No, but you would be entering into an illegally binding act with the United States government, and could get in serious trouble if they found out that you were only pretending to be gay or bisexual for financial gain.
No, but you would be entering into an illegally binding act with the United States government, and could get in serious trouble if they found out that you were only pretending to be gay or bisexual for financial gain.
The United States has anti-fraud laws for marriage. A man marrying a man when he is not gay or bisexual would be a marriage under false pretenses, as the only way for a man to marry a man is through gay marriage. If that man is not by any means gay (as being bisexual means you are partially gay, whereas being straight means you're not gay at all), entering into a gay marriage would be marriage fraud.
The United States government is really strict and swift in punishment when it comes to people getting marriage benefits through fraudulent means.
Aren't public businesses supposed to be things like hospitals and governmental institutions though? Sorry, I don't know too much about the constitution.
Any business serving the public falls under the Civil Rights Act. The point is that lots of people used to refuse blacks access to their stores, restaurants, etc. The Civil Rights Act said you could no longer discriminate when serving the public in a business capacity on the basis of criteria like gender or race, and that has recently been extending to orientation.
Aren't public businesses supposed to be things like hospitals and governmental institutions though? Sorry, I don't know too much about the constitution.
The couple had a right to sue them and do you really think sending out private information to violent homophobes as a way to get revenge and possibly harm them is a good thing to do?
No, but I'm not talking about that as it was AFTER the couple sued them. Yes, leaking that information was wrong, but I'm talking about what they did before that. Would I have refused a gay person service? Probably not. But it's not even a big deal. It's not like they took the couple's money and said "Fuck off faggots." They just said they wouldn't bke them a cake, so just find another bakery. It's not like finding a bakery that will do you a cake for a gay wedding is difficult. Bakers aren't usually homophobic unless I'm unaware.
I would understand the couple suing them IF the owners had leaked private information just for being in the store. But that's not how it went down. They got all bitchy because someone didn't make them a cake, and instead of taking their money elsewhere, they sued the owners. Both of them did something childish, but the gay couple did it first instead of just getting over it and moving on.
If it were me, I would have just said, "So you don't want my money? Okay, your loss." And I'd leave and do my business elsewhere. No fucking issue.
The couple had a right to sue them and do you really think sending out private information to violent homophobes as a way to get revenge and possibly harm them is a good thing to do?
Just because someone has a right doesn't mean they should. Police in America have the right to take ll your money and say it's evidence in a crime and spend it before you can get it back, but that doesn't mean they should have that right.
Except it is against the Civil Rights Act to deny them service. They were breaking the law and discriminating against the couple for their sexuality and they had all right to sue them, then the owners leaked their information which is REALLY against the law. They got their lives threatened along with, as I'm aware, their adopted child taken away. This is a big issue...Hell, if the Owners didn't decide to act like children and leak information, the costs they would have to pay to the couple would be far less. This is a civil rights issue, it's like refusing an interracial couple because one of them is black.
No, but I'm not talking about that as it was AFTER the couple sued them. Yes, leaking that information was wrong, but I'm talking about what… more they did before that. Would I have refused a gay person service? Probably not. But it's not even a big deal. It's not like they took the couple's money and said "Fuck off faggots." They just said they wouldn't bke them a cake, so just find another bakery. It's not like finding a bakery that will do you a cake for a gay wedding is difficult. Bakers aren't usually homophobic unless I'm unaware.
I would understand the couple suing them IF the owners had leaked private information just for being in the store. But that's not how it went down. They got all bitchy because someone didn't make them a cake, and instead of taking their money elsewhere, they sued the owners. Both of them did something childish, but the gay couple did it first instead of just getting over it and moving on.
If it were me, I woul… [view original content]
but unrelated, gay marriage (fraudulent or not) was illegal in Oregon at the time the couple asked for the cake. also the fact that it's illegal doesn't mean it's impossible.
The United States has anti-fraud laws for marriage. A man marrying a man when he is not gay or bisexual would be a marriage under false pre… moretenses, as the only way for a man to marry a man is through gay marriage. If that man is not by any means gay (as being bisexual means you are partially gay, whereas being straight means you're not gay at all), entering into a gay marriage would be marriage fraud.
The United States government is really strict and swift in punishment when it comes to people getting marriage benefits through fraudulent means.
I'll say it again: having your information leaked is a justifiable reason for suing someone. Someone not wanting to do business with you is NOT. Just take your money and give it to people who DO support you. Why would you even want to do business with them Just don't support that business if they won't support you. What exactly is wrong with that?
Except it is against the Civil Rights Act to deny them service. They were breaking the law and discriminating against the couple for their s… moreexuality and they had all right to sue them, then the owners leaked their information which is REALLY against the law. They got their lives threatened along with, as I'm aware, their adopted child taken away. This is a big issue...Hell, if the Owners didn't decide to act like children and leak information, the costs they would have to pay to the couple would be far less. This is a civil rights issue, it's like refusing an interracial couple because one of them is black.
Any business serving the public falls under the Civil Rights Act. The point is that lots of people used to refuse blacks access to their sto… moreres, restaurants, etc. The Civil Rights Act said you could no longer discriminate when serving the public in a business capacity on the basis of criteria like gender or race, and that has recently been extending to orientation.
Bruh, I said "We're talking about the same one" meaning everyone else in this thread was talking about the women last month not whatever two men you made up.
Well, the problem in my scenario is that the baker disapproves of a white man marrying a black woman. The fact that she's black is only obje… morectionable because he's white. Just as in your scenario, the problem is that the baker disapproves of a man marrying a man. The fact that the other partner is a man is only objectionable because the first partner is also a man.
And yet the baker's behavior in my scenario seems obviously discriminatory, no?
Two straight people who aren't gay but get married under illegal means is possible, but it is impossible to make a legal defense that something isn't discrimination because an illegal act is possible. The illegality would make a legal argument void.
Fraud is not counted as a civil right in the United States, or anywhere for that matter.
oh that's cool
but unrelated, gay marriage (fraudulent or not) was illegal in Oregon at the time the couple asked for the cake. also the fact that it's illegal doesn't mean it's impossible.
It's a difference that has no bearing on the analogy. The key point is that in both cases, the customer being denied service would not be denied service in other situations. If the man in your example were marrying a woman, he would get a cake. And if the man in my example were marrying a white woman, he would also get a cake.
Your argument was that this means that it was the nature of the marriage that the baker was discriminating against, not the sex and race of the customers themselves. But the reason why the baker is against the marriage is because of the sex and race of the other individual in the marriage. The man in your example is being denied a cake because his partner is a man. The man in my example is being denied a cake because his partner is black. Sex and race-based discrimination is still taking place, so the Civil Rights Act still applies.
i know it's hard, but please find it within yourself to read the OP.
here, let me help you:
This happened about a month ago, or so.… more Shortly after homosexual marriage got legalized, a homosexual couple, two men, were gonna get married.
again, it didn't happen 1 month ago, it happened in june 2013, years ago, and it wasn't between two men, that's why i asked.
I'll say it again: having your information leaked is a justifiable reason for suing someone. Someone not wanting to do business with you is … moreNOT. Just take your money and give it to people who DO support you. Why would you even want to do business with them Just don't support that business if they won't support you. What exactly is wrong with that?
I don't give a fuck about the bible. You don't leak out someone's private information which could lead to their deaths or an adopted child's death. That's fucked up.
DomeWing333's example is actually exactly the same as yours. Two white people can have an interracial wedding for the same reason that two straight people could have a gay wedding. The only way two straight people could have a gay wedding is if they pretended to be gay. Likewise, it's possible for white people to change their skin pigmentation and pretend to be black.
As I said above, two straight people can have a gay wedding, but if they were really straight and weren't gay or bisexual, then the act of entering into a gay marriage would be fraudulent, making the marriage an illegal one. You can't make a legal defense out of an illegal act.
The Civil Rights Act only covers cases where the people involved are discriminated against because of something that they really are, honestly, and legally. Fraud isn't covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
People make big deals about everything, IMO no deal.
Nothing but negativity nowadays, for some reason people attract to it like magnets.
If i was the owner, i'd just sell them the cake (even though i'm a Christian myself). I try not to care about stuff like that, just pick the cake, give me the money, and leave the store.
I think sue is the wrong option, unless the owners verbally or physically assaulted you for being gay.
But the owners leaking their info was also the wrong way to handle the situation, colossal dick move there.
Is using a different water fountain that big of a inconvenience? What about going to a different bathroom than some? School? Forced to go out of your way to a different store which may be worse than the one you were at just because the owners refused you service?
Have you even read the book? I recommend Revelations.
Also recommend David C. Pack's 5 part series - "Does God exist? Many Absolute Proofs!" parts 1-5, but i doubt you'll even watch any of it but still, i recommend it.
If you read any of my comments further below, I watch auto readings. Also, the apology was kind of sarcastic, I don't really care. I don't have to apologize for disagreeing with your religion.
Apology not accepted.
Have you even read the book? I recommend Revelations.
Also recommend David C. Pack's 5 part series - "Does God exist? Many Absolute Proofs!" parts 1-5, but i doubt you'll even watch any of it but still, i recommend it.
Let's think about it....
Is using a different water fountain that big of a inconvenience? What about going to a different bathroom than s… moreome? School? Forced to go out of your way to a different store which may be worse than the one you were at just because the owners refused you service?
I guess you won't listen to my recommendations, if you actually get around to it, i'd like feedback.
I don't mean to be enemies here either, Golden. My job is to help spread the word of God.
So i apologize in advance for anything i might have done.
But please listen to the recommendations, i'll even link you every part of the 1-5 videos if you want, but they are long, but are worth it. If you are an open minded person, it will be a life changing experience.
If you read any of my comments further below, I watch auto readings. Also, the apology was kind of sarcastic, I don't really care. I don't have to apologize for disagreeing with your religion.
I'm not trying to be enemies here, friend. I'm Agnostic. I don't know if there is or isn't a God and quite frankly, I don't really care. Sorry, but even if I did watch those videos, I would probably get bored half way through the first video.
I guess you won't listen to my recommendations, if you actually get around to it, i'd like feedback.
I don't mean to be enemies here eith… moreer, Golden. My job is to help spread the word of God.
So i apologize in advance for anything i might have done.
But please listen to the recommendations, i'll even link you every part of the 1-5 videos if you want, but they are long, but are worth it. If you are an open minded person, it will be a life changing experience.
It's the Government's right to declare the rights of the people. According the Civil Rights Act, it is illegal to discriminate and decline service to a certain group of people based on their gender, race, or sexuality. They can not decline service...and why would they? They're losing money by not making a cake...A cake.
I'm not trying to be enemies here, friend. I'm Agnostic. I don't know if there is or isn't a God and quite frankly, I don't really care. Sorry, but even if I did watch those videos, I would probably get bored half way through the first video.
So if you refuse pay for your car's fix after you discover that it was fixed by a black mechanic, that wouldn't be racist because the car isn't a person? wat
a law does not define the realm of practical possibilities, the fact that straights gay marrying each other is somehow illegal does not undermine the fact that the owners' main issue was the marriage, not the individuals' sexual orientations, the fact that straight getting discriminated while trying to marry each other does not fall under discrimination acts is irrelevant. it just means that they wouldn't have gotten sued had they refused a cake to straight men marrying each other, my argument was that they'd have refused a cake to 2 straight men marrying each other, for the same reason they refused a cake to 2 gay women marrying each other: the marrige.
again, the problem wasn't that they were gay, but that the marriage was gay, it was a specific cake for the specific event, had it been for anything else, it'd have been different.
Gay marriage wasn't illegal in Oregon when they tried to order the cake. Gay marriage has been legal in the state of Oregon since May 19, 2… more014.
Two straight people who aren't gay but get married under illegal means is possible, but it is impossible to make a legal defense that something isn't discrimination because an illegal act is possible. The illegality would make a legal argument void.
Fraud is not counted as a civil right in the United States, or anywhere for that matter.
Comments
No, but you would be entering into an illegally binding act with the United States government, and could get in serious trouble if they found out that you were only pretending to be gay or bisexual for financial gain.
you have a law saying people need to love each other in order to marry?
The United States has anti-fraud laws for marriage. A man marrying a man when he is not gay or bisexual would be a marriage under false pretenses, as the only way for a man to marry a man is through gay marriage. If that man is not by any means gay (as being bisexual means you are partially gay, whereas being straight means you're not gay at all), entering into a gay marriage would be marriage fraud.
The United States government is really strict and swift in punishment when it comes to people getting marriage benefits through fraudulent means.
Unless I'm mistaken, that was because the couple sued them, not because they wanted to buy a wedding cake.
Yeah. There are exceptions (at least in the case of stores allowing people to temporarily be barefooted), such as when people have no arms.
Aren't public businesses supposed to be things like hospitals and governmental institutions though? Sorry, I don't know too much about the constitution.
At first it bugged me, then after I kept reading what you put, I think you are right.
Any business serving the public falls under the Civil Rights Act. The point is that lots of people used to refuse blacks access to their stores, restaurants, etc. The Civil Rights Act said you could no longer discriminate when serving the public in a business capacity on the basis of criteria like gender or race, and that has recently been extending to orientation.
The couple had every right to sue them though.
The couple had a right to sue them and do you really think sending out private information to violent homophobes as a way to get revenge and possibly harm them is a good thing to do?
No, but I'm not talking about that as it was AFTER the couple sued them. Yes, leaking that information was wrong, but I'm talking about what they did before that. Would I have refused a gay person service? Probably not. But it's not even a big deal. It's not like they took the couple's money and said "Fuck off faggots." They just said they wouldn't bke them a cake, so just find another bakery. It's not like finding a bakery that will do you a cake for a gay wedding is difficult. Bakers aren't usually homophobic unless I'm unaware.
I would understand the couple suing them IF the owners had leaked private information just for being in the store. But that's not how it went down. They got all bitchy because someone didn't make them a cake, and instead of taking their money elsewhere, they sued the owners. Both of them did something childish, but the gay couple did it first instead of just getting over it and moving on.
If it were me, I would have just said, "So you don't want my money? Okay, your loss." And I'd leave and do my business elsewhere. No fucking issue.
Just because someone has a right doesn't mean they should. Police in America have the right to take ll your money and say it's evidence in a crime and spend it before you can get it back, but that doesn't mean they should have that right.
Except it is against the Civil Rights Act to deny them service. They were breaking the law and discriminating against the couple for their sexuality and they had all right to sue them, then the owners leaked their information which is REALLY against the law. They got their lives threatened along with, as I'm aware, their adopted child taken away. This is a big issue...Hell, if the Owners didn't decide to act like children and leak information, the costs they would have to pay to the couple would be far less. This is a civil rights issue, it's like refusing an interracial couple because one of them is black.
oh that's cool
but unrelated, gay marriage (fraudulent or not) was illegal in Oregon at the time the couple asked for the cake. also the fact that it's illegal doesn't mean it's impossible.
I'll say it again: having your information leaked is a justifiable reason for suing someone. Someone not wanting to do business with you is NOT. Just take your money and give it to people who DO support you. Why would you even want to do business with them Just don't support that business if they won't support you. What exactly is wrong with that?
I see, thanks for clearing it up for me
i know it's hard, but please find it within yourself to read the OP.
here, let me help you:
again, it didn't happen 1 month ago, it happened in june 2013, years ago, and it wasn't between two men, that's why i asked.
2 straights can have a gay wedding, 2 whites can't have an interracial wedding.
that's why your example is fundamentally different.
Gay marriage wasn't illegal in Oregon when they tried to order the cake. Gay marriage has been legal in the state of Oregon since May 19, 2014.
Two straight people who aren't gay but get married under illegal means is possible, but it is impossible to make a legal defense that something isn't discrimination because an illegal act is possible. The illegality would make a legal argument void.
Fraud is not counted as a civil right in the United States, or anywhere for that matter.
It's a difference that has no bearing on the analogy. The key point is that in both cases, the customer being denied service would not be denied service in other situations. If the man in your example were marrying a woman, he would get a cake. And if the man in my example were marrying a white woman, he would also get a cake.
Your argument was that this means that it was the nature of the marriage that the baker was discriminating against, not the sex and race of the customers themselves. But the reason why the baker is against the marriage is because of the sex and race of the other individual in the marriage. The man in your example is being denied a cake because his partner is a man. The man in my example is being denied a cake because his partner is black. Sex and race-based discrimination is still taking place, so the Civil Rights Act still applies.
He's misinformed.
Oh well, deny it if you will.
Because they were discriminating against the couple.
Nice, just fuck my religion i guess.
No, they weren't. There's no reason that the couple couldn't go to a different bakery. It's a minor inconvenience, and not worth going to court over.
DomeWing333's example is actually exactly the same as yours. Two white people can have an interracial wedding for the same reason that two straight people could have a gay wedding. The only way two straight people could have a gay wedding is if they pretended to be gay. Likewise, it's possible for white people to change their skin pigmentation and pretend to be black.
As I said above, two straight people can have a gay wedding, but if they were really straight and weren't gay or bisexual, then the act of entering into a gay marriage would be fraudulent, making the marriage an illegal one. You can't make a legal defense out of an illegal act.
The Civil Rights Act only covers cases where the people involved are discriminated against because of something that they really are, honestly, and legally. Fraud isn't covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Um...Sure? Sorry I'm not a Christian and sorry I hate discrimination based off a 2000 year old book.
People make big deals about everything, IMO no deal.
Nothing but negativity nowadays, for some reason people attract to it like magnets.
If i was the owner, i'd just sell them the cake (even though i'm a Christian myself). I try not to care about stuff like that, just pick the cake, give me the money, and leave the store.
I think sue is the wrong option, unless the owners verbally or physically assaulted you for being gay.
But the owners leaking their info was also the wrong way to handle the situation, colossal dick move there.
Let's think about it....
Is using a different water fountain that big of a inconvenience? What about going to a different bathroom than some? School? Forced to go out of your way to a different store which may be worse than the one you were at just because the owners refused you service?
Apology not accepted.
Have you even read the book? I recommend Revelations.
Also recommend David C. Pack's 5 part series - "Does God exist? Many Absolute Proofs!" parts 1-5, but i doubt you'll even watch any of it but still, i recommend it.
If you read any of my comments further below, I watch auto readings. Also, the apology was kind of sarcastic, I don't really care. I don't have to apologize for disagreeing with your religion.
So a small inconvenience is a good enough excuse for making a business owner do something they don't feel comfortable doing. Right....
Comfortable doing? They make cakes. You aren't forcing them into gay sex.
I guess you won't listen to my recommendations, if you actually get around to it, i'd like feedback.
I don't mean to be enemies here either, Golden. My job is to help spread the word of God.
So i apologize in advance for anything i might have done.
But please listen to the recommendations, i'll even link you every part of the 1-5 videos if you want, but they are long, but are worth it. If you are an open minded person, it will be a life changing experience.
But they know what purpose the cake is being made for and it's not the government's right to decide whether that makes them uncomfortable.
I'm not trying to be enemies here, friend. I'm Agnostic. I don't know if there is or isn't a God and quite frankly, I don't really care. Sorry, but even if I did watch those videos, I would probably get bored half way through the first video.
It's the Government's right to declare the rights of the people. According the Civil Rights Act, it is illegal to discriminate and decline service to a certain group of people based on their gender, race, or sexuality. They can not decline service...and why would they? They're losing money by not making a cake...A cake.
I'll link the first part just in case, buddy.
enter link description here
If you happen to like it, i'm sure you can find the others.
So if you refuse pay for your car's fix after you discover that it was fixed by a black mechanic, that wouldn't be racist because the car isn't a person? wat
the cake was ordered in june 2013, so no, it was illegal
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3054866/Anti-gay-bakers-face-paying-135-000-lesbian-couple-refused-wedding-cake-Christian-couple-raised-100-000-eight-hours-fundraising-page.html
a law does not define the realm of practical possibilities, the fact that straights gay marrying each other is somehow illegal does not undermine the fact that the owners' main issue was the marriage, not the individuals' sexual orientations, the fact that straight getting discriminated while trying to marry each other does not fall under discrimination acts is irrelevant. it just means that they wouldn't have gotten sued had they refused a cake to straight men marrying each other, my argument was that they'd have refused a cake to 2 straight men marrying each other, for the same reason they refused a cake to 2 gay women marrying each other: the marrige.
again, the problem wasn't that they were gay, but that the marriage was gay, it was a specific cake for the specific event, had it been for anything else, it'd have been different.
deny what