Christian bakery guilty of violating civil rights of lesbian couple

foxnews.com ^ | 1/21/14 | Todd Starnes

[armydawg505]

The owners of a Christian bakery who refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple are facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines after they were found guilty of violating the couple’s civil rights.

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said they found “substantial evidence” that Sweet Cakes by Melissa discriminated against the lesbian couple and violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, a law that protects the rights of the LGBT community.

Last year, the bakery’s owners refused to make a wedding cake for Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman, of Portland, citing their Christian beliefs. The couple then filed a complaint with the state.

Aaron Klein told me there will be no reconciliation and there will be no rehabilitation. “The investigation concludes that the bakery is not a religious institution under the law and that the business’ policy of refusing to make same-sex wedding cakes represents unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation,” said Charlie Burr, a spokesman for the Bureau of Labor and Industries.

[Wicket]

I think that the “couple” deliberately targeted the bakery because the bakery owners’ Christian beliefs were made clear on their website. Jerks. And God Bless the bakery owners.

[Albion Wilde]

He fought the good fight...

As they say in South Philly, "Guess what -- it was a sin."

[highball]

No, those signs are just window dressing. They might make the owners feel better, but don’t carry any actual weight.

We repeal the Civil Rights Act, they might. But until then, businesses open to the public don’t actually have the right to decide which segments of the public they’d rather not serve.

We have, sadly, long since ceded all this power to the Feds. The representatives who were supposed to be serving us signed it away. Do we have the nerve to take it back? And if so, how?

[Gene Eric]

Yup, homosexual ‘marriage’ law is about forcing the citizens to support and service homosexuality.

[prof.h.mandingo]

Hate to tell you but South Carolina lost the nullification crisis of 1832. Andy Jackson and the federal government won. We almost had a civil war in 1832 but no other state supported South Carolina and Calhoun's idea of nullification on the federal level. Law was passed making nullification illegal. It is up to the feds to enforce if they so choose.
I suggest you read up on this idea.
The Kentucky and Virginia resolutions DID NOT nullify any law.
The law you are referring to was the Alien and Sedition Acts and Jefferson and Madison did think they were unconstitutional.
The states in question passed resolutions. They relied on the other states for support and neither Kentucky nor Virginia said they could nullify the law. They wanted to apply public pressure to get the law changed in the next legislative session before Congress.
In point of fact no other states supported Kentucky or Virginia.
The 1799 Resolutions did not assert that Kentucky would unilaterally refuse to enforce the Alien and Sedition Acts. Rather, the 1799 Resolutions declared that Kentucky “will bow to the laws of the Union” but would continue “to oppose in a constitutional manner” the Alien and Sedition Acts. The 1799 Resolutions concluded by stating the Kentucky was entering its “solemn protest” against those Acts.
The Supreme Court rejected the compact theory of which these resolutions relied. McCulloch v. Maryland etc. reject this idea.
In the case of Cooper v. Aaron the Supreme Court held that under the Supremacy Clause, federal law was controlling and the states did not have the power to evade the application of federal law. The Court specifically rejected the contention that Arkansas’ legislature and governor had the power to nullify the Brown decision.

[DJ MacWoW]

There is no law against nullification. Jackson merely issued a proclamation, much like Obama does. Congress passed the Force Act that authorized the use of military force against any state that resisted the tariff acts which is what South Carolina was fighting. However, the tariffs were lowered as a result of South Carolina’s actions.

[Chickensoup]

No, just that some businesses are obvious.

[MeshugeMikey]

We The People aren’t being served all that well by our public servants

Better HIRING Practices are called for.

[yongin]

if i owned the bakery, i’d tell the gay couple that i’ll make the cake to be russian style and give them vodka. gays are boycotting all things russians. plus, with their purchase, i’ll donate to narth and other groups that ‘pray away the gay’.

[highball]

Ain’t that the truth, brother.

[MeshugeMikey]

indeed!!!

[prof.h.mandingo]

Jackson was also mobilizing troops. Andy didn't play and to equate him with Bambi is not in any way fair to poor Andy.
Can you tell me if the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions voided the Alien and Sedition Acts of ‘98? I don't believe they did. I quoted Madison in regards to the Virginia Resolution. Can you give me any information refuting that contention, i.e., the Resolutions did not nullify the law?
It was my understanding that the Force Act was supposed to “sunset” but there is some dispute on this count.
Section 5 of the force act address the idea of nullification.
Also the Supreme Court seems to have made the idea of nullification moot.
You may not like Supreme Court rulings but they are the law unless overturned by Congressional action.
Let me know what you think. I am open to any information that will change my view.
Thanks FRiend.

[DJ MacWoW]

Can you tell me if the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions voided the Alien and Sedition Acts of ‘98?

Only within their borders. It certainly violated the First Amendment. And they are resolutions that stated the Act would not be enforced in Virginia and Kentucky's borders.

Why wouldn't the SCOTUS declare that nullification is "moot"? Who willingly limits their own power?.

There are other cases of states ignoring law despite SCOTUS upholding it. Wisconsin and Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 is one. Ableman v. Booth has never been acknowledged by Wisconsin. And several states ignored Prigg v. Pennsylvania. New York and New Jersey used their personal liberty laws despite a ruling by SCOTUS.

States can ignore bad federal law but their refusal must align with the Constitution and there must be several states all in agreement.

[Terry L Smith]

Dear Maudeen,

I looked on their website ... 8o !! “Marionberry Cheesecake”!!

Alas! It IS the 23rd. The First comes soon, though! :)

Saved the site for future looking.

[Terry L Smith]

Dear Miss marmelstein,

A silent nod on your, ahem, perceptive ‘silent retort’.

However, too much attention, and too many jaded eyes still linger over them.

Remember, dear, the dish must be served COLD, as in, ‘looking at something with a cold eye’.

Too many warm eyes, right now.

[editor-surveyor]

A clear violation of their first amendment “Free exercise” rights.

[prof.h.mandingo]

Good points. Thanks for the added court cases. My point is simply that the feds. have not bothered to challenge the states. It would be interesting to see what would happen if there was a full court federal effort to “make” a state enforce federal law.
For DUI and hwy. safety issues the feds. have used withholding of funds to get their way. The same with education funds forcing states to accept their rulings.
Are you aware of any attempts by the feds. to get a state to enforce legislation where the withholding of funds was not used?
I am curious if they have pushed the federal courts to rule on this issue and if so what “force” did they use to get a state to comply.
Thanks for any insights you can provide.
We are in thorny ground with this issue. I am in favor of states rights and would like to see a few large states like Texas with some other southern states try to flex their muscle.
The problem is poor southern states are under the federal thumb as they receive much more in federal benefits than they pay over in taxes. Biting the hand that feeds you comes to mind in this case.

[DJ MacWoW]

It's been a long time since any state stood up to the Fed. As you said, they've allowed the federal government make them beggars, for roads, education funds.............they go begging, hat in hand, to the monster they created and fed.

I'm not aware of any instance of "persuasion" other than funds. They've nearly closed some school systems here in NY. I wish that I could do some more research but I'm busy with the FReepathon right now and that limits my time.

[wardaddy]

The Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s that the stupids here and on conservative talk radio laud and try to take credit for

That happened

Think lunch counter segregation...however wrong.....legislation to counter that sort of thing is precisely how we got here to this lunacy

We stripped business owners right to discriminate

[MeshugeMikey]

In certain that the allgedly unforeseen consequences of such legislation were at the forefront of the minds of the one worlders!