|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jul 8, 2015 12:06:56 GMT
The kicker in this case should be that the Kleins didn't refuse the woman a cake because she was lesbian, but because it was a cake for a lesbian wedding. If she'd just come in for a couple of doughnuts and a loaf of bread, there wouldn't have been a problem, so no, they're not discriminating against lesbians. They're refusing to provide service for a ritual that is against their religious beliefs.
I stand by my previous notion of a skinhead entering the bakery.
If he's there to buy a loaf of bread and you refuse based on nothing but appearance, then it's discrimination.
If, on the other hand, he's there to commission a special cake with a swastika and an image of a black man hanging from a tree to be used at the inauguration of the new leader of the local Ku Klux Klan chapter, I say you're well within your rights to refuse.
Context is key.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 8, 2015 14:09:23 GMT
I stand by my first Internet law to defend the right of free speech. I may not fully agree with what they have to say, but, in my own sense of what is right, they have religion, and although I may not agree 100% with that religion, I defend their right to have religion, they have freedom of speech, which is a legal right, and I defend their right to have that, and they have objections. In this way, I argue that the "Fine" imposed on them is outrageous. My whole moral standpoint is that the lack of a (beep)ing cake can cost them their business?... HOW THE HELL CAN WE ALLOW THAT TO BE RIGHT?..... And to "Silence" them from objecting?... I believe the term is "Railroad". Kangaroo court anyone?... This is beyond any form of silly, this is out of the realms of oiur how stupid can you be thread, this if flagrant gobmint' subversiveness to depress those that have a public voice to railroad through "politically correct" laws. I now am "On the side" of the bakers, to defend the right of free speech. To defend the right to trade under Christian beliefs. Now I have to ask. Would the same laws be passed, and the same subversion be used, if a MUSLIM bakery refused to bake a cake under religious beliefs?... Go for it. Ask if you would get the same result via anti-Semitic laws, force the Jews to go bake a BACON SANDWICH..... Precious Snowflake has taken it to far this time. Lets see if I can get this right... One Nation Under God. Am I anywhere close to that?... So where is defending their faith ILLEGAL?.... I think I should not waste an opportunity to shut the hell up right now before I say something that may offend "someone".[/sarcasm...?....] it all comes down to the "some are more equal than others" phenomenon. be sure to change your "we reserve the right to refuse service to customers" sign to include "except gays, nobody has the right to refuse service to gays" |
|
|
|
Post by Antigone68104 on Jul 8, 2015 15:07:01 GMT
Here's the ruling. (A PDF, but I'm certain all of us have some sort of reader for those.) I've read it. Please point out where the gag order is, because I'm not finding it. Granted, if the Klein's lawyer had the brains God gave a turnip, he would have told them to put a sock in it, but that's not a First Amendment violation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Jul 8, 2015 15:39:07 GMT
Here's the ruling. (A PDF, but I'm certain all of us have some sort of reader for those.) I've read it. Please point out where the gag order is, because I'm not finding it. Granted, if the Klein's lawyer had the brains God gave a turnip, he would have told them to put a sock in it, but that's not a First Amendment violation. This is not all the documentation. It's just the ruling; it mentions a hearing to be held later to state damages. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jul 8, 2015 16:17:48 GMT
Here's the ruling. (A PDF, but I'm certain all of us have some sort of reader for those.) I've read it. Please point out where the gag order is, because I'm not finding it. Granted, if the Klein's lawyer had the brains God gave a turnip, he would have told them to put a sock in it, but that's not a First Amendment violation. This is not all the documentation. It's just the ruling; it mentions a hearing to be held later to state damages. Interesting article on the "gag order". dailysignal.com/2015/07/06/sorry-slate-oregon-did-put-a-gag-order-on-those-christian-bakers/I'm an engineer, not a lawyer, so I'm more use to logic, not legalize. I don't completely understand the legal language in all of this. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jul 8, 2015 16:33:47 GMT
Basically, Avakian went and said "It's not fair that you're telling the world what kind of [censored] I am, and so I'm going to legally prohibit you from ever again speaking to the media or even telling people what your religious beliefs are on the matter." |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jul 8, 2015 17:01:32 GMT
Basically, Avakian went and said "It's not fair that you're telling the world what kind of [censored] I am, and so I'm going to legally prohibit you from ever again speaking to the media or even telling people what your religious beliefs are on the matter." Guess when you're a [censored], word will still get out with or without a gag order. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 9, 2015 5:48:40 GMT
Karma is a b1tch.
And I believe in Karma.....
If someone said to me "No I aint fixing your car because you is an atheist", even though technically they are wrong, I would find someone who will fix my car.
I may report them for discrimination, but a simple "sorry" would fix it.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jul 9, 2015 5:57:58 GMT
If someone said to me "No I aint fixing your car because you is an atheist", even though technically they are wrong, I would find someone who will fix my car. I may report them for discrimination, but a simple "sorry" would fix it. If someone said that to me, I wouldn't bother reporting anything. I'd just place my money elsewhere. If that person thinks that way, odds are if they bit the bullet and took my car in, in spite of them having problems with my religious beliefs (or lack thereof), they wouldn't do a proper job anyway. If my choises are to pay them to do a job they don't want to do because they don't like me, or have them tell me they don't like me and find someone else to do the job, I'd rather they were honest. Don't get me wrong, I'd tell my friends and family about it, so they don't go there, but that's about the extent of any "reporting" I'd be doing. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Jul 9, 2015 6:02:55 GMT
That's what yelp is for, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jul 9, 2015 6:21:55 GMT
That's what yelp is for, right? Pretty much, yes  |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 9, 2015 6:29:04 GMT
whassat?....
[internet search]
Oh, PHONE aps.....
'Round here, "local knowledge", you tend to get to know who the good and the bad are from us locals.
I have never had any problems, because I already know who is good before I go there, because I will ask the neighbours, and they do delight in passing on tips....
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Jul 9, 2015 23:20:23 GMT
Same basic principal, but lets visitors play, too! |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jul 10, 2015 5:41:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 10, 2015 14:13:26 GMT
next he will be claiming that God is violating his constitutional right to sleep with men. man needs to be found in contempt of court. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jul 10, 2015 16:34:10 GMT
next he will be claiming that God is violating his constitutional right to sleep with men. man needs to be found in contempt of court. I think the courts need to put a gag order on God. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 10, 2015 16:38:13 GMT
next he will be claiming that God is violating his constitutional right to sleep with men. man needs to be found in contempt of court. I think the courts need to put a gag order on God. God isn't the problem - it is the people who choose to misrepresent him. |
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Sept 13, 2015 23:45:23 GMT
Cases like these are why so many people are against the death penalty. "What if he'd been executed? How many people like him have been executed?" Fair questions and ones that should be taken seriously. Is the hunt for vengeance really so important... ...Giving the death sentence to a robber who just happened to shoot someone during the robbery and will regret doing so for the rest of his life might momentarily make you feel good, but is it really the best punishment? Similarly, does sentencing someone like Anders Behring Breivik (the guy who bombed Oslo and shot up Utoya Island, Norway in 2011) to life in prison make any sense? Is there even the slightest chance of him ever feeling remorse for what he's done, or will he just sit in prison and feel like he's "being unfairly punished for doing what was necessary"? Will keeping him in prison deter any of his followers from doing something similar, or might taking his life possibly do that job just a little more effectively? Giving him the death sentence wouldn't just be about justice for the families. Nothing we can do to him will bring his victims back to life, so it has to about more than that. It has to be about sending a clear message to anyone who thinks like him and harbours thoughts of following in his footsteps. That, and about not wasting valuable resources on keeping a piece of biowaste like him alive. I agree, judges used to be free to use their own discretion and judge individuals as individuals. Now we have so many mandatory sentencing "guidelines" that judges don't have a choice but to dole out the mandatory sentence. There are people doing 5-10 years for a drunk driving conviction. The minimum for third offense is 16-60 months. Granted people need to be aware of how much they had to drink, however not all those doing long sentences blew .25's-.35's many blew just enough over the limit to get a drunk driving. No matter how you feel about drunk driving, a person blowing just over the limit should not get the same sentence as someone who had to be held upright long enough to take a sobriety test. But when you have mandatory sentences and a wad of MADD mutha's perched about the courtroom hell bent on making sure every case involving alcohol and driving gets the mandatory sentence, someone is going to be sentenced unjustly. Mandatory minimum sentences need to be abolished in its entirety. Death sentences should be shelved until a particularly heinous crime or as you pointed out, premeditated/cold blood crimes have been committed and proof is irrefutable. |
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Sept 13, 2015 23:58:58 GMT
2. Because of the large devout Mormon population, they believed that to atone for spilling blood, you literally had to have your own blood spilt. Injection was too clean. Blood Atonement is a doctrine that was taught in the early days of Mormonism. Brigham Young who lead the church from 1840 to 1877 actively taught it after they settled in Utah. There are lots of historical antidotes about it's use in those days as an justification for vigilante justice. However, seams to mostly died with Pres. Young. For Mormonism today, I doubt you will find any same member who at least publicly claims to believe in that practice. Many won't even know what it is. It is one of the many historical skeletons in the church's closet that the upper management has tried to whitewash over and deny happened. As far as using it for firing squad, I doubt it is a real reason. While there may be a few members who do believe in it, the vast majority of members don't and would find the idea repulsive. However, Mormon doctrine does have a bit of a Law of Moses (eye for an eye) bent to it and they believe in divine retribution. If not in this life, than in the next. Many members would have no problem hastening along that process due to the doctrine that murder is the 2nd worst sin possible. . I do remember sometime in the mid 90's when I was living in the Salt Lake area, someone requested to be executed by firing squad due to it being the most expensive option. It was all over the local news for a while. I am torn on the idea of the death penalty. For people where there is absolutely no question of their guilt (clear video evidence, many reliable witnesses, etc), I think they should be executed quickly, within 3 months of conviction. There is no point in keeping them around for longer. I will also agree that people who are too dangerous to be release as well. However, it is the cases where there is still possible question on guilt, things get muddy for me. I support a prison system that is a something that people fear going to. For many prison is better than life on the outside. However, I also support some more sensible laws that would reduce people going into prison. I have no problem with using a firing squad, if the death penalty IS given, it should have been given for good reason. I have no issues whatsoever with making the guilty party stand up and wait for the bullet. Hell I' might go as far as firing off a blank or two just to watch him/her twitch, er that might border on cruel and unusual. |
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Sept 14, 2015 0:02:20 GMT
But arguing about execution methods is arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. At the end of the day, they're still executed. which brings me back to the judge saying "We have determined that for the safety of the public, you cannot be trusted in society - so keeping in mind you will not be leaving prison alive, how long do you want to be there?" This is certainly one of the better arrangement of words I have read in a while. |
|
