(09-03-2013 11:47 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(09-03-2013 10:31 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Discrimination is not good for business...

They didn't close for lack of business, UofM. they closed because they're were going to have to fight a _STUPID_ business investigation that should NEVER have been started in the first place. How much do you think it would cost an individual to fight a state investigation?

The couple could have gone to another business bought their cake there..told their gay and lesbian friends and allies not to shop there. But no they forced this company to close up shop,

In the process...

sending (even it was just a small number of) employees to the unemployment line...
Wiped out some sales tax for the State of Oregon..
Wiped out some commercial property tax for the state of Oregon. (I assume they have this?)
Wiped out some payroll tax for the state of oregon

.. all because they got their knickers in a wad because a business didn't want to have them as a customer.

And yet they have the gall to call those who don't knuckle under to their tactics "bullies." Projection 101.

(09-03-2013 06:18 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-03-2013 04:34 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(09-03-2013 10:14 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  http://www.kgw.com/news/Gresham-bakery-t...04711.html

Quote:GRESHAM, Ore. – A Gresham bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, prompting a state investigation, shut its doors.

So much for that Constitution thingy.

Could it be that the State of Oregon, under the 10th Amendment, decided that they would implement an anti-discrimination law stricter than the feds? Note it said state investigation. States' rights, right?

Uh, it violates the Constitution, it does not just go beyond it. In fact, you don't understand the Constitution at all. Funny how that's true of leftists.

Could you point to the specific clause in the US Constitution saying that what Oregon did was illegal?

(09-03-2013 06:15 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  If I had owned the bakery and the Flaming couple had thrown a hissy over my refusal of services I would have reluctantly made the cake with a very "special" icing.

I'd have made them their cake, and hoped they liked it. I got bills to pay.

(09-03-2013 10:31 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Discrimination is not good for business...

Exactly. The government didn't put him out of business, the community did.

(09-03-2013 06:40 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(09-03-2013 06:18 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-03-2013 04:34 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(09-03-2013 10:14 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  http://www.kgw.com/news/Gresham-bakery-t...04711.html

Quote:GRESHAM, Ore. – A Gresham bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, prompting a state investigation, shut its doors.

So much for that Constitution thingy.

Could it be that the State of Oregon, under the 10th Amendment, decided that they would implement an anti-discrimination law stricter than the feds? Note it said state investigation. States' rights, right?

Uh, it violates the Constitution, it does not just go beyond it. In fact, you don't understand the Constitution at all. Funny how that's true of leftists.

Could you point to the specific clause in the US Constitution saying that what Oregon did was illegal?

No, they can't. They'll just tell you that you know nothing about the constitution, just like "all other leftists" and continue their bigoted circlejerk.

(09-03-2013 08:11 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(09-03-2013 10:31 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Discrimination is not good for business...

Exactly. The government didn't put him out of business, the community did.

Oddly enough, that's exactly what didn't happen.

(09-03-2013 06:40 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(09-03-2013 06:18 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-03-2013 04:34 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(09-03-2013 10:14 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  http://www.kgw.com/news/Gresham-bakery-t...04711.html

Quote:GRESHAM, Ore. – A Gresham bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, prompting a state investigation, shut its doors.

So much for that Constitution thingy.

Could it be that the State of Oregon, under the 10th Amendment, decided that they would implement an anti-discrimination law stricter than the feds? Note it said state investigation. States' rights, right?

Uh, it violates the Constitution, it does not just go beyond it. In fact, you don't understand the Constitution at all. Funny how that's true of leftists.

Could you point to the specific clause in the US Constitution saying that what Oregon did was illegal?

As usual, yes.

Freedom of association is the right to join or leave groups of a person's own choosing, and for the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of members.[1] It is both an individual right and a collective right, guaranteed by all modern and democratic legal systems, including the United States Bill of Rights,

Freedom of association is primarily manifested through the right to join a trade union, free speech or debating societies, political parties, or any other club or association such as religious groups, fraternities, or sport clubs. It is closely linked with the freedom of assembly, particularly under the US Bill of Rights. More specifically the freedom of assembly is understood in a political context, although depending on the source (constitution, human rights instrument, etc.) the right to freedom of association may be understood to include the right to freedom of assembly.

Expressive associations are groups that engage in activities protected by the First Amendment – speech, assembly, press, petitioning government for a redress of grievances, and the free exercise of religion. In Roberts v. United States Jaycees, the Supreme Court held that associations may not exclude people for reasons unrelated to the group's expression. However, in the subsequent decisions of Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, the Court ruled that a group may exclude people from membership if their presence would affect the group's ability to advocate a particular point of view. The government cannot, through the use of anti-discrimination laws, force groups to include a message that they do not wish to convey.

(09-03-2013 09:22 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-03-2013 06:40 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(09-03-2013 06:18 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-03-2013 04:34 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(09-03-2013 10:14 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  http://www.kgw.com/news/Gresham-bakery-t...04711.html


So much for that Constitution thingy.

Could it be that the State of Oregon, under the 10th Amendment, decided that they would implement an anti-discrimination law stricter than the feds? Note it said state investigation. States' rights, right?

Uh, it violates the Constitution, it does not just go beyond it. In fact, you don't understand the Constitution at all. Funny how that's true of leftists.

Could you point to the specific clause in the US Constitution saying that what Oregon did was illegal?

As usual, yes.

Freedom of association is the right to join or leave groups of a person's own choosing, and for the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of members.[1] It is both an individual right and a collective right, guaranteed by all modern and democratic legal systems, including the United States Bill of Rights,

Freedom of association is primarily manifested through the right to join a trade union, free speech or debating societies, political parties, or any other club or association such as religious groups, fraternities, or sport clubs. It is closely linked with the freedom of assembly, particularly under the US Bill of Rights. More specifically the freedom of assembly is understood in a political context, although depending on the source (constitution, human rights instrument, etc.) the right to freedom of association may be understood to include the right to freedom of assembly.

Expressive associations are groups that engage in activities protected by the First Amendment – speech, assembly, press, petitioning government for a redress of grievances, and the free exercise of religion. In Roberts v. United States Jaycees, the Supreme Court held that associations may not exclude people for reasons unrelated to the group's expression. However, in the subsequent decisions of Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, the Court ruled that a group may exclude people from membership if their presence would affect the group's ability to advocate a particular point of view. The government cannot, through the use of anti-discrimination laws, force groups to include a message that they do not wish to convey.

A bakery isn't a political action group. Suppose every business discriminated against a certain group, I dunno, like maybe black people. How exactly would that fix itself simply by the market? And running a business in most states is not a right, you must apply and receive a license. And finally, the Constitution gave the Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce, how would it not follow that Oregon would have the right to regulate commerce within its borders?

(09-03-2013 09:22 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-03-2013 06:40 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(09-03-2013 06:18 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-03-2013 04:34 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(09-03-2013 10:14 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  http://www.kgw.com/news/Gresham-bakery-t...04711.html


So much for that Constitution thingy.

Could it be that the State of Oregon, under the 10th Amendment, decided that they would implement an anti-discrimination law stricter than the feds? Note it said state investigation. States' rights, right?

Uh, it violates the Constitution, it does not just go beyond it. In fact, you don't understand the Constitution at all. Funny how that's true of leftists.

Could you point to the specific clause in the US Constitution saying that what Oregon did was illegal?

As usual, yes.

Freedom of association is the right to join or leave groups of a person's own choosing, and for the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of members.[1] It is both an individual right and a collective right, guaranteed by all modern and democratic legal systems, including the United States Bill of Rights,

Freedom of association is primarily manifested through the right to join a trade union, free speech or debating societies, political parties, or any other club or association such as religious groups, fraternities, or sport clubs. It is closely linked with the freedom of assembly, particularly under the US Bill of Rights. More specifically the freedom of assembly is understood in a political context, although depending on the source (constitution, human rights instrument, etc.) the right to freedom of association may be understood to include the right to freedom of assembly.

Expressive associations are groups that engage in activities protected by the First Amendment – speech, assembly, press, petitioning government for a redress of grievances, and the free exercise of religion. In Roberts v. United States Jaycees, the Supreme Court held that associations may not exclude people for reasons unrelated to the group's expression. However, in the subsequent decisions of Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, the Court ruled that a group may exclude people from membership if their presence would affect the group's ability to advocate a particular point of view. The government cannot, through the use of anti-discrimination laws, force groups to include a message that they do not wish to convey.

Those all relate to associations, not businesses. The Supreme Court has ruled, on multiple occasions that businesses are subject to non-discrimination regulations.