Give a man a fish and he can eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he can sit in a boat, drinking beer all day while you fool around with his Woman.
Read your links again, they say "fined up to...".
No fines have been levied yet, the hearing on fines and damages was just last week and no ruling yet on amounts has been issued.
Sweet Cakes discrimination closing remarks: Should the baker pay for a pattern of discrimination? | OregonLive.com
1.) wow really? thank you for proving you are SEVERELY uneducated on this topic.
See I told you that your attempts would fail. Lets look at what you falsely suggested wasnt a protected class.
White Males from birth to age 40.
White = RACE, which is protected
Male = GENDER/SEX which is protected
This person will also have a religion or lack of one which is protected
This person will also have a sexual orientation, which in many places is protected
should i go on or do you finally understand the fact that your claim is wrong and WE ARE ALL a protected class and this is a basic fact that you just proved for me lol
2.) "Non sequitur" add that to the list of things that you do not know what they mean lol
none of your articles show they were in fact fine only there they could be or might be or there was a risk. If you have one that shows they were in fact fined post the actual words and links and support it. ALso note that i side if they were i asked you what would they be fined for. This is very important as the answer further destoys the falsehoods you believe in.
3.) and it would appear you are factually wrong . . again, there is no such fine for "not serving a protected class" lol but thank you for further proving you have no clue about this topic.
4.) thats what im asking you! lol and you havent truly answered it. You keep saying you THINK, it APPEARS they were fined for "not serving a protected class" that as been proven 100% false. SO again I am asking YOU, what was the risk of fine for? do you even know? seems like you dont
sooo here we are again your claims have been proven false again and you still havent presented one fact that supports them, not one
your post fails Facts win again
and you dodged the question just like i said you would but im going to ask you again!
if you disagree simply tell us all the law that forces me to serve everybody or gays or Christians . . please tell us the la in your next post.
I'd observe that the mere threat of fines from a government entity, especially such large ones, casts doubt on whether it is feasible to actually have a choice in this situation. That, and a case of government bullying might yet be made.
A counter suit from the Christian Bakers against the government entity that levied the fines perhaps?
Even Agent J seems to be of the position that there's a choice here as to whom to serve or whom not to serve.
Nancy Pelosi said: “We have to pass it, to find out what’s in it.” A Doctor called to a radio show & said: "That's the definition of a stool sample"
"Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket," Barack Obama January 2008
I am a white male. It is illegal to refuse me service because one finds white males repulsive (gender, race are protected classes). If I put on a big 'ole "Rebel Pride" T-shirt, it is legal to refuse me service if they find me repulsive. "white guy wearing a T-shirt advocating a certian socio political view" is simply not a protected class.
I could make an argument that refuse to serve me in my Rebel Pride T-shirt constitutes discrimination against my ethnicity (white southerener), but I dont think the argument would work. I could still be a white southerener and not wear the T-shirt, or hold certain social views about the CSA. The owner stating: "No service to you, I am sick of red neck accents in here", would probably support an case of ethnic discrimination because accents are innate.
Last edited by Cryptic; 03-27-15 at 09:44 AM.
1) While it's common to believe that "we've come a long way, baby" and such discrimination would be rare, there is obviously a portion of the population in that state that does want to discriminate and that portion was large enough to get a majority of the state's legislature to pass the law. This suggests that, while it may not be a majority position, it's common enough to be problematic particularly if those people are concentrated in specific areas.
2) This kind of discrimination can be very disruptive to business. An individual who lives in the area will probably be able to find providers that will not discriminate against them, providing the practice isn't widespread in the area. But what about businesses whose HQ's are located elsewhere but have customers in the area?
for example, take a distributor who sells a product to businesses. They buy in bulk, store it in their warehouse, and then truck the product to customers over a wide geographic area when ordered. Should they have to wonder if their drivers will be able to get their trucks repaired if they break down? What about buying gas for the trucks while they're on the road? How about if their customer refuses to let the trucker unload because they object to who/what the trucker is?
IOW, allowing this sort of discrimination is not as benign as it appears at first glance.