Page 10 of 22 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 213

Thread: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win[W:48]

  1. #91
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,903

    Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    In the Sweetcakes case the inquiry was made by e-mail, not a store visit.

    And I visited the website at the time (it has since changed) there was nothing on the site indicated they would refuse full and equal service to homosexuals as required under Oregon's Public Accommodation law.
    They did not refuse to sell their baked goods to homosexuals, they would bake anyone an occasion cake, sell them pastries. The only thing they refused to do was create a cake for a same sex union because it violates their beliefs and to do so violates their moral conscience which by the way is suppose to be guaranteed them fully and protected under the Oregon state constitution not to mention that religious rights are the very first cited in the 1st Amendment. There's a pattern that has unfolded in how activists are overturning state bans on same sex marriage. It's the same technique the left has used every time they can't get something passed at the ballot box. The photographer case is on its way to the Supreme Court. People of faith need protected from intolerant individuals who do not respect a person's right to live their life in a way that does not violate their moral conscience. Maybe the Supremes will act on it or maybe it will take Congress who has already laid the groundwork. We shall see.

    I noticed you previously cherry picked my comments earlier avoiding the newfound knowledge this judge who overturned the same sex marriage ban in Oregon, is also gay and made his ruling personal. This clearly shows this man is an activist with a cause.

    I also noticed you ignored responding to the fact that the Democrat elected state officials deliberately chose to ignore/uphold the state's own constitution. The voters will deal with them.

  2. #92
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    They did not refuse to sell their baked goods to homosexuals, they would bake anyone an occasion cake, sell them pastries. The only thing they refused to do was create a cake for a same sex union because it violates their beliefs and to do so violates their moral conscience which by the way is suppose to be guaranteed them fully and protected under the Oregon state constitution not to mention that religious rights are the very first cited in the 1st Amendment. There's a pattern that has unfolded in how activists are overturning state bans on same sex marriage. It's the same technique the left has used every time they can't get something passed at the ballot box. The photographer case is on its way to the Supreme Court. People of faith need protected from intolerant individuals who do not respect a person's right to live their life in a way that does not violate their moral conscience. Maybe the Supremes will act on it or maybe it will take Congress who has already laid the groundwork. We shall see.
    And in the 1st sentence you show that they broke the law.

    Oregon Revised Statutes
    659A.403
    Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited
    (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction 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.
    ORS 659A.403 - Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited - 2011 Oregon Revised Statutes


    The law requires "full and equal" not a "subset and partial". The advertised for the sale of wedding cakes, they have a history of selling wedding cakes. They denied selling customers wedding cakes based on the sexual orientation of the customer. That is prima facie evidence that they violated the law right there.

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    I noticed you previously cherry picked my comments earlier avoiding the newfound knowledge this judge who overturned the same sex marriage ban in Oregon, is also gay and made his ruling personal. This clearly shows this man is an activist with a cause.
    k

    Typically I my respond to all or only part of a post, if you don't like that feel free to skip over my posts.

    The Judge assigned to a case is based on a computer program and random selection. The information that the Judge was gay is not "new found". Do you expect women to recuse themselves from cases involving womens issues? Should a Judge who professes to be a Christian also be requried to recuse themselves?

    The Judge in Pennsylvania who just made the same decision was (a) straight, (b) a Republican, and (c) appointed by G.W. Bush.

    Gee, given the Romer v. Evan decision and the Windsor v. United States decisions where the SCOTUS points out that it is unconstitutional to enact capricious and invidioius laws target homosexuals that maybe, just maybe - this Judge ruled (as the PA Judge and numberous others have since Windsor) that denying Equal Treatment under the law to same-sex couples might - just might - be unconstitutional and THAT was the basis of his decision. You know, kind of like the same decision that straight, Republican judges reach?

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    I also noticed you ignored responding to the fact that the Democrat elected state officials deliberately chose to ignore/uphold the state's own constitution. The voters will deal with them.

    1. That was a contributing factor as t WHY the Judge ruled as he did, the Executive branch of the State indicated they felt the law was unconstitutional.

    2. However you are asking my personal opinion about whether they should defend State law. The answer is "Yes", part of the duties and responsibilities of the Executive Branch (including the Governor and AG) are to defend valid laws of the state. To provide a full defense in a court of law and then let the court answer the question as to whether they are Constitutional or not. If in good conscience they can't defend a law, then at a minimum they should hire 3rd party representation to defend the law in a manner that provides for a full airing of both sides of the issue in court. Similar to what the House Republican's did with BFLAG defending DOMA (Windsor v. United States).

    (Allowing unaffiliated parties leave to defend the case isn't really an option as we say with Prop 8 as the suit was against the government and 3rd party actors acting on their own cannot represent the government - they don't have standing. So the Judge in this case was absolutely correct in not allowing and out of State political action committe (NOW, National Organization for Marriage) to step-in to defend the law. It would have setup a SCOTUS dismissal just like with Prop 8 as NOW didn't have standing.)



    >>>>
    Last edited by WorldWatcher; 05-20-14 at 07:27 PM.

  3. #93
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,565

    Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

    Quote Originally Posted by ksu_aviator View Post
    It does not matter if I can prove to you their beliefs. All that matters is that they believe it. Whether it is hypocritical or not is not germane to the discussion.
    So...here's a question. If someone has the right to not allow people into their business because they don't like those peoples' lifestyle or color or religion or whatever, do business owners then have the right to refuse to allow people legally carrying firearms into their business? I mean, I understand that we have 2A rights...but are 2A rights somehow more 'special' than the color one is at birth? Do we have freedom of religion? Of course. Does the Constitution have the equal protection clause? Of course.

    So if the business owner cannot refuse someone carrying firearms because carrying those firearms is their constitutional right, then that business owner cannot refuse to serve others who have a constitutional right to be the color they're born, to worship as they will, to love whom they will.
    To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what hes doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

  4. #94
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

    Quote Originally Posted by ksu_aviator View Post
    Ok, then you won't mind speaking at KKK rally and delivering the key not address in favor of their organization.

    *yes, I know it is a fallacy. I'm just trying to make a point*
    The key NOT, sure.

    But your comparison is apples and oranges. Bigotry is not protected under equal rights or any other law I know of.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  5. #95
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,001

    Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

    Like I said, Idaho is just wasting its taxpayer's money and if I lived there, I'd be pissed about the useless political posturing and legal 'challenge.'
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  6. #96
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,001

    Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    This is not unexpected, Oregon is a very liberal state....It will be appealed.
    OR is a very conservative state. Everywhere but Portland and Eugene.

    You've said the same about WA....and were wrong then too.

    Wow.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  7. #97
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,001

    Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    It's another failure of an Attorney General who won't defend the state's laws. And Oregon isn't as liberal as you might expect given the MSM's talk of the state. It's basically a couple of high density cities in the state that give it that liberal rep. That and we are very much into keeping our state green (not the weenie PC green, but the green growing things green).

    I, and others here, want our AG out over this failure to do the duty. This asshat McShane was appointed by Obama and their whole schtick is to get so many homosexuals married that there's no going back. Same tactic as they used with Obamacare.

    At the very least we'll have to wait another two years to vote the idiot out.
    Why should they waste taxpayer $$$ to fight against something that is clearly illegal at the *federal* level, which supersedes their state constitution or laws?
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  8. #98
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,001

    Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

    Quote Originally Posted by ksu_aviator View Post
    I am still trying to figure out the part of the Constitution that says you have to suspend your religious beliefs and be forced to participate in these unholy matrimonies if you have a business.
    It's interesting....the Bible discusses fornicators, adulterers, and 'men who lay with other men' all the same as far as sin is concerned.

    I havent seen many (any) businesses refusing to serve prostitutes, cheaters, couples that live together, etc. Have you? I wonder why?

    Could it be because there's a giant hypocritical bias against gays? One certainly not displayed in the Bible?
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  9. #99
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,001

    Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    I believe the business owner has 1st Amendment rights that protect his moral conscience. If he believes providing a service for A. B. or C violates that conscience, he has a right to deny such service. And the person seeking such a service needs to move on to find one who will accommodate them. Period. There is legislation currently pending to protect the 1st Amendment rights of All not just a few.
    Shouldnt be 'selective' tho and there is no right to not be offended. But if you are going to object on 'religious' grounds then you should be consistent....fornicators, adulterers, 'men who lay with men,' are all sins, all the same. in the Bible. So then shopkeepers that do not wish to offer their services to gay couples should also refuse to serve cheaters and couples that live together, and prostitutes, etc.

    But no, these businesses have decided to discriminate against gays on personal level, not a religious one, just IMO.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  10. #100
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,903

    Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    Shouldnt be 'selective' tho and there is no right to not be offended. But if you are going to object on 'religious' grounds then you should be consistent....fornicators, adulterers, 'men who lay with men,' are all sins, all the same. in the Bible. So then shopkeepers that do not wish to offer their services to gay couples should also refuse to serve cheaters and couples that live together, and prostitutes, etc.

    But no, these businesses have decided to discriminate against gays on personal level, not a religious one, just IMO.
    Good morning Lursa,

    You are certainly welcome to your opinion. Here's mine.

    Our right to conscience makes up who were are as individuals. From our moral conscience we discern what is right and wrong. Often, but not always, this stems from religious beliefs. Most state constitutions recognize the importance of protecting a person's right to conscience as it is deeply tied to religious liberty. Some state governments have enacted conscience protection laws. In addition, federal law conditions receipt of certain federal funds on respect for conscience in particular situations. These protections reflect the high value a civil society places on religious and moral conscience. But we have to vigilantly protect them because there is an ever growing group of judges and legislators that do not respect the moral conscience of individuals resulting in this culture war we seem to be in the midst of. They seem to have this mentality that your moral conscience comes second or not at all when it comes to accommodation laws and in the end the one who is denied his moral conscience is the one that was discriminated against the most for he is not allowed to be who he is in the public square. This isn't just happening in regard to same sex marriage. The health care field is riddled with difficult moral issues including abortion, contraception, artificial reproductive technologies, euthanasia, and assisted suicide. Health care providers with moral or religious objections to participating in these and other procedures face threats to conscience. The threats can be loss of a job for refusing to participate or be sued for denying a service that is against their moral conscience. Another area where moral conscience is being attacked is social welfare. Religious organizations such as adoption agencies, nursing homes or orphanages are forced to comply with the “official” state position on controversial moral issues, the potential for infringement of religious liberty and rights of conscience is clear as more and more of these organizations can not comply with the "official" state position for it is in conflict with their moral conscience and society ends up losing dearly with the loss of their services. While you see it solely as a discrimination issue toward the one denied a service you are more than willing to force another to deny his moral conscience in order to comply with what you think is right forcing him to a point of facing costly legal bills and losing his livelihood and unable to provide for his family. When a person is forced to compromise his moral conscience he has been denied the most important part of his freedom.

Page 10 of 22 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •