Melisas Sweetcakes destroyed as 'love wins'

[millergrovesue]

Why do you think the law is "absurd"? It seems very reasonable to me. It is certainly clear and easy to understand...well worded. And, since we are on the subject, what "scamming" are the "gay leeches" doing (and why are they leeches)?

I don't know that the bakery is going out of business. The whole statement that they would continue to break the law sort of suggests that they don't intend to close. They should pick up business from those who agree with you just as they loss business from others. It should balance out and the "gag order" gag is just for publicity and sympathy (and money) from others who don't feel the law should apply to them because of their (oh so convenient) religious beliefs. The scam appears to be by the owners (and discriminators).

Yeah, and the fact is that they broke the law. The Melissa sympathizers won't admit that is the reason they were sighted. Guess if they continue to break the law the powers that be in Oregon will shut them down regardless.

Odd - when it's illegal aliens the same people who are claiming foul here are in favor of law enforcement. When it's refusing service to people they don't approve of they seem to think the law doesn't apply. Makes no sense to me.

[millergrovesue]

Ya beat me to the first part, Castle.

[GFB]

Laws restricting illegal immigration are to protect our country.

This type of law in Oregon is designed to destroy it.

I don't want to be one of the destroyers.

[Castle Doctrine]

Laws restricting illegal immigration are to protect our country.

This type of law in Oregon is designed to destroy it.

I don't want to be one of the destroyers.

Ah, that isn't exactly correct. Immigration laws serve a number of purposes. I don't actually think one of those is to protect our country.

The Oregon law is designed to prevent people (possibly people like you) from discriminating against other people. Why was the law needed? The law was needed because people would not stop discriminating otherwise. Some more conservative individuals actually think it is alright to discriminate (as long as they are not the target). So, since some people couldn't play fair we had to have new rules (laws) covering the intransigence.

Now, you might ask, why include gays (or Jews or atheists or little people). It is sort of simple. That community decided that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was wrong and their legislators passed laws reflecting this. Here is the thing, a community allows a business to come into their community and make a profit from their community. The community defines the rules under which the business may operate. When those rules change the businesses have to change or leave. They may not decide they liked the old rules better so they will ignore the new rules. They must abide by the new rules or suffer the consequences. This is the same deal as minimum wage, licensing requirements, zoning regulation, etc...follow the rules or suffer the consequences (up to and including being closed down).

The funny thing to me is that the argument for marriage equality is being discussed as a religious issue...it isn't. It is an economic issue. The same-sex couple really wants the rights, responsibilities and privileges that flow through a State recognized marriage. Call it anything else and the State will then have to define all those issues individually. Marriage equality avoids all that very cleanly...unless you want to pretend that it is really about religion, which it isn't.

[ralph]

think that you are correct that immigration laws are made to benefit government and business . Think that they should be designed to benefit American people rather than imported foreigners , American business and governmental social engineering CD .

[ralph]

as far as Melisas , well just another step to control of people by government in areas that government should mind their own business . States should decide rather than 5 liberal lawyers known as the supremes CD .

[Red Oak]

The "Law" is ambiguous in this case, this case has not seen the inside of a Court Room; just some Oregon state agency ruling.

The same state agency that has been accused of being collusion with the LGBTQEIEO organizations that pursued the case.

[GFB]

think that you are correct that immigration laws are made to benefit government and business . Think that they should be designed to benefit American people rather than imported foreigners , American business and governmental social engineering CD .

I'm guessing you're not familiar with our immigration laws.

They are very, very tough.

There is no provision for illegal aliens to stay in the country.

We're all so used to hearing the establishment talk about their various versions of amnesty..we think it's all legal and proper..none of it is.

[ralph]

a business is thought up , if it is legal it pays money for a business license and goes on its way to try to make money . This is just an extension of gov policy of MUST accommodate EVERYONE . That ok in gov but its misapplied when pushed on private business in the USA . Like I said previously , its just government tyranny CD .

[ralph]

I know enough about immigration laws to know that the USA is overrun by immigrants in all their variations . Think the last time that immigration might have been run correctly is around Eisenhowers time Greg .

[GFB]

I know enough about immigration laws to know that the USA is overrun by immigrants in all their variations . Think the last time that immigration might have been run correctly is around Eisenhowers time Greg .

That is NOT immigration law..that is the ignoring of all the laws.

[Red Oak]

If anyone has any information that a Judge has issued a "Gag Order", and not just some bureaucrat labor board issuance, please let us know.

[Red Oak]

Mayhem=Castle Doctrine ?

Hmmmm.......

[ralph]

by DESIGN and done by rinos and dems , lawless country and its the Americans that pay for the jeb bush family and the Clintons plus previous president and both party politicians as they collude against Americans Greg .

[GFB]

Mayhem=Castle Doctrine ?

Hmmmm.......

Definitely..same rambling "logic."

[millergrovesue]

Ah, that isn't exactly correct. Immigration laws serve a number of purposes. I don't actually think one of those is to protect our country.

The Oregon law is designed to prevent people (possibly people like you) from discriminating against other people. Why was the law needed? The law was needed because people would not stop discriminating otherwise. Some more conservative individuals actually think it is alright to discriminate (as long as they are not the target). So, since some people couldn't play fair we had to have new rules (laws) covering the intransigence.

Now, you might ask, why include gays (or Jews or atheists or little people). It is sort of simple. That community decided that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was wrong and their legislators passed laws reflecting this. Here is the thing, a community allows a business to come into their community and make a profit from their community. The community defines the rules under which the business may operate. When those rules change the businesses have to change or leave. They may not decide they liked the old rules better so they will ignore the new rules. They must abide by the new rules or suffer the consequences. This is the same deal as minimum wage, licensing requirements, zoning regulation, etc...follow the rules or suffer the consequences (up to and including being closed down).

The funny thing to me is that the argument for marriage equality is being discussed as a religious issue...it isn't. It is an economic issue. The same-sex couple really wants the rights, responsibilities and privileges that flow through a State recognized marriage. Call it anything else and the State will then have to define all those issues individually. Marriage equality avoids all that very cleanly...unless you want to pretend that it is really about religion, which it isn't.

You are correct and well spoken!..............but then you knew that.....................and some here will never admit it...............but then you knew that too.

[GFB]

Of course it's alright to discriminate.

That's how we got all good jobs, good spouses, and good friends..by discriminating.

I'm discriminating about everything I do..every day.

[ralph]

yep , successful people with good marriage , jobs , friends have to discriminate every hour of every day . DISCRIMINATING , also known as separating the wheat from the chaff .

[Castle Doctrine]

Mayhem=Castle Doctrine ?

Hmmmm.......

Definitely..same rambling "logic."

Oh, I see. No I have never been to this site before today. As for the rambling logic...I find it impossible to respond meaningfully in the few coded words that work for RWers. I like to state my position and explain it. You see, I think about these things rather than just spouting dogma or excepting what everyone "knows". I look at reports from as many perspectives as I can get...even if some are offensive.

This approach served me well in my Naval career and since. I don't find myself defending the indefensible...too often, anyway. Seldom do my opinions agree with official policy or established dogma from either side.

I don't like personal attacks and usually refrain from them. They are just an admission that you don't have an argument. It is hard to avoid SOME form of argumentum ad hominem because there are so many forms thereof. But, I do try. I can be a smartass...but, that isn't belief based...it just is.

You want to discuss issues with those of differing opinions I good to go. If you just want to make broad unfounded claims we may have some issues. As far as the little game you played above...I'll pass on playing. Real friendly group here...Hell of a welcome.

[Castle Doctrine]

Of course it's alright to discriminate.

That's how we got all good jobs, good spouses, and good friends..by discriminating.

I'm discriminating about everything I do..every day.

Those are all LEGAL forms of permissible discrimination...the issue is illegal discrimination.

I realize you are intentionally "misunderstanding" the meaning of discrimination. Not a very clever response. Does it bother you to play dumb like that? Aren't you concerned someone might think you really didn't know the difference?