GoFundMe Shuts Down Camapign for Christian Bakers Asked to Pay $135,000 Fine.....

[Ktoyou]

On the news tonight they had Court justices talking, and upshot seems those queer marriages may be insisted legal in other states. Well, well, who likes to live where one is completely ignored?
Alabama Governor does not go for this.

 

[rexlunae]

From the looks of it, the standard is that funding legal representation to dispute a verdict is okay but funding the penalty imposed by the court is not okay.

This. The site allows raising funds for legal defense, but it isn't designed to enable criminals to avoid paying their penalties.

Some of the folks here are pretty eager to play the victim.

 

[Lon]

This. The site allows raising funds for legal defense, but it isn't designed to enable criminals to avoid paying their penalties.

Some of the folks here are pretty eager to play the victim.

Was it a 'just' penalty? I don't honestly know what I'd do. I don't 'have' to so I'm left to guessing/helping the small business owner with a religious conviction. To all in America: "Your rights should not interfere with my rights."

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government. - Cornell University Law

It seems to me, that the United States court system is breaking the law.

 

[TracerBullet]

Was it a 'just' penalty? I don't honestly know what I'd do. I don't 'have' to so I'm left to guessing/helping the small business owner with a religious conviction. To all in America: "Your rights should not interfere with my rights."

you just broke the irony meter

 

[Lighthouse]

you just broke the irony meter

You don't have the right to be served, nor the right to never be discriminated against by another citizen. You don't even have the right to never be offended.

But as evidenced in every one of your posts you certainly have the right to be an idiot.

 

[Rusha]

Was it a 'just' penalty? I don't honestly know what I'd do. I don't 'have' to so I'm left to guessing/helping the small business owner with a religious conviction. To all in America: "Your rights should not interfere with my rights."


It seems to me, that the United States court system is breaking the law.

you just broke the irony meter

Nope ... it's a matter of whose rights *should be* seen as the priority. The small business owner who has put his/her time, effort and money into their business ... OR ... the sniveler ...

 

[Granite]

What happened to "they're a business, they can do what they like"?

Sucks when the shoe's on the other foot, don't it?

 

[TracerBullet]

Nope ... it's a matter of whose rights *should be* seen as the priority. The small business owner who has put his/her time, effort and money into their business ... OR ... the sniveler ...

in this case the business owner and the sniveler are one and the same

 

[Rusha]

in this case the business owner and the sniveler are one and the same

I accept that that is your *politically correct* view on this topic ...

 

[rexlunae]

Was it a 'just' penalty?

What's unjust about it? It seems to serve the purpose of punishing those who break the law and deterring those who would consider doing the same, and it does so for the purposes of advancing civic equality.

I don't honestly know what I'd do. I don't 'have' to so I'm left to guessing/helping the small business owner with a religious conviction. To all in America: "Your rights should not interfere with my rights."

Your religious rights, while extensive, do not entail causing harm to others.

It seems to me, that the United States court system is breaking the law.

In what way? Is the fine not permitted by the law?

 

[Angel4Truth]

What happened to "they're a business, they can do what they like"?

Sucks when the shoe's on the other foot, don't it?

Nothing, they were who decided to lie and say they dont allow certain things that they do.

It would be perfectly fine with me if they didnt want to serve people who dont think gay is ok, provided those who dont think its ok has the same right to deny service.

I am just showing they are hypocrites.

 

[genuineoriginal]

What's unjust about it? It seems to serve the purpose of punishing those who break the law and deterring those who would consider doing the same, and it does so for the purposes of advancing civic equality.

You act as if advancing civic equality by eliminating the right to own property is a good thing.

Your religious rights, while extensive, do not entail causing harm to others.

No harm was done to anyone except the business owners.

In what way? Is the fine not permitted by the law?

Is "permitted by law" your standard of what is right?
Slavery was permitted by law before the United States Civil War.
What made it right then and wrong now?

 

[rexlunae]

You act as if advancing civic equality by eliminating the right to own property is a good thing.

That's just ridiculous. No one eliminated the right to own property. They were required to pay a fine.

No harm was done to anyone except the business owners.

If you ignore the people that they were discriminating against. Which I know you're eager to do.

Is "permitted by law" your standard of what is right?
Slavery was permitted by law before the United States Civil War.
What made it right then and wrong now?

Lon asked about...the law. I answered regarding...the law. I noticed that you didn't take issue with his relying on the law.

 

[tetelestai]

FYI:

Sweet Cakes By Melissa is now accepting donations at "Samaritan's Purse"

Samaritan's Purse is a website like gofundme, that specifically for Christians who are persecuted.

http://www.samaritanspurse.org/article/christian-couple-faces-135000-fine/#donateBottom

 

[Lon]

you just broke the irony meter

Why would I care what you find ironic? :idunno:

 

[Lon]

What's unjust about it? It seems to serve the purpose of punishing those who break the law and deterring those who would consider doing the same, and it does so for the purposes of advancing civic equality.

That same Constitution provides that we can argue the matter. At present, affirmative action has gone well over the line in my opinion. We either have to go live with the Amish or stay out of business. That's a huge thing to ask a religious people, and sad that nobody seems to recognize it. We have to celebrate Kwanza in Public, but we can't Christ-mas. We have to be involved with sin (unequally yoked) by the demand of sinners. This really has little to do with gays but more about the whole affirmative action issue. I understand both sides of this issue and understand why the issues exist. I'm just not sure it serves the populace best.

Your religious rights, while extensive, do not entail causing harm to others.

Yes, it is the whole Affirmative Action problem. What that movement really did, was led to infighting and tension. Too much. It went beyond what we could sustain. The problem is that we are all unique. We 'need' some seclusions just to be able to build community. These laws have a way of overtly-intruding and busting up community needs. Genuine needs.

In what way? Is the fine not permitted by the law?

Here is the way it works: Pass a law (right or wrong) then enforce the law. We are NOT a government run nation but people-run nation by purpose. So much so, we are encouraged to rebel when that government no longer serves the people. Baltimore might have some legitimate reasons for their responses, as given by the Constitution. In this case, black officers should replace white ones in dealing with criminals. Affirmative action and politics won't let that happen. The system needs 'equity' rather than 'same.' The reason it is the way it is now is because it is 'easier' than dealing with these on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Lon]

What happened to "they're a business, they can do what they like"?

Sucks when the shoe's on the other foot, don't it?

Well yeah! They 'can' discriminate but Christians can't. That's only one shoe!!!

 

[rexlunae]

That same Constitution provides that we can argue the matter.

That is true, of course. It's what we're doing here.

At present, affirmative action has gone well over the line in my opinion.

I don't see the connection. How is affirmative action involved?

We either have to go live with the Amish or stay out of business. That's a huge thing to ask a religious people, and sad that nobody seems to recognize it.

No one is demanding that. That may be why no one is recognizing it. If you're going to be in business, you have to follow the law. If you can't do that, then you can't be in business.

We have to celebrate Kwanza in Public, but we can't Christ-mas.

When have you ever been forced to celebrate Kwanza? Or stopped from celebrating Christmas? Either would be unconstitutional.

We have to be involved with sin (unequally yoked) by the demand of sinners. This really has little to do with gays but more about the whole affirmative action issue. I understand both sides of this issue and understand why the issues exist. I'm just not sure it serves the populace best.

You're going to have to connect a few of those dots. Affirmative action, i.e. the use of intentional discrimination to ensure the participation of minority or disadvantaged groups (mostly in things like educational opportunities in the US) doesn't generally run afoul of anyone's religious sensibilities, though there are other objections, and it doesn't generally cover gay people.

Yes, it is the whole Affirmative Action problem. What that movement really did, was led to infighting and tension.

I don't think that's true. It's certainly an ugly solution, but not nearly as ugly as the societal institutions that created the inequality in the first place. If you want to find the source for infighting and tension, I'd start with slavery and segregation. But then we're getting pretty far off topic.

Too much. It went beyond what we could sustain. The problem is that we are all unique. We 'need' some seclusions just to be able to build community. These laws have a way of overtly-intruding and busting up community needs. Genuine needs.

What needs, specifically?

Here is the way it works: Pass a law (right or wrong) then enforce the law. We are NOT a government run nation but people-run nation by purpose. So much so, we are encouraged to rebel when that government no longer serves the people.

It depends on who you are, doesn't it? If you're black and you riot because too many black people are getting killed by the authorities, it's a sign of all sorts of awful things. But if you're white, and you riot because of a sporting event, that's just some good old fashioned American fun.

Beyond that, I think there's more rhetoric than fact behind the notion of revolution as a national value. So far, we've done it all of once in the past three centuries, and not for want of good cause.

Baltimore might have some legitimate reasons for their responses, as given by the Constitution. In this case, black officers should replace white ones in dealing with criminals. Affirmative action and politics won't let that happen.

First of all, the mayor and much of the police force of Baltimore are black, so it isn't really a problem of "community policing". Furthermore, there is literally no way that you can set about changing the ratios of race representation within the power structures of the city directly without affirmative action because that is essentially what affirmative action is.

The system needs 'equity' rather than 'same.' The reason it is the way it is now is because it is 'easier' than dealing with these on a case-by-case basis.

A lot of the problems are systemic rather than individual. But the US doesn't tend to believe in the collective, which makes it a lot harder to address the inequity.

 

[Lon]

I don't see the connection. How is affirmative action involved?

Wow. I'd have to go back and do a history lesson on that. It removes 'prejudism' as an act, but it went further and actually goes against some religious convictions.

No one is demanding that. That may be why no one is recognizing it. If you're going to be in business, you have to follow the law. If you can't do that, then you can't be in business.

Right, it penalizes anyone with a religious conviction against a sinful behavior. I either have to choose a business OR be a Christian at that point. As such, congress that shall not pass a law, just passed a law that discriminated against me and my convictions.

When have you ever been forced to celebrate Kwanza? Or stopped from celebrating Christmas? Either would be unconstitutional.

Agreed. It is unconstitutional.

You're going to have to connect a few of those dots. Affirmative action, i.e. the use of intentional discrimination to ensure the participation of minority or disadvantaged groups (mostly in things like educational opportunities in the US) doesn't generally run afoul of anyone's religious sensibilities, though there are other objections, and it doesn't generally cover gay people.

That started the ball rolling toward accommodation but equitable is fine. That action was said 'no it is not.' The problem was/is, that if you 'favor' one group, you inadvertenly MUST disfavor the ones it is replacing.

I don't think that's true. It's certainly an ugly solution, but not nearly as ugly as the societal institutions that created the inequality in the first place. If you want to find the source for infighting and tension, I'd start with slavery and segregation. But then we're getting pretty far off topic.

That is a stigma. I don't have it, but there are reasons that aren't bad, why we are separated. For instance: No other color was born in my family. We are an exclusively one-color family and there is nothing wrong with that. That means some 'exclusion' is good and we need to support that. Families are all unique. We need 'equitable' NOT equal on most things.

What needs, specifically?

Lots. In my town, they bus kids all over so that there is 'integration' for 'fairness.' Sadly, it doesn't do that and it wastes our money. On top of that, kids have to learn in the environment where they will live and grow up. If you take them out of one neighborhood, they are being handicapped from being effective. Should I be able to demand kosher beef? I don't think so. They Jews 'can' sell those to us if they like but I don't believe I have a right to it. Let 'them' choose if they want to or not. I don't need kosher, I just would like something along the same high quality and standard. That's 'my' job. I don't need to be about suing a Jewish butcher for a choice-cut. That is where frivolous becomes abusive AND government allows and sanctions it. Such 'abuse' shouldn't be allowed because it really does put unfair demands on that Jewish business. They don't have to sell to me. They are unique in the business world and we should sanction those exceptions rather than punish them for how and why they genuinely are different and imho, in a celebratory manner. I'm happy Amish don't let us drive cars around in their communities.

It depends on who you are, doesn't it? If you're black and you riot because too many black people are getting killed by the authorities, it's a sign of all sorts of awful things. But if you're white, and you riot because of a sporting event, that's just some good old fashioned American fun.

Again, 'when it no longer serves the people it is supposed to be representing fairly."

Beyond that, I think there's more rhetoric than fact behind the notion of revolution as a national value. So far, we've done it all of once in the past three centuries, and not for want of good cause.

We've had a few close calls along the way. States have talked about seceding and have even put those to votes. I'm not sure we aren't headed that direction again. Our kids might have to fight for their rights.

First of all, the mayor and much of the police force of Baltimore are black, so it isn't really a problem of "community policing". Furthermore, there is literally no way that you can set about changing the ratios of race representation within the power structures of the city directly without affirmative action because that is essentially what affirmative action is.

:nono: It actually cuts its own throat on this point, insisting on racial integration.

A lot of the problems are systemic rather than individual. But the US doesn't tend to believe in the collective, which makes it a lot harder to address the inequity.

It is odd that we try to force melting pot and not always celebrate ethnicity. Here we are on a forum, Christian and atheist, trying to make the world come to our way of thinking. I support your right to be atheist. I support your right/need to address those values. If you 'neglect' part of society in that, I don't see that as a problem. If you are actively harming, that's another story.

Most of these lawsuits are petty and mean. If you don't want to bake me a cake, I'm the last person that is going to take you to court or file over it. I've been ostracized. I've no problem with those who do so in any legal manner. I might not 'like' it if they are horrible about it, but I don't believe I have a 'right' to sue. Okay, you can say 'yes you do' but the point is, it is petty and a drain on society and regardless if a court thinks its my right, I deny that it is. It is really rather petty. I've never needed a cake on any single day of my life. I can't imagine the scenario where I'd even 'want' to, but there you go. That is where we are at today lain:
Often times we need to man-up and move along. I wish courts would entertain the petty whiners so often. We need to be able to say "You don't need a cake. Go out and buy some Betty Crocker, court dismissed."

 

[TracerBullet]

Right, it penalizes anyone with a religious conviction against a sinful behavior. I either have to choose a business OR be a Christian at that point. As such, congress that shall not pass a law, just passed a law that discriminated against me and my convictions.

What a load of bovine excrement.
Religion doesn't make discrimination acceptable or justifiable.