Pages

Jump to bottom

12 comments

1
majii  Jul 10, 2015 3:39:27pm

Many on the right never bother to get the real facts about anything. Their emotions can be easily manipulated, which is what is going on in this matter. The state never told the owners of Sweet Cakes that they couldn’t discuss the matter, meaning there was no gag order imposed on them. They’re free to say whatever they want to about not serving same-sex couples, they just can’t advertise it and do it. This is a fairly easy matter to understand, but those on the right don’t want to because it goes against their claim that the owners are being persecuted for their Christian values. They’re not being persecuted for their religious faith, they’re just being reminded that what they want to do in regard to providing services to same-sex couples is against state laws. They and their supporters forget the many publicly-funded services the owners use in the operation of their business. They’re some mighty dumb f*cks.

2
PeterWolf  Jul 10, 2015 6:20:44pm

“The Kleins had a choice. They could obey the government or they could obey God. They chose God - and now they must pay the price.” -Todd Starnes, Fox News
foxnews.com

In the United States, which must be abided first, the law of man, or the law of god? I think we all know the answer. But not in Todd and Fox’s world.

3
Kragar  Jul 10, 2015 7:02:35pm

re: #2 PeterWolf

Apparently, God’s law means to target people who complain about your business for harassment and death threats.

4
stockman  Jul 11, 2015 8:45:18am

Pg. 40, line 15. “The Commissioner concludes that… the facts related solely to media attention do not adequately support an award of damages. No further analysis regarding the media attention as a ccausative factor is therefore necessary.” The next line specifies the degree of emotional stress experienced by the complainants as a direct result of the denial of service, and uses this as the basis for the pain and suffering award. How did you arrive at your conclusion?

5
Kragar  Jul 11, 2015 11:36:43am

re: #4 stockman

By reading the whole thing, not cherry picking single statement.

6
stockman  Jul 11, 2015 11:59:43am

P.41 line 8: ” the ALJ proposed that 75,000 and 60,000 are appropriate awards to compensate complainants RBC and LBC respectively for the emotional suffering they experienced from respondents’ denial of service.” You call it cherrypicking. I am quoting the basis of the judgment, which dismisses any award based on adverse media attention (doxxing) but awards it on the basis of denial of service (refusing to bake a cake) How did you come to the opposite conclusion?

7
CuriousLurker  Jul 11, 2015 12:00:33pm

re: #5 Kragar

This. Out of 122 pages two sentences are cherry picked. Plus, this user has made only 77 comments in 10+ years and has -369 karma? You’d think a person would know better after having been being around LGF for so long.

Lame.

8
stockman  Jul 11, 2015 12:12:16pm

When we look at your statement that says No they aren’t being fined for refusing to bake a cake, it is directly contradicted by the ALJ ruling in the court order. The two passages I referenced are the basis for the awards. Present your argument supporting your statement, preferably with relevant passages from the award decree.

You’re right. I don’t comment a lot here. But your misrepresentation was pretty flagrant. Don’t blame me. Refute the court order and the basis on which it was granted. I’m willing to be proven misinformed.

9
wrenchwench  Jul 11, 2015 12:12:54pm

re: #7 CuriousLurker

This. Out of 122 pages two sentences are cherry picked. Plus, this user has made only 77 comments in 10+ years and has -369 karma? You’d think a person would know better after having been being around LGF for so long.

Lame.

Can’t we mute him, block him or unfollow him?

/

10
PeterWolf  Jul 11, 2015 5:16:53pm

They broke the law. Simple. Their own statements are an admission of that, and of their premeditation to do so. The cake is not even relevant really. Any denial of service based on sexual orientation etc could have the same outcome. And you can tell a lot about the bakers with their own words, how they bleat on about being forced to “participate” in the same sex wedding.

I think it would be so cute if these people could have a conversation with the person who penned this….

The greatest of all the Reformers of the depraved religion of his own country, was Jesus of Nazareth. Abstracting what is really his from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by it’s lustre from the dross of his biographers, and as separable from that as the diamond from the dung hill

11
stockman  Jul 11, 2015 6:24:40pm

re: #10 PeterWolf

No argument from me. Of course they broke the law by the denial of service of which baking a wedding cake was the proximate issue. My point is that the original poster stated that the $135,000 judgment was for the adverse media attention (doxxing), and not denial of service (baking a cake). This statement is contradicted by the very court documents linked to support his conclusion. Because the award was based on the denial of service issue, I expect the bakers could appeal, citing their First Amendment protections in some way. If they were found responsible for stirring up social media against the complainants and the court awarded the damages on that basis, I’m not sure they would have the right to appeal.

12
PeterWolf  Jul 11, 2015 9:02:00pm

The amount awarded is for damages, pain and suffering.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2021-06-05 2:51 pm PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
YUNGBLUD (With WILLOW) - Memories (Official Music Video) YUNGBLUD (with WILLOW) - Memories (Official Music Video) Stream and download “Memories (with WILLOW)” : yungblud.lnk.to watch more official YUNGBLUD videos: yungblud.lnk.to SIGN UP to YUNGBLUD's Mailing List: yungblud.lnk.to subscribe to YUNGBLUD: yungblud.lnk.to connect with YUNGBLUD online:visit the official ...
Thanos
1 week, 6 days ago
Views: 1,038 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 3 •