believing that his God looks favorably on this type of Marriage and unfavorably upon that type of marriage.

Now the Baker looks to God appreciatively for the Blessing of the skills that he uses from day to day. A person comes in and asks for the baker to use his skills in a fashion to where the Baker, in doing so, will anger God. The Baker is then punished, ostracized and then made as if silenced.

So now, has the Baker's rights been violated?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> So now, has the Baker's rights been violated?


Same answer as the last 100 times you asked:

No


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JJ Grandits said:


> as far as the gag order goes, I could possibly see it during the trial but afterwards? When did Oregon become a *liberal police State*? I guess all those open minded people can't handle idea's that disagree with them. Doesn't seem very open minded at all. Just a bunch of *Commie control freaks.*
> 
> when do they start* burning books*?


There's no need of all the rhetoric and melodrama when you can look for the real answers:
http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.409
in part:



> it is an unlawful practice for any person acting on behalf of any place of public accommodation as defined in ORS 659A.400 (Place of public accommodation defined) to publish, circulate, issue or display, or cause to be published, circulated, issued or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services or privileges of the place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination will be made against, any person on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.


It appears to have been the law for over a decade:


> [Formerly 659.037; *2003* c.521 Â§3; 2005 c.131 Â§2; 2007 c.100 Â§7]


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Once again you presume to know what I know. You have had difficulty yourself defining exactly what participation in a gay wedding entails. If that seemingly simple thing cannot be defined how does one like me know where the line in Christian participation in a gay marriage might fall. Does a Christian have to sell a house to a legally married gay couple or can he refuse because that one bedroom house leaves no doubt in his mind what will be happening there and he can't participate in such activities? Remember, each slippery slope has at least two paths to the bottom.


Is it participating in the wedding ceremony?

And I apologize for thinking you'd read this b/4...NO ONE should have to provide a service for something that goes against their religious beliefs. NO ONE should be allowed to refuse their ordinary services-this is why the florist, f.i., supplied flowers to gay couples but when it came to the wedding...would not provide the service.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Hypocrisy isn't illegal. The Supreme Court even says you can pick and choose which parts of your religion you choose to practice. The bakery didn't seem all that concerned about what they might put on a cake. That's their right. They did seem very concerned about the sexual orientation of those they sold cakes to. That's a problem.


Not so. Is this not the one who'd sold cakes to gays b/4? Isn't the whole point that the baker did not want his cake at a gay wedding?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> Is it participating in the wedding ceremony?


No, it's not, since once it leaves their shop it's no longer theirs to control.

The cake isn't part of the ceremony at all

It's for the reception party afterwards



> Isn't the whole point that the baker did not want his cake at a gay wedding?


The whole point is it doesn't matter what he "wants" if it means he discriminates based on sex


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Shine said:


> Let's see... How long have Christians been practicing the Holy Writ of Matrimony [marriage]?
> How long have God's people seen the Holy Writ of Matrimony as a Blessing from God upon a man and a woman that seeks His approval?
> 
> So here we have a person supposedly knowing this information and believing that his God looks favorably on this type of Marriage and unfavorably upon that type of marriage.
> ...


Well of course not, silly girl. Christians have no right to believe what they believe and gays have every right to demand what they want when they want it & how. I'm surprised at you.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> Is it participating in the wedding ceremony?


Perhaps things are done differently in different regions but in Canada, I've never seen a cake participate or featured in a wedding ceremony. Typically, they are part of the reception following but up until last week, I'd never heard of wedding invitations being sent to only one of a married couple so I sure don't profess to know everything.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Jolly said:


> I agree, the thread is trashed, so I think I'll post the link in the original thread (but I fear it may be lost amid the artillery barrage).


I think I saw it as the pages flew by! This place is crazy sometimes.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If they are out of business they can say anything they want, as long as they don't say they will discriminate
> 
> No matter what you think, a business can't say they will refuse to serve gays in Oregon
> 
> ...


And you really have no problem with them curtailing their freedom of speech in that way?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

If business owners choose to serve God rather than man and have to close their businesses, can they sue the govt for harm, for effectively putting them out of business?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

wr said:


> Perhaps things are done differently in different regions but in Canada, I've never seen a cake participate or featured in a wedding ceremony. Typically, they are part of the reception following but up until last week, I'd never heard of wedding invitations being sent to only one of a married couple so I sure don't profess to know everything.


I'm sorry, meant to say "wedding celebration".


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Some stuff for y'all to ponder. I thought the SCOTUS had said something about religious liberty after the ruling.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...lowed-to-refuse-wedding-cakes-to-gays/284061/

https://www.insidehighered.com/news...rriage-challenge-or-change-christian-colleges
The decision itself expressed support for the religious liberty and free speech rights of those who oppose same-sex marriage. But the decision does not speak directly to the question of colleges' tax exemptions, and a dissent suggests that religious organizations could be challenged.

In the majority decision, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote: "Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered."


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

wr said:


> Perhaps things are done differently in different regions but in Canada, I've never seen a cake participate or featured in a wedding ceremony. Typically, they are part of the reception following but up until last week, I'd never heard of wedding invitations being sent to only one of a married couple so I sure don't profess to know everything.




Great then if there is no cake it should be no problem....do homosexuals need a cake to be married?

Oh...
Let's look at the damage claims when... a cake that iss " not needed " for a wedding is not supplied by Christian bakers.... someone has already posted the homosexuals stated complications and the pain and suffering... weight loss..days of worked etc for quite a long list......seems like to someone felt the ....what is it called....oh reception cake...NO we have all labeled it -- called a wedding cake.

Now ..... I sense a wordsmith game is being attempted.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> And you really have no problem with them curtailing their freedom of speech in that way?


They aren't curtailing their "free speech".

They cannot violate Oregon law by making certain statements.

They are free to say anything they want *other than* they will discriminate against gays (among others) in their business dealings

http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.409


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> During Jesus' ministry, homosexuality was not condoned. In fact, he would have been very familiar with the passage from Leviticus, If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
> 
> That's pretty straight forward.


Then that seems to confirm this, since the scriptures are not talking about "marriage" but rather homosexuality alone, although it was insinuated that it was incorrect:



> I found it interesting to read another part of that order. It cited testimony where the husband said, when asked by the mother of one of the women why, he said that his faith and understanding of God's word was that gay marriage was an abomination in the eyes of God and cited some scriptures. The mother left and went back out to the car where her daughter was waiting.
> 
> She told her daughter, *he said my children are an abomination.* (Both her kids are gay.). Her daughter became even more hysterical at that point. The man said her felt the marriage was an abomination, not her children were an abomination


The man may have said "marriage" but I'd bet the scriptures he quoted didn't


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no need of all the rhetoric and melodrama when you can look for the real answers:
> http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.409
> in part:
> 
> ...


How about the section of the first amendment relating to the free exercise of religion?
It appears to have been the law for over 200 years.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JJ Grandits said:


> How about the section of the first amendment relating to the free exercise of religion?
> It appears to have been the law for over 200 years.


They are free to exercise their religion outside of their business.

They are not free to refuse to sell to those who don't happen to follow their religion

Baking a cake has nothing to do with religion


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They are free to exercise their religion outside of their business.
> 
> They are not free to refuse to sell to those who don't happen to follow their religion
> 
> Baking a cake has nothing to do with religion


Really? Got links for that?

Read this again, c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...o-gays/284061/

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/...stian-colleges

The decision itself expressed support for the religious liberty and free speech rights of those who oppose same-sex marriage. But the decision does not speak directly to the question of colleges' tax exemptions, and a dissent suggests that religious organizations could be challenged.

In the majority decision, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote: "Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered."

Oh, & what about the 10 or so gay bakeries that won't bake straight cakes? Will they be sued? Somehow I don't think so.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> Really? Got links for that?
> 
> Read this again, c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y.
> 
> ...


Please post links to the stories of the gay bakerie's refusals. All that I have found, so far, involve the bakery refusing to put an anti gay messagage on a cake, something well within their right. If you can show me the one that refused to sell a cake for a heterosexual couple before the design was discussed we can compare.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They are free to exercise their religion *outside of their business.*


Wait....your copy of the Constitution must be different than mine because mine does NOT say that.

_Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, *or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. _

Ironically, the 14th amendment, in this instance, fails to grant equal protection of 1st amendment rights.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Txsteader said:


> Wait....your copy of the Constitution must be different than mine because mine does NOT say that.
> 
> _Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, *or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. _
> 
> Ironically, the 14th amendment, in this instance, fails to grant equal protection of 1st amendment rights.


But that right doesn't supersede other rights or grant one immunity from breaking laws. It does prevent government from enacting laws directed at a religion. A law requiring businesses which act as public accomodations to accomodÃ te the public targets no religion. It targets those practicing discrimination, no matter the reason. A law that says one cannot advertise an illegal activity targets no religion. It targets those advertising an illegal activity.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Please post links to the stories of the gay bakerie's refusals. All that I have found, so far, involve the bakery refusing to put an anti gay messagage on a cake, something well within their right. If you can show me the one that refused to sell a cake for a heterosexual couple before the design was discussed we can compare.


I've saved that in my PC & I'm on iPad now...will post ASAP. Very easy to find, again.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They aren't curtailing their "free speech".
> 
> They cannot violate Oregon law by making certain statements.
> 
> ...


Wait, thought states could not make laws that take away rights?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> Wait....your copy of the Constitution must be different than mine because mine does NOT say that.
> 
> _Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, *or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. _
> 
> Ironically, the 14th amendment, in this instance, fails to grant equal protection of 1st amendment rights.


They are free to "exercise their religion"

They just can't do it in their* business* dealings

They are not free to violate the law by discrimination


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> Wait, thought states could not make laws that *take away rights*?


They have no right to discriminate
Nothing has been "taken away"

"Free speech" doesn't give you the right to communicate threats


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> If business *owners choose *to serve God rather than man and have to close their businesses, can they sue the govt for harm, for effectively putting them out of business?


Of course they can's sue.
They make the choice.
They know the laws before starting the business


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> Really? Got links for that?
> 
> Read this again, c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y.
> 
> ...


You've posted the same thing in countless threads over the last few days

I suggest you look up "advocate" if you think that somehow gives them the right to refuse service to anyone based on sex

What's stopping you from suing the "gay bakeries", (other than you know you have no case)?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

I've got something that trumps SC decisions for me...

Romans 1
*26* Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 
*27* In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.  
*28* Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 

*** and ***

Psalms 37

12 The wicked plotteth against the just, and gnasheth upon him with his teeth.
13 The Lord shall laugh at him: for he seeth that his day is coming.


It is *AS IF* this type of thing was foreseen...

...and that's not pretending. lol


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> Wait....your copy of the Constitution must be different than mine because mine does NOT say that.
> 
> _Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, *or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. _
> 
> Ironically, the 14th amendment, in this instance, fails to grant equal protection of 1st amendment rights.


No, the problem is you mistakenly think the 1st gives you the right to force your religion on others.

They can still do or say anything LEGAL they like on their own time.

They can't bring it to work and force the public to follow the same religious rules


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> I've got something that trumps SC decisions for me...
> 
> Romans 1
> *26* Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
> ...


That's all fine *for you.
*

You can't force it on anyone else any more than you'd let a Muslim force you to wear a Burka.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They have no right to discriminate
> Nothing has been "taken away"
> 
> "Free speech" doesn't give you the right to communicate threats


I got that case mixed up w/another...did not know this one was about a threatening situation.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You've posted the same thing in countless threads over the last few days
> 
> I suggest you look up "advocate" if you think that somehow gives them the right to refuse service to anyone based on sex
> 
> What's stopping you from suing the "gay bakeries", (other than you know you have no case)?


And the next sentence speaks to persons, says nada about advocating, does it.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, the problem is you mistakenly think the 1st gives you the right to force your religion on others.
> 
> They can still do or say anything LEGAL they like on their own time.
> 
> They can't bring it to work and force the public to follow the same religious rules


There's the false statement that someone is forcing religion on another. Tell us how refusing to participate does that? 
You're back to the losing hobby lobby argument. The ACTION is that of the gay...the non action is a PROTECTED by the 1st Amendment, person. The protected person doesn't even have to pray in front of the other person.

What give you the idea I'd want to sue a gay bakery?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> And the next sentence speaks to persons, says nada about advocating, does it.


The "those who adhere" in the first sentence are "persons"



> I got that case mixed up w/another...did not know this one was about a threatening situation.


They cannot *threaten* to refuse services:



> it is an *unlawful* practice for any person acting on behalf of any place of public accommodation as defined in ORS 659A.400 (Place of public accommodation defined) to publish, circulate, issue or display, or cause to be published, circulated, issued or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services or privileges of the place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination will be made against, any person on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older





> What give you the idea I'd want to sue a gay bakery?


Your own comments.

You seemed to be complaining that they wouldn't be sued



> Oh, & what about the 10 or so gay bakeries that won't bake straight cakes? Will they be sued? Somehow I don't think so.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

[

Your own comments.

You seemed to be complaining that they wouldn't be sued[/QUOTE]

Where was that? Where I mentioned that I'd seen a link where gay bakeries refused to do strait cakes? Did not say I wanted to sue...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> [
> 
> Your own comments.
> 
> You seemed to be complaining that they wouldn't be sued





> Where was that? Where I mentioned that I'd seen a link where gay bakeries refused to do strait cakes? Did not say I wanted to sue...


Scroll back one page and you'll find it
If you didn't think they should be sued, it seems pointless to mention it at all, and especially in the way in which it was worded


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

The Power of the Word.

Romans 1 again:

20 Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; 21 for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools; 23 and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

http://conservativebyte.com/2015/04...ge-cake-and-is-denied-service-by-all-of-them/


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> http://conservativebyte.com/2015/04...ge-cake-and-is-denied-service-by-all-of-them/


They refused to write an anti-gay message on the cakes

That's not a very "Christian" thing to ask them to do.

Walid Shoebat isn't a great role model, and few consider him to be a credible source, but don't take my word for it:

http://christianitybeliefs.org/end-times-deceptions/false-prophets/walid-shoebat-is-a-fraud/


> Walid Shoebat Is A Fraud - End Time Deceptions
> christianitybeliefs.org/.../false-prophets/walid-shoebat-is-a-fraud
> *Walid Shoebat is a fraud*, a wolf in the church, who is being used to deceive Christians. This report in no way supports the actions of radical Muslims


.

Did you also notice most of the comments on your link called for suing the gay bakeries?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They aren't curtailing their "free speech".
> 
> They cannot violate Oregon law by making certain statements.
> 
> ...


If they make a law that you can not say something then they are infringing on your freedom of speech. That is as simple as simple comes. I am starting to think you have a dictionary where words mean vastly different things than they do to the rest of us.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They have no right to discriminate
> Nothing has been "taken away"
> 
> "Free speech" doesn't give you the right to communicate threats


They aren't communicating threats. They are stating that they believe that their business should be able to refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding. I have a feeling if they push this up the line in a lawsuit they will win especially on the freedom of speech issue.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> If they make a law that you can not say something then they are infringing on your freedom of speech. That is as simple as simple comes. I am starting to think you have a dictionary where words mean vastly different things than they do to the rest of us.


They can still say they "don't think they *should* have to serve gays"

They cannot say "*we will not *serve gays"

I'm starting to think you haven't read the ordinance I've posted at least twice now



> *They aren't communicating threats.* They are stating *that they believe *that their business *should be* able to refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding. I have a feeling if they push this up the line in a lawsuit they will win especially on the freedom of speech issue.


According to the law they are "threatening", since they are not just "stating what they believe" but rather what *action* they will take.

http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.409

These words mean the same in all dictionaries:



> it is an *unlawful *practice for any person acting on behalf of any place of public accommodation as defined in ORS 659A.400 (Place of public accommodation defined) to publish, circulate, *issue* or display, or cause to be published, circulated, issued or displayed, any *communication*, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services or privileges of the place of public accommodation *will be *refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination *will be* made against, any person on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.


They are still free to say they don't think it's right
They are NOT free to say they will take actions that discriminate


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Pro &#8211; &#8220;Gay&#8221; Bakeries Refuse to Make Marriage Cake for Christian Written By Laurie Higgins | 12.15.14 17PRINT
&#8220;Progressives&#8221; who seek to impose their sexuality ideology on all of America are becoming ever more brazen in their efforts, which include even arrogant and incoherent demands that homosexuals have the &#8220;right&#8221; to engage in religious discrimination. If you don&#8217;t believe that, watch this video in which Theodore Shoebat, a Christian, calls 13 homosexuality-affirming bakeries to ask if they would provide a cake that says &#8220;Gay Marriage is Wrong&#8221; for a pro-traditional marriage event:

***Warning: Video Contains Vulgar Language***

I am not attaching the audio or video due to the language choices of the gay bakeries reply to potential customer seeking a pro heterosexual teamed cake.


A lot of anger was also expressed by the bakers.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Well now, we've had an interesting month this year.

The SCOTUS, who are supposed to read and know the Constitution reversed all precedents and rescinded the 10th amendment.
In two consecutive rulings, they changed the definition of words that most of us have no doubt, the rest of us believe were defined correctly.
The words "state" and "marriage".

We also had terrible mass murder by a deranged individual in SC that in the gov't's mind, was caused by a piece of red, white and blue cloth.
By the end of the week that flag will be down forever.

Furthermore, on this thread, we find the unacceptable position of the state gov't, condoned by some here, that you can't even speak your mind publicly if it goes against gov't mandated beliefs.

All righty then.
I've alraedy stated that when this crowd starts moving they won't stop. The promise they made not to force churches to perform gay marriages is the first one they will break. They just want to see how strong the opposition's resolve is, and how far they can push it.
It's gone as far as stating it is a "threat" if you say you won't bake a cake for a gay wedding and fine and close your business down for saying it.
OK.

Let me tell y'all a little something that you probably still won't understand.
We've got a charge in NC on the books for "communicating a threat". I have no idea what that is, because I've made a few promises in my life and kept them, but I've never made a threat. I guess that falls under the category of, "That's your interpretation, not mine". So be it.
If you come in my yard, walking towards me and yelling, I *promise* you will go to the hospital missing some teeth.
Call it a threat, call it a ham sandwich, but I call it a promise. The end result will depend on you, not me.

I could go on and on, but here's my point and the simple solution I offer to those living under a tyrannical gov't issuing gag orders on an inalienable, God given right.

Don't say a word.
Put a Rebel flag in your storefront window and tell the bullies to kiss your behind.
Let THEM figure out what you think and what promises you've made.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> http://conservativebyte.com/2015/04...ge-cake-and-is-denied-service-by-all-of-them/


Strike one. I asked for the case where the bakery turned down the request before design was discussed. The bakery that turned away potential customers based on their sexuality. The case where a heterosexual couple was told they couldn't buy the exact same cake a gay couple could. See, I agree that no bakery should be forced to put a message on a cake or a design on a cake they find offensive. But if buttercream flowers don't offend you when you put them on Robert and Sally's cake they shouldn't offend you if Bobbi and Sally ask for the same flowers. 

You said you had ten examples. Nine more chances.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

I don't care what comments were on the site. Do they reflect YOUR views? Project on someone else. 

I STILL don't have a link from you about taking away this country's 1st amendment rights...NO ONE should be required to provide a service that goes against their religious beliefs.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> If they make a law that you can not say something then they are infringing on your freedom of speech. That is as simple as simple comes. I am starting to think you have a dictionary where words mean vastly different things than they do to the rest of us.


Post of the day award.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Strike one. I asked for the case where the bakery turned down the request before design was discussed. The bakery that turned away potential customers based on their sexuality. The case where a heterosexual couple was told they couldn't buy the exact same cake a gay couple could. See, I agree that no bakery should be forced to put a message on a cake or a design on a cake they find offensive. But if buttercream flowers don't offend you when you put them on Robert and Sally's cake they shouldn't offend you if Bobbi and Sally ask for the same flowers.
> 
> You said you had ten examples. Nine more chances.


If you are going to tailor your request for something thats just fine. But for me to have accidentally found a link, MENTION it as an aside, & post it after requests-MY ONLY statement was they REFUSED to BAKE a cake-so now? You go find what ever you want.

More SPECIFICALLY, go find some links that say our 1st amendment rights to freedom of religion do NOT apply if we're in biz. Go find where it SPECIFICALLY says anyone has a RIGHT to a cake for a gay wedding. Go find other SCOTUS rulings/quotes that explain this!
I've given a quote that Kennedy put out for CLARIFICATION that says no PERSON will have to give up religious beliefs.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Patchouli said:


> If they make a law that you can not say something then they are infringing on your freedom of speech. That is as simple as simple comes. I am starting to think you have a dictionary where words mean vastly different things than they do to the rest of us.


There are many laws that will get you punished for saying something. Call me on my phone and threaten to blow up my house or shoot my children. Legal or illegal. A gentleman here in wisconsin is currently under arrest for vaguely threatening to kill the president in front of a LEO. I can't lie about the goods or services I sell and misrepresent them as something they're not without risking a fraud charge. There are many ways to speak freely and still break the law.

I think this case walks a fine line. Advertising that you'll break the law is different than breaking the law. I think the law and the judge overreach.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> Really? Got links for that?
> 
> Read this again, c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y.
> 
> ...


In a different thread you stated that there was no such thing as a gay cake. If no cake is gay how can one be straight.

You can twist your own words however you wish. Your words imply some equivalency between the cases you linked to and the cases under discussion. There is no equivalency. Not baking a cake with a specific offensive message is and should be the bakers right. Not baking a cake because the couple requesting it doesn't meet your approval is wrong when you presume to offer cakes to all.

I was quite clear in my request for links. You accepted the challenge and fell short. You could have simply stated you couldn't find a case that met my criteria rather than trying to bend words to make yourself right. I would have walked away from the question as a negative answer is an acceptable answer.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> But that right doesn't supersede other rights or grant one immunity from breaking laws. It does prevent government from *enacting laws directed at a religion*.


Why can't y'all see? That's exactly what the government has done; it has prevented these business owners from exercising their beliefs!!!! 

Where are their rights? How is it that the anti-discrimination law can *supersede *others' 1st Amendment rights??????


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, the problem is you mistakenly think the 1st gives you the right to force your religion on others.
> 
> They can still do or say anything LEGAL they like *on their own time*.
> 
> They can't bring it to work and force the public to follow the same religious rules


Are you kidding me?????

So Constitutional rights have time/space restrictions & limitations? 

Again, show me where it says that in the Constitution!


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

JJ Grandits said:


> I'm an exotic dancer.



What sorts of exotic dances ? I've danced the wh-aodom-it-shot.
And I'm pretty good with the pea-pea dance.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They cannot refuse any services legally, regardless of anything you think they said
> 
> There's no way of proving what they "did not say"



So the can't refuse to do a liver transplant ?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Txsteader said:


> Why can't y'all see? That's exactly what the government has done; it has prevented these business owners from exercising their beliefs!!!!
> 
> Where are their rights? How is it that the anti-discrimination law can *supersede *others' 1st Amendment rights??????


What right has been superceded? The owners are free to do what they wish. They are also free to pay the price for that action. No law requires they bake and sell cakes of any kind. No law says they must attend a wedding between gay people. The law only requires that if they open their business to the public they accomodate the public. The law is religously neutral. Why should the garden variety homophobe not be allowed to discriminate but the good Christian can? 

What other laws can the religous break with impunity? There are many religous justifications that might allow one person to kill another. Can I claim a religous exemption even for that? Why not. The 1st Amendment guarantees my right to practice my religion does it not?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

And I thought my vision was bad.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> And I thought my vision was bad.


I wouldn't say yours is bad, just selective. It sometimes sees lies where there are none. It sometimes allows you to see violations of rights where none exist. It seems very keen when used to judge others, somewhat dimmer when turned inward. 

Now maybe you can use that laser focus to explain what limits, if any, might be allowed on the free practice of religion and why, or why not.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> In a different thread you stated that there was no such thing as a gay cake. If no cake is gay how can one be straight.
> 
> You can twist your own words however you wish. Your words imply some equivalency between the cases you linked to and the cases under discussion. There is no equivalency. Not baking a cake with a specific offensive message is and should be the bakers right. Not baking a cake because the couple requesting it doesn't meet your approval is wrong when you presume to offer cakes to all.
> 
> I was quite clear in my request for links. You accepted the challenge and fell short. You could have simply stated you couldn't find a case that met my criteria rather than trying to bend words to make yourself right. I would have walked away from the question as a negative answer is an acceptable answer.


You can request anything you wish all day long. I have NO obligation to do your bidding. 
I mentioned a link I saw-didn't even open the link btw-I said NOTHING about what was written on the cake-only that the link was about gay bakeries refusing to bake straight cakes. So you can ask for anything, I never promised you a rose garden. 
Twist my words anyway you want. My words imply nothing about equivilency- NOTHING at all.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> Why can't y'all see? That's exactly what the government has done; it has prevented these business owners from exercising their beliefs!!!!
> 
> Where are their rights? How is it that the anti-discrimination law can *supersede *others' 1st Amendment rights??????


Post of the day award.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> You can request anything you wish all day long. I have NO obligation to do your bidding.
> I mentioned a link I saw-didn't even open the link btw-I said NOTHING about what was written on the cake-only that the link was about gay bakeries refusing to bake straight cakes. So you can ask for anything, I never promised you a rose garden.
> Twist my words anyway you want. My words imply nothing about equivilency- NOTHING at all.


Whatever let's you sleep at night.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> I wouldn't say yours is bad, just selective. It sometimes sees lies where there are none. It sometimes allows you to see violations of rights where none exist. It seems very keen when used to judge others, somewhat dimmer when turned inward.
> 
> Now maybe you can use that laser focus to explain what limits, if any, might be allowed on the free practice of religion and why, or why not.


I see we are back to the great country of ours being formed on the basis of Judea-Christian values.

Some would like, however, for those to be rescinded and Islamic values take precedent.
It is why we are founded on Judeo-Christian values. NOT any other that CLAIMS to be a religion but is a theocratic political group heck bent on destroying OUR country & us, replacing it w/Islamic sharia law.

It IS those Judeo-Christian values that allow this country to follow most of the 10 Commandments, like 'Thou Shalt NOT Murder".

There have been many posts here describing the 1st amendment. Anyone unclear on the concept should take a course on the Constitution of the United States. 

I certainly am no scholar or teacher. Since so many here cannot fathom what they've been told "HUNDREDS" of times about the Constitution, IMHO, a course of study would be in order.

NO ONE should have to perform a service that is against their religion.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> I see we are back to the great country of ours being formed on the basis of Judea-Christian values.
> 
> Some would like, however, for those to be rescinded and Islamic values take precedent.
> It is why we are founded on Judeo-Christian values. NOT any other that CLAIMS to be a religion but is a theocratic political group heck bent on destroying OUR country & us, replacing it w/Islamic sharia law.
> ...


Yep, we're back to false premises.

What law forces these bakers to offer wedding cakes for sale? What law forces them to open their business to the public. What law forces them to do anything they don't wish to do? Is the athiest homophobe subject to different laws than you? Wouldn't that violate the Constitution you seem to hold so dear.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Words are being twisted around and around here, there is no sense in continuing, people here are just fine denying one side or the other "rights". 

Let's all just agree to disagree and move on, OK?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> I wouldn't say yours is bad, just selective. It sometimes sees lies where there are none. It sometimes allows you to see violations of rights where none exist. It seems very keen when used to judge others, somewhat dimmer when turned inward.
> 
> Now maybe you can use that laser focus to explain what limits, if any, might be allowed on the free practice of religion and why, or why not.


I understand, everyone is allowed, to freely practice their faith, I feel that rights end when they harm......NOT OFFEND other.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

The founding fathers disagreed with each other and got offended and angry with each other..... YET, as much as they battled amongst themselves they could see a government of the people and by the people would require that fuTURE generations would also have to DEAL with being OFFENED just as much as they had to too.

It is why Franklin ..... I give you a republic.... for as long as you can keep it.

Me me people can't deal with being offended. Quite sad..... for rising above an offence was how many people in history earn honor in the eyes of their fellow man.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

I wonder if they need a wedding cake for the gay couple getting married down at the local mosque? :shrug:


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> Yep, we're back to false premises.
> 
> What law forces these bakers to offer wedding cakes for sale? What law forces them to open their business to the public.


Um, it's what they were doing before the law was passed.......even so far back as when *Obama was a bigot!* and claimed to support the traditional definition of marriage = 1 man + 1 woman.

Not only was he a bigot but he was/is a liar, too. Magnificent world leader, that one.

:umno:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> Are you kidding me?????
> 
> So Constitutional rights have time/space restrictions & limitations?
> 
> Again, show me where it says that in the Constitution!


There have always been restrictions on "free speech"
Don't be obtuse


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> NO ONE should have to perform a service that is against their religion.


*Baking a cake* isn't against their religion, and that is all they were asked to do


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> and i thought my vision was bad.


did not someone ask for proof that there is a double standard 


thought someone needed proof of non gays get declined a cake.




kasilofhome said:


> pro &#8211; &#8220;gay&#8221; bakeries refuse to make marriage cake for christian written by laurie higgins | 12.15.14 17print
> &#8220;progressives&#8221; who seek to impose their sexuality ideology on all of america are becoming ever more brazen in their efforts, which include even arrogant and incoherent demands that homosexuals have the &#8220;right&#8221; to engage in religious discrimination. If you don&#8217;t believe that, watch this video in which theodore shoebat, a christian, calls 13 homosexuality-affirming bakeries to ask if they would provide a cake that says &#8220;gay marriage is wrong&#8221; for a pro-traditional marriage event:
> 
> ***warning: Video contains vulgar language***
> ...


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> Yep, we're back to false premises.
> 
> What law forces these bakers to offer wedding cakes for sale? What law forces them to open their business to the public. What law forces them to do anything they don't wish to do? Is the athiest homophobe subject to different laws than you? Wouldn't that violate the Constitution you seem to hold so dear.


I was about to answer this in the way that has become the spearpoint of the issue - being open to the public.
The law that forces them to do this is the occupational license that governments require, in order for them to do business, employ people and put food on the table.

But I forgot about something that I encountered frequently quite a few years ago in western NC.
Due to many factors, including "dry" counties, there were numerous private clubs where you could enjoy an adult beverage and even do it after hours, because "public" laws did not apply at all.
You bought a membership at the door for a dollar or two, signed in, and voila!
"I'm a member of the country club........ " :sing:

Maybe the solution to keeping the gov't out of your business is a whole lot easier than everyone is making it out to be.
:thumb:



BTW, I'm sure I'm not the only one who was aware of this legal loophole, but I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned in the midst of all this circular debate, stating and restating the same statutes and laws ad nauseam.
My excuse is, sometimes I'm lucky if I remember my address before I get home, lol.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

did you live in Kansas?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Kansas?
:umno:
That, I probably would have remembered, lol.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> I was about to answer this in the way that has become the spearpoint of the issue - being open to the public.
> The law that forces them to do this is the occupational license that governments require, in order for them to do business, employ people and put food on the table.
> 
> But I forgot about something that I encountered frequently quite a few years ago in western NC.
> ...


I've pointed to private clubs and various other ways of legally discriminating more than once in these discussions. Somehow I've never gotten a like from the other side. Congrats.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> did not someone ask for proof that there is a double standard
> 
> 
> thought someone needed proof of non gays get declined a cake.


What's the double standard? Most seem to agree that a message on a cake that the baker finds offensive is a valid reason for turning away a customer. You have argued at great length to extend this to any "custom" work even if that work is identical to other cakes done. These bakers turned way the caller not because the caller wasn't gay, but because they found the requested message offensive. It's a very different scenario than bakers turning away customers only based on their sexuality before any message or design was discussed.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> I've pointed to private clubs and various other ways of legally discriminating more than once in these discussions. Somehow I've never gotten a like from the other side. Congrats.



I must have missed it, or didn't link it how to incorporate it into the business model on a widespread basis.........but you're right, there were a few suggestions about requiring memberships in churches or other places as a possible safeguard against government overreach.
It's not a common thing to see anymore in a mainstream retail or service business and especially for the small Mom & Pop shops that want to protect themselves, it wouldn't be difficult to do at all.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

I *did* find it on a thread you started though, post #4......

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/sp...-chat/535283-want-discriminate-post-sign.html


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There have always been restrictions on "free speech"
> Don't be obtuse


Back at ya.

You actually believe that your Constitutional rights only apply when you're 'off the clock'? 

That's really sad.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> I must have missed it, or didn't link it how to incorporate it into the business model on a widespread basis.........but you're right, there were a few suggestions about requiring memberships in churches or other places as a possible safeguard against government overreach.
> It's not a common thing to see anymore in a mainstream retail or service business and especially for the small Mom & Pop shops that want to protect themselves, it wouldn't be difficult to do at all.


I wasn't really looking for validation or praise. Maybe now that the idea is yours it will have some credibility.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> I wasn't really looking for validation or praise. Maybe now that the idea is yours it will have some credibility.


Huh uh.
That idea pre-dates all of us, and while I take no credit, I don't want you to feel ignored due to bias. I was actually trying to prod some of the objectors to these lawsuits into becoming smarter and more proactive in how to legally muster a defense, instead of playing the victim, so to speak.
It's called being wiser than the Serpent, necessary in this Age.

Even more curious is I didn't notice it mentioned by the 9 esteemed legal scholars on our Nation's Court.
I think they sometimes like to play dumb to see if we can figure it out ourselves, lol.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> There are many laws that will get you punished for saying something. Call me on my phone and threaten to blow up my house or shoot my children. Legal or illegal. A gentleman here in wisconsin is currently under arrest for vaguely threatening to kill the president in front of a LEO. I can't lie about the goods or services I sell and misrepresent them as something they're not without risking a fraud charge. There are many ways to speak freely and still break the law.
> 
> I think this case walks a fine line. Advertising that you'll break the law is different than breaking the law. I think the law and the judge overreach.


I have a real problem with the extent to which they have taken "terroristic threats" to since 9/11. You can say whatever you want even threaten bodily harm to people and you should not be arrested for it. Speech should never be a crime. 

Fraud is a crime because you lied. You promised a certain good or service in exchange for money and then failed to provide it. So technically your speech isn't your crime it's your failure to fulfill a contract. 

I agree on your last point. Saying if I ever have another bakery I still would refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding should not be against the law and it is not a threat to anyone. It's just a statement of your belief.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> Back at ya.
> 
> You actually *believe *that your Constitutional rights only apply when you're 'off the clock'?
> 
> That's really sad.


You're confusing "belief" with the law.
There is no Constitutional right to discriminate, and "freedom of speech" doesn't mean "anything, anytime"


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're confusing "belief" with the law.
> There is no Constitutional right to discriminate, and "freedom of speech" doesn't mean "anything, anytime"


I'm not real sure we even pay much more than lip service to the Constitution, nowadays.

We certainly don't use it anything like it was written to be...


----------

