decision is in, Gay marriage now legal

http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/06/s...ok&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thffacebook

Daily Signal counters the Slate article and provides evidence that the judge did issue gag order preventing Kleins from talking about their beliefs.

NationalTitles15 said:

Man, rehabilitation to accept the official government sanctioned view. Scary stuff.

Click to expand...

They live in a liberal state that has a BOL commisioner that is a LGBT activist. While he is married to a woman he did say this in 2013...

"The goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate."
​

Click to expand...

With that in mind, Sweet Cakes needed to either find a settlement with the lesbian couple or directly challenge the Oregon State Law as unconstitutional. But then again why cause all this stress fully knowing where the state of Oregon is going to lean, then knowing the appeal is going to have to go to the 9th district court in San Fransico. So their only route is to DC, but remember DC ruled 5-4 on the legalization of gay marriage. So why fight a fight that you didnt have to?

81usaf92 said:

They live in a liberal state that has a BOL commisioner that is a LGBT activist. While he is married to a woman he did say this in 2013...


With that in mind, Sweet Cakes needed to either find a settlement with the lesbian couple or directly challenge the Oregon State Law as unconstitutional. But then again why cause all this stress fully knowing where the state of Oregon is going to lean, then knowing the appeal is going to have to go to the 9th district court in San Fransico. So their only route is to DC, but remember DC ruled 5-4 on the legalization of gay marriage. So why fight a fight that you didnt have to?

Click to expand...

Oh, I don't know...conscience? And having the right not just to think it but to follow it as well. Naively, they probably believed in the idea of America - freedom.

I suspected their penalty for violating the "gag order" was exactly what happened.

Here is what I would advise them to do. I would suggest they print a sign with the following wording and hang it in their bakery.

We are a Christian business and as such we believe gay marriage to be sinful and against the teachings of God. However, we will follow state and federal law and bake a cake in celebration of a gay wedding even though we find such a union disgraceful.

Crimson1967 said:

I suspected their penalty for violating the "gag order" was exactly what happened.

Here is what I would advise them to do. I would suggest they print a sign with the following wording and hang it in their bakery.

We are a Christian business and as such we believe gay marriage to be sinful and against the teachings of God. However, we will follow state and federal law and bake a cake in celebration of a gay wedding even though we find such a union disgraceful.

Click to expand...

Had they taken the Chick fila stance they wouldnt be facing a 135k lawsuit because there would be nothing to go on. Instead they are facing years of court apperances to fight an uphill battle. Honestly their best option is to go to the SCOTUS because Oregon has made their opinion known and San Fransico is the gay capitol of the US so really what hope do they have? At least 5-4 it isnt all that hard to possibly swing one justice from Ginsberg's side.

Crimson1967 said:

I suspected their penalty for violating the "gag order" was exactly what happened.

Here is what I would advise them to do. I would suggest they print a sign with the following wording and hang it in their bakery.

We are a Christian business and as such we believe gay marriage to be sinful and against the teachings of God. However, we will follow state and federal law and bake a cake in celebration of a gay wedding even though we find such a union disgraceful.

Click to expand...

They could even add something to the effect of: "Know that we will bless your cake in the hopes that God will cure you of your perverse desires." Surely the couples will then know that the bakers care deeply for their souls.

I have been thinking a lot about this and have come to a realization, that this case came down to status versus action. If the gay couple had come in and said, "We would like you to bake a cake for my nephew's birthday," the bakers would have baked it without questions.
It appears to me that the baker's did not object to the gay couple because they were gay, but because the customers were asking the baker to endorse homosexual conduct.
I realize in the post-Sexual Revolution America, and the definition of "good" is, in many minds, "whatever feels good." The objection the bakers had, however, was not to homosexuals (the bakers would probably admit that all are sinners, themselves included) but homosexual conduct. Many would argue that engaging in homosexual conduct is what homosexuals do. They were born that way, it is their nature, so it is closed-minded and bigoted to object. But the objection, (speaking for the bakers here, I do not know if they advanced this argument), was not to homosexuals per se, but to endorsement of the conduct and the only way the bakers knew of the conduct was through the medium of a weddingcake (it being a reasonable implication that the married couple is, with the social sanction of marriage, going to then engage in homosexual conduct. The cake was part of that social sanction). The couple wanted the bakers to take part in the endorsement, and the bakers, holding religious convictions, felt they could not do that. This declining to endorse is one of fairly long societal standing.
I realize that his will change exactly zero minds on the subject and I do not type this out of hatred for anybody. It just occurred to me as I thought about the issue this week or so.

Tidewater said:

I have been thinking a lot about this and have come to a realization, that this case came down to status versus action. If the gay couple had come in and said, "We would like you to bake a cake for my nephew's birthday," the bakers would have baked it without questions.
It appears to me that the baker's did not object to the gay couple because they were gay, but because the customers were asking the baker to endorse homosexual conduct.
I realize in the post-Sexual Revolution America, and the definition of "good" is, in many minds, "whatever feels good." The objection the bakers had, however, was not to homosexuals (the bakers would probably admit that all are sinners, themselves included) but homosexual conduct. Many would argue that engaging in homosexual conduct is what homosexuals do. They were born that way, it is their nature, so it is closed-minded and bigoted to object. But the objection, (speaking for the bakers here, I do not know if they advanced this argument), was not to homosexuals per se, but to endorsement of the conduct and the only way the bakers knew of the conduct was through the medium of a weddingcake (it being a reasonable implication that the married couple is, with the social sanction of marriage, going to then engage in homosexual conduct. The cake was part of that social sanction). The couple wanted the bakers to take part in the endorsement, and the bakers, holding religious convictions, felt they could not do that. This declining to endorse is one of fairly long societal standing.
I realize that his will change exactly zero minds on the subject and I do not type this out of hatred for anybody. It just occurred to me as I thought about the issue this week or so.

Click to expand...

I almost made a similar point a few pages back. I agree that this is likely where the bakers are coming from, but it really won't mean anything in the courts or to any individual who has already made up their minds.
The bakers would probably bake birthday cakes for the greedy, the prideful, and those who sleep around. But, they probably would not have wanted to bake a cake for a "Let's celebrate taking advantage of the poor!" party. Or a "We love promiscuous sex!" party. They'll bake for the individuals without discrimination, but will discriminate the event if it honors something they find sinful.
This is why I think this should be a religious freedom thing, not a discrimination thing - if they simply did not bake anything for gay people, that would be a discrimination thing. So, if there is evidence of that, then I'm 100% behind calling this discriminating against gays. But, I realize that pretty much no one's mind is ever going to be changed on this, so why waste time arguing it.

Tidewater said:

I have been thinking a lot about this and have come to a realization, that this case came down to status versus action. If the gay couple had come in and said, "We would like you to bake a cake for my nephew's birthday," the bakers would have baked it without questions.
It appears to me that the baker's did not object to the gay couple because they were gay, but because the customers were asking the baker to endorse homosexual conduct.
I realize in the post-Sexual Revolution America, and the definition of "good" is, in many minds, "whatever feels good." The objection the bakers had, however, was not to homosexuals (the bakers would probably admit that all are sinners, themselves included) but homosexual conduct. Many would argue that engaging in homosexual conduct is what homosexuals do. They were born that way, it is their nature, so it is closed-minded and bigoted to object. But the objection, (speaking for the bakers here, I do not know if they advanced this argument), was not to homosexuals per se, but to endorsement of the conduct and the only way the bakers knew of the conduct was through the medium of a weddingcake (it being a reasonable implication that the married couple is, with the social sanction of marriage, going to then engage in homosexual conduct. The cake was part of that social sanction). The couple wanted the bakers to take part in the endorsement, and the bakers, holding religious convictions, felt they could not do that. This declining to endorse is one of fairly long societal standing.
I realize that his will change exactly zero minds on the subject and I do not type this out of hatred for anybody. It just occurred to me as I thought about the issue this week or so.

Click to expand...

GreatDanish said:

I almost made a similar point a few pages back. I agree that this is likely where the bakers are coming from, but it really won't mean anything in the courts or to any individual who has already made up their minds.
The bakers would probably bake birthday cakes for the greedy, the prideful, and those who sleep around. But, they probably would not have wanted to bake a cake for a "Let's celebrate taking advantage of the poor!" party. Or a "We love promiscuous sex!" party. They'll bake for the individuals without discrimination, but will discriminate the event if it honors something they find sinful.
This is why I think this should be a religious freedom thing, not a discrimination thing - if they simply did not bake anything for gay people, that would be a discrimination thing. So, if there is evidence of that, then I'm 100% behind calling this discriminating against gays.

Click to expand...

I see this like y'all do. This wasn't about not selling goods and services to homosexuals...it was about not sanctioning a same-sex marriage.

By the way, the bakers' behavior is clearly protected under the Oregon constitution.

Tide1986 said:

I see this like y'all do. This wasn't about not selling goods and services to homosexuals...it was about not sanctioning a same-sex marriage.

By the way, the bakers' behavior is clearly protected under the Oregon constitution.

Click to expand...

Or not, as the case may be.

Tide1986 said:

By the way, the bakers' behavior is clearly protected under the Oregon constitution.

Click to expand...

$135,000 says they are not. Oregon has an anti disrimination law that pertains to buisness and apparently it was upheld in this case. If they want to try and fight it with the constitutional first ammendment then it will be the 1st vs the 10th. I think they shouldve been a little smarter and saw where this was going to go. Because now it seems that their only option is to fight this case for years and hope they win in a very liberal age in America.

81usaf92 said:

$135,000 says they are not. Oregon has an anti disrimination law that pertains to buisness and apparently it was upheld in this case. If they want to try and fight it with the constitutional first ammendment then it will be the 1st vs the 10th. I think they shouldve been a little smarter and saw where this was going to go. Because now it seems that their only option is to fight this case for years and hope they win in a very liberal age in America.

Click to expand...

The $135,000 was administered by an executive branch bureaucrat. Are you saying that the executive branch always has the appropriate understanding of what's legal and what is not?

Edit: To be clear, the fine has not been upheld by a judicial branch court. And by the way, the constitutional issue at play is based on the Oregon state constitution. Read Article I, Section 3...it's pretty clear.

Tidewater said:

Or not, as the case may be.

Click to expand...

Puns, puns...everywhere I see puns.

Tide1986 said:

The $135,000 was administered by an executive branch bureaucrat. Are you saying that the executive branch always has the appropriate understanding of what's legal and what is not?

Edit: To be clear, the fine has not been upheld by a judicial branch court. And by the way, the constitutional issue at play is based on the Oregon state constitution. Read Article I, Section 3...it's pretty clear.

Click to expand...

yeah and I bet there were a lot of school principles and BOE members saying the same think when integration was clearly going to happen. Sweet Cakes is a public accomedation and it falls under that defination. If I was a betting man I would say they are going to be forced to pay 135k. This is mainly due to Oregon being ultra liberal. Heck their governor just expressed disapproval in Indiana's laws that allow buisnesses to refuse service.

Tide1986 said:

Puns, puns...everywhere I see puns.

Click to expand...

My point is that the Constitution, any Constitution, ultimately means absolutely nothing. It means whatever the wildest whims of any particular judge on any particular day say it means.
That is emphatically not the rule by law, but the rule of men. The least democratic men, but that is what Americans want (or at least what they are currently willing to accept).

Jefferson "miners and sappers" rule the day.

81usaf92 said:

yeah and I bet there were a lot of school principles and BOE members saying the same think when integration was clearly going to happen. Sweet Cakes is a public accomedation and it falls under that defination. If I was a betting man I would say they are going to be forced to pay 135k. This is mainly due to Oregon being ultra liberal. Heck their governor just expressed disapproval in Indiana's laws that allow buisnesses to refuse service.

Click to expand...

If I was a gambling man, I'd place a bet on Sweet Cakes paying every bit of that money. The left knows no great anger than that towards those who dissent. Oregon will crush these bakers.

81usaf92 said:

yeah and I bet there were a lot of school principles and BOE members saying the same think when integration was clearly going to happen. Sweet Cakes is a public accomedation and it falls under that defination. If I was a betting man I would say they are going to be forced to pay 135k. This is mainly due to Oregon being ultra liberal. Heck their governor just expressed disapproval in Indiana's laws that allow buisnesses to refuse service.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree that Oregon is ultra liberal. That being said, legislative law is subservient to constitutional law. If Oregon is unable to appropriately apply its laws (constitutional vs. statutory), then the Supreme Court may be willing to correct their error much like it did in 2000 with FL.

Tidewater said:

I have been thinking a lot about this and have come to a realization, that this case came down to status versus action. If the gay couple had come in and said, "We would like you to bake a cake for my nephew's birthday," the bakers would have baked it without questions.
It appears to me that the baker's did not object to the gay couple because they were gay, but because the customers were asking the baker to endorse homosexual conduct.
I realize in the post-Sexual Revolution America, and the definition of "good" is, in many minds, "whatever feels good." The objection the bakers had, however, was not to homosexuals (the bakers would probably admit that all are sinners, themselves included) but homosexual conduct. Many would argue that engaging in homosexual conduct is what homosexuals do. They were born that way, it is their nature, so it is closed-minded and bigoted to object. But the objection, (speaking for the bakers here, I do not know if they advanced this argument), was not to homosexuals per se, but to endorsement of the conduct and the only way the bakers knew of the conduct was through the medium of a weddingcake (it being a reasonable implication that the married couple is, with the social sanction of marriage, going to then engage in homosexual conduct. The cake was part of that social sanction). The couple wanted the bakers to take part in the endorsement, and the bakers, holding religious convictions, felt they could not do that. This declining to endorse is one of fairly long societal standing.
I realize that his will change exactly zero minds on the subject and I do not type this out of hatred for anybody. It just occurred to me as I thought about the issue this week or so.

Click to expand...

I just assumed everyone already knew this. The couple has stated such, IIRC. They had baked cakes for this couple before and presumably would have again - just not for a same sex wedding. It was the event they did not want to participate in. In any way, apparently.

As an aside, why is it so important for everyone to accept and approve or face destruction? The seeds being sown now are, frankly, not helpful.

GreatDanish said:

I almost made a similar point a few pages back. I agree that this is likely where the bakers are coming from, but it really won't mean anything in the courts or to any individual who has already made up their minds.
The bakers would probably bake birthday cakes for the greedy, the prideful, and those who sleep around. But, they probably would not have wanted to bake a cake for a "Let's celebrate taking advantage of the poor!" party. Or a "We love promiscuous sex!" party. They'll bake for the individuals without discrimination, but will discriminate the event if it honors something they find sinful.
This is why I think this should be a religious freedom thing, not a discrimination thing - if they simply did not bake anything for gay people, that would be a discrimination thing. So, if there is evidence of that, then I'm 100% behind calling this discriminating against gays. But, I realize that pretty much no one's mind is ever going to be changed on this, so why waste time arguing it.

Click to expand...

Again, it was not because they were gay - it was because it was a gay wedding. Why force people to participate in your grand day or ruin them if they refuse? I tell you this: Love was not the motivation for that. More like a pathological need for acceptance and approval from those unwilling to give it. It's almost like a borderline personality disorder - can't handle rejection, so destroy those who reject them.

I've said over and over that I support the right to marry whomever you wish. I for gay marriage, interracial marriage, interreligious marriage, multiple marriages - marry whomever you wish. There is nothing in any JUST law that forces me or anyone else to participate or approve. There is no special right that one person has over the conscience of another. There is nothing more sacred than a man's conscience. Right or wrong, a man or woman is, above all else - entitled to act on his/her conscience. To force one to violate it under pain of death or ruin is, well, unconscionable. The natural right to act on your conscience being protected by constitutional law is what has made America so unique in the history of the world. It's not that we have to agree with another's choice - but we do have to respect it to remain a civil and free society. The more this mentality of surrender or be ruined becomes ingrained in our society, the less free we become. And that is tragic, regardless of the politics and feelings we hold about the issue itself. Imagine that! I refuse to participate with you and the government punishes me for it because I refuse to consent. It is an assault on conscience and civility. It is not an assault on someone to refuse to participate with someone when you do not wish to do so. Those are my edited thoughts (had to to put it on here). And that is from an ally of same sex marriage. I can't imagine what some folks are feeling right now. I'll bet the Kleins feel violated, for instance. I may not agree with their stance, but it's like the old saying goes about not agreeing with you but defending your right and such. I'm afraid the new saying is I don't agree with you so off with your head. A step backward, if you ask me.

Tide1986 said:

I don't disagree that Oregon is ultra liberal. That being said, legislative law is subservient to constitutional law. If Oregon is unable to appropriately apply it's laws (constitutional vs. statutory), then the Supreme Court may be willing to correct their error much like it did in 2000 with FL.

Click to expand...

They would almost have to appeal to the Supreme Court because unless they can get a change of venue or a judge that says the suit has no case because otherwise their route of appeals would have to go through Portland and San Francisco in which there would almost undoubtably be extreme bias in favor of the lesbian couple. Personally I'm neither for or against either side but I'm just questioning what did the kliens think would happen and was there ever a chance to settle out of court. I think the odds are against them.

The Denver baker is going to court (separate case).

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/07/baker_who_refused_to_make_wedd.html#incart_river

In the article they talk about taking it to SCOTUS. What would happen from there is anyone's guess.

ETA: Another article: http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/07/c...ok&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thffacebook