Oregon baker faces state investigation
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
FreedomFan
Snarky 'ol Cuss
Exactly. There's plenty of room in the marketplace for non-bigoted, non-kooky wedding cake bakers.
twinoaks207
Having Fun!
I believe it is severability. I could, of course, be in error.
Typically the federal law trumps the state law except if the state law is more strict.
Not real sure which one would be considered more strict in this case. It will be interesting to see how this develops.
GWguy
*
I'll bet it only applies if it was posted in the open prior to this .
bcp
In My Opinion
The bigoted ones in this story are the wannabe normals.
They are the ones that are making an issue because someone else chooses to live their life by a set of standards.
He didnt try to stop their fake marriage, he just said he wanted no part in it.
what ever happened to
its not hurting you, if you don't like it, don't take part in it
anyway, I remember telling people that once they got the right to a pretend marriage it wouldn't be the end of it. That they would then try to force others to pretend it was real too.
FreedomFan
Snarky 'ol Cuss
RPMDAD
Well-Known Member
IMHO, State law has to rule on this one. The feds are sitting on the sidelines and can't make up their minds. Yeah good old Obama can spout out of his mouth all this gay people should get married stuff. But the federal govt hasn't backed it up according to Franchot, and unless the Feds back this up it is all willy and nilly by state. Gay couple are not entitled to each other SS and can't even file joint tax refunds. But Obama got great press out of running his mouth without backing it up. The states are the only ones passing laws right now the fed. govt. has its head sor far up it's ####### they can't see anything.
Maryland’s same-sex couples will soon be allowed to marry, but they won’t be allowed to file joint income-tax returns — making Maryland the first state to legalize gay marriage without giving extra tax privileges to the couples.
The state comptroller's office says it plans to continue requiring same-sex couples to file separate state-level income-tax returns as long as federal law requires separate federal returns, even though all other states recognizing same-sex marriage that collect income tax allow the couples to file jointly.
Read more: Franchot: Md. married gays can
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
FreedomFan
Snarky 'ol Cuss
They could have refused service and STFU about it. But these religious nutters never miss a chance to run their mouths about pointless bullish1t, and try and get on the news. Mission accomplished, I guess.
FreedomFan
Snarky 'ol Cuss
I'd expect nothing less from a pinko.
MarieB
New Member
And you're assuming they actually said that. Frankly, I can totally see someone lying about it too. It cuts both ways
Regarding the law itself that some of you have questioned, the last segment of this article covers that. Also note the owners have a different take on what was said and what happened
http://touch.towleroad.com/tlrd/#!/entry/oregon-bakery-says-no-to-gay-wedding-cakes,510ec2fdd7fc7b5670159113/1
FreedomFan
Snarky 'ol Cuss
I'm not assuming anything. I am responding to the story as it is written.
now that is interesting ...... I thought part of the 'discussion' was who gets 'Stuff' when on kicks the bucket or is sick
glhs837
Power with Control
Which story did you read? According to this, the reason it went public was this....
so, if the women in question were the ones to make a public case of it, then your statement above becomes null, correct?
Tilted
..
A private business should be able to discriminate based on whatever it chooses - sexual orientation, race, age, sex, religion, etcetera. It's the government that should not be allowed to. The concept of personal liberty is violated when the government discriminates based on such things, but it is also violated when the government prohibits private entities from discriminating based on such things. The triumph of the American concept of liberty is realized when a private individual's freedom to choose prevails over the government's power to control. It is not realized when one private individual's desire is forcibly fulfilled at the expense of another private individual's freedom to choose. Liberty doesn't require that the government ensure that every individual has every possible opportunity, it requires that the government not come between individuals and whatever opportunities the Universe (to include the choices of other individuals) might conspire to present to them.
If a business doesn't want to serve homosexuals (in general or in specific contexts), so be it. Their right to choose whom they associate with and how they do so should trump the 'right' of others to be associated with by whomever they want and however they want. If another business doesn't want to serve Christians, so be it. Unfortunately states have started enacting laws that prohibit discrimination based on things like sexual orientation and political ideology. I believe that most states still don't have such laws, but it seems to be the trend. In my opinion we shouldn't even have the federal laws prohibiting discrimination (by private entities) based on, e.g., religion, race, national origin or sex. If someone wants to be sexist, or racist, or xenophobic, or homophobic, or just plain old-fashioned asshol-ish, they should (in so far as the government is concerned) be able to. The community they live in and the individuals they come in contact with and the will of the Universe will react accordingly.
If a business doesn't want to serve homosexuals (in general or in specific contexts), so be it. Their right to choose whom they associate with and how they do so should trump the 'right' of others to be associated with by whomever they want and however they want. If another business doesn't want to serve Christians, so be it. Unfortunately states have started enacting laws that prohibit discrimination based on things like sexual orientation and political ideology. I believe that most states still don't have such laws, but it seems to be the trend. In my opinion we shouldn't even have the federal laws prohibiting discrimination (by private entities) based on, e.g., religion, race, national origin or sex. If someone wants to be sexist, or racist, or xenophobic, or homophobic, or just plain old-fashioned asshol-ish, they should (in so far as the government is concerned) be able to. The community they live in and the individuals they come in contact with and the will of the Universe will react accordingly.
Tilted
..
This isn't really about severability or federal preemption. Severability has to do with whether parts of an enacted law remain in force when other parts of that law have been voided, or whether parts of a contract remain in force when other parts of it do not. Federal preemption has to do with whether a state law conflicts with federal law, or whether a state law makes rules about things which federal law means to completely control - that is to say, the state law may not actually conflict with federal law, but Congress intended for federal law (whatever rules it does or doesn't establish) to be the only rules on the subject.
This is about the constitutionality of a state law. Does that state law, as it might be applied in this case, violate the 1st and 14th Amendments - i.e., the right to the free exercise of one's religion? The issue would be much the same if this were a federal law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Someone could also assert that federal laws prohibiting discrimination based on sex violate their free exercise rights - e.g., that their religious beliefs require that one sex be treated differently than the other in certain contexts. Their likelihood of success in that kind of challenge probably wouldn't be as good.
Tilted
..
How various governments should regard and treat homosexuals is one thing. But do you think that private individuals (to include businesses) should be required to regard or engage with homosexuals in certain ways?