State's Rights vs Federal Law?

[Irvrobinson]

WRT the bakery in Oregon- they have been fined $135K- how did they decide on that amount and now that they have driven the bakery owners out of business, the State says they'll slap a lien on the couple's home if they don't pay. OK, they closed their shop in Sept, 2013- it's likely that they CAN'T pay and they have few options. They also have two young kids, their car has been vandalized, they have received threats and they have received a ton of bad press. The woman who went to the shop to place an order could have gone to a different bakery, eventually getting over the refusal. Who has been hurt more? I'm looking at the details, not making a statement about the brides who couldn't have a cake from this bakery and don't read anything into this.

The decision maker for the fine was Oregon's Labor Commissioner, Brad Avakian. If you do a little internet searching you can see that this infamous commission has a track record of huge fines. It's just my cynical, jaded opinion, but the fine looks like it was intended to put them out of business.

I used to call Oregon the "Mississippi of the Northwest", but then I looked at the statistics and figured out I was insulting Mississippi.

 

[markw]

No, atheists (unrealistically in the US, IMO) want government agencies to stop forcing religion on them. In the process of that debate, people who like religion in public institutions think that atheists are trying to tell them how to live.

They don't force religion on them. If they ar that adamant about it, they should refuse all monies because it says "In God We Trust".

Not at all. As a big fan of the ACLU they are defenders of an individual's ability to practice religion; they just want religious messages and artifacts out of the government domain. BTW, the ACLU is just another non-profit organization. It doesn't have a job, it has an agenda.

The ACLU's religious freedom stance is right on their web page:

The ACLU strives to safeguard the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty by ensuring that laws and governmental practices neither promote religion nor interfere with its free exercise.

Not according to my last post they don't. Read it. Digest it.

 

[markw]

It's the 1st Amendment argument you brought up earlier. The venue in this case being interpreted as the government establishing a state religion. Yeah, it's an interpretation, but so are many other important rulings. Like Roe v Wade. You really have to squint on that one.

REally? What religion would that be? It certainly isn't Christianity although a case might be made for Islam. As for R v W, if they want to kill unborn children, let em. It's no skin off my soul. They can live with themselves, but don't expect me to pay for the operation willingly.

As for the right not be offended, that is exactly what anti-discrimination laws are intended to prevent, and the Sweet Cakes ruling you're in a bundle about falls in that category.

I stepped in that argument when I was feeding the horses. No, to simply claim "I'm offended" when no real cause exists is what's destroying this country.

The couple was in it for the money. They could have had their cake but forcing the owners to write what they wanted on the cake went vehemently against the owners religious beliefs. So, whose rights were trampled on here?

How would you feel if that graduation ceremony was held in a synagogue or a mosque?

Considering this would be for someone I cared about, I would go and keep my mouth shut, but not make a federal case about it. But, if I was really that offended, I simply would not go. Is it that hard to comprehend???

 

[shadyJ]

They don't force religion on them. If they ar that adamant about it, they should refuse all monies because it says "In God We Trust".

One would think a christian would more object to the invocation of god on the embodiment of mammon, but christianity isn't what it used to be, especially modern american protestantism, what with a 'prosperity gospel' type value system and all.

 

[Irvrobinson]

They don't force religion on them. If they are that adamant about it, they should refuse all monies because it says "In God We Trust".

Yeah, I know. One nation under God and all that stuff. From your previous posts in other threads, Mark, I know your leanings on this topic of religion, and I want you to have the freedom to do what you want, but to be honest I really wish our money didn't say In God We Trust.

Not according to my last post they don't. Read it. Digest it.

I did. You don't like the ACLU's agenda on religion and government agencies, and I get that, but I think you're twisting around the ACLU's position, because challenging the rights of the majority to have some of their religion sprinkled around in publicly funded events pisses you off. No organization is perfect, but overall I like having the ACLU around.

 

[markw]

Here's another example of what's wrong with country.

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/07/366720-flea-market-visitor-sees-confederate-merchandise-sale-reacts-calling-cops/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Owned&utm_term=conservativedaily&utm_campaign=Crime

Poor baby was offended. Boo freakin' hoo.

Now, how long before these types actually try to make this illegal?

 

[markw]

Yeah, I know. One nation under God and all that stuff. From your previous posts in other threads, Mark, I know your leanings on this topic of religion, and I want you to have the freedom to do what you want, but to be honest I really wish our money didn't say In God We Trust.

Well, if it really bothers you that much, feel free to send it all to me.

I did. You don't like the ACLU's agenda on religion and government agencies, and I get that, but I think you're twisting around the ACLU's position, because challenging the rights of the majority to have some of their religion sprinkled around in publicly funded events pisses you off. No organization is perfect, but overall I like having the ACLU around.

The ACLU stated it fairly clearly. Read it again.

 

[shadyJ]

Here's another example of what's wrong with country.

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/07/366720-flea-market-visitor-sees-confederate-merchandise-sale-reacts-calling-cops/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Owned&utm_term=conservativedaily&utm_campaign=Crime

Poor baby was offended. Boo freakin' hoo.

Now, how long before these types actually try to make this illegal?

That is an example of what's wrong with one individual. I would say that is an example of what's right with the country, in that shopkeeper can legally sell that kind of stuff. Profiting off of confederate and nazi merchandise is pretty sleazy, but it is a right that rightfully isn't going to be threatened anytime soon, I don't know what such a slight story would even be considered newsworthy, or worth mentioning here.

 

[markw]

That is an example of what's wrong with one individual. I would say that is an example of what's right with the country, in that shopkeeper can legally sell that kind of stuff. Profiting off of confederate and nazi merchandise is pretty sleazy, but it is a right that rightfully isn't going to be threatened anytime soon, I don't know what such a slight story would even be considered newsworthy, or worth mentioning here.

...and the first snowflake in a blizzard isn't anything to worry about, either. Lately, there have been more than a few snowflakes.

 

[Steve81]

The ACLU stated it fairly clearly. Read it again.

I read the full article from the Washington Post. That reads quite differently from a simple statement that "the American Civil Liberties Union is no longer going to support federal religious freedom laws."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/congress-should-amend-the-abused-religious-freedom-restoration-act/2015/06/25/ee6aaa46-19d8-11e5-ab92-c75ae6ab94b5_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b

Short version: the ACLU does not support the implementation/interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which they feel opens the door to discrimination, and they'd like the law amended. Directly from the article:

Yes, religious freedom needs protection. But religious liberty doesn’t mean the right to discriminate or to impose one’s views on others. The RFRA wasn’t meant to force employees to pay a price for their employer’s faith, or to allow businesses to refuse to serve gay and transgender people, or to sanction government-funded discrimination. In the civil rights era, we rejected the claims of those who said it would violate their religion to integrate. We can’t let the RFRA be used as a tool for a different result now.

It’s time for Congress to amend the RFRA so that it cannot be used as a defense for discrimination. Religious freedom will be undermined only if we continue to tolerate and enable abuses in its name.

 

[markw]

I read the full article from the Washington Post. That reads quite differently from a simple statement that "the American Civil Liberties Union is no longer going to support federal religious freedom laws."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/congress-should-amend-the-abused-religious-freedom-restoration-act/2015/06/25/ee6aaa46-19d8-11e5-ab92-c75ae6ab94b5_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b

Short version: the ACLU does not support the implementation/interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which they feel opens the door to discrimination, and they'd like the law amended. Directly from the article:

So, in regards to this Oregon case, although the bakers offered to make them a cake, they should be forced to write something on it that goes against their values. And, that differs from what I said exactly how? Again, whose rights are being trampled on? Who is trying to impose their views on who here?

I don't think you fully understand the RFRA. If you did, you would see where their bailing on this is akin to refusing to help any religion based issues unless, of course, they instigated it with the intent of bullying some small business or organization. ...which they are famous for.

 

[Steve81]

And, that differs from what I said exactly how?

The ACLU doesn't support ONE law as currently written / being used, and they'd like to see it changed. That's a very different from the statement that "the American Civil Liberties Union is no longer going to support federal religious freedom laws." The whole article also provides context whereas the tidbit you posted leaves room for different interpretations, i.e. your assertion that they're bailing on the RFRA and as a result religious based issues.

So, in regards to this Oregon case, although the bakers offered to make them a cake, they should be forced to write something on it that goes against their values.

According to the law of Oregon, apparently so. From a practical standpoint, it's a matter of judging a lesser of two evils, i.e. forcing a company to decorate a cake in a way that is offensive to the owner's religious beliefs, vs. accepting that businesses can refuse certain services to a group of people. Opinions obviously vary.

 

[markw]

The ACLU doesn't support ONE law as currently written / being used, and they'd like to see it changed. That's a very different from the statement that "the American Civil Liberties Union is no longer going to support federal religious freedom laws." The whole article also provides context whereas the tidbit you posted leaves room for different interpretations, i.e. your assertion that they're bailing on the RFRA and as a result religious based issues.

Yeah, they would like it changed so the business owners aren't even given a chance to fight the charges'

According to the law of Oregon, apparently so. From a practical standpoint, it's a matter of judging a lesser of two evils, i.e. forcing a company to decorate a cake in a way that is offensive to the owner's religious beliefs, vs. accepting that businesses can refuse certain services to a group of people. Opinions obviously vary.

Well, Oregon is run by idiots. The "girls" had several choices. 1) accept the cake without the offensive message or 2) go to some other bakery who would have been happy to take their money. But, they chose to make a stink about it. Let's hope the general public makes their lives miserable. The case IS on public records and that "gag order" is a joke, and illegal. Let's hope this is appealed and quick.

Understand, I don't have a thing against gays but when they use their "oppressed minority" status to force others to do what they don't believe, they've made an enemy and, if this keeps up, I won't be the only one.

So, where's that tolerance they were always talking about? Oh yeah. That's only a one way street.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Well, Oregon is run by idiots.

You have no idea...

Although it does have one really dumb thing in common with your state: they are the only two states in the nation where you're not allowed to pump your own gas.

 

[herbu]

↑
So, in regards to this Oregon case, although the bakers offered to make them a cake, they should be forced to write something on it that goes against their values.

According to the law of Oregon, apparently so.

But Oregon has also legalized pot for recreational use, in direct violation of federal law. So in Oregon, how do I know which laws are real, and which are only pretend?

Illegal Aliens in Portland are not illegal, selling a cake that offends the customer is illegal but one that offends me is not, smoking pot is both legal and illegal.

Anarchy: "a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority."

 

[Steve81]

But Oregon has also legalized pot for recreational use, in direct violation of federal law. So in Oregon, how do I know which laws are real, and which are only pretend?

If you're unlucky enough to get busted by a Fed for lighting up a joint in Oregon, then you'll know. Of course at the federal level, they don't seem interested in going after the "legal" users.

Illegal Aliens in Portland are not illegal

They are, but nobody cares enough to do anything about them.

Anarchy: "a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority."

I'm not sure I'd call it anarchy so much as a state of flux. Laws, even bad ones, don't change overnight after all. As it is, both sides of the aisle seem to recognize something needs to happen with immigration. The writing is also on the wall in terms of the war on drugs. Obviously the last couple years have been big for gay rights, though there's arguably more to go.