Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID

He belongs to a Christian Evangelical organization that supports same sex marriage.If the suit is a civil suit there will be no fines. Fines are involved only in criminal cases. If the couple have been found guilty of discrimination in a criminal case then there could be fines but so far I have seen no evidence there was a criminal case.AbE:And Paul has been factually wrong about lots of stuff.Edited by jar, : see AbE:

It says a fine was levied. I will be happy if it turns out they don't have to pay a fine, but it SAYS a fine was levied.

I don't see anywhere in the tract you highlighted that says you should treat the people it mentions like shit.How about you and the other fundies worry about themselves. Self-righteous hypocritical assholes is what the lot of you are. When anything other people do makes you a fornicator, idolater, adulterer, homosexual, sodomite, thief, covetor, drunkard, reviler or extortioner, then you can stand up and stop them. Until then mind your own business and leave people alone.Oh and by the way the bible verse isn't Jesus talking.

You need to remember that Paul was always a fanatic and pretty much an asshole who never even met Jesus.

What it says, and what is the truth may not be the same thing.BOLI found they broke laws they have the power to enforce. They said the matter could be settled by paying damages to the lesbians. A conciliation phase was begun to try and reach an exact agreement on this matter, but they were informed that the lesbians were looking for $150,000 going into the conciliation. This process is not public. However, it is public that an agreement could not be reached. Therefore a hearing has been scheduled wherein an ALJ will hear the case and review the evidence and drafts a final order. The Commissioner will then review this final order and may make amendments before issuing it. Then and only then can it be said that a fine has been levied against them. And it may only be an order to pay damages and legal costs etc.This can be read about here.

In other words, your Christian source lied to you. Again! One would have thought that having had that happen to you before (remember the false Founding Father quotes you had posted?), you would have learned to not trust a Christian source so readily and completely. But then you have fairly consistently demonstrated an inability to learn.It has gotten so that we cannot believe anything that a Christian says anymore. Used to be (at least half a century ago when I was still a Christian) that being a Christian actually meant something. Used to be that they did stand for morality. Now they readily tell any lie they can in order to advance their social and political agendae. How far they have fallen! And they want to drag the rest of us down with them! Absolutely disgusting!

What you have linked is a page of general procedures, really old page too, 2008-9; it's not about the bakery case. Where are you getting your idea that they haven't ruled on this case yet?Here's from the Christian Post article again: BOLI decided in JANUARY that the couple had discriminated against the lesbians. The CP article was written on October 22 and it says that LAST MONTH the couple said they are facing this fine. Sounds to me like BOLI finished its business and the fine is a done deal. Is there some reason you think differently?ABE: Here's video from You Tube, most from people who agree with you all here, confirming that the fine is a done deal: first one says the bakery has gone bankrupt as a result of the fine.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Perhaps some people here were just a teensy bit too eager to find me at fault. See last post to Modulous.I do remember the founding fathers flap and would like to revisit it because I didn't get to check it out fully before. But I can't find it through the Search feature. Maybe it's a closed thread, it always says "Search all open forums." Why can't we search closed ones too? Anyway I'd like to find it if you happen to know which thread it was on. Thanks.

Correct for the particular civil suit in question. But... Not correct. As an example, contempt of court is usually a civil matter, but it can result in imprisonment or fines. In fact, civil contempt can lead to indefinite periods imprisonment if the judge is using the imprisonment to force the release of evidence. In anti-trust cases, the government often has the option to seek either civil penalties or criminal penalties. Both actions can result in fines.

I just looked and for an "all fora" search the only option was for open ones. Perhaps you should take that up with Percy. Well then, have you read James Madison's A Memorial and Remonstrance yet? You can't understand the intent of the First Amendment unless you read its drafter's thoughts on those matters going in. I still have it posted at http://dwise1.net/rel_lib/memorial.html, or you could Google on A Memorial and Remonstrance to find any of thousands of copies on-line. As I describe it on my DWISE1'S RELIGIOUS LIBERTY PAGE page of links:

quote:

---

A Memorial and Remonstrance by James Madison. To my knowledge, contains the earliest reference to church-state separation (see the quote above), written a few years before Madison drafted the First Amendment. According to the standards demanded by the Religious Right in the 1980's, this document clearly reveals the original intent of the drafter of the First Amendment. Madison also clearly describes here the detrimental effects of not keeping religion and government separate.

---

That "quote above" is:

quote:

---

The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.
A Memorial and Remonstrance, James Madison, ca. 20 June 1785

---

Another quote pertaining to your sentiment that people's rights can and should be voted out of existence by a mere majority vote:

quote:

---

We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

---

Since I provided a link to the law that applied in Colorado Message 989, and it shows that the exact same clause applies against segregation, I would appreciate it if you answered the question.Why is it constitutional for the law to demand that the segregationists go against their religious beliefs ? Why does the same reasoning not apply in the cases you object to?

At every wedding I've been to the cake is part of the Reception. I wouldn't describe that as part of the ceremony.Which really drives home just how trivial the cake business seems to be. If the cake is just a traditional (and emotionally important) part of a secular post-wedding party, why is it so religiously significant to "Christians" that they can't just supply one to a gay couple getting married?Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Because they want to take a stand and be martyred. They love to feel persecuted for their faith. They could easily find another excuse for not making the cake if they simply didn't want to make it, but no, they had to make their stand. As a lawyer once said to me 'principles can get very expensive to defend.'On the other side of it, the gays are targeting these stupid and stubborn people to make their principled stand - this is a tactical mistake, they should just let these dinasaurs die out naturally. Society is pretty much on their side, they just need to keep pushing their agenda for wider and wider support.

Correct. This was to support what I was saying regarding the general procedure. Really old? I can think of other documents of procedures that the US uses that are much older.Have you any evidence that BOLI's procedures have since changed? If so, why is this out of date document still being linked to on the Oregon State government website with regards to the current procedure, do you think? Sweet Cakes by Melissa's motion to recuse labor commissioner on grounds of bias quashed - oregonlive.com
Sweet Cakes by Melissa civil rights hearing date moved to 2015 - oregonlive.comSee my Message 1008Yes, the BOLI investigation concluded there was significant evidence of a breach. The couple could have paid right there to conclude the matter, or they could contest it. They couldn't reach an agreement during conciliation. So now they are going to have a hearing. In 2015. Correct, they are facing a fine. If the hearing issues a final order that they pay a fine. Which they haven't done yet. They could pay some money now, and there would be no hearing and the matter would be resolved. That doesn't seem likely at this juncture.When a person is charged with a crime, a newspaper might report that they face '25 years in prison'. It doesn't make it a done deal. Yes: the way the law works. I don't care what people say or believe about this, I care about the facts. Just because some online news sources suggest that the fine has been issued that doesn't make it so. In a sense there is a fine on the table, after all they were found to have contravened the law - which can result in financial penalties. But the law seems to be structured such that this fine isn't something they have to pay until after an ALJ hears the case. Which they have not yet done.Maybe I'm wrong. Can you find any public document attesting that the Klein's have declared bankruptcy? Any public document that says the fine must be paid by a certain date?

Erm, isn't it this very thread? Message 565, Message 571, Message 575.The Search function covers closed threads (they are displayed with a gold 'CLOSED' repeating in the background - search for '1984' to see some examples), but does not search Fora that have been closed. Ie stuff that non-Admins can't see.One has to wonder why we're back in this thread, incidentally, and not having this discussion over at Where should there be "The right to refuse service"?.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.