Posted on 02/04/2015 2:42:57 PM PST by SeekAndFind
“.... If they couldn’t pay,they would end up in jail. ...”
I didn’t think there were debtors’ prisons anymore ...
...or are there?
RE: Forcing people to go against their principles and conscience is wrong. No one should be forced by the law to do this.
So, based on this, I would guess that you support he right of a racist bigot to refuse service to ethnic minorities?
I wonder if we could set up a kick starter project to take care of that fine.
In Oklahoma, the courts will issue bench warrants if you don’t pay fines, no matter whether you have the money or not.
I don’t know what the rules are for that. Perhaps they may do that.
It would be better to either have a legal fund to overturn the law, or a fund to campaign for a change in the law.
I am not as optimistic as you when you say that these bakers can win on constitutional grounds.
Judge Andrew Napolitano for instance ( not a left wing nut by any stretch of the imagination ) argued when interviewed on Fox News that the free exercise of religion is only limited to the exercise of religious ceremony and doesn’t include business, and on top of that, the government has no business doing things “based on hatred or stereotypes.”
Napolitano noted how, years ago, businesses could discriminate on the basis of nearly everything, from gender and religion to race and ethnicity (like those infamous “No Irish Need Apply” signs). He said that it’s one thing for a priest to be able to refuse to marry a gay couple, but if people are allowed to invoke religion to get a free pass outside of religious ceremony, the logical endpoint is someone saying “my religion prohibits me from paying taxes or obeying the speed limits.”
THAT my friends will be the basis for arguing that the fine against the Bakers is CONSTITUTIONAL.
(not that I agree with it ).
Well, according to the OR Constitution:
Art 1, Section 19. Imprisonment for debt.
There shall be no imprisonment for debt, except in case of fraud or absconding debtors.
Sell cakes without the “couple” on the top. Let the purchaser choose their own. Since you rarely get requests for two female figures, it’d be understandable if you were temporarily out of them. Offer a discount equal to the cost of buying the figures somewhere else if you don’t have one.
Yet... Hobby Lobby was exactly on this point.
Except, as I noted on another thread:
Art I, Section 2. Freedom of worship.So says the OR Constitution.
All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.
Art I, Section 6. No religious test for witnesses or jurors.
No person shall be rendered incompetent as a witness, or juror in consequence of his opinions on matters of religeon [sic]; nor be questioned in any Court of Justice touching his religeous [sic] belief to affect the weight of his testimony.
Art I, Section 34. Slavery or involuntary servitude.
There shall be neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude in the State, otherwise than as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
OK they didn’t commit fraud, and haven’t absconded, so I don’t think they can be put in jail for not being able to pay.
You’ll note that I qualified my statement to that other person by saying ... “again, given that your stated understanding here is correct” ...
IF his stated understanding is correct THEN he will win. BUT THEN ... that’s the crux of the matter in that one’s stated understanding may NOT be correct ... :-) ...
They can in Oklahoma ... :-) ...
My disagreement with Judge Napolitano is his argument to the effect that the government has no business doing things “based on hatred or stereotypes.”
To say that Christians or Muslims or Orthodox Jews who do not want to celebrate homosexuality because it is based on “hatred or stereotypes” can also be considered a form of “hatred and stereotype” against these same devout people who take their religious precepts seriously.
Therefore, it becomes an argument based on personal moral values.
In other words, what form of morality does a government support?
You have to answer that because any form of coercive rule ( by which the government exercises its absolute authority ) will always be based on a PRESCRIPTIVE and MORAL act.
It is impossible not to impose one’s morality on another because any law will always impose morality on others.
It remains to be seen what morality one will support — Judaeo Christian or Pagan.
I say Judge Napolitano is out of bounds here because the foundation of this country is based on Judaeo Christian principles.
My disagreement with Judge Napolitano is his argument to the effect that the government has no business doing things “based on hatred or stereotypes.”
To say that Christians or Muslims or Orthodox Jews who do not want to celebrate homosexuality because it is based on “hatred or stereotypes” can also be considered a form of “hatred and stereotype” against these same devout people who take their religious precepts seriously.
Therefore, it becomes an argument based on personal moral values.
In other words, what form of morality does a government support?
You have to answer that because any form of coercive rule ( by which the government exercises its absolute authority ) will always be based on a PRESCRIPTIVE and MORAL act.
It is impossible not to impose one’s morality on another because any law will always impose morality on others.
It remains to be seen what morality one will support — Judaeo Christian or Pagan.
I say Judge Napolitano is out of bounds here because the foundation of this country is based on Judaeo Christian principles.
If I was forced to bake a cake for a couple of faggots the cream in the recipe would be real 100% Man-Cream™ and I would laugh watching them eat it.
The bakers are in Oregon.
“Why aren’t Republicans and conservatives highlighting these stories?”
The black-robed fascists have wrongly and illegally redefined private property as “public accommodations.” The morons in the Republican party allowed it to happen by not impeaching and removing the crooked judges who made that “public accommodations” ruling. It set the stage for fascism - government control of private property - that we live with today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.